Unhelpful and Helpful Biblical Analogies

By Robin G. Jordan

The predicament of the former Episcopal congregations and clergy now forming the Anglican Church in North America was by no stretch of the imagination analogous to that of the people of Israel in Egypt. While Archbishop Robert Duncan might like to think of himself as a latter day Moses, he was no prophet sent by God to lead them out of slavery and to the Promised Land.

The Israelites had immigrated to Egypt to escape famine in their own land. They had initially been welcomed by the Egyptians and had settled in the land of Goshen.

If any similarity exists, it is not between the former Episcopalians and the Israelites but between the former Episcopalians and the Egyptians themselves. They were not sojourners and strangers like the Israelites. They were longtime inhabitants of the land like the Egyptians.

A more accurate parallel may be the times in the history of ancient Egypt when the popularity of a new god or gods eclipsed the old pantheon, and a new priesthood rose to prominence and power. These who were still loyal to the old gods and had the wherewithal to pull up stakes and move elsewhere did so.

The old priesthood in at least one case regained its position in Egyptian society upon the death of the Pharaoh who had promoted the cult of a new god. The neglect of the old gods was blamed for all the troubles that had beset Egypt during his reign.

A Biblical parallel that may be applicable to the situation of these former Episcopalians and which involves the Israelites is the repeated failure of the people of Israel and the people of Judah to remain faithful to God and to go whoring after the gods of their neighbors. They bowed the knee to Baal and kissed his idol. They worshipped the Queen of Heaven and offered cakes and wine to her. They sacrificed their children to Chemosh and Moloch. They trampled the courts of the Temple in Jerusalem but their hearts were far from God.

The former Episcopal congregations and clergy may have separated themselves from the Episcopal Church but have they fully separated themselves from the temptations that they faced as Episcopalians? Or have they brought these temptations into their new churches with them? Have we ourselves separated ourselves from such temptations? Before we do any finger pointing, we should first examine ourselves for the same failings.

A second Biblical parallel that may be applicable not only to former Episcopalians in the Anglican Church in North America but also to those in the Anglican Mission, to those like myself who are sojourners in non-Anglican churches, and to those who are churchless is the persecution of the early Church in Jerusalem that followed the stoning of Steven. The Church was scattered and with this scattering the Gospel was spread. This persecution led to the first great expansion of the Church.

The subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would further serve God’s purposes. Jesus’ parting words to his disciples as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles would be fulfilled. “…and you shall be witnesses my witnesses, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

The apostles had lingered too long in Jerusalem and were too slow in spreading the Good News. God had not only meant that these glad tidings should be for the Jews but for all men—Gentile as well as Jew.

A number of themes run through the Acts of the Apostles, which is a continuation of Luke’s Gospel. A major theme is the mission to the Gentiles. Theophilus to whom Luke – Acts was written was himself a Gentile.

Like the early Church Episcopalians had become too comfortable in and complacent in their Jerusalem. They had turned away from the chief task of the Church, that is, to make disciples, and were pursuing their own vision for the Church.

I remember the amusement, derision, and hostility that greeted the proclamation of a Decade of Evangelism in the Episcopal Church in the last decade of the twentieth-century. “We are Episcopalians. We don’t do evangelism!” was the protest heard throughout the Episcopal Church. Those who took the renewed call to proclaim the Gospel with proper seriousness became the butt of unfriendly jokes.

In the 1990s I lived in what still is one of the fastest growing areas in the State of Louisiana. The demographics were ideal for new church plants. A number of new churches had been planted and more were in the early stages of development. There was plenty of room for additional new churches. My own church was booming, as was the Episcopal parish that had sponsored the church as a new plant in the 1980s.

I thought that planting a new congregation would be a great way of showing our gratitude to God for the blessings that He had bestowed on our church. I tried to interest the rector in the idea but he had become the vicar of my church almost a year after it was launched. (In one history of the church he is credited with founding the church but he had nothing to do with getting the church off the ground.) He did not share my enthusiasm for church planting.

As I would eventually conclude, God had given me a passion for church planting and not him. He told me that I could do what I liked but I should not expect any support from him nor should I represent myself as having the church’s backing.

Churches that are new themselves do better at church planting than well-established churches. If a church does not plant a new congregation in its first three to five years of existence, if not earlier, it is not likely to plant a new congregation in its entire lifetime.

Sadly my former rector’s attitude was typical of a number of clergy in the diocese. The new bishop’s church planting initiative soon fell victim to their disinterest.

The bishop found most of the laity equally as unenthusiastic. One church located at the other end of the county petitioned the bishop not to plant a new church in its part of the county, as it feared that it would lose existing members as well as new families in the area to the new church. The church had a new pastor. It was hoping that he would turn things around and would reverse the church’s decline.

This church had in the past never troubled even to post “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You” signs with directions to the church at major intersections in the community. The only sign was posted right in front of the church, which had been built in a secluded residential neighborhood and not on a heavily trafficked main artery.

Poor location, invisibility, and indifference to community outreach had contributed to low attendance, as had the leadership of the vestry, which included several former members of a local Unitarian Universalist church. The latter held monthly meetings in a geodesic dome in an equally as secluded location on the outskirts of a neighboring community and was on the verge of disbanding altogether.

Only two new congregations were launched during the new bishop’s episcopate, one in East Baton Rouge and another in West St. Tammany. The second congregation would not have been given permission to form if God had not called an Anglican Mission church planter to the area and prompted the bishop to change his mind about not permitting the formation of any new Episcopal congregations in that area.

A team of clergy from the Baton Rouge Deanery supplied the new congregation that met for a weekly celebration of the Eucharist in a private home. The Baton Rouge Deanery was more than an hour’s drive from the North Shore Deanery in which the new congregation was located. All the clergy in the team were Anglo-Catholic and charismatic, and were involved in the Cursillo movement. A charismatic traditionalist Anglo-Catholic Continuing Anglican bishop affiliated with the American Anglican Convocation and involved in the Cursillo movement also officiated at several home Eucharists.

The core group came from my church, which had experienced a major church split eighteen months earlier over the leadership and vision of the rector. It was comprised largely of charismatics who had been involved in the church’s mid-week celebration service and its healing and intercessory prayer ministries. They were also involved in the Cursillo movement. Some were Anglo-Catholic; others, evangelical.

The new congregation initially thrived. However, the consecration of Gene Robinson would cost the congregation new members in the politically and socially conservative North Shore. Its decline in attendance was sudden and dramatic. The congregation was not able to overcome the negative effect his consecration would have upon the public image of the Episcopal Church.

The consecration harmed other congregations in the diocese. St. Mark’s, Harvey, which had become a parish, lost so many people that it became a mission again.

I had by then joined the ranks of former Episcopalians and what had been my church for fifteen years had become my former church. I tell my story on the “About Me” page.

Even in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the area of Louisiana in which I lived continued to experience tremendous growth. West St. Tammany had survived the hurricane relatively unscathed. The area was enjoying a boom as businesses and families relocated to the safety of the North Shore. I was surprised to discover late this past year that my former church had lost its parish status and had become a mission. The rector was serving as the vicar of a small mission church that to my knowledge has never been a parish in its 135 odd-years.

The decline of my former church could not be accounted for by the Robinson consecration seven years earlier or by shifting demographics. The problem lay in the church itself.

At the time of my resignation as senior lay reader of the church the rector and the vestry’s executive committee had reorganized the church preschool so that they could milk the preschool’s general operating fund, replacing the director with someone who would cooperate with them. They had raised the tuition and other fees and reneged on promised raises to employees. They then clear-cut the church property ostensibly to beautify it but in reality to sell the timber from the trees for a needed infusion of cash into the church’s dwindling coffers.

The rector’s vision for a new church sanctuary and his money management practices had been two of the reasons for the church split eighteen months earlier. The split cost the church almost a third of its families. After the split plans for a new sanctuary had been shelved.

In place of a new sanctuary the multipurpose building in which the sanctuary doubled as a parish hall was turned into a permanent sanctuary. Pews and organ were installed. Other changes were made.

An elaborate triptych of Christ, flanked by angels, was painted on the wall behind the holy table. The communion rail was removed and the lobby closed off from the sanctuary. The sanctuary was decorated with icons. What struck me when I saw the new arrangement was how much it resembled that of a Roman Catholic church sanctuary.

A windowless parish life center was built. From the outside it looks like a school gymnasium. The outdoor labyrinth was turned into a garden with a fountain and benches, and a large octagonal slab was poured upon which was painted the Chartres cathedral labyrinth.

A number of these changes point to changes within the church itself. The church membership was becoming increasingly more Anglo-Catholic and liberal at the time I resigned. The rector was a former Roman Catholic and he was more comfortable with the Anglo-Catholic element in the church. I suspect that he sought to move the church in a more Anglo-Catholic-Roman Catholic direction due to the explosive growth that Roman Catholic parishes in the area were enjoying. His botching of the third service on Sunday mornings appeared to sour him on moving at least one Sunday morning service in a more contemporary direction.

The church, however, had benefited from offering a different style of worship from the other Episcopal parish in the area. Episcopalians who preferred a more charismatic-Low Church style of worship had gravitated to my former church while those who preferred a more High Church style of worship gravitated to the other parish.

Changes in the music ministry had affected the style of worship on Sunday mornings. The result had been an influx of more High Church leaning Anglo-Catholics and liberals. The rector failed to exercise leadership where it was needed. The consultant whom the church had hired at the insistence of the bishop had included the observation in his report that the rector was not equipped to lead a large growing church and he needed more training in this area.

Instead of taking advantage of the rector’s strong motivation at the time to seek this training, the vestry attempted to force him to resign. The embattled rector stonewalled the vestry. His supporters rallied behind him and the vestry itself was forced to resign. Having weathered the crisis and achieved a new state of equilibrium, the rector ceased to have any motivation to change. He carried on as before.

The seeds for the decline of the church were sown then. The rector needed to have learned to discern where God wanted to take the church and to separate God’s vision for the church from his own—where he wanted to take the church. God had blessed that church for a purpose. I do not believe that it was so that the rector could erect monuments to his pastorate in the form of buildings.

When we are disobedient, God leaves us to suffer the consequences of our disobedience. We may no see those consequences right away but we will in time. We do indeed reap what we sow.

God at first will draw to our attention that we are heading in the wrong direction and give us an opportunity to change course. He may shake up things for us.

God may let the diocese seize the church sanctuary in which we have soaked up God’s word like sponges only to never share its life-giving water with others. We have grown too comfortable and too complacent. We have become hot-tub Christians luxuriating in the steamy warmth of our churches, heedless of the desperate state of the lost and unsaved.

Comfortable, complacent people are not good ambassadors of Jesus Christ. They are not good messengers of the Gospel. They are not good witnesses to Christ. And they are not good makers of disciples. They only produce more comfortable, complacent people.