This article was
first published in The Times of
London
Bishops Galore
By Dwight Longenecker
Eleven years
ago I was a country vicar on the Isle
of Wight. I was married with two
young children, and was looking forward
to a long and happy ministry in the
Church of England. Three years later,
along with nearly a thousand other
Anglican priests, I resigned and
joined the Catholic Church.
I resigned because
the General Synod had voted to ordain
women as priests. However, those
of us who became Catholics did not
do so because we were eternally opposed
to women’s ordination. We resigned
because in her decision to ordain
women, we thought the Anglican Church
had shot herself not in the foot,
but in the head. In other words,
if the bishop was the head of the
church, she had shot her bishops.
What I mean is, we
had thought the Anglican Church was
part of the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church. If she was, then
no matter how we felt about women
priests per se, we did not
feel the Anglicans had the authority
to introduce such a radical innovation
unilaterally. It was not the idea
of change that was disturbing. The
Church has always changed. What was
disconcerting was the attitude to
authority that the innovation heralded.
‘Authority’ is a
dirty word these days, because when
we hear it we think ‘authoritarianism.’ However,
for Christians the question of authority
is simply the question, ‘When there
are sincere disagreements where do
we turn for the answer?’ The New
Testament shows the apostles struggling
with the same problem. When they
faced the question of whether or
not to admit non-Jewish people to
the new faith they came to an answer
through the charismatic leadership
of Peter balanced by a council of
all the apostles.
From the earliest
centuries this same pattern was followed.
The authority of the successor of
Peter was balanced by the authority
of church councils. Not only was
the Bishop of Rome the successor
of Peter, but each bishop was understood
to be the successor of the apostles.
The bishops were the defenders of
the historic faith, and therefore
a focus of unity for the people.
A mark of the ancient Catholic faith
is that the clergy and people enjoy
a real sense of unity in diversity.
Despite personal disagreements, they
unite in loyalty to their own bishop
and together with him, express a
united faith with the Bishop of Rome.
The vote to
ordain women as priests shattered this
historic
unifying role of the bishop. To keep
the dissenters on board provision
was made for traditionalist parishes
to have their own ‘episcopal oversight.’ They
could choose either a suffragan bishop
from their own diocese, or a ‘flying
bishop’ from outside.
The provision
for dissenting groups to have their
own
bishop was generous, but it was also
a radical departure from the historic
understanding of what a bishop is.
The provision of ‘flying bishops’ was
meant to be a temporary measure.
However, it has remained in place
for ten years, and if the experience
of the Episcopal Church in the USA
is anything to go by, the traditionalist
rump may prove to be far more tenacious
and long-lived than first thought.
If anything,
the traditionalists seem to be growing
in strength. Rev Robbie Low, a member
of the Forward in Faith council,
says they are uniting across international
borders to present a feisty traditionalist
front. Rather than the flying bishops
being seen as a temporary compromise,
the International Forward in Faith
movement wants to formalise the situation
with a ‘third province’ which would
be an independent church within the
Anglican Communion. Alternative episcopal
oversight would help the dissenters
stay Anglican while they continue
moving towards corporate unity with
Rome.
The provision
of pick ‘n’ mix bishops has also established
a precedent. Ten years ago the Anglo-Catholics
disapproved of women priests and
got their own bishops. Now the conservative
Evangelicals, unhappy with the Anglican
Church’s permissive stance on human
sexuality, are demanding their own
bishops. Two years ago the Rev Charles
Raven, a vicar in the Worcester Diocese
began looking for a new bishop because
his bishop approves of homosexuality.
David Banting, National Chairman
of the conservative Anglican pressure
group, Reform, predicted similar
opt out actions breaking out like
brush fires all across the Anglican
Communion.
Evangelical
Anglicans in America have already taken
united
action. Two years ago a rebel group—unhappy
with the sexually permissive attitudes
of the Episcopalian mainstream had
two priests consecrated as bishops
by conservative bishops from Asia
and Africa. Like the Anglo-Catholics,
this new ‘Anglican Mission in North
America’ does not want to break away
from the Episcopal Church. Instead
they want to remain inside as a thorn
in the side of the Anglican Church.
Furthermore, these Evangelicals are
not small cells of kooky activists.
They have significant numbers, are
well organised and very well funded.
In
the face of this crisis some obvious
questions arise. If Anglo-Catholics
can have their own bishops, why shouldn’t
conservative Evangelicals? But, if
an Evangelical can have his own bishop
who disapproves of homosexuality.
Why shouldn’t a homosexual priest
who is stuck with a traditionalist
bishop also go shopping and find
a pro-homosexual bishop? For that
matter, why shouldn’t any priest
who happens to quarrel with his bishop
look around for someone more agreeable?
Is
this an Anglican free for all or
the Anglicans in free fall? Time
will tell. Those of us who entered
the Catholic Church ten years ago
are fully aware of similar tensions
within Catholicism. Our boat is also
sailing through stormy seas, but
while we may be hanging on to the
hand rails, and fighting for the
lifejackets, at least we are agreed
that there is a captain on the bridge.
Return
to Articles main page
