Episcopacy in the Church of England

The Chairman: The item before us takes the form of a presentation under SO 97 on chapter 2 of the Rochester report.

The four eminent panellists that we have with us this afternoon are the Bishop of Rochester, Professor Thiselton, the Bishop in Europe and Professor Young. Each will make a contribution of about 10 minutes and then I will be looking for questions from members. Please be assured that we want only questions; this is not an opportunity to hone speeches in preparation for next year. We simply want to engage together in reflection on the meaning of episcopacy.

The Bishop of Rochester (Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali): At the July group of sessions, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave an undertaking that, even as Synod was in the process of making decisions about women bishops, there would be further biblical and theological reflection on the nature and function of the episcopate within the Church. This seminar, early, you will grant, in this new Synod, is one of the ways in which we can continue some of the thinking begun in the Rochester report.

It is by now well known that chapter 2 of that report, ‘Episcopacy in the Church of England’, seeks to set out a convergent understanding of episcopacy in the Anglican tradition whilst also acknowledging differences of emphasis and approach. In this Anglicans are not different from other Churches where also agreement on essentials is combined with vigorous debate about the place of bishops in the Church, episcopal collegiality and how the episcopate relates to the presbyterate. This last is of course an old chestnut: the question goes back to the New Testament itself where the terms can be used interchangeably – I will not give you all the references – but also distinctively, as with the singular usage in the pastoral epistles for the bishop but a plural one for presbyters. So is the bishop a kind of chief presbyter, sharing in the diverse functions of the presbyterate but with some of them, like ordination, increasingly restricted to the bishops, or is the office of bishop an apostolic one so that the bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, can be said to have oversight of the whole Church, including the presbyters?

On these issues debate has raged down the centuries and is alive and well in today’s Churches also. St Jerome (4^th century) is perhaps the most prominent early representative of the view that the episcopate emerged from the presbyterate as a way of guarding the unity in truth of the Church but that the bishop was essentially a fellow-presbyter with the rest. Such a view can certainly be supported from elsewhere amongst the early Christian writers who from time to time, annoyingly for bishops, refer to bishops as presbyters.

Against this there is the clearest testimony, from the beginning of the second century, that the office of bishop is distinct from the presbyterate, even if it is very closely related to it. The letters of St Ignatius leave us in no doubt about the special position of the bishop in the Church. The evidence from Antioch in Syria is also supported by our knowledge of the Johannine Churches in Asia Minor. Early patristic testimony not only confirms here the presence of bishops but states explicitly that they are successors of the Apostles. In the West, certainly, episcopacy seems to have emerged as a form of presidency within the presbyterate, but it seems that even here it took on some apostolic attributes in the exercise of its teaching, sanctifying and governing tasks.

The Preface to the Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer claims that, in ordaining to the ministry of bishop, priest or deacon, the Church of England intends nothing else but to continue what has existed from the time of the Apostles by doing what the Apostles did. It is important for us to say this for two reasons. First, it is a response to those who doubt the validity of Anglican ordinations. Whatever else the Reformers intended, they certainly intended that the historic, apostolic ministry should continue in the Church of England as one of the tokens of its catholicity. Second, we should be wary, therefore, of any argument for change in our practice which is based on claims that the Anglican understanding of ordained ministry is discontinuous with the tradition of Catholic order. Fr Robin Gibbons’s otherwise excellent article in the Harris-Shaw collection The Call for Women Bishops seems to me to come perilously close to making this claim - or is it charge? For Anglicans to admit this would indeed be to sell the pass. No, any possible development in our understanding of episcopacy and who may be admitted to it must be firmly rooted in and arise out of our commitment to the continuity claimed in the Preface to the Ordinal.

No discussion of episcopacy and Anglicans would be complete without at least a reference to Richard Hooker. The value of his witness comes not only from his firm grasp of fundamental ecclesiological principles but also from his nearness in time to the events of the Reformation. It is true that his authorship of the section on bishops (Book VII of the Ecclesiastical Polity) has been questioned. However, even if it is not all from his pen it still belongs to that period of ferment between the Reformation and the Restoration when basic issues were still being fought over and thought out. Hooker seems to strike a balance between the recognition that bishops are, indeed, sorts of presbyter who have ‘chiefty’ in government and in ordination, and the age-old belief that they are in a limited sense successors of the Apostles. Hooker certainly regards the episcopate as beneficial for the Church and as an aspect of God’s providential ordering, but he can imagine situations where the faithful have no bishops available because bishops have been corrupt, tyrannical or faithless. In such cases of emergency, the Church cannot be left without pastors and ways have to be sought to provide for these.

The question of the exact relationship between bishops and elders is asked again in the debate between two leading Anglican bishops of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, J B Lightfoot of Durham and Charles Gore, the founding bishop of Birmingham. For Lightfoot it seems that the episcopal office does indeed emerge from the presbyteral, whereas for Gore bishops are a localization of the itinerant apostolic office seen not only in the Apostles proper but also in their delegates, such as Timothy and Titus, and in other prophetic and teaching figures in the early Church. It should be noted, however, that Lightfoot and Gore are not as far apart as has sometimes been thought. Lightfoot allows that development of episcopacy is closely connected with the apostolic work of SS Peter, James and John. He also agrees that bishops continue the work of the Apostles in maintaining and promoting the unity of the Church in truth. Gore, on the other hand, agrees that it is possible that many of the functions which belonged to the presbyteral body as a whole came gradually to be restricted to the president of the body.

For us the crucial question is indeed the apostolic dimension of episcopacy for it is this which lifts it from a teaching and administrative office to a missionary one. Recent Lambeth Conferences have been urging us to take this seriously. The 1988 Conference describes the bishop as ‘a leader in mission and an initiator of outreach to the world’ (Mission and Ministry 151, page 61). The 1998 Conference similarly, while acknowledging the bishop as a fellow-presbyter with the others, draws attention to the distinctively apostolic nature of the bishop’s work as a witness to the Resurrection and the hope of Christ’s coming. It is the task of the bishop to make sure that the Good News is constantly heard in the wider community.

In the Rochester report we have held that the doctrine of the Church of England regarding episcopacy, and ministry generally, can be gleaned not only from the ordinals and other liturgical and legislative material but also from the ecumenical agreements into which the Church has entered. For instance, the Church of England has accepted that the ARCIC agreements on Eucharist and Ministry are ‘consonant in substance with the faith of Anglicans’. Similarly the Porvoo Common Statement has become the basis of our relations with the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran Churches. We pray that those relations will not be further jeopardized. These and others draw on considerable scholarship to show the importance of episcopacy in the life of the Church.

Yesterday, during the induction programme, we were asking ‘What is a synod?’ just as we are asking today ‘What is a bishop?’. The two questions are of course closely related and I hope that we can give some attention to this relationship. In a synodal way of being church, bishops walk together in the way of the Lord with clergy and laypeople. We saw how this has been so from the beginning. It is also the case that in an episcopal Church bishops need from time to time to meet with one another. Both forms of meeting are ancient and necessary. It is important in this connection to note that bishops should listen very carefully to what the clergy and laity have to say, and indeed, in some areas of policy, finance and administration, for example, to defer to them. There are areas, however, where bishops have a special responsibility. These relate to doctrine (including moral teaching), worship, discipline and above all mission. Once again, before bishops teach or lead in these areas they must consult widely and listen carefully. In particular, they should take account of what those theologians say whose work particularly serves the life, witness and worship of the Church and is not simply confined to their own interests.

Having done all this, however, they must be free to teach and to lead authoritatively in the exercise of their office and the charism which goes with it, save only for one thing: even the authentic teachers are not masters of the Word but its servants. Whatever the bishops teach, individually or collectively, must be in conformity with the received teaching of the Scriptures. It is fundamental to an Anglican understanding of being church that whatever is taught or done should be ‘agreeable’ to the Scriptures.

I am sure that the other distinguished speakers on the panel will show us more fully what it means to be a bishop in the light of the Scriptures, how episcopacy was understood in the early Church and how ecumenical dialogue has both critiqued it robustly and brought fresh illumination to our understanding of it.

Revd Canon Professor Anthony Thiselton (Southwell): I was given quite a specific brief to say something about the relevance of recent New Testament research, to which I have accorded four minutes, qualities required for bishops (three minutes) and an Evangelical view of episcopacy (three minutes).

New Testament research: if, rather than seeking an abstract doctrine of bishops in the New Testament, we look at how Paul and the Apostles actually carried out their ministries, we see how intimately they were bound up with collaboration with fellow-workers. Paul, for example, is surrounded by a host of colleagues. The Greek synergos (fellow-worker or co-worker) occurs in all seven major epistles: Mark, Titus, Timothy, Luke, Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos and Barnabas, Silvanus or Silas were all long-term colleagues. Of 40 examples discussed in New Testament research of co-workers, nine feature among a plurality of Apostles; four are partners or koinonoi; 16 are called co-workers or synergoi. The addition of co-writers (Sosthenes in I Corinthians, Timothy in II Corinthians and Philippians, Silvanus in Colossians and so on) is extremely rare in ancient Greek letters and therefore we must read some significance into this co-writing.

If this applies to Apostles, however, does it apply to bishops? The Rochester report asserts, ‘A bishop was not an isolated figure but part of a wider episcopal college’ (2.3.32). Research on co-workers in the New Testament has gathered momentum partly within this framework. I have footnotes to all the patristic and biblical references but there is no time to give them, so you can check it afterwards: John Schütz, Bengt Holmberg, W H Ollrog, Earle Ellis, D J Harrington and Robert Banks all stand among recent people who have done considerable and useful research on this issue. The Apostles exercised shared oversight as guardians of a common apostolic tradition.

I do not assume a one-to-one correspondence between bishops and Apostles but both are defenders of doctrine, both represent an order that is trans-local, the ministry of both goes beyond a city or region. In the standard latest Greek lexicon BDAG, Danker observes that episkopos denotes, first, an overseer or supervisor who has a special interest, second, in guarding the apostolic tradition. He certainly adds that ‘bishop’ has become too loaded a term to be an exact equivalent. Need it be an exact equivalent, however? I want to argue that there is a considerable overlap and parallel, as early patristic writers, especially Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen maintain, and the Rochester report in 2.3, 18-25 affirms.

Among the latest research I want to underline the importance of I Corinthians. (I wonder why.) I Corinthians provides a test case. Corinth boasted a vibrant, successful, self-sufficient socio-economic culture based on competitive, consumerist choice. They demanded freedom to choose, whether it be leaders, life-styles, autonomy in ethics and church practice. The Bishop of Salisbury asked about being human; autonomy is not the pre-Fall characteristic of human nature, it is dependence and church practice. Since the Corinthian Church largely saw itself as spiritual, having liberty to do all things, possessing knowledge, why could they not choose their own leaders? (I:12). Paul, however, rejects the construction of a local Corinthian theology; they belong, he says, to one holy, catholic and apostolic Church (chapters XII to XIV and elsewhere), so at the very beginning of his greeting he says, ‘God has called you together with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both their Lord and ours. You don’t have a monopoly’. To follow a self-chosen leader isolates them, he says in III.18, from drawing on the wider resources of the catholic Church. They cannot say, ‘I have no need of you’. Episkope is shared in common with other overseers. Today we might speak of an episcopal college or indeed of a house of bishops. Should the election and work of a bishop be a local diocesan matter? Corinth: Yes. Paul: No.

Second, on qualities of bishops as exemplifying episkope or oversight, I Timothy III.1-7 is read for the consecration of bishops in the Book of Common Prayer and, together with I Timothy V, lists 13 qualities required for a bishop. Of these, seven distinctively apply while six others apply to presbyters and deacons. These include, in summary, didaktikos, skilled to teach: teaching ability is required both in sub-apostolic texts (2 Clement) and in patristic texts (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen). Chrysostom stresses the rôle of good preaching. Next nephalios, clear-minded, level-headed, stable, without extremes, able to hold things together, in contrast to the false teachers. Then epeikes, meaning gracious and courteous, not provoking conflict, pastor of the vulnerable and representing the public face of the Church, as bishops do today. Next amachos, one who dislikes conflict, suggesting a focus and enabler of unity, without being partisan. Unity has always been a key, as in Ignatius, Cyprian and the Rochester report at 2.3.12. Then we have me neophotos, not a recent convert and with a maturity that can resist the seductions of power and privilege. Next kosmos, meaning either an adornment to the Church, enhancing its public presence in the world, or a person of ordered mind. I cannot list all these qualities but they include much that relates to the public face of the Church to the world and management and guarding the faith. There are also passages about leadership in mission (Rochester 2.2.33, citing Martin and Paulinus), I Peter adding pastoral oversight as shepherd, followed by Ignatius, reflecting God’s presence. Patristic sources also add the capacity for jurisdiction, celebrant of the Eucharist, and reconciling penitents. These qualities ask for more than is normally required for presbyters. (I nearly added ‘even if you have an excellent secretary, PA and all the rest’).

As regards Evangelical views of bishops and, first, on the use of Scripture, tradition and reason, Richard Hooker distinguishes between Puritan and Anglican attitudes to Scripture. Puritans argued that ‘No form of church polity is lawful … unless ... it be … set down in Scripture’. Anglicans argued that matters necessary for salvation do need to be ‘expressly contained in the word of God’ (Hooker III.2.2) but not matters of ecclesial order. Some Evangelicals claim that all Evangelicals follow the Puritan tradition. In that case, there is no authority to have either a cross or flowers on the Communion table.

Second, on the differences between bishops and presbyters, Anglican Evangelicals in general follow the Book of Common Prayer and Hooker in regarding episcopacy as a distinct order of ministry and not merely what Norris, in Sykes and Booty, calls a ‘job assignment’. Bishops and presbyters share equally authority to administer Word and Sacraments but bishops have a ‘further power to ordain’ and what Hooker delightfully calls ‘Chiefty in government over presbyters’ but ‘by way of jurisdiction, a pastor to the pastors themselves’ (VII.2.3). It is ‘that kind of power that belongs to jurisdiction’ (VII.6.1).

What then is the relation between bishops and Apostles in the light of arguments about the interchangeability of episkopos and presbyteros in the New Testament? Many follow Lightfoot and others to the effect that these, if they are interchangeable, minimize the distinctiveness of the order of bishops; but if one were to accept Hooker’s maxim this would not expressly decide the issue. Others follow the Book of Common Prayer and Canon C1 (Rochester 2.7.8) in tracing the three-fold order to the Apostles and to Scripture. Hooker certainly is ambivalent, but I would want to argue that even if they are interchangeable in some contexts this is not synonymy in all contexts. After all, bishops are still presbyters, so sometimes it is quite relevant, as in I Peter, for the writer to address his fellow-elders, but that does not mean that they are synonymous in every possible context. The office of bishop includes that of the presbyter, but the authority of the presbyter does not include the authority of the bishop, certainly in terms of jurisdiction.

Then the old question: are bishops essential to the being of the Church or essential to the well-being of the Church? I remember it in my general ordination exam of 1959. Evangelicals regard the three-fold order as the structure of the Church willed by God for order and continuity of faith and doctrine but, unlike some Catholics, view it not as a priori in its essential and invariable structure. This is where, for some Evangelicals, Lightfoot’s arguments come in, because some are not prepared to say that, until episcopacy was universal, there were Churches in the second and early third century that were not proper Churches.

I have a paragraph about Europe and the Act of Uniformity. There is not time to go through it, but if anybody wants to ask about it here is a little hint.

Finally, I think that there is a bit of confusion in our Evangelical tradition about the relation between charisma and office. Charisma is often regarded as really good and office as a bit dubious, and one of the reasons is all the mis-exegesis about charisma in such books as I Corinthians, because some of the things that Paul lists as charismata are also institutional. Prophecy may well denote pastoral preaching. There is a charisma of administration which, if it were spontaneous, would be utterly disastrous! There is a charisma of kubernesis which is guidance, being a strategist for the Church, which entails enormous reflection. If members want the very latest on I Corinthians, David Hall recently said that the problem is that Paul and the Corinthians held utterly opposing views of prophecy and the Holy Spirit. The problem is that some people get their views more from Corinth than from Paul.

I think I have run out of time!

The Bishop in Europe (Rt Revd Geoffrey Rowell): I am quite exhausted after that tour d’horizon of the patristic world! I have been asked to speak both generally and also, more particularly, to touch on some of the concerns about Catholic understanding of order and also about some of the questions of symbolism. In St Luke VI we read that Jesus, after a night in prayer, called his disciples to him – the wider group of disciples – and from among them he chose 12 and named them ‘apostles’. The new Israel, like the old, is not a body without differentiation. These 12 men, symbolizing the new Israel, remembering the 12 tribes of the old Israel, are those who are designate-apostles, those sent out, sharing in a unique way the mission, the sending-out, of the Lord, the Son from the Father. In Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, care is taken to replace the traitor Judas by Matthias, who was to be ‘one of those who bore us company all the while the Lord Jesus was going about among us, from his baptism by John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of those must now join us as a witness to the resurrection’. In St Paul’s letter to the Philippians, the bishops – the episkopoi or overseers – are greeted along with the deacons, and in the pastoral epistles the qualities of an episkopos are listed: a virtuous life – Professor Thiselton has expounded on some of that – the husband of one wife, a good teacher, and, as J B Lightfoot noted (there perhaps coming together with Gore), the institution of the episcopate must be placed as far back as the closing years of the first century but having a root earlier (Rochester 2.2.10). For Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the first and the beginning of the second century the bishop is the focus of unity: let the bishop preside in place of God. It is the bishop who is the chief minister of the Eucharist, and the sacramental ministry of the bishop goes as part of the centre of the focus of unity.

In the second century, in the great conflict with Gnosticism, for Irenaeus the guarding of the faith is the responsibility of the bishops, whom the Apostles appointed to succeed them. As the ecumenical document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry notes, this succession was understood as serving, symbolizing and guarding the continuity of the apostolic faith and communion. As it has been put in a striking image that I have used here before, the bishops are knots in the net of the order of the Church for the purpose of safeguarding and handing on the faith, remembering how St Paul spoke to the Corinthians with reference to the Eucharist, ‘I handed on to you that which I also received’. That handing-on is the tradition of the Church, expressed in the creeds, shaped both by the confession of faith at baptism and conciliarly in the gathering together of bishops as at Nicaea or Constantinople. The bishop is teacher, but the bishop stands in succession to the Apostles; that is why he is a teacher, to hand on the apostolic faith, particularly in the example Irenaeus gives in Rome, but not only in Rome; and it is known names which are part of the guarantee of apostolic teaching. It is this tradition which Anglicans inherited as part of Catholic order and were very careful not to break at the Reformation. It is a tradition which has to be set, as the Roman Catholic response to the Rochester report underlines – and members will find that in GS Misc 807 with the various ecumenical responses that have come in, and I commend it to them – within the need for a Christian anthropology clearly rooted in Scripture and tradition while rejecting and moving on from any merely culture-bound discrimination against women in the past.

The Rochester report, in 5.2.11, notes that human sexual differentiation is part of the givenness of the human situation created by God, and Catholic teaching agrees that the maleness of Christ is Christologically significant (Rochester 5.2.15). The nuptial imagery of bridegroom and bride, rooted in Scripture, is important for understanding the sacramental representation of the priest and bishop. The Rochester report itself notes that there is a prior underlying question which has to be resolved before the ordination of women to the episcopate can properly be addressed, and I quote from 5.4.2, ‘namely the lack of a corporately accepted Christian anthropology, which might provide the necessary theological understanding of the relation of men and women in the redeemed community’. The Rochester report notes (2.7.9) ‘A bishop is called to be a sign and instrument of the apostolicity and catholicity of the local church in each diocese as part of the Church of England and the whole catholic Church worldwide’. If there is a dispute about who is a bishop or the authenticity of the bishop’s ministry, then the bishop cannot function in that way as a sign and instrument, as Church history and events in recent times make abundantly clear.

The House of Bishops’ 1994 paper Apostolicity and Succession makes it clear that the continuity of ministerial succession witnesses to the teaching and mission of the Apostles, and this continuity is integral to the continuity of the Church’s life as a whole (Rochester 2.7.10). In the order of the Church it is the bishop who is the chief sacramental minister, who ordains, who is the minister of confirmation and who is the one who, when present, presides at the Eucharist. As Ignatius writes to the Christians of Smyrna, ‘Let no-one do any of the things that have to do with the Church without the bishops, and let that be considered a proper Eucharist which is held under the bishop or someone authorized by him. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal Church. It is not permissible to baptize or to hold a love-feast or agape without the bishop, but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God so that everything you do may be secure and valid’.

The bishop is, therefore, in the order of the Church the fount of sacramental life, and if there is doubt about the bishop there is inevitably doubt about that sacramental life. As the Roman Catholic response to the Rochester report makes clear, assurance of the authenticity of the sacraments is of the esse, the being, of the Church in Catholic teaching, and the guarding of such sacramental assurance is a key responsibility of the bishop. Catholic Anglicans and, I believe, Anglicans more widely hold this to be true. Members will find more on that in Rochester at 5.5.25. Holy orders, let us remember, are not just matters of institutional convenience; they are gifts of Christ, received, not invented or altered.

The bishop, according to the Ordinal, has a special responsibility with his fellow bishops to maintain and further the unity of the Church. This maintenance of Christian unity is both within the Church in which the bishop ministers and, more widely and in a special way, with those Churches with whom the Church of England has always claimed to share the historic three-fold apostolic ministry. The bishop’s historic title of father-in-God reflects a tradition with ancient roots, which sees the bishop as being an icon of the Father. The Church stands within a symbolic system which takes up what we might call natural symbols and uses them to set forth Christian doctrine. The Lord himself taught us to call God Father. John Henry Newman as an Anglican used to speak of what he called ‘cumulative reasoning’, both in relation to faith in God and as the way in which the truths of the faith are known and maintained. Anglicans have always held to the three-fold cord of Scripture, tradition and reason, with Scripture as fundamental, so that nothing that is not clearly grounded in Scripture can be required for Anglicans to believe, and tradition as the Church’s reflection on that Scripture, with the early centuries of the Church and the teaching of the Fathers having a special place. In making decisions about episcopacy, we need to test those decisions against this Anglican inheritance and identity as well as against the ecumenical agreements into which we have already entered. We need also to be aware of the consequences of our actions in relation to unity, both within the Church of England and within the wider Christian world, particularly, I suggest, with the Churches who are the great Churches of East and West. We are to be concerned equally about the trustworthiness of the sacraments and of the historic Anglican appeal to Scripture, tradition and reason.

Revd Professor Frances Young: As you will all be aware, I am a member of a Church which, for various historical accidents, has turned out not to be episcopal in the UK. It is of course in the USA. In other words, it does not have bishops. However, that does not mean that we do not talk about oversight. The way in which the Methodist Church views oversight is in collegial ways, and I am very glad to hear from earlier speakers that that is how you like to think of it too. I have been asked to give a different perspective on the great tradition from the outline given in the report because, wearing my other hat, I am a professor who has specialized in early Church history; but this, I think, gives me a licence to be a bit of a gadfly. My question is: what sort of bishops?

Yes, I and the Methodist Church accept that there is ecumenical agreement, because of the depth of historic tradition, that three orders are appropriate: bishops, presbyters and deacons. However, I do think you need to be aware of the uncertainties of history. It is not clear that these three orders were differentiated absolutely clearly from other rôles in the early period; there are texts which say quite clearly that tithes and offerings supported bishops, presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, singers, doorkeepers, deaconesses, widows, virgins and orphans. Was the line between clergy and laity so clearly drawn as we imagine? The monarchical bishop over against the other clergy does not clearly emerge until the third century, even Rome, according to the latest scholarship. It is far too easy to read back later positions into the earlier evidence whose interpretation is disputed. The account given in this report oscillates back and forth over some 400 years and many different geographical areas. In view of current scholarship it seems likely that we need considerably more sophistication in distinguishing places and periods. Ignatius has been much quoted, but why does Ignatius protest so? Probably because it was not the case and he was proposing this as the solution to the problems in the Church of his day.

The more fundamental question I want to raise with these particular examples is the question about the hazards and the methodology of justifying a situation by reference to historical precedent. The terminology may remain, but reality has certainly changed over time. It is hardly possible, despite Reformation ideology, to recreate the past because the world has changed. In fact, a historian can easily demonstrate that Church order reflects the social order of the period when it emerged, and then it adapted and changed to accommodate other social orders while also getting fossilized into patterns from an earlier age. So I want to say a few words about the relationship between emerging Church order and the social order in which it developed.

Early Christianity was not a typical religious movement in the Graeco-Roman world. It had no temples, it had no sacrifices, it had no priests, and it was proud of it, as the second-century apologists demonstrate. So what were the societal analogies to the Church? Well, the terminology about Church officials points to the household. The Church met in households, and we must remember that a typical household would be about 50 persons, an extended family, clients, servants and slaves. The episkopos was the overseer, the steward of the household, and in the New Testament we find him called the oekonomos of God’s household, that is, the steward, the head slave or servant; diakonoi – deacons – are just the staff; and of course you have some men staff and some women staff and they have different jobs, do they not? They are the episkopos’s assistants. In fact, in the earliest texts we find an oscillation between familial and service vocabulary for the members of the Churches: they call each other brothers and sisters and so on, but there is also this language of overseer and assistants. So God’s household is administered by a steward, and the head steward would have considerable power in the ancient world; he could often use his master’s seal and hence Paul could claim to be the ‘slave’ of Christ, that is, the one who holds the power and the seal of his master.

This model would lend itself to development into a parallel with State organizations. The Civil Service in the Roman empire was called ‘Caesar’s household’. There was an analogy which was a complete cliché between the household and the State. The head of the household and the head of the State had many analogous positions and were treated in very similar ways. Both were monarchical. Ideally they should be nice, beneficent philosopher-kings, of course, but basically the whole model was hierarchical or, as some might prefer it, patriarchal. There is a deep connection between monotheism and monarchy in this historical conspectus. What kind of bishops when we have a democratic society? You should note that metropolitans and patriarchs were analogous to provincial governors. Even the word ‘diocese’ was originally a Roman imperial sub-division. The boundaries of jurisdiction followed imperial boundaries.

I have talked about bishops and deacons. What about presbyters? The bishops and deacons come from the household model and the consensus is, as in the report, that originally there was very little difference between presbyters and episkopoi, but the early texts do tend to discuss presbyters and bishops and deacons in different contexts, and in the New Testament as well. Presbyters may well come from another model or social analogy, that is, the synagogue, the organization of the Jewish community especially in the diaspora, the cities all round the Roman empire; they tended to have presbyters, elders, seniors, constituted as a synedrion (from which Sanhedrin comes), that is, a council that looks after community and trusts related to the town council on behalf of the Jewish community and so on. They would appoint an archisynagogos and attendants to administer the internal community affairs of the synagogue.

Let me give you some interesting quotes from Ignatius. Twice he says that the bishop presides in God’s place, the presbyters in the place of the synedrion of the Apostles, and the deacons are entrusted with the diakonia, the service of Christ. Later texts add to that that the deaconesses are to be honoured in the place of the Holy Spirit. How about that? The Trinity is reflected, therefore, in bishops, deacons and deaconesses, and the presbyters, who are the seniors, the elders, the ones with the long memories, the guardians of tradition, are an advisory council who labour in the word and doctrine; in other words, the presbyters, the senate if you like, embody apostolicity. (I told you I was going to be a gadfly.) The episkopos is the administrator.

So at city level the bishop naturally becomes the local manager of the house church and the deacons are his assistants. Administrators always acquire power. Had you not noticed that? As house churches multiply, the bishop becomes the focus of unity in the city and the general administrator. Then parallels with local municipal government start coming in, and so you get a clear distinction between officials and the plebs, between the clergy and the laity, and this too led to the bishop becoming equivalent to the head of a diocese: territory in the hinterland of the city which was determined by the imperial diocesan boundaries.

None of this was anything like religious organization in the Roman empire. Bishops in fact acquired unprecedented authority and power, and this has been noticed by classical scholars with no axe to grind. By analogy with a combination of the household, the school, the law court, polity, a burial club, and ethnic community institutions, the bishop acquired unprecedented power within the Church in the Graeco-Roman world. Christians regarded themselves as – were perhaps charged with being – a third race, not Jew, not Greek or Roman. They were analogous to a distinct nation with their own ethnic identity and organization, and so increasingly they assimilated themselves to the polity of Israel because of the Scriptures, and there were types of the bishops and deacons in the priests and the Levites or in Moses and Aaron; so Scripture increased this power of the bishop as the bishop accrued to himself charismatic authority which once was shared with prophets and martyrs and others, including presbyters. It all became concentrated in this monarchical figure who is seen as God’s representative and mediator, and the others as his delegates.

My general point here is to draw parallels with existing social models to show that there was adaptation and conflation; there is no single model which points to the emergence of the bishop. It took the massive changes that came with Constantine to transform the local church leader to the prince bishop of the Middle Ages. So what kind of bishop?

I see the orange light. I will simply leave it there. I should perhaps go back to where I began and say that maybe we are asking that you consider very seriously a collegial model of episkope.

Mr Peter Haddock (Southwark): I would like to ask the panel to what extent the Ordinal for the consecration of bishops affixed to the Prayer Book still has a rôle in the life of our Church, if that rôle might be expanded and whether, as an authoritative interpretation of our doctrine, it might be used as an interpretive tool when it comes to considering episcopacy and indeed our Church.

Revd Canon Dr Alan Hargrave (Ely): My question is about the authority of bishops, in particular in regard to their relationships with clergy. I am particularly thinking about the oath of canonical obedience, where clergy swear canonical obedience to the bishop. I would like to ask the panel what it actually means in practice, since it seems to me that the phrase ‘in all things lawful and honest’ for some people has come to mean something like ‘when it suits me’.

The Bishop in Europe: Mr Haddock asked about the on-going rôle of the Ordinal affixed to the Prayer Book for the consecration of bishops. Of course the Ordinal, along with the Book of Common Prayer, remains the standard of doctrine for the Church of England. In terms of the use of that Ordinal, yes, it could certainly be, and sometimes is still, used. On the other hand, we have tried in the revision of the Ordinal, on which the last Synod spent a considerable amount of time, following reports from the Liturgical Commission, to take up an understanding of ordination which is consonant with that which is in the Book of Common Prayer but which, like all the other Common Worship services, gives expression to our wider ecumenical agreements and understandings. So yes, it remains the standard of doctrine and it can certainly be used.

Oath of canonical obedience: what does it mean in practice? To take an oath of canonical obedience is to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the bishop. There is much talk, rightly, of the bishop-in-synod, and the bishop who has to exercise authority cannot exercise it arbitrarily. He exercises authority as the one who is – as I tried to say earlier – the focus of unity, the doctrinal teacher, and he therefore must require of those for whom he has responsibility for pastoral care that they too have a similar responsibility and accountability to him.

As we move into other expressions of accountability, through such things as ministerial review, that still focuses on the bishop’s pastoral charge and jurisdiction; it certainly does not mean ‘I am prepared to do it when I like’ but seems to be something about a loyalty to the order of the Church, and the order of the Church in its structure of ministry, in its sense of the diocese. So it is not a congregationalist ministry that we acknowledge, it is a diocese; while it is quite accurate to say that the diocese was originally a Roman unit of government, it is now a gathering together of a number of congregations under a bishop who has the oversight of that diocese. There will be times when you need actually to enforce something, but all ecclesiastical authority should be fundamentally pastoral and spiritual, and the oath of canonical obedience is set within that context.

The Bishop of Rochester: You may remember, Madam Chairman, as far as the reference to the Preface to the Ordinal is concerned, that I pointed out that this is the earliest testimony that the Reformers intended to continue what the Church had had throughout the ages in terms of models of ministry and that any arguments about developing the three-fold order must take account of this and not discard it. Second, on this question of oath of canonical obedience, I must say I wonder what people mean when they are saying it at an institution or ordination. I expect that they are sincere in what they say. There are two things just to note here. One is that Scripture itself teaches us that we should have respect for our leaders in the Lord, those who teach us the faith, who have brought us to faith, and should submit to them. That is certainly true, but then there is another point which has to be made and which may lie behind the question: there do come times when we have to put God before man and even before women. From time to time people will face that decision of conscience. Scripture must be the arbiter: how the apostolic teaching is received and passed on.

Mrs Sue Slater (Lincoln): Does the panel think that, in addition to their great historical and theological wisdom, we might benefit from more anthropological and sociological expertise, with particular knowledge of the removal of glass ceilings?

Professor Frances Young: You will have gathered from what I said initially that I think we cannot escape the fact that Church order very often reflects what is going on in society around. In fact, I would dare to suggest that not only the Methodist Conference but the General Synod, to some extent, reflects the kind of society and the way in which our societies work in this day and age, even though some would claim some possible precedent in the earliest forms of the Church. Given that that is the case, given that we have an incarnational faith in which we have to make sense of how we work within the given situation in which we live, I would think that what lies behind this question is absolutely right. Just as when the General Synod was established and constituted undoubtedly there were contemporary models influencing the way in which it was set up, so we need to consider very carefully all other aspects of the Church’s life within a different kind of society, and we also need to have some general understanding of human beings and how they relate to one another and how they do not relate exactly the same in different social circumstances, because society shapes us, and it shapes the language in which we operate and understand the way things work.

So on the whole I would endorse the idea that we need a wide variety of different ways of approaching questions of this sort though inevitably and, I think, rightly, given ecumenical agreements, we need to say yes, we have these historic three orders, and what we need to do is work out what sort of persons these are in our situation.

Professor Anthony Thiselton: I think, if I may say so, the Doctrine Commission reports sequentially – certainly the last three – have perhaps exemplified a way of answering that question, particularly on the last Doctrine Commission. I do not want to keep mentioning this, but I very much warmed to the Bishop of Salisbury’s point about how this is related to being human. Members may recall that the title of the last report was Being Human, and Bishop Stephen Sykes made quite sure that we had a psychologist, a sociologist of religion, people who represented the modern social sciences and humanities, as well as theologians. Nevertheless, the way in which the report is worded makes it quite clear that Scripture is the foundation, that Christian tradition and reason in the light of that gives a framework which means that the modern social sciences do not have a controlling influence. The way that I read the question was ‘Are the modern social sciences important?’. Yes indeed they are, but they are not decisive. Just to amplify that, the only problem about the phrase ‘glass ceiling’ is that if you want a really level playing field it is no good reducing the question that that might imply to ‘Were all the Apostles men?’ on one side or ‘This is simply an issue of justice’ on the other side. It is far more complex than that. Let the social sciences play their part, but let them play their part within the tradition of Christian and biblical wisdom.

Revd Canon Karen Gorham (Canterbury): There appears to be increasing pressure from parishes, networks, wanting to choose their own doctrinally compatible bishop. Has the Act of Synod and the introduction of PEVs set a precedent for a new understanding of episcopacy where the diocesan bishop’s rôle is no longer seen as an instrument of unity?

The Chairman: Would the Bishop of Rochester care to answer this question?

The Bishop of Rochester: Madam Chairman, I think you are choosing me for the difficult questions!

We need to begin by saying that what unites the Church is not the figure of the bishop, important as that may be; it is the faith of the Apostles. The bishop is there, as we have already heard from our panellists, to safeguard and transmit that faith and to make sure that it becomes intelligible in whatever context the Church finds itself. That is what keeps the Church together; bishops are only a means. Where bishops become as it were the end, that is where things go wrong with Churches: you get episcopal tyranny. I would say that what we need first of all is bishops and everyone else acknowledging the authority of the apostolic teaching, and then we will not have the sort of fragmentation that the questioner clearly fears.

The Bishop in Europe: I entirely agree with what the Bishop of Rochester has just said, and I think that what we need to do is to go back to the situation where the Church was not actually fully agreed in relation to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the way in which the recognition of different viewpoints on that was enshrined in the Measure that permitted the ordination of women to the priesthood. The Act of Synod and what followed from it was an attempt to preserve the unity of the Church; it was intended to preserve the unity of the Church of England; and although I recognize that people have different viewpoints on the extent to which it has indeed served that unity, I believe that, on balance, it has and that it actually points us to the need to have a proper agreement in the faith before we proceed to that which is likely to divide. That is the way I would want to respond to the particular question that is there.

Of course it is absolutely true, as Professor Young said in answer to an earlier question, that there is always sociological shaping and there is always a possibility of looking at these things in different ways from the sociological perspective. However, the Church also has to be critical of the culture in which it is set, and I think that the Act of Synod was intended as a pastoral response to a perceived need to maintain the unity of the Church. Without it I think there would be much greater division.

Canon Alan Cooper (Manchester): On a practical level, for our guidance in the next five years, is there anything which is non-negotiable in our understanding of what is a bishop?

Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford): When the Ordinal says that ‘it is evident to all … diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers’, is not the stress of the statement first on the fact that the patterns of our ministry should be derived from the way that we read Scripture and only second on the deduction that there are the orders which are mentioned? Is it not more important for Anglicans to go back to the Bible than to worry about admitting discontinuity and risking selling the pass, and would not that principle mean that if scholarship refines our understanding of the ministries which are expounded in Scripture then we are obliged to refine our patterns of ministry accordingly?

Professor Thiselton: I think that these two questions might be more closely linked than is immediately apparent because the notion which, among others, Hooker suggested about analogies between the apostolic task and the episcopal task is significant, and teaching and being a guardian of doctrine is absolutely vital. I mean, unless one is going to take the utterly unjustified view that the pastoral epistles are somehow a kind of drop down into institutionalism from the living fire of the earlier Pauline epistles, then it is quite clear that, as the Gospel begins to encounter false teaching, heresy, different ways of understanding the Gospel by quasi-autonomous congregations, you really do need both persons and mechanisms to ensure continuity of doctrine so that the Gospel is then identified as the Christian Gospel. Whatever the title that is given, whether they are called bishops or overseers, I should have thought that in New Testament terms that is a non-negotiable function. I do not sympathize with a certain mood in General Synod which says ‘Why do the bishops always have the last word about doctrine?’ because that is actually the job of bishops to do, and we need it.

That feeds in to Dr Hartley’s question because it has a scriptural foundation; clearly within that is the question of how important tradition is, and I would want to say, as I said slightly less forcefully in the previous question, yes, it has a very serious weight but here is perhaps one of the few cases where genuine conservatives find themselves taking risks. If actually you find that your interpretation of Scripture really needs a thorough reappraisal, this is where the fallibility of the Church comes in, because that was one of the things that the Reformers said about some of the current interpretations of Scripture in their own day. I remember lecturing in the United States at a very conservative seminary where many of them had a Calvinist theology, and I was asked to address them on the subject of the authority of Scripture. I could hardly believe my ears when somebody said, ‘You mean, if interpreting Scripture meant that I would have to compromise and change my Calvinist doctrine, could that be right?’ and I said ‘Yes’ and there was a sort of intake of breath because surely doctrine was more important than Scripture. No, it is not. Scripture is our foundation. Some of us may think that it is a marginal risk, but if we are honest that is part of the fallibility of the Church and we might need to go back to Scripture. However, as somebody has said, if the whole weight of tradition points in a certain direction it should not just take two or three mad professors to suggest that tradition is wrong.

Professor Frances Young: I do not think that I have a huge amount to add to that because one of the other points I was trying to make is that scholarship is a process of arguing about the evidence, and it is not very likely that we are suddenly going to have some new evidence which will completely overturn what we already have; but we still go on arguing about it, and the latest interpretation of some of the history and indeed Scripture is not necessarily the same as it was even in Lightfoot’s day, let alone Hooker’s day. So it is very difficult to suggest that everything should be based on current interpretations, if you like. What we need to respect is the kind of tradition that has worked over time but also recognizing that it constantly has to be revisited, constantly thought through, constantly understood, because time does not stand still and societies change and we are very different from the first disciples of Jesus in all kinds of ways; and what might have meant one thing in their society might mean something quite different in our society while essentially being true to the fundamental principle.

The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams): There are two elements in the classical theology of the episcopate which have been drawn to our attention in the presentations so far but which today may come into some tension with each other. There is a very strong tradition that the bishop is someone who convenes the Church all in one place - epitafto in Greek, drawing everyone together geographically. Then there is the element of the bishop as the central figure in – I choose my word advisedly – a web of congregations or worshipping communities. Those coincided for most of the cultural history of Christianity; it may be thought that they do not necessarily coincide now. I would be very pleased to hear the panel’s views on how essential in our theology of the episcopate is the geographical concept of episcopal authority, jurisdiction, the territorial definition of a diocese.

The Bishop of Rochester: I must have done something to offend you, Madam Chairman!

I was making a note about this earlier in another connection. Professor Young talked about the Graeco-Roman world and of course within the Roman empire, particularly in Asia Minor and in the West, the Church did assume a very territorial form and did borrow from the Roman empire, but that is not true, at that period or indeed later, for the Churches of the Syriac tradition, which has not been mentioned at all. I am very glad to see the Archbishop nodding at that, because if he did not I would be in trouble. Also we know of course from these islands that the Celtic tradition did not emphasize territory in the same way. So there are clearly models from earlier times about how you can authentically be the sort of network and webbed Church without abandoning territory altogether but not putting all your eggs into that particular basket.

The Bishop in Europe: We are creatures of time and of space and therefore there is an element necessarily of boundedness about anything that we are talking about in terms of how the Church has as a community in time and space organized itself. That does not necessarily mean, it would seem to me, that that boundedness is a very tight notion of territoriality such as has existed, as the Archbishop has indicated, in the past. In my own rôle as Bishop of the Diocese in Europe I often describe myself as bishop of a network diocese, yet when I crossed the border from Mongolia to China this summer I actually went out of my diocese! I just offer you that as an example. It also tells you some very curious things about an understanding of Europe. That network which is the Church of England diocese in Europe coexists with the historic Churches in Europe and the historic sees, so all that story about the Pope saying to a predecessor of mine, ‘I believe I’m in your diocese’, well, yes, in one sense, but I am in his diocese even though I had on my seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul II a notice saying that I was vescovo di Gibralterra e pro Europa e pro Roma. I do not think it was acknowledging that I was Bishop of Rome!

Mr John Higginbotham (Leicester): - 334. (I just have to check: I have reverted from being a Chalcedonian to a Constantinian - in less than six months!) Now that we have on record the comments, some critical, some conciliatory, of other Churches, what do you believe we need to learn from these comments and how should they influence the way ahead?

Mr Tim Allen (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich): Given that some Anglicans would find it difificult in conscience to be led by and subject to a woman bishop, would appropriate members of the panel please explain briefly, in the first instance, what sort of arrangements, if any, they would favour to safeguard such individuals and congregations and, second, having heard that, would another panel member say whether such arrangements would be likely to be satisfactory to those who have a problem of conscience in relation to women bishops and, if not, what alternative arrangements they would favour?

The Bishop of Rochester: In our work on the Rochester working party we had ecumenical participation. We had a Methodist member and a Roman Catholic member, and they were both very active. As members know, we also had more than 500 submissions of one kind or another, but we did have the Orthodox Churches and a bishop from the Orthodox who came to see us and talk to us at great length about their perspective. So the ecumenical perspectives were fed into our work in the course of it. Since then there have been some written responses. I have seen three – I hope that is all there have been – the Methodist response, the United Reformed Church response and the Roman Catholic. Each one has a particular value and the Methodist one has been greatly augmented by what Professor Young has said. We look forward to more. The Anglican Communion has also been consulted and will no doubt respond as well.

The Chairman: With regard to Mr Allen’s question, I am going to ask that we do not get into the detail of that question. I wonder if any panel member would like to make a general comment in response, without going into detail.

Professor Frances Young: Could I make it quite clear that nothing I have said today is the official position of the Methodist Church!

The Bishop in Europe: I am responding to Mr Allen’s question in the manner that has been suggested, that this is not a detailed comment. As a bishop who would align myself with those whose conscience would be troubled by women bishops, I have to say that what one would look for was, first of all, a proper theological discussion, such as I hope we are having now and will continue to have as we test whatever may be proposed. One would look for that testing to be something that took full account of ecumenical theological responses, particularly where those touched on ecumenical agreements that the Church of England or the Anglican Communion have entered into, so, for instance, the ARCIC agreement on ministry. Whatever arrangements were made, should we proceed to the consecration of women as bishops, would be, for those who were unable to accept it, something which was clearly structured and clearly safeguarded. There is a proper place always in Christians’ dealing with each other for a wise generosity, and that wise generosity is best served by some clear structures. It was T S Eliot who, I think, creatively reversed St Paul when he said that it is sometimes true that the spirit can kill but the letter gives life, not to the separating, dividing walls but actually to have a really clearly acknowledged boundary within which there can be proper relatedness.

The Bishop of Chichester (Rt Revd John Hind): I did not put down to speak but I was very provoked by what the Archbishop asked and the response that we had. I suspect that I would not be alone in wanting to hear what Professor Young might have to say in response to that and in relation to Connexionalism, because it seems to me that there is a huge meeting that we can have precisely round this area of what episcopacy means, if we actually think of it in relation to that particular tradition in your Church. I just wonder whether it would be a fair question to ask.

Professor Young: I did indicate at the very beginning of what I had to say that the Methodist Church is very much exercised by episkope, by oversight, and what that might mean within our own particular way of doing things, and even more so now because one of the big questions that the Church is facing is how we might take the historic episcopate into our system. Supposing that we were to agree that we would like to become part of the apostolic succession, who would we as it were consecrate or invite Churches in the historic episcopate to consecrate for us so that we became part of that historic succession in that kind of way? It is a very interesting discussion. At one level, our overseers are our superintendents, the ministers who lead a circuit. Take the circuit which I serve: there are 15 churches, there are four full-time ministers, there are one or two like myself who are not fully employed by the Church in that circuit, there is a huge team of what we call local preachers, who are lay, and the 15 churches have to be served by that group of people led by the superintendent; and of course the word is overseer.

At one level, therefore, the natural place for our episkope is our superintendent minister. On the other hand, we have chairs of districts who are a little bit more equivalent to your territorial bishops, though the poor old chair of the Birmingham district has to relate to five different diocesans which ain’t very easy! Then there is the question of things like ordination. In our tradition ordination is carried out by the Conference; that is the body which has the power of ordination and it is done in the name of the President or the President’s deputies on particular occasions and always happens at the annual Conference. If we take ordination as one of the major functions of a bishop, if we were to have bishops should it not be the President and those who ordain on behalf of the President who are initially consecrated as bishops? You see the kind of complex conversation we have got into. It raises questions about whether we are talking about particular functions within the connected network of Methodism – and we call ourselves a connexion, spelt with an ‘x’ by the way and not a ‘ct’; 18^th century spelling, I believe – and in this network, in this connexion, where we would specifically identify that rôle of episkope which would appropriately be consecrated if we took the historical episcopal succession into our system.

The Archdeacon of Tonbridge (Ven. Clive Mansell): I have a question. I am not sure what it is but I do know who has the answer. In his presentation, which I much enjoyed, Professor Thiselton had to jump a paragraph and gave a little hint that he would like to be asked about it. I think it was to do with Europe and something, and my curiosity says that I would like to know what he was going to say, and I think others might too.

Professor Thiselton: I think this was the issue that in the Act of Uniformity the Church of England’s not recognizing the validity of orders of clergy who were not episcopally ordained was not quite the same situation as on the continent where the attitude may have been rather different to those who were not episcopally ordained. It was simply an attempt to say that there was some blurring of edges about this issue and it is not quite straightforward.

I would then like to say something about the previous question, if I may. Just to add to what was said about connections and geography, there are times when people who are interested in theology are allowed to be pragmatic, and it seems to me that the relationship between bishops and citizen regions is entirely consonant with the way in which the New Testament Churches themselves were grouped round these great metropolitan centres. It would be disastrous to unweave the public presence which bishops in particular cities and areas have won over many years since (to go back to Hooker) that is in no way incompatible with the biblical doctrine of oversight. On the other hand, perhaps the emphasis which is a little bit in need of being renewed is the emphasis on collaboration among overseers across those regional boundaries. Had I had more time I would not simply have asked if Paul would have approved of independent diocesan elections, I think I would have asked if he would have approved of autonomous provinces. There are ways in which both reaching across the boundaries but also focusing on the population centres are both ways in which episcopacy has worked and needs to work.

Mrs Christina Rees (St Albans): Several members of the panel, and particularly the Bishop of Rochester, have spoken about Apostles and aspects of apostolic succession and how that relates to episkope. In the light of that, would he and any of the others like to comment on the tradition of seeing Mary Magdalene as an apostle to the Apostles?

The Bishop of Rochester: Well, yes, very early tradition describes her as an apostle to the Apostles because she was a witness of the Resurrection and took the news to the other Apostles. The Pontifical Biblical Commission – (to the signer: Now how are you going to sign that? Well done! Thank you very much.) – itself has described St Mary Magdalene as an apostle to the Apostles. However, she is not the only woman who is so described, whether in the New Testament itself or in early Church history; there are other examples. The question is what that means. The word ‘apostle’ means a number of different things. It can mean someone who is an eye-witness of the work and presence of Jesus, of his resurrection and so on, but it can also mean a messenger of the Church - people who are messengers are described in that way – so simply the use of the term apostle, whether in the New Testament or in the early Church, settles nothing.

Revd Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester): First, I am very grateful indeed to whoever was responsible for setting up this discussion because the nature of it - and the good nature of it - helps us all to learn. I am hugely grateful for that.

As I understood the contributions of the panel, it seems that theology and early Church history and all the rest of it is a good deal less totalitarian in its nature than was taught to me in theological college back in the 1960s. It seems that quite a number of arguments around this issue are based on that kind of totalitarian understanding of what truth means. My question is this. Since in modernist philosophy you shall know the truth and the truth will make you powerful, and in Christian philosophy you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free, in the light of that would the panellists categorize, on a scale of one to 10, with 10 as high, how far the gender of the bishop is of the esse of the episcope?

Ms Susan Cooper (London): We often hear about the importance of the bishop’s being a focus of unity, but no one person, no one bishop, can possibly embrace all qualities, all talents and all views. To what extent do the panel think that the individual who is the bishop is important against the range of qualities, talents and views that one would get out of a whole bench of bishops?

The Bishop in Europe: If I may take Canon Oliver’s point first, yes indeed there have been shifts in understanding in relation to the early Church; there may be continuing shifts in understanding; so one has to take note but proceed with a proper caution, learning from what has been brought to our attention, but equally doing that together, particularly with those with whom we share and have always claimed to share a common ministry. It is noteworthy that the Roman Catholic response to the Rochester report does not say, ‘Well, your orders are invalid and therefore we really don’t have anything to say’. It says ‘We understand that this is how you Anglicans have understood your orders, and we share a good deal of that understanding. Therefore these are our concerns’. In my speech to the amendment that I put in July to the last General Synod, when I urged the doing of this theological work before we actually moved to the taking forward of any preparation of legislation, I quoted Jim Puglisi from the Centro Pro Unione in Rome who had spoken to our own diocesan synod and who was really saying, ‘You know, if we are in a real but imperfect communion then we have to do things together’.

The question of gender goes back into that question of theological anthropology that I mentioned in what I said, that there is in a way a question behind the particular question that is being presented and that we need to do some wrestling with this, which is important for us all: the question of our Christian understanding of the human person, as the Bishop of Salisbury indicated in his intervention in the business debate, is something that touches so many different aspects, and we need to look at that very carefully. What you can say is that the consecration of women to the episcopate, whatever there may be in some pointers that there may have been perhaps women who exercised this particular ministry, compared with the great trajectory of Church tradition is something that is new and therefore needs to have a real degree of consensus behind it - I would want to say an ecumenical consensus – before it can serve as something which we ought to proceed with.

The other question was about the focus of unity. If I remember rightly it was the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document of the World Council of Churches that talked about ministry always being both personal, collegial and corporate. So there are different dimensions of ministry. The bishop has to call people into unity, witness to unity and serve unity. That can be extraordinarily costly when people are in conflicting situations between different viewpoints, between all the things of human sin. Reconciliation is something difficult. We do not always do it perfectly and we certainly cannot always do it on our own, but in the Ordinal that is what the bishop is called to do, to preserve that unity and to build up the unity of the Church.

Professor Thiselton: I would like just to address this issue about the sense in which a bishop may be thought of as a focus of unity from the standpoint here of the Crown Nominations Commission. The vacancy-in-see committees are extremely rigorous and careful in drawing up lists of qualities or a kind of vision for a particular diocese which, even though Lord Carey used to say, ‘Good heavens, they want the Archangel Gabriel’, nevertheless gives a very good feel of what kind of things would be divisive in a particular diocese. This sometimes leads to some agonizing and heartache because it may be that someone with a genuinely prophetic voice may not be the person who might bring unity to the diocese. However, I have always felt that, as a matter of theological seriousness in respecting the biblical witness and the tradition of the Church, the bishop has to be the focus of unity; and we have had a lot of discussion, really, about whether someone who might be regarded as ‘extreme’ but was otherwise holy, devout and possessed of many other qualities, whether that particular office might be appropriate in this or that specific diocese. The dioceses do spell out very well what kind of qualities would be grit in the oil rather than something which would genuinely promote what they are looking for in their chief pastor. In a way, therefore, the problem is more theoretical than practical, though I concede that it is not an easy one and might lead us to err on the side of blandness.

If I may say one other thing about this, one of the greatest privileges that came my way was to be on the group called Theological Education for the Anglican Communion on a sub-panel particularly relating to theological education and bishops in the Anglican Communion, and I can only say that there are very few parts of the Anglican Communion that have the sort of safeguards for looking down this list of qualities which Scripture and tradition say should apply to the appointment of the bishop and actually measuring them against possible names and against a diocesan profile.

So in practice there is a clearer answer than there might be in theory.

Revd Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester): What kind of bishop? That seems to be such an important question and there is such a variety of views around. Could I ask the panel to comment on the suggestion in the Roman Catholic response to the report that we need an agreed understanding on the nature of episcopacy within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion; on the other hand, the requirement stated in the Methodist response that a diversity of interpretations of the precise significance of the sign of episcopacy be accepted; and then thirdly the concern expressed in the Roman Catholic response that the range of views presented in Rochester may not be entirely consonant with what Anglican members of ARCIC I and II have agreed to in the statements on authority?

The Bishop of Rochester: I think that the Roman Catholic response is right, that we need an agreed understanding of the nature of episcopacy within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion; but I think we need to say, as I think we have said, that agreement on essentials can go hand in hand with discussion about aspects of episcopacy, the ways in which we have been enriched this afternoon by what Professor Young has been telling us. That in no way violates the essential understanding of episcopacy that the Church has.

The range of views set out in the Rochester report are by no means definitive. It is not something we necessarily believe; it is what different people have said and held, and it is only fair to set them out. The Anglican understanding of episcopacy is set out in the formularies and, as a long-standing member of ARCIC – I do not know if I still am, but perhaps I am – I believe that the Anglican formularies which set out our understanding of episcopacy are indeed compatible with the ARCIC agreements.

Professor Thiselton: Just as a brief postscript, Madam Chairman, to my earlier comment about the Anglican Communion, the panel on which I work, which is about nine people from provinces in Australia, New Zealand, Central Africa, East Africa and North America, has an amazingly common mind about the biblical and patristic basis of the qualities and office of a bishop. I have been enormously encouraged; I think that we are completely of one mind. We have now produced a grid of qualities and aspects of work, and there is not really any disagreement about views from all those diverse provinces.

The Chairman: I am now going to go to the panel members for two to three minutes of summing-up.

The Bishop in Europe: I have been very grateful for the opportunity to do this theological work. As I have pointed out, the motion which was passed by the previous Synod leading to the setting-up of the Rochester commission asked for a report on the theological issues that needed to be addressed before the debate on the consecration of women to the episcopate in the Church of England. I believe that that debate was partly here in this Synod but it was a much wider debate, and so I am very happy that we have had this. All the things that have been said have been welcome and important, and the questions have been very good.

If you want to look at other models of bishop, we had a reference to the Syriac tradition. Those of you who know me will know that I have a considerable interest in the Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox traditions, and I would like to see a proper response ecumenically from those traditions to the Rochester report put alongside the ones that have already come in from Methodists, URC and Roman Catholics.

All that we have been talking about touches on questions of ecclesiology, and if there is an underlying question about the theology of the human person that arises, so do questions about the nature of the Church which are wider than just this one particular issue. We will find from some of the oriental Churches other models of episcopacy: the Copts, for instance, have, like us, a bishop to the forces but also a bishop for education and a bishop for ecumenism, so there are examples that could be drawn on of different models. It is also worth noting that we have, in order for this Synod to safeguard the unity of the Church, to look to that model of coming to a common mind which is, we hope, under the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ. The World Council of Churches, for instance, has moved towards a consensus model of decision-making, partly because it needed to include the Orthodox Churches in what it decided and took forward. Professor Young said when the Synod was set up it adopted certain kinds of model and we may need to reflect on how we take decisions in these matters.

Finally, we cannot ignore, in the question of the unity of the Church, the way in which we are beginning to discuss questions of primacy which apply within the Anglican Communion and the tensions which there are there and the rôle of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but equally the discussions which would have seemed quite impossible to have, let us say, 50 or 60 years ago about some kind of primacy to be accorded to the Bishop of Rome, not thereby endorsing the particular pattern that is there but the fact that we are beginning (and not just Anglicans) to think in these terms. This therefore touches on these wider ecclesiological issues, and I hope that we can continue to pursue them and reflect on them deeply.

Professor Young: I would like to remind you of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant. One of the things that emerges from discussions of this kind is that both Churches need to be taking seriously the implications of that Covenant in terms of examining where they are and what they think about some of these fundamental issues. I have indicated that the Methodist Church is taking very seriously the invitation to take into its system the historic apostolic succession in some way or other. Conversely, the Methodist Church is saying to you that we are not going ahead with the Covenant unless you take very seriously the invitation to treat women as equals at every level of the Church’s life.

Professor Thiselton: I have been grateful to God and to the Synod for this wonderful discussion of biblical, patristic, Reformation and modern thought and life together, but in particular if I can go to my home ground of I Corinthians Paul puts chapters XI and XII before the chapter on love and then it is chapter XIV again, and XI, XII and XIV are all about orderedness and the guardianship of a Gospel that is trans-local, and all that is focused on. That is how we are enabled to love one another, because what those chapters are about is mutual respect for the otherness of the other. I think that this has been a wonderful demonstration of mutual respect.

The Bishop of Rochester: We have had a feast, as so many people have said, but just to sum up some of the most important things in our discussion, the first is that being a bishop has something to do with the Apostles. It has to do with the apostolic teaching but also a way of living the apostolic life. Second, it has to do with presidency in the community, not just among the presbyters but in the Church as a whole. Third, as Professor Thiselton has rightly reminded us, this is not done in isolation but in collaboration with other bishops and with other ministers and indeed with the whole Church, as the Council of Jerusalem reminds us. Bishop Geoffrey told us that bishops were like knots in the net of the Church, safeguarding and handing on the apostolic faith. I think this is right. This must be the primary way in which bishops are understood, and any unity must be unity in truth. I am very rarely disappointed in anything that Professor Thiselton says, but I have to confess to a certain disappointment at his description of how bishops are appointed in the Church of England; if that is primary, that should be a matter of concern for us. The assurance of the efficacy of sacraments was mentioned, and that is true: every bishop, wherever the bishop has jurisdiction, must make sure that the sacraments are duly administered; but in the end assurance comes from Christ himself who is the true source of the sacraments.

We have a living tradition; it is not just about archaeological evidence. Bishops are to be understood in the Church in terms of a living tradition. This tradition is understood by the process of reasoning, and of this tradition Scripture is the norm. If we ever want to ask what is authentically apostolic in the tradition, we refer to Scripture.

The Archbishop of Canterbury referred earlier to the web in which the bishop may find himself: those ways of understanding the office of bishop, along with the people rather than excessive emphasis on territory, is, I am sure, the future.

The Chairman: Thank you all. May we show our appreciation? (Applause) We are indeed very grateful to our four panellists for taking up the challenge to help us as a Synod to reflect on the rôle and meaning of episcopacy.

The Session was adjourned at 6.57 p.m.