468x60

'

Saturday, 12 March 2011

Big Bishop Is Watching Over You

 Well I've been an Anglican for a little while now but yet I’m still struggling with the idea of Bishops.
There seems to be a real obsession amongst Anglicanism with bishops and this obsession doesn't seem to be anything new. Anglicans come from such a diverse spectrum, with some of us coming from High church backgrounds and others low, some of us support homosexuality and others don't, some of us are liberals, others evangelicals and some are even Anglo Catholics. But yet everyone seems to be completely preoccupied with the bishop. In my old pre-anglican days bishops were presented as some sort of bossy boots figure who did very little except lord it over those further down the food chain. However, now I'm in a church that has bishops I see they are more akin to ecclesiastical celebrities. After all even the most docile and dozy of congregations bounce back to life when they hear “the bishop is coming!”

The religion of the New Testament - by which I mean small groups of Christians walking to together in the faith in equality and working together like a family - doesn't really have much of a part in the Church of Ireland today. This seems to suit the episcopacy since from what I can see bishops only really arrived on the scene a century or two after Christ. But you and I have arrived almost two thousand years after Christ and sometimes this time difference can seem like a momentous obstacle for a Christian... after all how am I meant to get to know someone who lived two thousand years ago? This is where the Bishop is meant to come in. If Christ seems remote to some of us at least we have the Bishop. A man succeeded from the Apostles who learned directly from Christ. Who better to help me and oversee my learning about Christ than a man directly succeeded from those whom Christ directly taught? A man who's job description is summed up in a single Greek word: “episkope” - the power to oversee.

If Big Brother is watching you.

Then Big Bishop is watching over you.

Of course we aren't the only church with bishops. Others hold to the idea that bishops (rather than being men in big hats who are to look after a group of Christians in a specific area) are in fact men who have a supernaturally guided line of direct communication with the apostles which is transmitted by the laying of hands. The idea is that Peter and co. being Apostles held special gifts (everyone agrees with this) because they were Christ's disciples. They then made bishops and gave them some of their gifts. These bishops did the same to new bishops and so this method of receiving and then passing on the gifts carried on down the centuries until the bishops of this very day. Hence the Bishop of today is a direct link with the Apostles themselves.

This idea of Apostolic succession is a kind of divine Ouija board where a part of an Apostle is present in your local bishop... it is also a silly basis for any authority in the church. The idea that Joe Boggs over thereis somehow better than you or I because a Bishop put two hands on his head is crazy to me. Silly though it seems it is still the only real reason bishops should have any power at all within the church. Women bishops, male bishops or even homosexual bishops don't really matter when you realise that the office itself is pretty much meaningless in the modern church.

Greek and Russian Orthodox, Egyptian Copts, Armenians, German Lutherans, American Methodists, and Roman Catholics: all have bishops. And the office's antiquity can seem persuasive. Christianity may seem to be moving at an alarming pace towards the cliff and the ubiquity of the bishop is something to hang on to in challenging and changing times.

Truthfully though, we don't need a lot of the bishops we have because what they actually do is venerate consultants rather than the saints. They run from county to county in order to attend seminars and conferences but yet they have very little to do in the day to day running of parishes. They have very little interaction in the lives of the Christian laity, instead choosing to visit once every so often and maybe send a letter once or twice a year to let the church know what some community worker or government official has said.

My problem with bishops and indeed the reason I feel they are fast losing any sort of purpose is because of the modern church's absolute surrender to every social pressure group. Which when added to the fear of entering any sort of dispute about the faith leaves us pretty weak. It's not that we don't need bishops because in truth the opposite is true... the problem is that we don't need a lot of the bishops we have. We need people who are going to stand up for the faith, people who aren't afraid to offend people with the Scriptures and most of all people who have a faith in Anglicanism and who are prepared to go out and tell people how good the Church of Ireland is and why people should come to our churches. We need to find people like that sooner rather than later!




6 comments:

robbloging said...

WP, I'm not really sure where to begin in commenting! Let me say this ... I think that having bishops is one model of church, a model that can work very well. In the Anglican tradition the work and calling of a bishop is shaped by the ordinal. You should read what it says. They are amongst other things an important focus for unity, pastoring the pastors and leading. I don't agree with you that you can separate the office from the person and nor can I see how the office is meaningless in our church today. I think your analysis is flawed: sorry.

Wandering Pilgrim said...

Not a problem at all Rev!

I feel that succession rather than being passed down via the laying of hands is just a symbol of continuity. A way of saying that we by following God's Word and the Bible's teaching are continuing in the footsteps of the Apostles. We have their authority because we are standing on the same foundation as they were (the Bible). Bishops are no more special to God than any other Christian man or woman and have no more grace. As Bishop Jewell said "God's grace is promised to one who feareth God and not to sees or successions.".

As for being a focus for unity, pastoring the pastors and leading etc I disagree. If that were true then what need would we have of an "Anglican Covenant" to "promote unity" amongst a "sorely divided body" caused by differing opinions of Bishops.

I actually wrote this post with the recent Primates meeting in mind. A meeting in which a third of Archbishops didn't attend due to disputes with other Archbishops.

The Unity of the Church as Hooker said was maintained not by bishops but by three essentials “the one Lord, the one Faith, and the one Baptism.”

Without the Word of God the office is meaningless because it has no authority... it is doctrinal continuity with scripture rather an ecclesiastical one that is important. As Whitaker pointed out the idea of ecclesiastical succession "would be a matter of no weight; because we regard not the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one of faith and doctrine."

In that belief I stand with the Church fathers especially Gregory of Nazianzus and the reformers Luther and Calvin, Knox and Beza and even Anglcians such as Hooker and Jewell and of course Archbishop Cramner.

My real point was that bishops have a point and a job to do but they are not fulfilling their roles at present. They are instead acting as via media between social commentators and community activists and the clergy.

Though I think I may not have made my point as clearly as I should! Thanks for the reply!

Sammy S said...

Hi WP! I'm just wondering, what is the point of Bishops in your opinion? What is the difference between them and an ordinary clergyman if not apostolic succession?

Wandering Pilgrim said...

Thanks for posting Sammy, first of all can I just say I meant to say "Cranmer" rather than "Cramner" in my last comment.

In my honest opinion Bishops have a role to play as the overseers in a particular area but in saying that, I don't believe that they are absolutley necessary to the church. It is their duty to maintain the docrinal and Biblical purity of the church in their area and to make sure the sacraments are administered propery. They should act as decision makers in matters of disputes within the church and most of all they should be good Christian men. In this I agree with the Ordinal that robblogging mentions.

Your second question is the real crux of the issue. To me there is no difference between a sinner saved by grace and another sinner saved by grace even if one of them is wearing a mitre. Neither can claim superiority on the basis of the laying on of hands or even on the basis of the superiority of the hands that are being laid!

All elect are equal before God. I listen to my minister because he has been called by God to that office not because a Bishop laid hands on him. I listen to the Bishop because God has called him to that office not because he claims to be a successor to the apostles.

It's the doctrine, not the bishop that is important.

David W. said...

I agree with Robblogging that Bishops are a focus for unity. Yea we have a fractious communion but where would we be without the Bishops? WP, I kinda feel like your saying Bishops were only for the young church. A kind of stabilising force during the reformation that we don't really need now. I understand what your saying but I'm scared to agree. An Anglican church with no Bishops just seems unfathomable to me. In saying that though I agree that they are just men and there isn't much of a Scriptural warrant for them.

Wandering Pilgrim said...

Well David I must admit I wasn't calling for a blanket ban on bishops. I was just rather calling them back to their true calling as Pastors.

You're right to assume that I believe Bishops were kept as a means of creating a sense of continuity during the reformation. They were in my opinion a way of saying “you are still part of the one true church, nothing everything has changed”.

Now, I don't believe that bishops should be binned. They are a historical continuation and are now a tradition; an integral part of Anglicanism. Just as you cannot fathom our church without them neither can I. Though I believe Bishops are an integral part of our church I refuse to believe that in 2011 the church needs to revert to pre-reformation Romanist views of apostolic succession. Or that we need magical notions, that laying hands and saying a few words somehow means you have the authority of the apostles no matter the life you live. I believe that God is the ultimate authority in the church not man and that all authority comes from Him, just as Saint Peter taught. Any power a bishop has comes from God through the church not succession.

Post a Comment