" Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent the bishop." Ignatius of Antioch.
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch. He was, with Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John. It's for this reason that a young evangelical seminarian named Ricky McCarl sat up in his seat and heeded the words, "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be..." Now you can dismiss this, mock it, and even reject it outright, but Ignatius took the episcopacy seriously and maybe we should too.
As an evangelical I had grown weary of being my own Pope. Something that Luther cautioned against in taking the reformation to far. I hungered for authority outside of myself and my own subjective feelings and interpretations of the bible. I needed something more concrete and authoritative then the common, "God is telling me...." mantra. I found it in Ignatius.
In Anglicanism there are three views of the episcopacy. The 3 Esses.
1. The Esse
2. The Plene Esse
3. The Bene Esse
These views make up the way in which Anglicans of various different churchmanships understand the nature of not only the episcopacy, but the church herself.
We will start on the low end and work our way up. The bene esse view would be the view of the low churchmen. It is the idea that the episcopacy doesn't make a church a church, it's not the essence of a church, but it does benefit the church. Thus the Bene in bene esse.
Those who hold this view would have no issue seeing communions without the episcopacy as being churches in the fullest sense of the word. They would consider Presbyterian polity and or congregational polity as being equal to Episcopal polity.
I doubt Ignatius would agree!
The next view is the plene esse view. Anglicans who hold this view might concede that Churches lacking the episcopacy are valid churches, but that they are lacking something crucial to what makes the church a church. In this view the episcopacy is the fullness of the church. So if your church doesn't have a bishop it's still a church, but not in the same way that an Episcopal Church (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican) is. Other forms of polity are not equal to Episcopal polity.
Then you have the Esse view. Essentially this means that the episcopacy is the esse of the church. In other words no bishop, no church. Now most people who hold to this view might still consider evangelicals Christian's, but they wouldn't consider their churches to be churches. Nor would they consider their sacraments to be sacraments. With the exception of baptism. Even the staunchest catholic would see the staunchest baptist's baptism as valid if done in the triune name.
Each of these views are, in my opinion, within the bounds of Anglican orthodoxy. Though, they are not all correct. It is my estimation, based upon scripture, reason and the great tradition of the church, that the episcopacy is at the very least the plene esse of the church, if not the esse. Wherever the bishop is there let the people be!
The episcopacy is a gift from God. Christ appointed the 12, the 12 appointed bishops and bishops appointed presbyters and deacons (Titus 1:5). Through the laying on of hands apostolic authority is passed down from the apostles to the bishops and it is through these bishops that the Holy Spirit guides the church.
Now this of course raises the interesting question of what we are to do with apostate and faithless bishops. The church is to depose them! While the laying on of hands is important to the transmission of apostolic authority it isnt a mechanical process. A bishop must also maintain the deposit of faith once delievered by the apostles in order to validly exercise his apostolic office. A faithless bishop is no bishop at all.
This is why I argue that despite having the name "Anglican" the Episcopal church has ceased being an Anglican church due to their departure from the christian faith. Their diocesan bishoprics are vacant despite the women who claim them.
But the existence of faithless bishops doesn't undermine the validity or importance of valid episcopacy. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be. If a bishop proves to be godless, then a godly bishop should be sought out. This is what Anglican realignment is. Godly Christians, following godly bishops, out of a godless and apostate communion.
But there must be a bishop. Churches that leave their bishop with nowhere to go cut themselves off from the rest of the body in the same way that a faithless bishop does by departing from orthodoxy. In an effort to be faithful they end up being unfaithful to the order that God has gifted us. This leads down dangerous and uncertain paths. One of the main reasons, in my humble opinion, that modern evangelicalism is so frustratingly confused.
Thus every man becomes his own bishop, his own Pope. Interpreting scripture for himself and in accordance with every whim of his feelings and emotions. Submission to a godly bishop keeps us safe from all of that.
So... "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Each of these views are, in my opinion, within the bounds of Anglican orthodoxy. Though, they are not all correct. It is my estimation, based upon scripture, reason and the great tradition of the church, that the episcopacy is at the very least the plene esse of the church, if not the esse. Wherever the bishop is there let the people be!
The episcopacy is a gift from God. Christ appointed the 12, the 12 appointed bishops and bishops appointed presbyters and deacons (Titus 1:5). Through the laying on of hands apostolic authority is passed down from the apostles to the bishops and it is through these bishops that the Holy Spirit guides the church.
Now this of course raises the interesting question of what we are to do with apostate and faithless bishops. The church is to depose them! While the laying on of hands is important to the transmission of apostolic authority it isnt a mechanical process. A bishop must also maintain the deposit of faith once delievered by the apostles in order to validly exercise his apostolic office. A faithless bishop is no bishop at all.
This is why I argue that despite having the name "Anglican" the Episcopal church has ceased being an Anglican church due to their departure from the christian faith. Their diocesan bishoprics are vacant despite the women who claim them.
But the existence of faithless bishops doesn't undermine the validity or importance of valid episcopacy. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be. If a bishop proves to be godless, then a godly bishop should be sought out. This is what Anglican realignment is. Godly Christians, following godly bishops, out of a godless and apostate communion.
But there must be a bishop. Churches that leave their bishop with nowhere to go cut themselves off from the rest of the body in the same way that a faithless bishop does by departing from orthodoxy. In an effort to be faithful they end up being unfaithful to the order that God has gifted us. This leads down dangerous and uncertain paths. One of the main reasons, in my humble opinion, that modern evangelicalism is so frustratingly confused.
Thus every man becomes his own bishop, his own Pope. Interpreting scripture for himself and in accordance with every whim of his feelings and emotions. Submission to a godly bishop keeps us safe from all of that.
So... "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
No comments:
Post a Comment