|1|
The present memorandum discusses the main issues which arise in connection with the theme “episkopé and episkopos in the ecumenical debate”. It has been written with a view to the process of revision of the agreed statements on baptism, the eucharist and the ministry. It does not intend to provide the draft of a new text on the ministry; it simply offers a number of reflections which might be relevant for the task of revision.
Clearly, the request to deal more fully with “episkopé and episkopos” widens the scope of the statement on the ministry. The statement of 1974 sought to clarify the necessity and the nature of the ordained ministry in the Church; it proposed convergences on some divisive issues such as apostolic succession and ordination. It did not deal extensively with the different forms of the ministry. The new text will deal with the question of what forms of ordained ministry are required to guide the Church. It will need to discuss the respective roles of the ordained ministries and the community in het episkopé of the Church. In short, the new statement will need to take up the following question: How, according to the will of Jesus Christ and under the guidance of the Spirit, is the Church to be shepherded today?
The question can be answered only on the basis of a reflection on the nature and calling of the Church. The statement of 1974 rightly affirms that the “understanding of the ministry must start from the nature of the Church, the community of believers” (para. 2). Indeed, the issue of the ordained ministry cannot be dealt with as an isolated theme. The standing of the ordained ministry, therefore, can only be reached by starting from God’s purpose in calling and sending his whole people.
It would be wrong, however, to deduce from this intimate relationship between the ordained ministry and the Church that the ordained ministry is a creation of the Church as if God called the Church into existence and the Church then established the ordained ministry. In other terms: the
|2|
Church’s ministry if prior to the ordained ministry. These views cannot be maintained. The calling of the Twelve reminds us of the fact that, from the beginning, there have always been persons set apart for special service in the community. The Twelve are the prefiguration both of the future community of believers and of those who will serve them as ministers. Obviously, the forms of the ordained ministry are the result of developments in history. As the Church, created by God, through the redemptive work of the crucified and risen Lord and the power of the Spirit, participated in God’s saving purpose, it was given the forms of ministry which it required.
Episkopé (overseeing, supervision) is essential for the life of the Church. No Church can live without the exercise of some kind of episkopé. The churches deeply differ in their understanding of episkopé and their ways of carrying it out in the life of the community. Some regard it as personal, others as collegial responsibility. The ecumenical task is the attempt to develop together the most faithful and appropriate way of exercising episkopé in the Church. Obviously, this requires the common scrutiny of Scripture and Tradition, but it also requires an effort to discover in which ways de facto episkopé is being exercised in each church and what legitimate concern they represent for the faithful and effective exercise of episkopé. The episkopé which the ecumenical movement seeks to develop will be richer than the episkopé in any of the existing churches.
The issues to be taken up are many. What is the relationship between the ordained ministry in general and the task of episkopé? What is the role of apostles and in what ways must their functions be continued in the Church? What are the respective roles of individual persons (episkopos), groups (college of presbyters), and the community in the exercise of episkopé? Episkopé in the local church and episkope over several local churches? How are the changing roles of bishops in the course of history to be interpreted? How is a reconciliation between “episcopal” and “non-episcopal” (or to put it positively “presbyteral” and “congregationalist”) churches to be achieved?
The consultation which drafted this memorandum decided to select seven questions which it considered to be of particular importance for the process of revision and to suggest answers which might assist the drafters in their task.
|3|
Question I: What is the relation of the episcopal ministry to the Church founded by Christ?
In speaking of the Church and of any specific ministry in the Church we should realize that Jesus came to renew the existing people of God by his proclamation of the kingdom. It is not surprising, therefore, that his words in the Gospels are not specific about a body separate from Judaism and even less about the structures of such a body. Nevertheless, in calling disciples and the Twelve he calls what will be the Church. The very existence of the Twelve among the other disciples means that there never was a totally undifferentiated Church. Some had a role that other did not; for only to the Twelve was given the eschatological privilege to sit on the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (see below Question II). Nor was the Church ever without ministry, present and gifted, for its mission and service, e.g. preaching the Gospel, proclaiming the Gospel to those who found themselves outside the law, caring for the faithful, administering the life of the community, etc.
The shape of the Church and the forms of the ministry are the products of experience and history as the Holy Spirit led the Church in life, worship and mission. We find, then, in the New Testament, a variety of forms of ministry in different times and places. By the end of the New Testament period (although it was of earlier origin), a twofold structure of presbyter/bishops and deacons was becoming more common in the Church of which we have knowledge. In the second and third centuries, the threefold structure of bishop, presbyter and deacon became dominant.
Often, particularly since the Reformation, the question has been debated whether such a threefold structure is a matter of ius divinum (specifically determined by the will of God) or of ius humanum (a product of human discovery). To a large extent, this question does not seem, in our opinion, to do justice to the issue. In the development of various types of ministry during the New Testament period and, a fortiori, of the threefold ministry, the Holy Spirit was at work, but so were historical and sociological factors. There is no need to see an either/or and a conflict between divine and human influences. In the development which resulted in the threefold ministry, then, there is no need to think either of a blueprint by Jesus or of the mere response to sociological law.
When the development towards the threefold ministry is recognized as a gift of the Spirit to the Church, enabling it to exercise its ministry effectively, there still remains a question whether this form of ministry becomes the only divinely sanctioned ministry for the Church from that time forward; and similarly it is very difficult to decide to what extent subsequent developments after the third century
|4|
reflected the guidance of the Spirit and are to be retained. Certainly many churches which have other structures have regarded them as reflecting types of structure found in the New Testament, before the threefold ministry became universal in post-New Testament times. It has been argued that the variety of church structures in the New Testament justifies the diversity of structures which exists today in the separate churches. But this view has been rejected by others for good reasons. The situation of the nascent Church was different from that of the separate churches today. In the early Church unity could only be preserved by developing common structures. The issue is therefore what kind of common structure of ministry is required today to express the unity of the Church. On the basis of this consideration the question might be raised, in the light of long tradition and of present need for greater unity within and among the churches, whether an adoption of some form of the threefold ministry might not best serve the churches separately and together in the furtherance of their God-given mission. The task is not to debate the irrevocability of the past, but to respond to the way in which the Spirit may be calling the churches to unity today. The acceptance of a threefold ministry may come easier to the churches which for various reasons have hitherto resisted it precisely when those who accept that ministry acknowledge that in New Testament times the Spirit also worked through other forms of ministry.
Question II: What is the relation of apostles to bishops and in what sense are bishops in apostolic succession?
One must be careful to preserve the fulness of the New Testament references to the “apostles”. Without attempting to be exhaustive, we note that “apostle” is a term clearly applied in the New Testament to the Twelve chosen by Jesus during his lifetime as representatives of the community of the renewed Israel. In that moment they are the community and they are also those who play a special role in the community (symbolized by Jesus’ words that they are to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel). The term “apostle” is also applied to Paul and to others as they are sent out by the risen Lord to proclaim the Gospel. And so the roles of the apostles cover both foundation and mission. As the Church looks back it remembers that words like the following were addressed to the apostles: “Do this in commemoration of me” and “Go therefore and baptize”, but it is not clear whether it was thought that such words were addressed to them as representatives of the whole community or as those holding a special responsibility within the community. Moreover, when we speak of succession to the apostles, we have difficulty in deciding what aspects of the
|5|
apostolate are unique and to which there can be no succession (there are only twelve thrones; only some saw the risen Lord and were commissioned by him) and to which aspects there is a succession. In the latter category one would have to agree that there is succession to those aspects of the apostolate needed for preserving God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and communicating it to others along with his life, his holiness and his Spirit.
In terms of episkopé, the best New Testament example of apostolic ministry applied to the churches is in the Pauline letters where we see the apostle teaching, exhorting, praying for, reproving, and judging Christians in churches he founded. At the same time, there are local leaders in these churches (“those over you in the Lord”; those who have the charism of kybernēsis; episkopoi and diakonoi). It is thus clear that an apostle can exercise episkopé without being himself a local bishop, and indeed we are not to think of apostles as bishops. When the apostles die, the care they once exercised for many churches is portrayed in at least the Pastoral Epistles as passing into the hands of persons the apostles had delegated who are to have presbyter/bishops appointed in every town. The presbyter/bishops, and eventually one bishop and a group of presbyters, exercise episkopé for the local church. What happens to the apostolic episkopé for a group of churches is not clear after the first generation. In a certain way, then, the presbyter/bishops, and eventually the single bishop, succeed to apostolic supervision of a local church — “in a certain way” because the bishops are not apostles.
We must also realize that apostolic succession is a wider matter than episkopé; it includes succession to faith, mission, etc. So in a very real way the whole Church succeeds to the apostles. Indeed, one of the first appeals to episcopal succession considers it as a sign that the churches are in succession to the apostles, especially as regards the truth. The bishops as successors cannot be divorced from the churches as successors — on that all would agree, although there may be disagreement on the exact degree to which it is in and through the Church that the bischop is successor to the apostle. As to the way in which a bishop was validly designated in apostolic succession, in the earliest days, the historical evidence is insufficient; there is no proof that all presbyter/bishops had hands imposed by the apostles or by other bishops who had thus been ordained by the apostles. Eventually, the laying-on of hands by other bishops became the accepted form of ordination. Despite the lack of historical evidence, some wish to maintain the chain of imposition of hands from the apostles to the early bishops as the traditional and still effective way of explaining apostolic succession. But others, including those who accept the historic episcopate, find that such an unprovable claim leads to resentment and/or to an emphasis on too mechanical an understanding of apostolic succession.
|6|
Question III: How is episkopé to be exercised in the Church?
The issue of episkopé in the Church cannot adequately be dealt with by discussing the origins and the appropriate forms of the ordained ministry in the Church. The question must also be raised in what ways episkopé is to be exercised in the Church.
The New Testament gives no blueprint for the exercise of episkopé but, on the basis of the New Testament witness, it can be said that the exercise has three dimensions — personal, collegial and communal. Episkopé requires the authority and the commitment of single persons within the community. The presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of the people can best be witnessed to by one person proclaiming the Gospel and calling the community to witness and service. One person can provide an effective focus within the community and keep it in unity of life, worship and witness. The personal dimension is reflected in the role which Paul played in the churches which he had founded. However, the personal dimension needs to be accompanied by the collegial dimension. Personal episkopé can only be carried out in a collegial way. The authority of the one to provide the focus of the community needs to be tested by a group. The discovery of the will of God requires the insights and the interaction of several people. The apostles often act as a group, especially when difficult issues are to be solved. We also find references in the New Testament to presbyters or elders acting as a group. Finally, episkopé has a communal dimension. It is exercised not over the community but with the collaboration and participation of the community. Paul seeks the agreement of the whole community. In the report on the debate over the circumcisions of the Gentiles we find the significant formula “the apostles and the elders together with the whole community” (Acts 12: 22).
These three dimensions must all have their appropriate place in the exercise of episkopé. The various systems of order which have been adopted by the churches must be examined in that perspective. Do they give adequate expression to each of the three dimensions? The threefold ministry is potentially a faithful mirror of the three requirements. The bishop exercising personal episkopé is surrounded by the presbyters acting as a college. They are acting together in the same eucharistic community. The deacons have the task to remind the community of its diaconal witness and to provide a link with the bishop and the presbyters. It must also be said, however, that the threefold ministry does not automatically reflect the three dimensions faithfully. In fact, in churches which have nominally preserved the threefold ministry the balance among them has suffered.
|7|
In the course of history the three dimensions have not been kept together. One or the other as been overemphasized at the expense of the others. The separate churches tend to reflect this one-sidedness. In some traditions, the personal dimension of episkopé eclipses the collegial and communal dimensions. In other traditions, the personal ministry tends to be drowned in collegial and communal processes. In this respect, the ecumenical movement could be described as the effort to restore the balance between the dimensions.
This vision was already developed by the First World Conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne (1927) whose report states:
“In view of (i) the place which the episcopate, the council of presbyters and the congregation of the faithful, respectively had in the constitution of the early Church, and (ii) the fact that episcopal, presbyteral and congregational systems of government are each today, and have been for centuries, accepted by great communions in Christendom, and (iii) the fact that episcopal, presbyteral and congregational systems are each believed by many to be essential to the good order of the Church, we therefore recognize that these several elements must all, under conditions which require further study, have an appropriate place in the order of life of a reunited Church ...” (1)
Question IV: What is the relationship between bishops in the local church and bishops exercising episkopé over several local churches?
There is a clear difference between the bishops at the time of Ignatius and the ministers who are called bishops today. The bishop in the writings of Ignatius is the leader of the local church. He presides over the eucharist. He is surrounded by the college of presbyters, who, according to Ignatius, represent Christ and the apostles in the community. Thus, at the time of Ignatius, the threefold ministry was episkopé over the local church. As the churches grew in size and number, bishops began to exercise episkopé over several eucharistic communities and later even over larger areas. Today, in most cases, bishops are in charge of a diocese.
(1) Proceedings of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Lausanne 1927. London: SCM Press 1927, p. 379.
|8|
The development had far-reaching effects on the functions of the threefold ministry. Its inner balance was disturbed. The role of the bishop as the one presiding over the eucharistic celebration of the local church had now to be fulfilled by other persons. In fact, the presbyter/priest now carries the function which originally had been reserved for the bishop. As a consequence, the collegial dimension in the order of the local church suffered. After a few centuries, the diaconate ceased to fulfill any real function in the local church.
How is this change to be interpreted? Two remarks must be made. On the one hand, it would be clearly artificial to claim an unbroken continuity from the Ignatian bishop to later forms of episcopacy. The bishop today fulfills a new kind of episkopé. The model witnessed to by the Ignatian letter retains its significance for the life of the local church. There is need, in each local eucharistic community, for a bishop providing the focus of unity in life and witness by proclaiming the Gospel and presiding over the eucharist. He needs to be surrounded by a congregational council and there is little doubt that the renewal of the diaconate could give new impulses to the life of the community. The harm done by later developments to the life of the local eucharistic community needs to be undone.
On the other hand, there is an obvious need for episkopé over an area comprising several local churches. The development which resulted in ascribing to the bishop a new kind of episkopé is therefore not simply illegitimate. It would be equally artificial to ignore the need for larger episkopé. In fact, in recent times, many churches which in the past had stressed the role of the ministry of the local church have been led to create forms of ministry at a regional level. As long as no unbroken continuity with the Ignatian bishop is claimed, they can be called bishops. They exercise a role which is essential for maintaining the Church in truth and unity. For their episkopé to be effective, it needs to be exercised in a collegial way. The three dimensions — personal, collegial and communal — apply not only to the episkopé of the local church, but to all levels of the Church’s life.
Question V: What are the functions of the bishop in exercising episkopé over several churches?
The bishop’s basic function remains to assemble the community and to strengthen its witness by proclaiming the Gospel and presiding over the liturgical and sacramental life of the eucharistic community. Episkopé at the level of an area is an extension of this function. It would be a mistake to regard episkopé at the level of an area as a merely administrative function. The ministry needs to remain rooted in the basic functions for whose fulfillment the ordained ministry has been given to the Church.
|9|
The responsibility for an area involves new functions. The bishop has to be the visible link between the local eucharistic communities; he will represent them to the wider community. He will strengthen the communion by exercising pastoral care together with the leaders of local communities. He will be attentive to issues which arise for the Church in the wider context, etc.
As an expression of the unity among the local eucharistic communities it is legitimate that the bishop is responsible for the ordination of the presbyter/bishops of the local church.
Question VI: How can the past help us to shape the kind of episkopé we need today?
There is a danger that an appropriate response to a particular situation at one time in history is assumed to be normative for all future times. There is an equal danger of discontinuing, as no longer appropriate, a form of ministry which could, in fact, be effectively adapted.
We must therefore ask the question: To what extent do the structures of the past accomplish the task of the Church today? What forms of ministry inherited from the past should be modified or discontinued? What elements once used, then allowed to lapse, ought to be revived for effective use now? Hearing what the Spirit says to the churches is a matter of continual re-evaluation.
In the course of history, changes often take place which are not always at the Church’s initiative. For example, the changes in the offices of episkopos and presbyteros in the fourth century were largely occasioned by the influx of new converts into the churches after the reign of Constantine. The changes were not deliberately designed to be an effective strategy to meet the new conditions, but grew less purposefully.
Without critical re-evaluation, a church may perpetuate ministerial practices which in changed circumstances are distortions of the life of the Church. When such distortions are seen as caricatures, rejection is almost inevitable. The churches today must seek to evaluate together the developments in the Christian inheritance both more appreciatively as well as more critically.
We must address ourselves, therefore, to the question of how the episkopé has changed and what effect the changes have on the ministry and the life of the Church.
|10|
Today, in most church union negotiations, there is a greater readiness among the non-episcopal churches to reflect afresh on the place of episkopé in their life and, for the sake of Christian unity as well as of pastoral effectiveness, to include some form of personal episkopé in their new structures. While this evidences a lessening of resistance against episcopacy among churches of Reformed and Congregational traditions, new forms of episkopé arise in movements such as the Pentecostal movement or the African independent churches. They represent the challenge to the churches to find ways of coping with the new departures in the life of the Church.
In some traditions, episkopé is already exercised by women and the possibility of women among the episkopoi is becoming an ever closer reality. The relevance of this development to the present discussion is obvious, even if for some churches it constitutes an obstacle to union.
In some parts of the world, notably in ecumenical parishes or congregations in England and the United States and in situations where ecumenical task forces exercise some kind of responsibility over several confessionally separate communities, the need for a larger episkopé and an episkopos carrying responsibility for Christians belonging to other traditions raises pressingly the issue of the new forms of episkopé.
In certain parts of the world, such as Latin America, Korea and the Philippines, the courageous witness of bishops in the struggle for justice and human rights has won a new recognition of the relevance of episcopacy from Christians who belong to non-episcopal traditions. In countries where authoritarian governments seek to determine the lives of their citizens, shepherd bishops are modeling another way of creating relationships in the community and in expressing the community’s concerns.
These illustrations raise the question as to whether at this time in history the office of episkopos has acquired a new significance and whether there are new reasons for adopting this structure of ministry today.
We cannot suggest the precise form which episcopacy should take in future, but some guidelines can be discerned which imply both room for much diversity and need for reform in current episcopal practice.
1. Emphasis will be placed on the personal dimension of episkopé. The pastoral potential will be given priority over the administrative and bureaucratic aspects of the ministry. This must be a decisive principle in shaping the exercise of episkopé both where episkopoi exist at present and where the ministry is being adopted. When bishops cannot know all their “presbyter/bishops” personally,
|11|
when bishops are strangers to the congregations and their leaders, the size of the diocese will require modification.
2. Episkopé will be exercised collegially. In the life of the Church, bishops, presbyters, those who hold ministries in the congregation and the congregations as a whole work together for building up the body of Christ for its witness in the world. If any one of these elements becomes isolated, the Church suffers distortion in theory as well as in practice. Bishops, too, are subject to episkopé by the whole Church.
3. The episkopé will arise largely out of the need for relevant structures in mission. Engagement in struggle, sharing in the sufferings and aspirations of the Christian communities and the countries in which they live will mark the exercise of episkopé and the episcopal ministry. Such exercising will require an episkopé sustained by a deepened spirituality in which qualities of holiness undergird all of its ministry.
Question VII: How can mutual recognition among the churches be achieved?
In order to manifest the unity of the Church, the mutual recognition of ministries is required. In fact, the differences among the churches with regard to the issue of the ordained ministry have proved to be the most stubborn obstacle on the road to unity. Often union negotiations between churches of different traditions have spent years of discussion on the ordained ministry before they were able to take the step into union. They had to reach agreement not only on the understanding, but also on the practice of the ordained ministry. Each church had to accept modification of its own understanding and practice to make mutual recognition possible.
Today, many bilateral conversations between confessional families devote special attention to the issue of the ministry. The multilateral discussions in the Faith and Order movement seek to formulate an agreement which can be accepted by all churches. These agreements will be effective only if the churches are prepared to modify their own practice for the sake of unity. Obviously, uniformity is not required for mutual recognition, but the churches must come sufficiently close to one another that each can regard the ministry of other churches as apostolic and all can witness and act together as one body.
|12|
In some form, episkopé is being exercised in all churches. However, it is discharged in various ways. It is important to identify in each church the way in which episkopé is exercised. Often, the same reality exists in two churches though different designations are used. Often, the three dimensions mentioned under Question III (personal, collegial and communal) are present and operative under unexpected names. The debate around mutual recognition must not only take into account the theories which the churches defend about themselves, but must deal equally with their actual life and practice.
Mutual recognition requires, in each church, a movement of renewal. Each tradition needs to re-examine its understanding and practice of episkopé in the light of Scripture and with a view to effective witness today.
Apostolic succession through episcopal ordination raises the most difficult issue for mutual recognition. How can churches of episcopal order and churches of non-episcopal (or synodal) order be brought together in one communion? All claim to live in continuity with the apostles. All regard their ministries as succeeding the ministry of the early Christian community. The difference lies in the fact that non-episcopal churches lack the sign of transmission through personal episcopal ordination. Can they not adopt this sign? There are good reasons for considering this step. A common sign expressing the continuity in the succession of the ministry is a powerful pointer to the apostolicity of the Church. It underlines the fact that the minister as guardian of the apostolic truth stands in a long line of ministers who have stood for the same cause. Though apostolic succession does not offer any guarantee for maintaining the truth, non-episcopal churches may gain a new dimension in their life by introducing the sign. The step raises a serious difficulty; inasmuch as by accepting episcopal ordination non-episcopal churches give the impression of disavowing the ministry of earlier generations. The difficulty can only be overcome if the episcopal churches agree that the ministry of non-episcopal churches has been blessed by the Holy Spirit and that, though perhaps in an irregular way, a kind of succession has taken place in it. Some churches, for instance, have transmitted the ordained ministry through presbyteral ordination.
The mutual recognition may be celebrated in a solemn worship at which the episcopal ordination will be introduced for all churches concerned. To facilitate such a step for the non-episcopal churches, the following considerations may be of some importance.
(a) Such an act would need to be an act of repentance by all: the episkopé of all churches requires renewed authenticity.
(b) No negative judgment on the past of non-episcopal churches should be expressed; non-episcopal churches should
|13|
not be obliged to abjure previous ordination.
(c) In the new wider communion all churches receive new life; those who have exercised episkopé in the non-episcopal churches should therefore participate in the act of recognition.
* * * * * *
List of participants
Protopresbyter Vitali Borovoi (Russian Orthodox Church, USSR)
Professor Raymond E. Brown (Roman Catholic Church, USA)
Father Joseph Eagan SJ (Roman Catholic Church, USA)
The Rev. Canon R.T. Halliday (Episcopal Church, Scotland)
The Rev. Uwe-Peter Heidingsfeld (Evangelical Church in Germany,
FRG)
Dr Ulrich Kühn (Federation of Evangelical Churches, GDR)
The Rev. Dr Gerald F. Moede (United Methodist Church, USA)
The Rev. Jeanne Audrey Powers (United Methodist Church, USA)
Professor J.K.S. Reid (Church of Scotland)
The Most Rev. N.D. Anando Rao Samuel (Church of South India)
Father Bernard Sesboué SJ (Roman Catholic Church, France)
Frère Max Thurian (Reformed Church, France)
Dr W.M.S. West (Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland,
England)
Professor John D. Zizioulas (Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople, Great Britain)
Faith and Order Staff
The Rev. Stephen Cranford
Dr Constance F. Parvey
Dr Choan-Seng Song
Dr Lukas Vischer