How does the Church respond as Church when ecclesiology is dead? What is the biblical response when biblical categories are cast aside by authorities who have no meaning, nor even any reality, apart from the Word of God?

If the U.S. Constitution were thrown out the window, the local police would have no legitimate authority to maintain order -- only the guns they were issued under the authority of the old Constitution.

What is a Christian response when the "tilt" light goes on and the machine slips into suspended animation?

Does the Bible have its own version of a "chaos theory"? Not to confuse this with the Chaos mythology of ancient Near Eastern lore, of which our own Genesis account is a wonderful variation.

"Chaos theory", a fairly recent term in the sciences, "refers to an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws or rules..." (Whatis.com). Here "chaos" really means "apparent chaos". In theology the equivalent to "chaos theory" would be the "apparent breakdown" of God's ordering either of the Church or of the world.

There is an immediate parallel in the world of social theory: when civilization breaks down, it's "back to the jungle". As disconcerting as it is to social theorists, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood is not the natural human default. The norm is the Jungle -- a natural order so alarming to rational creatures that it suggests the terrifying presence of disorder as an objective Being -- Chaos.

Back to a scientific theory of biblical chaos (lower case "c"), I daresay it would go something like this:

"I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the Lord said, 'These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.'" (1 Kings 22:17 RSV)

Scripture is replete with "system down" narratives. What Scripture does not yield so readily is a logic of disorder or dysfunction. Scripture diagnoses our frequent -- or rather, incessant -- lapses into dysfunction and calls them sin. The antidote is to stop sinning and return to the Lord -- to normalcy. Climb up out of the dark hole, get your feet back on level ground and your eyes back under the light of day.

Jesus found people in his day "like sheep without a shepherd". Scripture tells us he "had compassion" on them. He introduced a revolutionary theory of the Kingdom through his teaching and its "praxis" by casting out demons and healing. But the people had no complete system by which to appropriate his meaning. Even his apostles bolted at the "chaos" of the cross. Among other things the resurrection precipitated a new paradigm -- a new coherence.

It was five full centuries before a system called "church" was in place, complete with spelled out doctrines of salvation and deity, which even the Old Covenant texts contained only in germ. Prior to this it was not clear whether the new religion was merely a continuation of the old Judaism or some new local syncretism.

Five centuries later the system broke down as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church divided and became Two. It was an embarrassing moment. The way around it was for each rival Church to excommunicate the other, leaving only a single "real" Church. Depending on which side you were on, it was a messy solution, but the math was good. Hence the "theory" was still sound.

Things became dicey in the west five hundred years or so later when the Roman Catholic Church split into Catholic and Protestant Church-es. Damage to "church" as a theological term would now be irreparable. From there the dissolution has been constant, so that in modern America there is potentially a "church" for every individual toting a Bible.

What, pray, is the meaning of "church" in the present context of an unraveling ECUSA? Is it "the church" that is coming undone or only the status quo? Can we apply a biblical ecclesiology to notions like authority and schism (for example) and take ourselves seriously?

The Articles of Religion define Church as follows:

"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same" (Article XIX).

Here "congregation" has the same meaning as it does in the King James Bible, where it refers to an indefinite number, often to an entire nation, as when "the congregation of Israel" gathered at Mt. Sinai. It is not to be confused with congregational polity, which is a contemporary sociological description of religious organizations.

Episcopalians cannot claim that "the church" is under attack in the recent unraveling. Perhaps "the church I grew up in" or "the church I came to know and love." No one will begrudge us our bereavement over the demise of something so precious and personal.

Nonetheless, we are not justified in pretending the situation is other than it is. This is not "schism" per se, but the end of a consensus. Putting aside the weapons of the current war, members on both sides in growing numbers are willing to acknowledge honestly that there are two distinct "churches" (at least!) in the present argument. Continuing the battle only saps the energies of both.

There is a great temptation to dust off an old systematic theology of "church" in order to justify one of several defensive reactions by individuals. If I am not ready to confront the chaos, I will complain about somebody else's "heresy". Or, contrarily, I will insist that a claim of heresy can only be proved by a court. Each response is an escape into medievalism.

There are other escapes. Because I came of age during the Viet Nam era, the one that surprises me most is "my church right or wrong", and "I will always be loyal to the Episcopal Church" said with an air of self-congratulation. This approach of wrapping oneself in the Episcopal flag (or is it the Pension Fund?) presents itself as the new Middle or, in a growing number of dioceses, the new Via Media.

Article XIX presents a realistic, "post-systematic" ecclesiology for a dysfunctional Church that is at least a thousand years old. It denies outright the infallibility of Church (second paragraph), which alone would supply the basis of any one Church's claim to be THE Church. As a result the NT concept "church", as equated with "Kingdom of God", is relegated to a theoretical use, but a very practical one nonetheless.

The Article gives us a realistic vision for a Christian covenant community: it is, must be, can only be, based upon the pure Word of God "faithfully preached" - i.e., as if it meant what it said - and the sacraments "duly administered" - i.e., according to the historic intention of Christian ministers from the beginning. While that may have been a battle cry during the age of Reformation, today it sounds simple and matter-of-fact.

Step outside of this simple canon of measure and what we have is not "church" but "playing church". A pretend church has no reality, not to mention no authority. Hence all PECUSA is scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd.

--Canon Gary L'Hommedieu is canon theologian for Pastoral Care at St. Luke's Cathedral in Orlando, Florida

END