BISHOPS - WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR?

Today is the feast day of William White, the 2nd/3rd (along with Samuel Provoost) bishop to be consecrated for the Episcopal Church in the US after the first, Samuel Seabury.

James Kiefer at the Lectionary says:

Before the American Revolution, there were no bishops in the colonies (partly because the British government was reluctant to give the colonies the kind of autonomy that this would have implied, and partly because many of the colonists were violently opposed to their presence). After the Revolution, the establishment of an American episcopate became imperative. Samuel Seabury was the first American to be consecrated, in 1784 (see 14 Nov), and in 1787 William White and Samuel Provoost, having been elected to the bishoprics of Pennsylvania and New York respectively, sailed to England and were consecrated bishops on 14 February by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and the Bishop of Peterborough.

I am one descendant of former colonists who is not opposed to the presence of bishops. In fact, I like having bishops as a way of bringing a degree of order to the functions of the church, but I'm quite pleased that in the Episcopal Church laity and clergy have a voice in electing bishops.

A good many gifted bishops with shepherds' hearts serve in the Episcopal Church, and I'm thankful for them. The best of them keep foremost in their minds their positions as servants of the people of God entrusted to their care.

The following passage from 1 Timothy 3:1-10 is included in the readings for the feast day:

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

To expect our bishops to be such paragons as described above would be beyond unrealistic. Bishops are, after all, human. The qualities listed by Paul are perhaps ideals for the bishops to keep in mind, but not necessarily qualities by which the rest of us are to stand in judgment of them.

Which leads me to an article in the Guardian by Hywel Williams, titled "Ditch the bossy-boot bishops".

An obsession with bishops is a defining characteristic of Anglicanism, both ancient and modern. Church of England types may be wedded to traditional patriarchy or encouraged by women's rights. They can be Anglo-Catholic, evangelical or liberal, touched with Pentecostalism and keen on charismatic gifts, ensconced in the rural deanery, immersed in the urban mission, or droning on in the Lords. But what unites them all is a preoccupation with the bishop, that ecclesiastical bossy-boots figure who fingers the cross that bounces up and down the heaving and preachy chest. Even dozy congregations can liven up a bit when told that "the bishop is coming".

If what Williams writes is true of the English, then I believe that we are not as obsessed with bishops in the Episcopal Church. Before the start of the Anglican soap opera over the election and ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay partnered bishop in the Episcopal Church, I hardly paid attention to my local bishop or my diocese except when the bishop visited for confirmations, installations, or ordinations. Much less attention did I pay to the Presiding Bishop. My focus was on my local church, and I expect that for the greater number of Episcopalians, their interest is in the local church, and much of the commentary and controversy in the Anglican Communion swirls about them mostly unnoticed.

What a change took place for me over a period of 7 years. I don't know if I'm obsessed with bishops, but one might easily conclude that I'm obsessed with the Anglican Communion soap opera, for better or for worse. I often look back longingly to my days of ignorance and innocence of it all.

Williams continues:

Many other churches, of course, have bishops – especially the "historic" ones that pretend to be possessed of supernaturally guided lines of direct communication with the apostles. Any one ordained into these organisations has to subscribe to the ridiculous belief that spiritual authority can be directly transmitted by the "laying of hands". Peter and the apostles had this power because they were Christ's intimates. Bishops have it now because they were ordained by earlier bishops. Follow right on to the end of the line and you will be in touch with the first century.

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.

I do not agree with Williams' dismissal of the efficacy of prayers and laying on of hands associated with ordination to any orders of ministry as ridiculous belief. The power to ordain for ministry is, indeed, passed down through the Christian church over the centuries, or so I believe.

However, I stand with Williams that the claimed unbroken line of apostolic succession is, in fact, a fiction and is rather a very broken line, despite the declarations of the church which most vehemently lays claim to it.

Thus the horror of the members of the Church of England (And - alas! - some in our own Episcopal Church) who view women bishops as breaking the pristine line of apostolic succession is difficult for me to understand. Having said that, I don't question their sincerity or their distress over the prospect of women bishops. Nevertheless, I very much disagree with their views and hold that, as a matter of simple justice and equality, none of the baptized should be barred from any order of ministry because of their sex or their sexual orientation, for that matter.

Thanks to Cathy for the link to Williams' article.