The Bishop of Rome etc
I am bemused, and not a little annoyed by the obsessions of
many of my Anglican/Episcopalian/Church
of England friends about the abdication of Pope Benedict, together with the
speculation about his successor.
We also deny his claim to be the Supreme Pontiff of the
Church as being un-biblical, and of late development in the history of the
Church.
The identity of the new “Pope” matters very little to our
life in Christ and our sharing of the Gospel.
In fact he will continue to assert that we are not truly Church, and
therefore are imperfect Christians. Fie
on such nonsense.
And fie on the parallel nonsense which asserts that
Cardinals are “Princes of the Church”. That myth has enabled so much harm to so
many people.
They are Bishops -
that’s all. The job of a bishop is to be a Pastor not a Prince.
Part of the subversive results of those myths are that even
Episcopal Bishops are seizing more and more authority, and we the people of God
are puerile enough to cede it to them.
Let’s remember our reformed understanding that Bishops are
there for the good of the Church, but they are not of the essence of the
Church. We can be Church even in the absence of Bishops.
The Church has only one
essential Bishop: - the Lord Jesus Christ.
Once we believe that the Lord Jesus is the ‘one and only”
priest/bishop we can be delivered from another harmful myth which has more to
do with male authority than with the freedom of a “gospel church”.
MYTH
That Jesus appointed 12 apostles to be his successors. ‘Tis
a very shaky claim.
The New Testament refers to the “twelve” who were Jesus’
disciples.
It also refers to Apostles who never met Jesus, and who
were not amongst the disciples.
The biblical disciples and apostles are not entirely the
same people.
Jesus had some “named” disciples. The New Testament names
others as apostles.
The two lists are not identical.
The claim that Jesus appointed the “twelve” disciples to be
apostles, and hence his successors is utterly bogus.
Comments
Post a Comment