Ok, I know this is borderline blasphemous (or fully so, for some). And, it is far easier to deconstruct than to construct – but on this first day of vacation I wonder why we really need bishops in the church and what it is, exactly, that they do (constructively, anyway), or should do – other than being some existential image of the church universal. In 19 years of ordained life I’ve served under four bishops and the best seemed to simply follow the dictum: “first, do no harm.”
Perhaps it is the colossal failure of the episcopal office these past 40+ years. Perhaps it is the abusive and corrosive overreach of the crusading riders of the purple shirt. Perhaps it is the failure (thus far, anyway) to construct a unified North American Anglicanism bereft of organizational and positional protectionism. Or, I might just be cranky and in need of a vacation. However, when I read this article (linked below) this morning it had me humming along with Lennon . . . Imagine. Of course, when I passed it along to a collegue he was worried about me “throwing out the baby with the bath water” – a disappointingly unimaginative rejoinder.
As an Anglican priest I understand (and assent to) the place of the historic episcopacy within Anglicanism. Equally, I recognize that the meltdown of Anglicanism in the West has been the product of all four orders of ministry. Yet when I look at the damage inflicted by the episcopal order through incompetency, the instinct toward acts of institutional self-preservation and through acts of commission and omission, there are days (like today) when I wonder if the energy necessary to reform the church might be better spent with a wholesale reordering of the church. So, on this first day of vacation, why is the historic episcopacy necessary and what should the remit of the office entail?
Here’s a snip from the aforementioned article:
This “apostolic succession” is the Ouija board theory of Christian communication – “Peter – are you there?” – and an absurd basis for any authority. It is nonetheless the only reason why bishops should exist in either gender, and the quarrel about female bishops ignores the fact that it’s the office itself that stinks. Serious-minded people who want to get on ecclesiastically presumably cross fingers behind backs when kneeling before a bishop while waiting for a dollop of heaven to drop down.
Greek and Russian Orthodox, Egyptian Copts, Armenians, German Lutherans, American Methodists, and Roman Catholics: all join the Anglicans in liking bishops. And the office’s antiquity can seem persuasive. Christianity may seem difficult and odd, but its churches have been around for ages, and the ubiquity of the bishop is something to hang on to in challenging times. There’s still, though, an obsessive quality about the Anglican attachment to episcopacy.
Related Articles
19 users responded in this post
Steve,
There’s hardly a day goes by without me asking myself this very question. As a Classical Prayer Book Churchman (1662) I have had no formal affiliation with any bishop for the last seven years. Each time I’ve reached-out to one in that time has been a complete waste of my time. Witness the situation in the UK and the expanding authority granted to bishops in not only the Episcopal Church, but also the Continuing Anglican and Continuing Episcopalian (ac/na) Churches.
Biological apostolic succession was my biggest hurdle to the priesthood, plus my belief in the priesthood of the believer. I told the examining chaplains that I could submit to biblical leadership but I could not say biological succession was necessary. They sad, “Okay.”
To quote Bishiop Beckwith – the problem lies with the people who pursue this role more than with the nature of the role itself. The best bishops I ever met were incredibly humble. The american bishop is typically not humble, and so our experience leads our opinion. it seems that the more a bishop is separated from a congregation, the less they function as a pastor.
It’s hard to hold value to “Apostolic Succession” when the likes of John Spong fall in that category without censure. That said, without a bishop or diocese, we’re either a heirarchical church or independent churches – or am I missing some option in between? A heirarchical church sounds terrifying when you factored in with the likes of a KJS at the helm. And independent – well, from my Baptist childhood, I can tell a few “autocratic elders” horror stories. Steve, you’re on vacation so I am not asking for discussion, but I’d love to hear (at some point) what option(s) you see if we did not have a bishop (which also assumes not having a diocese)? Seriously, the only time “revisionist” comes into play in my thinking is in church politics.
@Tami – well, I think back to the colonial era when we went quite a while w/o the structures we know now.
The main function of a Bishop in my understanding is two fold. First he is the defender of orthodoxy. Second he is the chief pastor of all of the churches under his care. Since bishops are human as anyone of us they can and do get off track and do not fulfill the responsibilities of their office.
Mark- I’m not familiar with the concept “biologicaL” apostolic succession, and google isn’t returning any hits for the term. Could you send a link or give a brief explanation of concept and how it differs from apostolic succession?
The bishop should be the “pastor to the pastors”. He should be a defender of the faith. And anybody who actively pursues the office should be automatically disqualified!
Kate,
How true. The office is needed. Problem seems to be the office holders who are so immersed in the politics of the day. While we don’t want to throw out the Orombis or the Fitz Allisons with the bath water, there needs to be a new awakening at the grass roots level.
The problem with the Episcopacy, as I see it, is possibly that there has not been a good stoning in far too long a time 8:{D>
I think that the problem is that we elect bishops. Strong people of conviction often don’t win popularity contests. I’m a member of an Anglican Network in Canada church, and I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. If we must elect bishops, I think that the House of Bishops should select the slate of candidates, after much prayer and careful consideration. I would prefer it if our HOB selected bishops, after asking for input from the people on good candidates.
The theological state of our HOB is abysmally corrupted. Most of our bishops in the N. American Church are not much more than purple-shirted social activists. That they’ve managed to convince themselves their shocking behavior is “from God” is a delusional road that leads to remarkable social doctrines such as the recent emerging flirtation with Collective Salvation. Our own PB has advised the General Convention that personal salvation through individual relationship with Jesus Christ is the modern heresy. This was met with acclaim from our HOB.
I have developed a reflexive resistance to anything from the HOB and usually profit by doing the opposite of what they claim is holy. Our local Bishops (DoSC and ACNA) have my confidence – not the deceived (but oh-so-sensitive) national purple herd.
A bishop was considered married to his diocese in an indissoluble union, similar to the indissoluble union between husband and wife.
Steptom – I was talking about the ACNA House of Bishops, actually. I go to an ANiC church.
Perhaps the most damning critique, a critique that has gone ignored in the responses, is the failure of orthodox Bishops to produce a unified Anglicanism in North America. I fear that their failure to do so will doom Anglicanism to a memorable, yet failed experiment. I would prefer this not be the case, nevertheless it seems more and more likely.
What failure? I think it is an astounding success that ACNA has unified Anglicanism as much as it has.
@Kate: as I read Steve’s comment and Rob’s response, I can only assume they are referring to the withdrawal of the AMIA from the ACNA. And, having read with interest the statements, it seems as if the AMIA has no mind, or plans, to fold themselves into the ACNA. The ongoing presence of two North American entities represents a failure and seems to be indicative of the inability or unwillingness of the orthodox to lay aside personal or organizational aspirations (usually flown under a different and more noble sounding flag) to create a greater good.
I think it’s due to the AMiA’s loyalty to Rwanda, and an unwillingness to loosen those ties, myself. I don’t think that one group’s withdrawal represents a failure on the part of ACNA.
Kate,
Thanks for asking the clarifying question. Note that neither Steve’s post, nor my response was about the ACNA but rather about the episcopacy, that is Bishops. The failure of the orthodox Bishops (ACNA, TEC and AMIA) to form a coherent, orthodox expression of Anglicanism is the failure. This is a reasonably biting critique since one of the usual defenses of the episcopacy is that it concretely witnesses to the unity of the church.
Well, I disagree. I think ACNA is a coherent, orthodox expression of Anglicanism. If your standard for success is to have every orthodox bishop in North America in the same organization – I think that’s too much to expect this early on.
As far as the original question is concerned – the bishop should be the pastor to the pastors. The selection of a new bishop should have a whole lot less democracy and a whole lot more discernment and prayer.