|
OVER the past three years, I have been looking at the development of the episcopate from its roots in the Church of the Apostles right through to the present day, giving special attention to the competing influences that have moulded the Anglican episcopate since the Reformation, not least the part played by the Crown.
It soon became apparent that, despite widespread interest in the subject of bishops, their purpose, priorities, and appointment, there was precious little statistical evidence to show what clergy and laity — even the bishops themselves — actually perceived their calling to be.
My survey of clerical and lay opinion used one diocese in each Anglican province of mainland Britain: Leicester for Canterbury, Bradford for York, Monmouth for Wales, and Edinburgh for Scotland. All four dioceses were chosen for their mix of dense inner-city to rural parishes, and the fact that their diocesan did not have the help of suffragans.
All serving diocesan clergy and every second churchwarden were surveyed. The episcopal input to the survey was obtained by asking for the participation of all bishops who retired in or after 2000.
Questions were wide-ranging, from the nature and purpose of the episcopate to what should be the priorities in a bishop’s use of his time, what people thought about episcopal appointment methods and whether they approved of women or practising homosexuals attaining the bench.
The results confirmed that all three sections of the Church largely agree about the three main planes of a bishop’s role, a clear declaration that across these four provinces, at least, the episcopate is both well understood and highly valued. At 87% among the bishops, 80% among clergy, and 71% among laity, there was a surprising concurrence with the idea that, among his clergy, the bishop should be considered first among equals.
There was even greater unanimity with the proposition that the bishop’s main task is to support and encourage parishes (86% of laity and 75% of clergy considered the parish rather than the diocese to be the main building block of the Church).
Attendance at national political forums such as the House of Lords showed opinion divided: the bishops were keenest at 54%, the laity least enthusiastic at 47%, while bishops also attached more importance to attending public events. Respectable percentages were reached for bishops getting to know teachers, councillors, community groups, Readers, and churchwardens, but priority was given by all three groups to getting to know clergy and ordinands. The laity in particular were anxious for bishops to teach and explain the Christian faith (94%), interpret it to the needs of our age (93%), and be ready to defend it from attack (93%).
All three groups wanted bishops to provide a model for a good work/life balance and work with local media to improve the public image of the Church, but there was little interest in paying bishops the same as parish clergy, least of all among the laity (13%). Surprisingly, it was the bishops themselves who came out strongest in favour (84%) of their being available to their clergy at any time of day or night, whereas the clergy scored lowest at 47%.
On two issues of controversy in the Church today, the results were especially interesting: 84% of bishops, 72% of clergy, and 67% of laity agreed with the appointment of women bishops, but 30% overall remained either against this development or were not sure about it.
On the consecration of actively homosexual bishops, 32% of the clergy, 25% of bishops, and 22% of laity agreed with the proposition to go ahead, but overall a considerable 43% registered strong disagreement.
Clergy were asked about consulting a bishop: 84% said they would consult on a parochial matter, 63% on a spiritual, and 58% on a personal matter; but it turned out that only 52% felt they had been helped by consulting about a parish matter, 42% helped personally, and a mere 34% spiritually.
Respondents were given a choice of five different methods of episcopal- appointment in use in various parts of the Anglican Communion, varying from the electoral college with a built-in minority from the vacant diocese to a totally free internal diocesan election. The most telling constant was the feeling among clergy and laity in England, but also in Wales and even in Scotland, that the vacant diocese should play a far greater part in appointments.
The totally open diocesan election scored highest overall first choices at 31%; the electoral college with a built-in minority from the vacant diocese bottom at 19%. A significant 77% of all respondents gave their top preference to some variety of internal diocesan election.
THE ABIDING QUESTION remains how to reconcile all these legitimate demands on a bishop’s time with the clear wish of the whole Church to see bishops model their work and life in a balanced way.
My conclusion, based on the survey statistics and the experience of the early Church, is that it is time to turn the deanery of 25 to 35 parishes into a diocese. We must leave behind all the expensive and irrelevant trappings inherited from medieval prelacy, and instead make the episcopal task more manageable and realistic so that practical demonstration may be given to the essential warmth and care of the episcopal shepherd, who is meant to mirror the Good Shepherd himself.
This must be an attractive proposition to clergy, laity, and the bishops themselves, and would give an enormous boost to the parishes. In the light of climate change, the exhaustion of fossil fuels, the collapsing return on central church investments, and the increasing marginalisation of the institutional Church in national life, the future lies with the parish and the local congregation.
The Revd Mike Keulemans’s research was done for the University of Wales Doctor of Ministry qualification under the supervision of the Professor Leslie Francis.
|
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
