The
Optional Bishop
Some
Pastoral Thoughts Regarding Apostolic Succession and the Historic Episcopate
by
Father Tom Reeves
Recently, I attended a clergy day in our
Diocese. At one point during the day, I
had a nice discussion and time of prayer with two other priests. One of the Priests had recently graduated
from a well-known Evangelical Seminary in Colorado.
As we discussed our lives, I turned to this newly
ordained priest and asked him "So, what brought you in connection with
Anglicanism"? It seemed evident to
me that this young man had a gentle and sincere spirit, and genuine love for
the Lord and people. As he began to
explain his journey, he referenced his first interaction with our Bishop.
His response was not surprising. This pastor called our Bishop as a first step
to inquire about entrance into the Anglican Church and what it would entail. He had called our Diocesan headquarters
because he was interested in planting a church in our state, and thought he
would just have some things mailed to him or explained to him by the
staff. As is often the case, the Bishop
was in his office and was glad to speak to the young man. This was a shock to the caller, who in no way
had prepared himself to talk to the Bishop directly.
As an outsider to Anglicanism, this person's cultural
view assumed a Bishop as someone who is somber, austere, and given over to power. Instead, he found our Bishop engaging,
welcoming and informative. He is now in
an internship program toward the priesthood at one of our larger churches. What will he be taught about the historic
episcopate?
In another encounter on the same day, I was talking
with a seasoned Episcopal priest. As he
related his story and the process his church took in leaving the Episcopal
Church, he mentioned to me that he did not believe that Apostolic succession
was scriptural. In addition, he did not
see the Episcopate as historically necessary. This sentiment by clergy in the ACNA is
becoming a constant.
I too was an ordinand coming from outside the
Anglican Tradition. During a discussion
with one of my Anglican professors, I was informed by him that "Apostolic succession is just a
tradition, and most scholars today (within the discipline of Biblical Theology)
believe the Bible teaches elder rule" (similar to Presbyterian Polity).
So, is Apostolic Succession and the historic
episcopate just one "style" of leading and organizing a church? Is it optional?
A Fresh Approach to Anglicanism?
What I have discovered since entering the ACNA in
2008, is that many ACNA clergy see Apostolic Succession as an optional
tradition and/or a necessary evil[1]. Most evangelical clergy (no matter what
"denomination" they find themselves), usually use the word
"tradition" in a pejorative sense.
The irony, though, is that by taking a low view of history and
tradition, these pastors are relying on and contributing to another set tradition;
a tradition that marginalizes tradition.
When we allow ourselves to think
in this manner, we reveal an undeveloped understanding of Anglicanism at its
core - or worse - a denial of the relationship between the Word, the Holy
Spirit, and tradition.
One of the negative marks of American Evangelical
pietism is the belief that there is one, right, scriptural way to do just about
anything. The Bible in this way of
thinking becomes a manual by which we are to put our Christianity into
practice. However, I submit that this
approach is not only hermeneutically flawed, but also does injustice to the
contexts and cultures in which the Old and New Testaments were penned (the
writers were not post-Enlightenment Modernists or Post-Modernists). In addition, this approach does not embrace
the complexities of taking truth formed in one culture and applying it to
another.
In this way of thinking, applications from scripture
become wooden or formulaic. There are
clear demarcations between the right way, and the wrong way; the good guys, and
the bad guys; my people, and your people.
A characteristic of this church culture is the continual search for the
ever elusive "real church" or
the "pure church". It is in this milieu then, that a search for
the "one right ecclesiology" makes perfect sense.
In so much of American Anglicanism it is my
cross-references versus your cross-references; the book you just read, versus
the book I just read; my experiences
verses your experiences; my favorite theologian, against yours. This sets the stage for sectarian and
polarized communal relationships that have little room for shared critical
thinking, honest discussions regarding truth, or an appreciation of our need of
the "push-back" from other views.
In other words, instead of a healthy grounded community, an insecure and
defensive "group-think" evolves.
The reality is that our personal beliefs and
experiences do not in and of themselves create lasting, authoritative
truth. Because we are created and human,
we all interpret the scriptures with an informing tradition directing us as a tutor
would a student. We can deny this, but
it doesn't make it any less true. No
matter what flavor of Christianity that we claim to be a part of, all developed
theology, exegesis, confessions, and creeds are TRADITION by the very
definition of the term.
When we seek to explain scripture, organize it, and
then disseminate it in any fashion (beyond just reading it outright in our
assemblies and letting the reader decide how it strikes them), we are giving
them a form of tradition. So is
Apostolic Succession tradition? Yes, and so is ANY form of ecclesiastical rule, revision, or
application.
In I Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul reveals some tradition
handed down to him as an Apostle:
It
Is Traditional to have Tradition
It should come as no shock to us that like the
church fathers and the reformers, we too are children of our age and cultures (familial, local, regional, national). From the day that we are born, we breathe-in
and drink- in assumptions about life, living, philosophy, politics and
truth. Many of our presumptions will
need to be shaped or abandoned as we grow in our understanding of the Gospel
and the Kingdom of God. We will also need
assistance in Gospel and Kingdom applications and living.
Anglicans
have always believed that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification (in the
Covenantal Community and in individual lives) is a process that is continued
until the consummation and glorification of Christ's church. We learn and seek our God through Word and
Spirit, but we see ourselves grounded and informed by the church fathers that
have gone before us. This historic and
universal church (i.e., catholic church) has handed down a historic and core
tradition in a particular historic context.
However, it seems to this writer, that many
Anglicans take the central content of the historic traditions while leaving
their context. Thus, the complexities
and processes involved in developing our ecumenical
New Testament Cannon go unnoticed; the importance of a unified (but imperfect)
church in their development goes unnoticed; the importance of the spiritual
authority of the Bishops in the development of the Cannon goes unnoticed. We will give lip service to the Apostle's, Nicene,
and Athanasian Creeds, and we are glad to have them as our historical
documents; however, we care little for
the historic understandings and contexts in which these important and central
truths were formulated.
As most Americans , we are constantly tempted to be
pragmatic while being a-historical and
anti-intellectual. We, thus, are
tempted to value our lives and ministries based on their perceived production
value. In addition, we live in a
democracy that sees government rule distributed by a representative form of
government[2],
yet, somehow, we are certain that this governing reality has no influence on
the way we interpret scripture.
How have we decided that we are untouched by the
blatant capitulation in our culture regarding individual reason and our ability
to find truth on our own in isolation from others in community? Why are we constantly condescending towards a
faithful historic belief system informed by the faithful people of the past? Why do we act as if our perceptions are so
accurate that we have no need to consider the beliefs of those on the opposite
side of an issue? Why do we pick one
small part of church history and "pitch our tent" there, while
ignoring the rest of God's faithful work among his people in every age?
The
Unity of American Anglicans
Instead of a real unity around a few, core, and shared
beliefs that define our Anglicanism, we seem to be encouraging an undefined Anglicanism
in the spirit of the "free-church"[3] so
prominent among us[4]. I submit that if Anglicanism means anything Anglicans do or say, then being
Anglican means nothing. And if being Anglican means nothing, then being Anglican means anything.
The American Anglican Church is NOT a
"free-church". Many Anglicans claim the Ecumenical Creeds, but not that whole "Baptism
for the forgiveness of sins" idea.
We say we accept the liturgy in our 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but seem
unaware at times of the theology behind its sacramental statements. We say we subscribe
to the Thirty-nine Articles, but clarity regarding what this means in ecclesial
application remains elusive. Anglican practice reveals multiple groups
doing what is "right in its own eyes" and the silence on these issues
is deafening.
So, what would it look like if we were NOT being
Anglican? The phrase "Anglican
Tradition" gets tossed around in the world-wide Anglican Communion. But what does "Anglican Tradition"
even mean? Can it be defined? Do we actually believe an undefined
Anglicanism will stand the test of time; an Anglicanism that positions itself as
the caretakers of everyone's optional theology, confessions, and creeds? This makes no scriptural or historic sense.
In the "free-church" way of thinking:
·
Liturgy is a style, is emergent, is cool,
but is optional. Also, the theology
contained in the liturgy is not necessarily instructive theologically.
·
We keep the Sacraments, but don't mind
adding a few sacramental rites of our own along with them. The problem with this approach, is that only
the Lord Jesus Christ has the freedom to create a sacrament for his church.[5]
·
Apostolic Succession is an optional belief,
but it is what many of us in the ACNA were reared in. Why we keep it as our ecclesiology may be
more related to the difficulties in changing it, than our passionate belief
that it should remain.
So, does Apostolic Succession have Scriptural
support? Yes! But I submit that the ecclesiology that we find in the New
Testament is a "primitive" and "developing" form of a later
and specific ecclesiology due to the
different needs and the changing size of Christ's Church[6].
In the scriptures, however, we see the
beginnings and foundations for this later development and rule.
·
We see the authority and leadership of
the Apostles while they were on earth, tasked by Christ to be his
representatives of forgiveness in the absolution of sin, the power and
authority over the evil one (and his forces), and the laying on hands as a sign
of approved ministry and power in the Church.
·
We see the early church prioritizing the
writings of the Apostles above all others in putting together the Cannon.
·
When unique problems face the church in
the book of Acts (as the new church transitioned from the Mosaic Covenant to
the New Covenant) we see an early, basic, and less-encumbered council in
Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts
15. The later official councils of the
historic church established and clarified the importance of the incarnation,
the Trinity, and ratified an established Cannon of Scripture (among other
things). These were all led by Bishops
that saw themselves having their authority and beliefs coming directly from the
Apostles themselves through the laying on of hands[7].
·
We see the laying on of hands
established, from Apostle to under-ministers who then serve in ministry with,
and under the authority of the Apostles.
·
We see in the earliest writings of the
church an acceptance and an assumption of Episcopal rule, especially important
for the combating of heresy.
·
As with the Apostles, most of the
earliest Bishops on record were martyred for their faith in Christ[8],
lived out the Gospel, and relied on Apostolic teaching and tradition. The tradition during the early Christian
centuries was disseminated through
combined written fragments of the New Testament and the communal oral tradition
of the day.
What many of us misunderstand, is that when we
decide that tradition plays no role in the formation of our Christian faith, we
also philosophically rule out a
reliable, historic New Testament Cannon as Scripture. So in
essence, many American Christians choose to accept the Cannon of the New
Testament from the same communities who gave them the very notions of Apostolic
Succession and Episcopal Oversight. Is
this consistent?
The Cannon of Scripture was developed through the
working of the Holy Spirit in the Historic Community through TRADITION. In accepting the New Testament Cannon, we
choose to trust God's way of moving, leading, and protecting his communal
people throughout their history. We
believe that we are also following the teaching of the Apostles and that we
live under the authority given to them
through Christ as we engage the world, the flesh, and the devil. We believe the same Holy Spirit leads and
directs us, and that in the end we are completely reliant on our covenant
making and life-giving Lord.
How long did it take for the New Testament to be
gathered and recognized ecumenically as authoritative? If we take the writing of Athanasius (A
BISHOP) in his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) as the essential close of the New Testament Cannon,
the answer is three hundred and sixty-seven years[9].
Most Christians believe that the collection and
approval of what was later deemed "divinely inspired literature" was worked
out by the leading and the protecting of the Holy Spirit locally, regionally,
and ecumenically. Multiple manuscripts,
moving throughout the church had to be read, considered and decided on. A fragmented and disunified church would not
have been able complete such a task. A
Church with courageous, Spirit-led, authoritative (and flawed) Bishops
did. In other words, the Holy Scriptures
are only available to "free-church" Christians because of a unified
church under a developing Episcopal rule.[10]
Our
American Influences
In their hermeneutics, many American Christians are
nothing more than a less-extreme version of Joseph Smith, the founder of
Mormonism[11]. Individually, Smith had multiple visions, was
visited by God the Father and Jesus, and was given the book of Mormon through
golden plates he could never produce.[12]
Sounds crazy when we read it, but Joseph Smith sold
it to a lot of Americans, and there is a still a Mormon Church existing and
thriving today. There are some Christian
Ecumenists now claiming that Mormonism is a legitimate form of
Christianity. As a movement, Mormonism
is impressive and has done much cultural good.
So why is their reading of the Bible not one of our considered choices? What makes our opinions about scripture better
than theirs?
An Anglican Province bent on mission removed from
theological and historical depth will produce a weak church. Ignoring healthy intellectual dialogue
regarding our very core definitions, hinders a truly lasting unity or church. We are called to discern and to encourage the
Spiritual gifts of discernment and a culture that "tests the Spirits
whether they be of God". The Lord
has called his bishops and clergy to "rightly divide the Word of
God". The honest engagement and
significance of historical, cultural, and scriptural context is central to our
life and future as Anglicans.
This means that theological dialogue and development
must be present and a part of our communal trust. Unlike the church fathers and communities
responsible for the collecting and developing of our Scriptural Cannon, our
Ecumenical Creeds, and our theology of Church and Mission, many seem to want an
undefined core of Anglicanism.
But in the end, are we building a
foundation for our Province that will last if we take this route? If we are going to ignore the teachings of
the Early Church and the Reformers on such things, then we reveal we don't know
our own history. One only needs to look
at the very beginnings of the Global Anglican Communion in the late 1800's to
see where mission work without a grounded theology, clarity in core
definitions, and authoritative oversight leads us[13].
What we "experience" or "feel the
Spirit is doing" , does not a lasting or authoritative interpretation
make. Testing and discerning takes time,
involves trust, requires lasting and developed relationships, submits to
communal authority, and regularly engages historic Christian precedence in
handling and teaching the Word of God.
This is why Anglicans hold the Creeds and the theology taught in our
liturgy in such high regard. Without it
we believe that we would soon go off the rails of historic Christianity. But if we don't have some clearly defined, shared,
core beliefs, how can we hold one another accountable?
This writer submits that there is no lasting
Anglican definition that lays aside the Scriptural foundations and faithful
development of an Apostolic Episcopate.
Our uniqueness lies in the fact that our ecclesiology is both Apostolic
and Reformational. This distinctive should be taught and
clarified as essential no matter the disunity or disenfranchising we fear in
our province.
I believe Anglicanism is something, but without Apostolic Succession and the Historic
Episcopate, I submit that Anglicanism is truly a disposable "container"
that will not stand the test of time.
[1]
This has also been my experience in regards to other core Anglican
distinctives. There seems to be an
ambivalence regarding the unique and special working of the Christ in his
sacraments, and a general disinterest in the context and theology of the
Bishops that shaped our ecumenical
creeds. It at times seems that we assume
our beliefs (without a deeper knowledge and context) will endure without us
knowing why they should. If true it reveals at best historical myopia,
or at worse an irresponsible denial of the structures of human cultural
processes.
[2] A
Democratic Republic
[3]
Being defined here as a church tradition that has no requirements of its
parishes in regards to the order and content of their weekly gathered worship
services. As the ACNA develops its own
prayer-book, it is unclear what minimums are now (or will be) required for a
parish or diocese in regards to the liturgical use of the Book of Common
Prayer. While we decide on such things,
and their authoritative application, what kind of liturgical structures and
thinking will already have taken root?
[4] Is
it wisdom that we are embracing when we engage in ministry and friendship with
Free-church Evangelicals without a clear sense of when we are being
"Anglican" or when we are not?
Without this clarity, do we think that we will avoid being influenced by
their theologies, ecclesiologies and their cultures? Is a core Anglicanism worth retaining?
[5] I
submit that positioning a scripted "sinners prayer" as our one time act of conversion, is
taught nowhere in scripture and detracts from the reality that only God is the
giver of a lasting faith. We are called
to repent, believe and be baptized. Whether a believing faith is brought to
Baptism, or confirmed later on, Baptism is Christ's one-time initiation
sacrament of conversion, entrance into the New Covenant, and membership into
Christ's "One Holy and Catholic Church". NO ONE has the right to put themselves as
equal to his lordship as if they have a better solution. Some ACNA churches are even positioning
infant baptism and baby dedication as equal in ceremony, are re-baptizing Roman
Catholics, and are encouraging Jewish
religious ceremonies (A "Mikvah for the forgiveness of sins") to be
practiced alongside and in conjunction with Christian Baptism. There are reasons and beliefs behind WHY
clergy see these kinds of actions as allowable.
[6]
This is why in my estimation talking about a "Biblical Ecclesiology",
as if we are interpreting a magic book that fell into our laps outside of time
and space, is self-defeating. Like the
doctrine of infant Baptism we have just as much silence in the Scriptures as we
do content. Every ecclesiastical form is
filling in the gaps where the
Scriptures leave room. In essence then,
we are reliant on a tradition to help us organize our thinking. Would not the best starting place then be in
the earliest historical records of the Apostolic Church?
[7]
no, the councils were not always right, and sometimes got things wrong. However, this is in keeping with any form of
human involvement , blindness and finiteness.
[8] As
Father Tom Hopko once taught, this puts a completely different spin on I
Timothy 3:1 - "He that desires to be a Bishop, desires a good thing".
[9] In
the West the cannon was Ecumenically confirmed at the Council of Carthage in
397, and this cannon was held until the upheaval of the Reformation.
[10]
It is humorous to think of the current decentralized Protestant Church
organizing and developing a "cannon" of scripture. One can easily envision multiple Cannons
endlessly floating around with no end in sight, and no central authority to
unify and make needed and final decisions.
[11]
Or the sundry of other sect groups that are popping up especially during this
time in American History.
[12]
Although, later witnesses swore in statements that Joseph had showed them the
plates.
[13]
Mark Chapman has a good discussion of this in his book, Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction where he with chapter 6
lays out the formation of the Anglican Communion, and in chapter 7 revealing
where it has led us.
No comments:
Post a Comment