AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
I appreciate the feedback on the historic episcopate, following my blog of last fortnight, reflecting upon article 3 of the ACNA constitution.
3. We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
If I may reiterate my understanding: when the ACNA's constitution states that the historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, I defended this claim on the grounds that the only historic episcopate identified in the New Testament (and hence identifiable with apostolic faith and practice) was the office of episkopos/presbyteros. From within this model of "oversight" or "episcope", Timothy and Titus appear as apostolic delegates, who, while not performing the office of apostle, appear to have certain responsibilities with regard to the selection and ordination of ministers of the gospel (as only in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus do we find the explicit qualifications for elders and deacons). From these examples of "oversight", the ancient church developed the office of "bishop", as we call it now.
If the ACNA means to describe what later developed, what I described as monarchical bishops, then it is difficult to see how this "development" could be seen as inherent to the apostolic faith. I was not privy to the debate, so am unable to comment, but if, as Robin Jordan maintains, the debate on the constitution was centred around the post-apostolic development, then I would not be able to defend such a claim as being "an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice".
I guess we keep watching and praying for wisdom for those making the call on these structural issues.
Over the past 8 months a number of people have hazarded their opinion of what the ACNA constitution means when it states "...a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice..." You have offered your own opinion, which is predicated on the assumption that the "historic episcopate" referred to in the ACNA constitution is the New Testament office of "elder/overseer," since the ACNA characterizes the episcopate as an essential part of apostolic teaching. The Governance Task Force,the Provincial Council,and the College of Bishops have had several opportunities to clarify what this phrase in the constitution means but have not availed themselves of these opportunities. A statement of Philip Ashey, the deliberations in the June Provincial Council meeting, and the ACNA canons point to a different conclusion than yours. See my article, "THE AC-NA FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS: The Historic Episcopate," on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/08/ac-na-fundamental-declarations-historic.html (more below)
The ACNA constitution and canons "privilege Anglo-Catholicism and mandate conformity to that particular theological stream." There is a place at the ACNA table for evangelicals and charismatics who can go along with the Anglo-Catholic or an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues or a position that favors Anglo-Catholicism.
Anglicans who genuinely stand in the evangelical and Reformed tradition of Anglicanism are not welcome in the ACNA whatever Bob Duncan and other ACNA leaders may say. Conservative evangelicals are portrayed as "extremists" and a "fringe element" outside of the mainstream of Anglicanism. Classical evangelical Anglicanism is characterized as "un-Anglican" if not "heretical."
Evangelicals outside of North America need to do their own investigating into the ACNA and not rely on what ACNA leaders say. They have in my opinion been premature in giving the ACNA their unqualified recognition and support. North America does need a new province. Unfortunately the ACNA is the only horse in the race, and the ACNA is not friendly toward authentic Reformed-evangelicals.
Gosh, that lets me out!
I think the whole thing about apostolic succession is that it is very much an early church thing not a New Testament thing. If the NT is your thing then you are left with Presbyterianism!
However I can see some virtue (and I speak pragmatically) in a system of Bishops as practiced in Sydney Diocese.
"We the ruling elders of the Church of Papolnia, utterly refute the mono- eopiscopacy being inflicted on the Church ..we stand by the divine pattern set up by the Apostles. Clement, Irenaeus and others are usurpers."
The fact is that all bishops are presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops.Just as all Apostles are bishops, but all bishops are not Apostles. The episcopate is the fullnes of the presbyterate. That is why the Pope can address both bishops and presbyters as " my brother presbyters."
A church estabished in Apostolic times would have a presiding bishop and assistant bishops, in the form of a College. This was necessary to preseve the episcopate in the days of persecution and to help run a large diocese.
Different groups read into the NT their own interpretation. The Adventist does not see Sunday worship, the Baptist does not see infant baptism etc..yet all read the Bible. So a Presbyrterian cannot see episcopacy...but why did this polity disappear? it wasn't because of Constantine..it just wasn't there in the first place!
A church polity which vanishes in the second century only to re-emerge in the sixteenth. I think not!