A subject I’ve wrestled with in the past and will surely wrestle with again is that of church authority and submission to it. When and how should church leaders impose their authority? When and how should one submit or (Here’s the rub.) not submit to those leaders?

That’s quite an issue now in the Episcopal Church with bishops and those under them acting out different answers to these questions. An excerpt from last night’s 60 Minutes is one prominent example (with thanks to the titusonenine blog):

A week after Robinson’s consecration, [Rochester, New Hampshire,’s Episcopal Church of the] Redeemer’s acting minister, Father Don Wilson, who’s been a pastor for 47 years, was fired for refusing to accept Robinson’s authority as bishop.

“I’ve never been in trouble before,� says Wilson.

“Whatever your feelings about him, here’s a man who has been legally consecrated,� Bradley tells Wilson. “He says that your oath requires you to accept his authority.�

“That’s strange isn’t it, because the first part of my oath was the authority of scripture. The second part of the oath was to teach it. And the third part of the oath was to protect the people from strange and erroneous doctrines,� says Wilson. “Then way down the list it says, ‘Be subject to the bishops, their godly judgments and godly admonitions.’ And I didn’t find any in him.�


In this case, I agree with Fr. Wilson. Submission to scripture trumps submission to any man. And, from what I’ve studied, that’s the view of traditional Anglicanism for the most part, although I’m sure there are many Anglicans who would disagree. (And, usually, when an Anglican doesn't submit to a bishop, he does so in a more subtle, tactful, and politely sneaky manner. . . . I don't know if I'd make a good Anglican.)

But other situations are less clear cut. What if you have an orthodox bishop but can’t tolerate the national church anymore? That’s an issue most conservative parishes and rectors are only beginning to face.