Forum Thread
Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to Bishop John Howe

Thanks, Mark. Yes, the questions you raise are very important indeed. How about choosing a title for a new thread to discuss those?

Thanks, Steve. Article 36 refers to The Ordinal. Looking forward to seeing you.

Thanks, Graham.  I've replied to your email. 

I'll sign off from this topic with one last comment and question, partly because I'm off to go gallivanting around York with my family and partly because I'm going to dig some more into the relevant literature. 

I didn't mean to imply that Griffith Thomas was contemplating two orders.  Clearly, he and Newbigin and others I've turned to for help with this question are upholding a threefold ministry, whatever else they may have contemplated, while opening the door to the kind of discussion that may prepare the soil for a Presbyterian-Anglican synthesis.  Several minds far sharper than mine have thought that that's a worthy pursuit.

So I'd enjoy hearing from others here on this ambiguity question, because article 39 to which you referred starts as follows, at least in my Canadian BCP: 'The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons . . .' 

For homework purposes, what books are they talking about, and where did the notion come in to distinguish the way they do?

Best,

Steve

Graham

It is good that various influences are now leading to some serious reflection on ecclesiology amongst evangelicals.

One consequence of this for evangelicals is to be clear about where authority lies (scripture usually being up there at the head, but pointing to divine authority in judgement as the ultimate source). But this does raise the question of the nature of a bishop's authority - not independent of scripture, but subordinate to it. And therefore of the Bishop's authority to discipline and exercise juridical functions (which is practically suggested to be absolute when it involves those who disagree with us, and irrelevant when we disagree with the bishop on grounds we consider to be scriptural).

So what authority does ordination confer, and to what do we submit (a) as ordained clergy; or (b) as members of the CofE? ie How does this authority/discipline play out in practice?

And where will evangelicals learn the history of the Church of England sufficiently well to engage constructively with its structures? I hope discussions like this will broaden awareness of the terms of debate beyond a self-perpetuating internal discourse.

Thanks, Steve.

1. It is good news that you have distanced yourself from Reform.

2. Conservative evangelicals do not like the designation 'open evangelical', so I am not surprised that John Richardson uses the word 'liberal', as does Richard Turnbull, for 'open'. I am happy with 'open' or 'central'  - interestingly, the new Covenant site in the USA

www.covenant-communion.com

uses the phrase 'evangelical-catholic', but that is especially because the word 'evangelical' in the USA has fundamentalist resonances.

3. Hooker's defence of episcopacy is not just based on expediency, but also on tradition - and as G K Chesterton once remarked, tradition is the democracy of the dead...

4. I don't want be appear evasive and thought I had been clear, but to avoid evasion let me state that as I see it:

(a) Anglican polity is not ambiguous about whether there are three orders or two orders - it has complete clarity that there are three orders. To deny this leaves us discussing in Humpty Dumpty language games that 'bishop means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

(b) Yes, of course, in ecumenical discussion episcopacy does raise problems with non-episcopal churches. The Methodists are contemplating 'taking episcopacy into their system', the Presbyterians are not. That does not mean we stop the discussions. Ecumenism is bigger than bishops, thank God.

(c) Yes, I do think episcopacy is essential to Anglicanism - and I mentioned that clearly yesterday. I think you misunderstand Griffith Thomas if you think he contemplated two orders rather than three.

Looking forward to your email.

Steve Griffin wrote: "Lambeth 1948, resolution 54, did not receive, unambiguously, CSI bishops priests and deacons as Anglican bishops priests and deacons, presumably because CSI stated explicitly that bishops are not of the esse of the church."

Was it not more a matter of the CSI not reordaining any ministers who had not been episcopally ordained? I am ancient enough to remember grubby cards at the back of some Anglo Catholic churches as late as the 60s saying in effect that because of its defective ministry, members of CSI would not be welcomed as communicants. We may think, from the perspective of 60 years later that CSI was actually prophetic in its approach to reconciling ministries, but in the ecclesiastical politics of the time, I think the ambiguity of which Steve writes was much more to do with the view many took of the status of the former non-Anglicans than with the theologogical position of CSI on the necessity or otherwise of bishops

Hello again, Graham,

The slightly frustrating part about this kind of conversation is that as the underdog asking for another look at Anglican polity I'm required to address your basic concern, which is I think to safeguard the tradition, while you're allowed to be somewhat selective regarding the points I make.  As things stand I'm not sure you've heard my basic concern.  But for now I'll assume that the problem is in the way I've put things. 

With my admission that my view may not fly in today's Anglican church you seize on the opportunity to score points against a network that I've already distanced myself from here.  I'm not even sure I can call myself a conservative evangelical (unless that still includes 'global evangelicals' like John Stott -- but I'm finding out that some of his views are too liberal for cons. evangelical friends).  Incidentally, I see that 'open' evangelical is now 'liberal' evangelical on J. Richardson's site.  I wish he'd said 'catholic' evangelical, which is more precise I think.   

I'm quite familiar with the relevant Hooker passages, for example, so to keep referring me to the Hooker-Travers discussion is somewhat beside the point.  Hooker's defence of episcopacy is based on expediency, on a received tradition which is permitted but most definitely not required for the church's identity, as it is with Gore and others.   

In short, I'm primarily an academic type who's trying to understand something, and quite frankly you come across as a traditionalist who's open in principle to ecumenical discussions about episcopacy but frankly evasive when it comes to:

(a) the possibility that Anglican polity may be ambiguous as it stands, and therefore

(b) that actually translating diocesan episcopacy to non-episcopal traditions may raise problems, given that you already recognize Methodist, Pres., Cong. pastors as bishops in the primary sense of the term (since you don't 'unchurch them').  

Before I put down my water pistol and potato gun and venture into private email contact, let me say, with respect, that my CSI example is not straw-clutching, but an example apropos of my point about the inherent ambiguity in Anglican polity.  It echoes, eg., the point made by Mark Bennett further down to the effect that 'locally adapted' episcopacy does not/has not dictated a threefold order, and in any case it follows directly from Griffith Thomas: 'until the church settles which of the two ['no bishop, no church', or bishops are not of the esse of the church] is correct, it is not possible for us to speak with a clear and certain voice on the subject of ministry' (Principles of Theology, 1930 ed., 333).  I take it you think we've settled that issue now that we say diocesan bishops are essential for Anglicanism. 

Best,

Steve

Thanks, Steve, for your comments.

1. I agree with you (a surprise?) - when you say (ah, there's the rub) that you now realise that your 'view of episcopacy may not be workable in the Anglican church as things stand.' 

2. Interestingly you are not alone amongst conservative evangelicals in your comment: 'Here I've gone merrily along with the assumption that underneath our threefold ministry there are really only two orders as such, deacons and elders'. 

3. The Presbyterian base of this particular conservative evangelical eccelsiology, we have seen, goes against the facts of the positions of Cranmer and Hooker - and I would add Charles Simeon. See the thread on Charles Simeon's legacy for today on TitusOneNine: 

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/7105/ 

4. Your extra added comment later on seems to me to be slightly clutching at CSI straws. The sheer gravitas of The 39 Articles - quite rightly delighted in by Reform - (see especially on this issue of the number of orders Article 36), The Ordinal, The  Book of Common Prayer , the whole Cranmer, Jewell, Hooker, Simeon tradition - as well as The Virginia Report and The Windsor Report - is not really worth spending energy on trying to upturn by insisting that the three orders really should be only two. CSI did not do so, so the straw you are clutching at perhaps breaks the Presbyterian based back...

5. Having ecumencial conversations about the significance of episcopacy is fine and appropriate.

6. On a personal note, I hope you will continue to enjoy worshipping in the Church of England, rather than finding your home in a Presbyterian church. It would be good to meet up - I'll send an email.

I only saw draft one of what you wrote, Graham, when I responded, so I'd like to comment on your addition in draft 2: that CSI is interesting, etc. 

Lambeth 1948, resolution 54, did not receive, unambiguously, CSI bishops priests and deacons as Anglican bishops priests and deacons, presumably because CSI stated explicitly that bishops are not of the esse of the church.  But since CSI is a member of the Anglican Communion (as far as I know), we'd have to say that there is within our tradition an impulse along the lines I've suggested, and that a certain ambiguity remains.  Further, if Reform or anyone else fails to get their proposal for an Anglican-presbyterian synthesis across it's not necessarily because of an inherent flaw in that urge.  Even if the tradition has received Cranmer's view, as you've quote it, in such a way as to drive a wedge of sorts between presbyters and bishops, there still may be sound reasons why the tradition should be revisited.  You've pointed out, rightly, why anyone who tries that will have a battle on their hands.  But if diocesan episcopacy developed as a matter of expediency, and at some point its expediency comes into question, is the tradition not something we're allowed to revisit?  I've put forth an argument that on ecumenical grounds a presbyterian-anglican synthesis might be promising.  Do you think that might be something worth considering?   

I should thank you, Graham, for clarifying things.  My view of episcopacy may not be workable in the Anglican church as things stand. 

Here I've gone merrily along with the assumption that underneath our threefold ministry there are really only two orders as such, deacons and elders; that there are perhaps some good reasons why it ought to be that way, given efforts and insights of Ussher, Calvin, TF Torrance and others; and that the renewal of the episcopacy that some are calling for might be based in part on such insights.  But maybe my better home base in the long run, as you suggest, is a Presbyterian fellowship.

Thanks, Steve.

1. In The Ordinal's  - note the name - liturgy for bishops, the 'or' in 'Ordination or Consecration' does not refer to different services for different sorts of people, but to different names for the same service ie we can call it Ordination or Consecration. Calling it Consecration does not in any way, that is historically and academically recognised, mean that bishops are not ordained to a third order. It seems to me that your Presbyterian hopes of reducing the Ordinal to only two orders are as accurate historically as Newman's flawed reinterpretation of the 39 Articles in his famous Tract 90!

I am on the Liturgical Commission, and was on the Common Worship Ordinal subcommittee drafting group, and, as Mark Bennet has pointed out, we made sure that the Common Worship title referred to 'Ordination and Consecration of Bishops' because of this very 'presbyterian-based conservative evangelical' misapprehension.

2. Note also Cranmer's preface to The Ordinal. Now from our perspective of New Testament and early church evidence it is overstated, but undoubtedly it is evidence of his view that there are three orders, and Anglicanism has clearly followed that view ever since. 

'It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministry in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons.'

You, or Reform or others may wish to change that - and Reform tried to  argue the case for only two orders in the revision committee of the Common Worship Ordinal, to no avail - but that is, as I said, revisiting the Walter Travers and Richard Hooker discussion, and it is clear whom Anglicans follow. 

3. Evangelicals in Africa have a high view of the importance of episcopacy, so perhaps part of the 'listening' to our partners in mission in Africa (encouraged by CEEC) will help presbyterian-based conservative evangelicals to value it too...Interestingly, the former chair of CEEC, Paul Gardner, has left the Anglican Communion and joined the Presbyterian Church in the USA.

 4. The Church of South India is very interesting but they clearly do still have three orders.

5. Bishops are still priests/presbyters and are also deacons, and of course are still part of the people of God. This may be obvious but it is worth emphasising.  

Apologies for two very similar posts.  I had assumed that the first went astray, since I couldn't find it under 'my posts'. 

Reflections on some material posted earlier, which I am catching up on after a break.

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral refers to "the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church" - a formulation adopted by the Lambeth Conference of 1888. This does not refer, as some have suggested, to the necessity of a threefold order, or to the necessity of a personal episcopate (at least on my reading) - so many of us are open to recognising the orders of our Methodist colleagues even though, in England, there is (on my understanding) a collegiate episcopate.

I have been reading the Study Edition of the Common Worship Ordination Services, which declares that the service for Bishops is to be called 'Ordination and Consecration' on the basis (p123) that having 'Ordination or Consecration' might imply "alternative understandings of the same event, rather than merely alternative names for it".