Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - Nov/91

Contributor - Randy Opmeer

Title - Another View Of Restructuring

Topic - Church History

Funny how yesterday's innovation becomes today's norm. And before too long people even forget that things were once different. What's more British than afternoon tea? Yet Britain existed long before they ever first imported tea. Or consider the idea that all Christian fellowships (like our denomination) must have a single, central body of final appeal or authority. Let's.

The New Testament uses the words elder and bishop interchangeably. It wasn't too long before these two were distinguished - the bishop exercising authority over the elder. But at least all the bishops were considered to be equals - as is the case with pastors within our denomination. Eventually, however, the bishops from Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome came to exercise authority over bishops from surrounding towns and cities. Rome, as the capital of the empire and the place where Peter and Paul were martyred, was treated with extra honour, but as first among equals. There was no single place, however, that was treated as a final authority. In other words, there was no central authority that could claim to speak for all of Christianity. Not that there weren't aspirations. The bishops of Rome increasingly wanted the final say. The other regional authorities resisted this effort.

Things changed. The bishops of Jerusalem lost their influence after the Jewish rebellion of the second century was crushed by the Romans. The bishops of Antioch and Alexandria saw their importance lessen as the prestige of their respective cities did. The Muslim conquests of the seventh century silenced these bishops in an even more effective way. That left the church authorities in Rome and Constantinople holding the balance of power. The bishop of Constantinople, the city to which the Emperor Constantine had moved the seat of government, was under the thumb of secular power, and was therefore unable to gain too much for himself No so in Rome. The absence of centralized secular power, especially after the fall of Rome to the barbarians, gave the bishop of Rome opportunity to increase his power base. The result was that the bishop of Rome was able to gain more influence in his area than his counterpart in Constantinople could. By the eleventh century the relationship between the two was strained enough to lead to a schism between east and west. Eventually, of course, the Muslims conquered Constantinople as well. That left Rome.

Why all this history? To argue that the centralization of power within the church, particularly from the European perspective, probably had more to do with historical circumstance (with doses of pride and power lust thrown in) than we might have imagined. And to suggest that most Protestant denominations, even while they were reacting against the Roman Catholic hierarchy, nevertheless adopted its centralized pattern when they set up their own organizational structures. In other words, what we have in the RCA is a democratized version of the Roman system. We have accepted the presupposition that someone, or in our case, something, must be in a position to have the final say. There has to be a central authority.

The question is, is this a valid presupposition? The occasion of the proposed restructuring in our denomination has given us a wonderful opportunity to seriously consider this questions. Must a denomination have a single, highest body of authority in order to exist as a denomination? If so, how is it that the early church thrived for centuries without such an authority? Was their polity healthier than ours? Or, maybe just less evolved? What would happen if the RCA adopted a democratic version of the state of affairs in the church before the rise to power of the papacy? Would we also thrive? What would happen, in other words, if the particular synods were regarded as final and equal authorities in the denomination? Would we cease to exist as a denomination? If so, how did the early church maintain its concept of being One Church while it resisted administrative unity?

General Synod has instructed the churches to consider a proposal that would increase the centralization of power within the denomination. Would it not be wise as well to consider the option of decentralization? I believe it would be good for church members and consistories and classes and particular synods to think seriously and practically about what the RCA does at the general synod and head office level, and to see whether or not some, more, or all of those things could be better administered and achieved at the particular synod level.

If the RCA is still looking for a denominational distinctive, this direction might be a constructive one. We could be the first denomination (to my knowledge) to take a good step back from the centralized posture forced on the church by sword and pride. And I suspect it would be a good step.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.