Of serious concern and challenge for all Episcopalians is Reno’s contention that Bishops are now a sign of the disunity of the church. This raises a very important question, “Do we really need Bishops?”

Setting out an Answer this Question

This was a question that I set out to answer some 11 years ago when I left work in a Para-church organization and went to work for the Episcopal Diocese of Texas. From my vantage place up in the Rocky Mountains, I saw many wonderful and viable missionary parishes. What I wondered was whether Bishops or Dioceses mattered. Essentially, I went to Texas to answer this question.

After working there for 10 years with Bishop Claude Payne, I came to an answer. I am still committed to the Episcopal form of church polity. I do believe that a Bishop can be a significant person in the extension of the Church’s mission and ministry. I know for a fact that Bishop Payne made a difference. I know for a fact that the diocese of Texas made a difference in the life of most of our congregations.

Yet, at the same time, I have to tell you that I largely agree with Reno’s assessment. I believe that many Episcopal Bishops have now become more of a hindrance to the Church’s mission then a support. Further, I believe that the office of Bishop as we know it today, is in drastic need of re-thinking and revision. I believe that our present crisis has surfaced much that is wrong with our present Episcopal system.

Apostolic Ministry

To get at this issue, I want to talk about “apostolic ministry.” According to our Church’s teaching, the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. This is why we put so much emphasis (or at least we once did) on apostolic succession. Are we right to say this? What do we mean by saying that our Bishops are the “successors” of the Apostles? Historically and biblically, I believe we are correct.

In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he lists a five-fold ministry that Christ has given to the Church. “Some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, some pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry.” Interestingly, Paul did not limit the title “Apostle” to the twelve. He refers to Silas and Sosthenes as Apostles with him. He even bestows this title on a woman. What was the office of Apostle and what does this say to us today?

An Apostle was a person given spiritual authority by Christ over the church on a trans-local level. Three of Paul’s offices had a trans-local nature to them, Apostle, Prophet and Evangelist. For example, the New Testament gives guidelines on how to welcome a prophet and how a prophet should behave.

Paul himself functioned as an Evangelist and urged Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist also. Meanwhile, pastors and teachers seemed to be largely local offices. Among these pastors, we see the embryonic office of “supervisor” or “overseer” which was rendered from the Greek episcopoi as Bishop. In the New Testament Bishop and Apostle were two different offices. Bishop and pastor seemed to be used closely together.

Apostles and Bishops

How did the two offices of Apostle and Bishop become connected? To answer this question, we have to leave the New Testament and turn to Roman history. Two dynamics made the “trans-local” offices of the New Testament difficult. One was the periodic political and social chaos and confusion under certain Caesars. For example, in the last years of the Emperor Coligula travel throughout the Mediterranean became very difficult.

Then when Claudius was made emperor, one of his first acts was to suppress the pirates and re-establish shipping and trade. Most scholars now agree that Paul’s and Barnabas’ first missionary journey coincided with this political development. The second issue was persecution. Once the sporadic persecution of Christians became an intentional action of the Roman state under Nero, the Apostles were easy targets.

I believe that the “two prophets” of Revelation were Paul and Peter whose bloody martyrdom is portrayed by the author. The void of apostolic oversight created by these two elements over the first 150 years of the Church’s life amplified the office of Bishop. These influential local leaders began to have more trans-local authority – they became the successors to the Apostles.

They became the successors to the Apostolic Ministry of spiritual authority and oversight of groups of churches. Some of them became successors to martyrdom. By the time that Christianity emerges as an official religion, the structure of Bishops, Priests and Deacons had emerged.

St. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo and exercised apostolic authority over the churches of North Africa in the region of Carthage. In this sense, a Bishop ruled over an area, but in a servant church that expected its leaders to exemplify the character of Jesus, “ruling over” had a more spiritual, moral and mutual sense then “having legal jurisdiction.”

Christendom

What emerged into all this is Christendom. Bishops came to have an official, legal and political position backed by the state. This is the model that many of our current Bishops still hold. One of our Bishops said recently that a bishop and a diocese with its legal boundaries have always been the universal system of catholic Christianity. This could be said of Christendom, but not of either the New Testament Church or the Celtic Church.

These two communities modeled leadership, Apostolic Leadership, in a very different way. In these communities, Apostolic Leadership was exercised by acknowledged spiritual authority found in the character and skills of the person.

These models did not rely on the State, canons or armies to enforce their position. Obviously, the more Roman model has dominated most of the Church in the west and ultimately won out over the Celtic model in England, Ireland and Scotland although we still name many Anglican Churches after some of these extraordinary Celtic apostolic leaders. We also find glimmers of this alternate style of apostolic leadership in the Bishops of the Anglican Communion who serve in places where the British government never had legal control (or at least not for long.)

These Bishops do not tend to think of themselves as presiding over a territory, but rather of communities. They do this as much by who they are as by the office they hold. Most importantly, they see themselves as the incarnation and extension of the Church’s mission!

Prelacy

Of course, the worst part of the Roman rule by Bishops is called Prelacy. This is the autocratic rule by a Bishop based solely on the basis of their legal rights given by the state. Prelacy is a thing to be despised as is all despotism and history has taught us that religious tyrants tend to be the worse kinds of tyrants. This brings us back to our present situation.

The Bishops of ECUSA (or at least many of them) in the midst of our current crisis have fallen back not on their Apostolic Authority, but on their prelacy, their legal rights. One wonders what part of post-Christendom they haven’t gotten yet. Even more, one wonders how long Bishops in a secular state think they can “enforce” their boundaries and authority on others. After all, in the U.S., the Church is a voluntary society.

Put another way, where is the English army that our Bishops think will step in to maintain their office and property? But, even if the state would do this, is it right? I think not. The very fact that the state would need to do this is already a sign of the failure of apostolic authority and ministry!

Better Models

Ironically, a better model for Bishops today might be found in the Anglican Mission in America (AMIA). Since their Bishops don’t have the luxury of clearly defined legal boundaries, they function in more apostolic ways. Their bishops must plant churches. They spend substantial time visiting their churches, building up leaders, providing teaching and pastoral care.

No one in ECUSA really believes that our present visitation system build around confirmation really connects the local congregation to the Bishop. Any reasonable person knows that such a system has a limited future. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating joining AMIA, but I am advocating a radical restructuring of the Episcopate.

Actually, our present crisis allows just such a restructuring to occur. Perhaps given our serious polarization, congregations and clergy should be allowed to select Bishops who they feel best represent a connection with the teachings of the Apostles and who best exemplify the character of Christ and the moral authority of the church to be “their” bishop.

But whether we find such a solution or not, for the Episcopacy to function in our rapidly developing secular world, the Roman and Christendom model will have to die. It is interesting to me that those Bishops who hold most to this Christendom model may be the ones who most facilitate this death.

Could it be that in another 10 years or so, we will look back on diocesan boundaries the same way that we now look upon the idea of parish boundaries – as a quaint, antique relic of a past way of being the Church? If so, what does this say about creative ways to handle our present crisis? So, do we need Bishops? Not if they are prelates. We badly need apostolic leaders. Paul says that Christ gives such leaders as a gift to the Church.

END