[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s hard to sum up what I think of this. I’m Baptist, which means I’m averse to high authority in the church. We don’t have bishops running dioceses; we don’t even have the Scottish version of that (a presbytery, which is a committee made up of a mix of ordained ministers and laypeople running each region). All Baptist unions around the world are free associations designed to facilitate co-operation rather than denominational HQs. So I’m tempted to tut and shake my head and simply say this is what happens when you allow the idea to take root that one, or a few, powerful people, divinely appointed, act on divine authority. It makes it very much harder to believe they’re capable of doing anything wrong.

But I am also acutely aware that this sort of thing, and worse, can and does happen in non-denominational churches as well. It can happen anywhere a powerful, charismatic leader becomes too big to fail and too powerful to resist. It isn’t a uniquely Christian problem, it is a human failing. What makes me mad is that the church is supposed to be the exemplar of a different way of living. And even in the midst of that, Justin could have demonstrated that different way by repenting and acknowledging his failing without reservation some considerable time ago, which may have occasioned his resignation but on the other hand in the context of repentance and restitution might not have. We will never know. But instead he made the same age-old mistake of worrying about the church’s reputation, as if the church, and Christ who is its head, hasn’t weathered plenty over the past 2 millennia without the Archbishop of Canterbury’s input.

I am curious how the Baptist church members view the head of the Protestant church being the (self appointed) highest authority in terms of leadership, titled as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am guessing they would not recognise his authority? Serious question ...
.