Women and Episcopacy

- introduced by Jim Rushton

In the post-war era Anglican Evangelicals have given little attention to the subject of bishops per se, and consequently it appears, little thought as to whether such an office could be open to both genders. There was an Islington Conference on bishops that was generally regarded as deadly dull, but took place at a time when it was becoming feasible that Evangelicals would be appointed to such an office. Today we know that there are a number of bishops who would own the description of Evangelical, not least our own President!

Before answering the question posed, it is necessary to take a step back, for the subject bears directly on our theological understanding of both the ministry and ecclesiology. FWS has spent the last three years exploring the latter, reaching the conclusion that a connexional ecclesiology is more true to the N.T. than Independency. If that is our starting point, then it is a natural development that relationships between individual congregations, within a geographical area, would require some administrative pattern. The Presbytery is the means in Presbyterianism. The diocese, under Episcopal leadership, is the Anglican model. Anglican reformed defenders would argue that such a model is not contrary to Scripture.

We understand from the New Testament that ministry is exercised at different levels within the church. The Pastorals clearly describe both bishops/elders, and deacons. Ephesians 4 describes the gifts bequeathed by the risen Christ to His church. Whether apostles and prophets are still active is a matter of dispute; evangelists clearly still exist; and pastors and teachers are the equivalent of a settled ministry in a local congregation, i.e. bishops/elders. 1 Corinthians reveals another pattern of congregational ministries operating under an administration, surely exercised by bishops/elders.

The first question that must be addressed then is what ministry diocesan bishops exercise. Are they senior pastors and teachers, or are they in a diaconal role, administering relationships in a geographical area? There must at least four ways of looking at this. a) The way the Prayer Book describes their installation and responsibilities. The Consecration Service couldn’t be more explicit. All the readings relate to eldership passages, the Gospel readings, to our Lord’s commissioning of Peter, or of all the disciples. The fact that it is called a Consecration rather than an ordering implies that a bishop is entering wider responsibilities as an elder, rather than assuming a new order of ministry. b) A diocesan bishop’s role in co-ordinating relationships within a geographical area, must involve him in consultation with the fellow elders in that area. He is a senior among equals, but an equal nevertheless. c) If he has a major responsibility in exercising discipline, or resolving disputes, and in defending the apostolic faith, (as bishops most certainly have), then that could only be exercised within an eldership calling. d) If there is an international need for the churches in geographical areas to consult on issues affecting the churches, the diocesan bishops are the obvious people to be involved. There is precedent for it in the first centuries of Christianity. To engage in such a task is surely one of eldership. Thus there seems no reason to treat the gender issues relating to bishops any differently than those relating to priest/presbyters.

This said the arguments go back to those presented at the time of the debates over the Women Priests measure. If there is complementarity in the roles of men and women in the church, which calls for men to take authority in the proper ordering and pastoring of a local congregation, then the calling to wider authority within a diocese only goes to heighten the argument. To describe a diocesan bishop’s role as merely administrative is to demean his calling, and the sum of responsibilities that he carries, on behalf of the churches.

Jim Rushton 28/1/02