Dumping Bishops

THE REAL REASONS WHY SOME PROTESTANTS DON’T HAVE BISHOPS (ANYMORE)?

by Richard A. Shaward

(Originally posted in 2009)

I am immersing myself into the “Bishops, Elders, and Deacons” controversy for a particular reason. In my mass repository of articles I have read I found this interesting honest admission (?) about what happened to the 1500 year old acceptance and practice of “Bishops” in the Protestant Church – written by a Protestant !!!!

[NOTE : Some Protestant groups have retained Bishops]

Excerpt from “Bishops, Presbyters, and Women” by (Protestant) Gerald Bray

Introduction

‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church; bishops, priests and deacons.’

Thus begins the preface to the ordinal of the Church of England, which still remains one of its fundamental formularies and thus, by extension, one of the defining documents of the Anglican Communion.

When Archbishop Thomas Cranmer wrote those words in 1549, he was not being particularly controversial.It is true that some protestant churches in Germany and Switzerland had abandoned the historic episcopate, but this had as much to do with the peculiar nature of bishops in the Holy Roman Empire as it did with underlying ecclesiological principles. In Geneva for example, the city had been governed by its bishop, and no ‘reformation’ of any kind would have been possible there unless and until he were removed. Feelings against episcopacy were largely political, and only later did they acquire theological justification. John Calvin was [initially?] not against episcopacy in England, and is said to have recommended it as the best form of church government for Poland.

Even John Knox (contrary to what many people think) did not do away with episcopacy completely. Scottish bishops continued to exist, albeit in a restricted role, until 1638 when episcopacy was abolished in Scotland – again, largely for political reasons. Presbyterian arguments against it were grounded in personal experience of the abuses to which that form of church government had been put, although by then there were many who argued that the Anglican type of bishop was not to be found in the New Testament church. Nobody doubted that bishops had existed in the second century, and some were prepared to concede that their office might be of apostolic origin, but whatever might be said about that, the issue in dispute was whether bishops were prescribed by the New Testament as a necessary ingredient of church government or not.

On that point, Calvin and those who followed him argued that episcopacy was not an indispensable part (the so-called esse) of the church, and it should be noted that the language of the preface to Cranmer’s Ordinal is worded in such a way that it can be regarded as supporting that view. Cranmer’s defense of the threefold order of ministry is rooted in history rather than in theology. His appeal to Scripture focuses not on any form of ‘apostolic succession’ but on the high moral and spiritual standards which are required of ministers at all levels. The Biblical injunctions outline the character required of all ordained people, whatever special function they might be expected to perform, recognizing that the latter are directly dependent on the former.

As far as the three distinct orders were concerned, Cranmer clearly believed that they could be found in Scripture, and he therefore saw no reason to modify the status quo in the Church of England, but he made no effort to support this belief from the Biblical text. Later generations of Anglicans, beginning with Richard Bancroft (d. 1610), found themselves embroiled in controversy with presbyterians and independents, and out of that they developed a ‘divine right’ theory of episcopacy, according to which the Anglican bishop as he existed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was prescribed by Scripture itself. . . . . . . . .  . .

———————————————————–

The point as I see it? Some Protestants in the 16th century eliminated the office of Bishop as a result of abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, for Political Reasons, and in order to push the theological innovations and inventions of the ‘radical reformers’ agenda. Today, most modern scholarship on this topic starts from post 1800’s Protestant scholars who disagree among themselves but quote from among themselves the best reason not to have Bishops. Some, unfortunately try to argue from ‘sola nuda’ and therefore do not have to deal with 1500 years of Church History evidence.  At least, as I see it, the Anglicans were more honest than that.

I could be wrong? but I have yet to see otherwise so far.