Peeking Through the Cracks at Lambeth

I just read Bishop Wright's letter to the Durham Diocese at the mid point in the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion. You can find it here.

As I peek through the cracks of the Lambeth conference I find bits and pieces of good ideas that might apply to the broader context in which I minister. First, Bishop Wright's description of the Indaba groups sounds like a wonderful way to build community among widely diverse particpants, and would be helpful in focusing the entire conference on Scripture. This might serve well the broader church context in which I seek to minister when addressing disputed matters of doctrine or practice. The tone might result as more collegial rather than diving straight into controvesy and debate.

Second, I found the diversity of views that are being heard and considered to be a healthy and loving way to work through what has long been anticipated to be a difficult if not contentious process. Not all can have their way, but as I peek through the cracks it appears to me that there has been an intentional process developed by Archbishop Rowan Williams to listen and discern in community what the Spirit is saying to this Anglican Communion.

I don't know about you, but this is fascinating stuff to me!

A Question of Leadership

Okay, so I admit it. I am fascinated by the on going war within the international Anglican Communion. I do not watch with the least bit of pleasure, as some are in the habit of doing, but with a morbid fascination with how a group of professing Christians can destroy the institutions that they inherited by fighting for their convictions. Conservative and liberal sides appear from this side of the pond to be engaging in this on going war with the least bit of concern for a life of love in community. Not that they are the unique is this way of fighting for "godliness." I have seen this in the church that I have been a part of as well. So what possesses a group of people to eat there spiritual young in order to have their way in the present?

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is attempting to lead the Communion into a place of unity at the upcoming Lambeth Conference. He has been thoroughly disparaged by both extremes in this ecclesial war on a number of issues during his tenure. Most importantly is the challenge to his quality and style of leadership, which some charge is obviously lacking in its effectiveness.

Alister McGrath was quoted as saying, "Rowan has a very high view of unity and has worked hard, but it is not going to be enough. It is virtually impossible to achieve consensus and it is very difficult to exercise leadership in that context. Leadership is about more than finding consensus - you also have to map out the route that you believe to be right." (You can read the Guardian article here.)

So, is all of this mayhem in the Anglican Communion a question of leadership? Is McGrath correct that leadership is more than finding consensus - which will most likely never going to be attained at the Lambeth Conference or any other gathering on issues of homosexuality, women bishops, and the break within the Episcopal Church USA. What happens when a leader maps out a route that they believe to be correct and the Communion/Church/Organization doesn't follow along in mass? Are they still a good leader?

Leadership is a touchy subject. Everyone wants to be their own leader, or in other words not have to take direction from someone else. Many leaders seem to be interested in maintaining and protecting their own power. And others stand back and wonder what the point of all of this is about in the first place. Is it possible for a group of Christians / Churches / Denomination to select a good leader, and then allow that person to have the authority and should come with the responsibility? And yet, can that group be able to hold their leaders accountable and still be good followers? Lots of questions...lots of sadness in the state of the Church!

House Church and the Anti-Institutional Bias

I have been thinking about the "house church" movement, and the ways in which this style of doing church might be an improvement in a number of areas over our current building-oriented models. As a pastor of a building-oriented church, I wonder at the amount of money that is spent to maintain a building that is so underused on a daily basis. Our sancutary where we meet on Sunday mornings for worship is used on average for about 1 1/2 hours each week. Is that really a good use of space? The arguments are strong on both sides. One answer would be to find ways to put the building to use more frequently - either with church run programming and/or inviting community organizations to use the space for meetings, training events, etc.

The other response is what is largely found in Viola and Barna's new book Pagan Christianity. The answer that they give to this dilemma is essentially to sell the building in favor of the house-church movement, which they argue is the only biblical model. This is a challenge that I hear regularly from anti-institutional Christians who view the organized church to be a waste of money and missing the point. The anti-institutional rhetoric typically is accompanied by a call to do away with leadership structures because they too are deemed unbiblical. In my experience, these arguments usually come from people who desire themselves to be in charge, or at least be able to do/say/teach whatever they want. They have some good points, some of which I've mentioned already - money spent on buildings rather than ministry, building worship, and domineering church leadership.

As I've read and listened to those either aspiring to start a house church or have been a part of one, I hear just as many problems with these models as the 'institutional church.' Every group needs some kind of structure and mutually agreed upon ways of relating and functioning together. Every group will have various gifts and functions emerge within the fellowship of believers. And every group - house church and institutional church - can become ingrown, self-focused, and generally dysfuntional.

Viola and Barna attempt to lay a foundation for the primacy of the house-church / anti-institutional church philosophy in their book Pagan Christianity. But their arguments fall short according to Dr. Ben Witherington. You can read his review of the book here.

So, what is the best model for "church" as followers of Jesus in an increasingly global context? And is it possible to have this conversation with the incessant bickering and finger pointing and is clearly disconnected from historical reality? I hope so!