"HOW CAN I become a bishop?', someone might be wondering. Well,
one way is via the internet. Send off your money and get a
certificate by return stating that you are now a bishop (though of
no known church). Now all you need is a flock, and a diocese!
Another route is to apply to be considered in one of the
mainstream churches (but first make sure that it is a church that
actually has bishops - some do not). Even in the rather traditional
Church of England, you can actually apply to be a bishop, which
seems rather odd to me and goes against the grain. I suspect many
spiritually suitable candidates will never apply in person, though
others can put their names forward. But, unless you have glowing
references as to your track record, gifts and suitability, plus
support from members of the Crown Nominations Commission of the
General Synod, you won't get very far.
Although the process of selection in the Church of England is
now much more open than in the past, it is still a far cry from the
electioneering and hustings of some parts of the Anglican
Communion. I think that it is quite possible to feel that you have
something to offer in episcopal ministry, and desire to serve God
and the Church in that way, yet still shrink from it. I reckon that
the combination of willingness and diffidence is healthy. Sometimes
prelates are asked, 'Did you want to be bishop/archbishop?' It is
unthinkable that the answer could be, "Yes, I did." Rowan Williams
once replied to that question, "Not particularly", which is a
beautifully nuanced and ambiguous reply. It is known of some past
Archbishops of Canterbury that, as schoolboys, they practised the
signature "Cantuar:"; sometimes God winks at youthful pride and
emulation.
THROUGHOUT the Anglican Communion today, bishops are chosen by a
process of nomination, election and confirmation - a process that
varies in its application from one member Church to another.
Anglicans believe that it is right that churches should choose
their own bishops, and not have them foisted upon them, as they are
in some churches. But, because a bishop is a bishop in the Church
of God, and not only a bishop in a particular diocese or church,
the implications of any election for the well-being of the wider
Church, and particularly for its unity, should always be taken into
account.
It is a tremendously affirming experience for bishops to know
that they are the Church's choice. But it has not always been the
practice for churches to choose their own bishops. Often in history
the monarch or equivalent civil ruler had the major, or sole, say
in appointments. In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church
formalised and bureaucratised the practice of bishops all around
the world being appointed by the pope. And, until the 1970s,
British Prime Ministers had the major responsibility for the
appointment of bishops in the Church of England. They simply
recommended a name to the Sovereign, after consulting the
Archbishop of Canterbury and anyone else they thought fit to
ask.
It was in that context that Prime Minister William Ewart
Gladstone gave a list of qualifications that he looked for in a
future bishop. Gladstone had plenty of experience of choosing
bishops, being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom four times.
Gladstone was a lay pillar of the Church, a considerable theologian
in his own right and more theologically learned than most bishops
of his day - and that was saying something. Here are his selection
criteria: Piety, Learning (Sacred)/Eloquence/Administrative
power/Faithful allegiance to the Church and to the Church of
England/Activity/Tact and courtesy in dealings with men, and
knowledge of the world/Accomplishments and literature/An equitable
spirit/Faculty of working with his brother bishops/Some legal habit
of mind/Circumspection/Courage/Maturity of age and character/
Corporal vigour/Liberal sentiments on public affairs/A
representative character with reference to shades of opinion fairly
allowable in the Church.
Here we have, rather jumbled up, different kinds of qualities:
physical ("vigour"), moral ("circumspection" or discretion;
"courage"), spiritual ("piety", "faithfulness") and intellectual
("learning", culture). Probably there has never been a bishop who
was fully able to meet Gladstone's exacting requirements. As
bishops sometimes say to parishes looking for a new rector, "Only
the Archangel Gabriel would match your expectations!"
A GOOD-ENOUGH bishop is a precious gift of God to God's Church.
While it is true that some dioceses revive after the bishop has
moved on - just as some parishes spring back to life after the
departure of their priest, whose presence acted like a wet blanket
on lay initiative - a good bishop is a source of strength,
inspiration, and wisdom to his or her people. Bishops can make a
qualitative difference, for good or ill, to how church people
experience their faith, worship and witness from day to day. How
Christian people see their bishop affects their morale - for better
or worse. Bishops set the overall tone of their dioceses by their
example, their words and their actions. But a poorly equipped
bishop - one who lacks understanding of the office, or the skills
and aptitudes to carry it out - is a serious liability. A bishop
who is not up to the job can have a devastating effect on the
morale and functioning of the diocese, and hold back its
mission.
A bishop is entrusted with a daunting role and is asked to do an
extremely difficult job. Some clergy crave a bishopric and think
that somehow they deserve it, but if they get it, they find it is
not quite what they hoped for. There is always a sense that a
prospective bishop should shrink from the responsibilities
that will be thrust upon him or her. There is an ancient tradition
of reluctance: the candidate would decline twice over, sincerely or
in pretence, with the words, Nolo episcopari ("I do not
want to be a bishop"). Some would say that a bishop has a thankless
task. But a bishop is not a bishop in order to be thanked. A
bishop's first thought will be, in the words of St Paul, "Who is
sufficient for these things?" Lancelot Andrewes, an eminent,
scholarly bishop in early 17th century England, had those words
engraved on his episcopal seal. But a bishop will answer that
question in the same way that St Paul does: "Our sufficiency is of
God" (2 Corinthians 2.16; 3.5, KJB).
The bishop's first priority in fulfilling the role that is
thrust upon him or her is not to ask, "How well am I doing?" or,
"How am I going down with my people?", but to be faithful to the
calling that they have received from God and the Church. If a
bishop's aim in life is to please the people and to be a popular
figure that everyone loves, he or she will be a dismal failure as a
bishop. A bishop seeking popularity is doomed to fail; their
integrity is already draining away. "Woe to you when all speak well
of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets"
(Luke 6.26). As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "You can please all
of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time,
but you can never please all of the people all of the time."
IN THE Anglican Communion there is a continuous succession of
bishops, going back to the apostolic age, which is one of the ways
(though not necessarily the most important) in which we know that
the church of today is the same church as the church of the
apostles - that the church is apostolic. It is clear from the study
of church history that the Anglican understanding of episcopacy and
its practice has evolved considerably over the centuries, as it has
in the Roman Catholic church. However, there is a strong case for
thinking that the essentials have remained much the same over time,
while the emphasis on different aspects of episcopal ministry has
varied. Anglicans look not only to Scripture, but also to patristic
and medieval, as well as to Reformation and modern, models of
episcopacy as sources for how they understand that ministry
now.
BISHOPS are regarded in Anglican, as well as in Orthodox and Roman
Catholic ecclesiology, as successors of the Twelve Apostles. This
looks like an extremely grandiose claim and one that raises
expectations that cannot be realised - including that bishops
should be able to work miracles! So what does it mean? Obviously,
bishops cannot be successors of the apostles in respect of the
apostles' unique, irreplaceable role as witnesses to Christ's
resurrection (Luke 24.48; Acts 1.8). What is meant, I suggest, is
that bishops continue the work of the apostles in three ways: (a)
upholding, expounding, and promoting the apostolic faith; (b)
leading the faithful in the apostolic mission of the gospel in the
midst of the world; and (c) being a visible link through history,
by continuous succession, with the church of the apostles. In these
three ways, the episcopate - the historic episcopate - forms one of
the building blocks of the visible, faithful continuity of the
church through history, that is to say, its apostolicity. As
Michael Ramsey succinctly put it with reference to the early
church, 'The Episcopate succeeded the Apostolate as the organ of
unity and continuity.'[ . . .]
Contrary to popular assumption, it seems that the Twelve
[Apostles] were not missionaries who travelled to the ends of the
earth with the gospel. They seem to have been based, at least at
first, in Jerusalem and the surrounding area (Acts 8.1; 11.1; 12.3;
15.4). Neither did they preside as resident chief pastors in a
local church - not even in Jerusalem, where James (not the apostle,
but the brother of the Lord) appears to have had a presiding role
(Acts 15.13-21).
It was Paul who was the missionary apostle who founded churches
and continued, even when not physically present, to have oversight
of them. And it is Paul's concept of an apostle as a missionary and
founder of churches that has become the normative understanding of
apostolic ministry. But, as an outsider, Paul had to seek approval
from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for his mission to the
Gentiles and his gospel of radical freedom from the law. The
apostles were not a loose bunch of freelance individuals, each
doing his own thing as he thought fit, but were constituted as a
body, a team, a unit, possibly a council - or in later
ecclesiology, a "college" - by the call and commission of Christ
(Mark 3.13-19; Matthew 28.16-20). Collectively the apostles were
responsible for the welfare and integrity of the Church - and in
that sense bishops follow in their footsteps.[ . . .]
The process of transition from apostle to bishop in the early
church remains obscure, but . . "the picture is one of gradual
development from various forms of episcope always present,
into a pattern of one bishop in each local church". Altogether,
while there is not a single New Testament example of apostles
laying hands on bishops, a sound theological case can be made for
holding, as Anglicans do, that bishops are successors of the
apostles in certain defined ways. This further suggests that the
episcopate belongs to God's intention for the Church; that it is,
albeit through a process of providential development, of divine
institution. However, that is not the same as saying that
episcopacy is of the esse of the Church, such that no
church can be a church without it. That has always been very much a
minority view among Anglican theologians, has not been officially
endorsed, and has not figured in Anglican ecumenical dialogue.
This is an edited extract from Becoming a Bishop: A
theological handbook of episcopal ministry by Paul Avis, to be
published by T & T Clark in July 2015.