What are (women) bishops for?
I am heading back (on Sun) from what I tin can only describe as an inspirational service at Canterbury Cathedral where my friend Rob Innes was ordained as the new Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. (Yes, formal Anglican services can be inspirational!). The recent contend about women bishops (which might continue, for reasons beneath) raises the question of what bishops are for. Those to the 'left' who don't have bishops (but do have people exercising episcopal ministry in some class) frequently wonder what the fuss is about; those on the 'correct' wonder at the departure of the C of East from apostolic tradition!
It'southward worth reflecting a little on the Anglican understanding of the three-fold ordering of ministry as 'bishops, priests and deacons.' The Church building actually claims slightly less than people realise for this ordering; it cannot be derived clearly from the New Attestation, but the NT does non oppose such ordering, and it has been an ancient practice. In that sense, Anglicans have generally believed that bishops are not for theesse of the Church building, but for itsbene esse—non part of its essence, but for its good; not its being, but its well-existence.
'Deacons' are virtually service, as the proper name suggests (from the Greekdiakonos and verbdiakoneo to serve), but it is also articulate that 'deacons' had a spiritual and leadership function. Stephen was appointed 'to serve' (the noun is not used of him) but he was conspicuously a leader 'full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit' (Acts 6.3). Phoebe was a 'deacon' (using the masculine course of the substantive, not a 'deaconess') of the congregation in Cenchreae, near Corinth, and was a 'leader of many, including me' says Paul (Romans sixteen.two), using the personal noun cognate with the abstract substantive 'leadership' in Romans 12.8.
The term 'priest' is a corruption of the Greekpresbyteros, 'elder', and etymologically has no connexion whatever with the OT priests (Hebkohen, Greekhieros). The term presbyter is included in Anglican ordination liturgy, and is the preferred term in many parts of global Anglicanism. Church of England eucharistic theology is clear that the priest/presbyter who presides at Communion has no sacerdotal function; the bread and wine are non 'offered' (there is clear avoidance of such terms in acclamations and eucharistic prayers) and the service is primarily a 'memorial'.
Inside the NT, the terms 'overseer' (in older translations 'bishop', Greek episcopos) appears to exist more than or less interchangeable withpresbyteros; a good example comes in the reading we had at today's service from Acts 20, where Paul says farewell to the elders from Ephesus (Acts 20.seven) whom 'the Holy Spirit has fabricated…overseers' (Acts 20.28). Interestingly, this lack of articulate demarcation is reflected in the Ordination Service itself:
Bishops are called to serve and care for the flock of Christ. Mindful of the Good Shepherd, who laid downward his life for his sheep, they are to love and pray for those committed to their charge, knowing their people and being known by them. As master ministers of word and sacrament, stewards of the mysteries of God, they are to preside at the Lord's table and to atomic number 82 the offering of prayer and praise. They are to feed God's pilgrim people, and so build upwardly the Body of Christ.
They are to baptize and confirm, nurturing God's people in the life of the Spirit and leading them in the way of holiness. They are to discern and foster the gifts of the Spirit in all who follow Christ, commissioning them to minister in his name. They are to preside over the ordination of deacons and priests, and join together in the ordination of bishops.
As master pastors, it is their duty to share with their swain presbyters the oversight of the Church, speaking in the proper noun of God and expounding the gospel of salvation. With the Shepherd'due south love, they are to exist merciful, just with firmness; to minister discipline, simply with pity. They are to have a special intendance for the poor, the outcast and those who are in need. They are to seek out those who are lost and atomic number 82 them home with rejoicing, declaring the absolution and forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Christ.
Following the example of the prophets and the pedagogy of the apostles, they are to proclaim the gospel boldly, face up injustice and work for righteousness and peace in all the globe.
Isn't that an exhilarating list of responsibilities?! There is very little hither that you could not also say of presbyters; there are conspicuously the liturgical functions of confirmation and ordination, but aslope that in that location is a stiff explicit statement of working with rather than governing over their 'fellow presbyters.' Just as an archbishop is primus inter pares , first among equals in relation to his (for the moment!) fellow bishops, at that place appears to be a similar ethos in the relation between a bishop and the presbyters he (for the moment!) is working with. In fact, since many of the charges in the service were for the bishop being ordained to follow the example of Christ, and Christ is the example for all disciples, in that location is shut contact between the duties of a bishop and the goal of all disciples, to…
Pray therefore that you may exist conformed more than and more to the image of God's Son, and then that through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit your life and ministry building may be made holy and acceptable to God.
Pray earnestly for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
It is complete nonsense to suggest (as was said to me last calendar week) that whatever guild of ministry is an 'icon of Christ'; this is the office of all God's people! This was explicitly picked upwards by Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, in his magisterial and inspiring sermon:
The bishop must be showtime and foremost a disciple. Equally responsibilities increase prayer must be the first priority.
If there is and so much commonality, what can be said theologically (equally opposed to legally or administratively) nearly the distinctive office of episcopal ministry building?
The NT word group has two main senses to it. The first is to 'oversee', in the sense of standing dorsum and looking at the big picture. In this sense, the discussion is a close synonym with 'panorama'; the 'scop-' element (which we use in periscope, telescope, microscope) corresponds to 'orama' from another Greek discussion for 'seeing', and the 'pan', meaning 'all' corresponds to the 'epi-' meaning to look 'over'. This sense was brought habitation to me sharply a few years agone when nosotros were on holiday in Corfu, and came across a hamlet called Episkepsi in the due north of the island. It was sited on the meridian of a ridge, giving it a panoramic—or perhaps episcopal!—view over the land as it fell away towards the coast. I took this movie from a further along the ridge, and you tin get a sense of the breathtaking overview.
The second sense of the word group is 'to see to it that' (Heb 12.xv, 1 Peter 5.2), paying conscientious attention and ensuring that something happens or gets done. The focus here is making things happen or see that they have been done right. Interestingly, the abstruse nounepiscope, 'oversight' or 'visitation', combines these 2 senses. God'south 'visitation' to his people (Luke19.44) in the person of Jesus coming to Jerusalem involved a careful looking around—which explains the otherwise mysterious phrase in Mark xi.11 'He looked around at everything…' But it then involved a holding to account for the things that had not been washed correct—hence the driving of the money-changers from the temple the next morning (in Marker'south chronology).
So episcopal ministry ways having a practiced overview, so ensuring that things get washed—seeing what is needed, and seeing it is done. This corresponds to a term I heard used in direction training of the 'helicopter quality' of practiced leaders—the power to ascension upwards loftier and see the overall prevarication of the land, and then drop down low and attend to particular things that needed dealing with. Since there is much talk of the episcopal nature of presbyteral ministry (particularly as numbers of stipendiary clergy are falling) it is the telescopic, rather than the kind, of ministry building that is distinctive for bishops.
What then might be the touch of the recent decision to (at long concluding!) appoint women every bit bishops? If you believe many of the gender studies (and all research in this expanse is disputed, considering it is so politicised), men tend to exist stronger on focus and accomplishment, and women tend to be more relational and improve at seeing the bigger picture. So having women in the Business firm of Bishops might help rest the second sense of episcopacy with some more of the offset sense.
Linda Woodhead has commented that she hopes that accepting women bishops might have a generally liberalising effect on the Church. In the short term, she might well be correct; amongst those talked near as possible contenders to be the start women bishops, few if whatsoever are evangelical, and most would like to see the the Church modify its position on aforementioned-sex marriage. That presents a real trouble for people like me, who believe there is a biblical case for women in leadership. As Elaine Storkey expressed it:
New Testament scholars have long encouraged the states towards a deeper exegesis of 'gender leadership' passages in the Epistles and it is evident that the Holy Spirit gives powerful gifts to both women and men for service in the Kingdom. Many evangelical churches in the country make no gender distinctions in types of Christian leadership, and now the Church building of England is on board.
It would be ironic if leaders were appointed on biblical grounds who moved the Church abroad from biblical theology. Its possible that some will run into the change every bit theologically right, though a 'political' error. And a certain group in the Church building might be in a position in a few years' time to look back and say 'I told you so!'
The third issue which will be watched with interested will be the touch of having female leadership on the gender residuum of Church attendance. There is some skillful evidence that alluring men is a central part of church growth, and as I take explored previously, this remains a significant issue for the church in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and the Church of England in particular. The ordination of women as presbyters has happened at the aforementioned fourth dimension as a decline in the number of men being ordained; is this causal or coincidence? I am non sure there are any simple answers here—but it is interesting to note how many church traditions which are currently growing announced to have an '(A)lpha male' approach to leadership.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this post, would you lot considerdonating £one.twenty a month to support the product of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot have valued this post, y'all can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, can add together real value. Seek commencement to empathize, and so to be understood. Make the well-nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
cantrellhimparienge.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-are-women-bishops-for/
0 Response to "What are (women) bishops for?"
Enregistrer un commentaire