The General Synod in the church of England today was just 6 votes short of allowing females to become Bishops. According to Wikipedia “the synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. There are currently 467 members in total.” The most interesting thing about the vote in my opinion was who voted it down. The Laity. It is easy to forget that ministry is people and people love their traditions. Much of a pastors greatest struggle in, with and among the leadership of the church is not theological as much as it is traditional. It reminds me of what Jaroslav Jan Pelikan said about tradition and traditionalism. “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”
Whatever your view is concerning women in church leadership, I think we can at least agree that much of the time traditionalism, as opposed to right theology, is the killer of progress and relevance within a ministry context. Traditionalism favors no denomination it is just there like dark matter taking up most of the space without anyone even aware of it.
While I was reading this news report and watching some of the television coverage some things really struck me in regards to some principles of leadership that would probably fit within any leadership context.
Church leadership is always wrestling with tradition.
The Bishops and Clergy in the synod were in favor of female Bishops while the Laity was not. That is an amazing example of how leadership’s greatest hurdle can be past leadership. What was, is and will be taught from places of leadership always has a lingering influence in the present. I see this as a Pastor every week. Our congregation has had its fair share of pastors and leaders over a 30 year period. This plurality of teaching and shepherding within my own congregation has caused me to come to the conclusion that much of what I wrestle with in regards to outreach and in-reach can be attributed to the teaching our congregation received several pastors ago. Visiting the past is a good thing to gain understanding of the present.
Those not involved in church leadership are always wrestling with tradition.
Our congregation is full of people who need to be taught how to discern what and why they believe the way they do. Leadership is wise to make room for cultural and social change by incorporating its reality into everyday personal ministry. It might not be the adults in the pews who we should be primarily concerned about when it comes to leadership but the younger generations. What are they learning, hearing, and believing outside of Church? What can we learn about the probable future from our youth in order to ready ourselves in the present for change? Our congregations might not realize they are wrestling with tradition but it is our job as leaders to prepare them for the future realization of their cultural and social blind spots. No generation can see everything, we are all blind to some thing’s that the next generation will be sure to help us see if we are looking and listening.
Conclusion
What ever your position is on women in leadership or the Church of England’s decision to vote down the proposal for female Bishops, as leaders I think there is one thing we can all learn together from their decision. Leadership is rarely dealing directly with the real issue in real time. As leaders we are all watching and dealing with the TiVo like lag of traditionalism.
some things not something’s haha sorry
Thoughtful post, Able. I have two thoughts that come to mind…
(1) There is so much that you write that is true about pastoral leadership. In fact, I think you and I would both agree that (t)radition both in rural settings and with small churches tends to be a more powerful concern than for some within churches that are either young or filled with people who have less of a historic connection to some events or methods or models from the past.
In fact, this post is especially relevant for rural church ministry.
(2) As an aside, and mostly related to the issue within the CoE, I think it’s totally interesting, as you pointed out on Facebook, that they will not allow women Bishops but will allow for women to be ordained in other significant leadership roles (Deacons & Priests). I’m not sure if it’s a byproduct of your idea that the Laity is holding onto (t)radition though. I think it’s just as likely that it’s a byproduct of how complex their church polity is. Rather than viewing through the lens of an ecclesiology that you and I are probably more familiar with (Elder-Pastor-Bishops and Deacons), they have a variety of different Offices that have a variety of different “job descriptions” that, in my mind, seem to muddy the waters.
In fact, I think their ecclesiology just makes it perfectly easy to have lots of weird and seemingly hypocritical praxis. Coming from my own understanding of church polity, not allowing women to serve as Bishops but allowing them to serve as Priests and Pastors makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems quite contradictory from a hermeneutical point of view. But I wonder if the organization just makes it easier to have lots of complexities. I’m not sure.
Anyway, you have several statements that are really worth further discussion. In fact, you write,
That’s excellent. So true. Two thumbs up. That’s why Church History and Historical Theology are so important for our theological constructs and that’s why having a clue about our local church’s history is important for pastors to look into before they start trying to change everything and address every “issue” that is there. This statement is very, very, very important.
You also wrote,
Able for the win! This is what Missiologists have been saying for over thirty years, non stop, to the evangelical world. Yet the influences of Fundamentalism’s concern for the Mainliner’s rejection of much of Orthodoxy has caused many an evangelical to bury their head in the sand and ignore the culture shifts. Sadly, we have many Christians who are just coming out of their “church bubble” and completely unaware of how they will ever be able to interact with people in today’s world because things have changed sooooo much.
We must teach people how to discern and think through and interact with society. You need to write more about this issue! It’s sooooo important!
Great thoughts… loved reading this…
Is tradition the root problem in these discussions or is it differing views of the scriptures? Tradition is just common practice that has roots in the past. Those common practices may have roots in scripture and they may not. One of the areas where Jesus went toe-to-toe with the Pharisees was in this matter of tradition that made void the commandments of God. The real task here is not “catching up with the times.” It is looking closely at the scripture and forming our traditions accordingly. A tradition is not bad because it is old. It is bad if it strays from the scripture. Apparently the case has not been made well enough from scripture for the laity in the Church of England that women should serve as bishops.
Good questions, Paul.
I didn’t think Able’s post was about having the church try and “keep up with the times” in the sense that the church needs to sacrifice truth in order to stay “relevant.” I took this to be more related to understand that culture HAS made changes. Modernists tend to want to ignore that, historically.
You said,
This is totally a legitimate statement. Yet don’t you also see that it raises some questions? How is the laity convinced that women can serve in all of the other roles (pastors and priests) while not allowing them to be bishops. They have to reapply passages of Scripture, depending on what “office” they are discussing. It seems a little inconsistent to me.
That being said, I think it is entirely possible that the Laity simply has a better hermeneutical grasp than does the other two groups 🙂 But that’s my complementarianism speaking… ha ha
Yeah I was just trying to show how traditions can linger and live in odd unknown or unrecognized places. Traditions are not bad unless they become heart idols. Lots of things have roots in scripture.
“The real task here is not “catching up with the times.” It is looking
closely at the scripture and forming our traditions accordingly.”
Paul I see this a bit different. I think we are to live in the tension of tradition and relevance seeing how the new wine needs new wine-skins. I see a need for the church to make room for the new wine all the time as a pastor and it seems like WE as Christians are all slaves to unknown or unrecognized traditionalISM.
So I agree with you in part Paul.
I really appreciate your thoughtful response.
I agree with you here that this MAY be the case… “I’m not sure if it’s a byproduct of your idea that the Laity is holding
onto (t)radition though. I think it’s just as likely that it’s a
byproduct of how complex their church polity is.”
I am not sure I know so little about CoE.
I will think some on how I can write a bit more concerning some of the things you addressed.
I have often said I would go Anglican very easily… it would take very little convincing. Only one thing would be hard for me… the paedobaptism. Everything else I think I could deal with 🙂 Even the complex polity. ha ha.