Anglican bishops in 21st-century Europe

Bishops are supposed to be pastors and guardians of the Christian faith, teaching truth and refuting error, winsomely and compellingly if possible; by applying discipline if necessary.

They should be examples of godly character, leading people in worship and mission, selecting, training and ordaining clergy, promoting unity, and managing essential administration for a group of churches over a wide area.

But what if bishops do not do this, perhaps because of incompetence (not having the necessary gifts), bad character, or heresy? Ideally, a healthy church would remove such people from leadership, but if this doesn’t happen, perhaps because the problem is with institutional culture not individuals, what then?

Renegade episcopacy

There has been a strong response around the world to the trajectory away from Biblical foundations by the Church of England bishops and General Synod. This shows that the majority of Anglicans regard them as having failed as leaders.

At the GAFCON conference held in Kigali in 2023, the continued leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury was declared ‘entirely indefensible’, and that the task ahead is to ‘reset the Anglican Communion on its Biblical foundations’.

This echoed a statement made by the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) that they can no longer regard the Archbishop of Canterbury as leader of the Anglican Communion, because he ‘led his House of Bishops to make recommendations that … run contrary to the faith and order of orthodox Provinces’.

Remove episcopacy?

For many readers of this publication, the answer is obvious – if the problem is with bishops, then get rid of them! Of course there are thriving, faithful churches which are part of structures that do not have a system of oversight by bishops. And some Anglicans reach the conclusion that it’s better to be in an independent congregation or some other system of arranging church life that they may not be used to, than continue in an institution where the leadership appears to be heretical.

Reimagine episcopacy?

Many of those committed to staying in the Canterbury structures are trying to find ways of keeping the idea of bishops, but creatively reworking their roles and redefining the different aspects of their authority. What should a minister and congregation do, if they are faithful to the Bible and reject the theological stance of their bishop, but also need to retain use of buildings, finances and administrative support from that bishop?

The answer being proposed is to separate the legal and administrative functions of the heretical bishop from the spiritual oversight which can be provided by trusted leaders of an informal network. And if necessary also make use of a third strand, the ‘symbolic episcopacy’ of a friendly bishop, perhaps from overseas, who can provide an occasional ceremonial role with no ongoing relationship. This may be the only way some feel they can stay in the Church of England, but it is not real episcopacy, and does not address the systemic problems in the institution.

Things are moving quite fast (at the time of writing) and there may be other variations on this theme by the time of publication.

Renewed episcopacy?

But if having bishops is not inherently wrong, and the system has some useful advantages, why not aim for a renewed episcopacy in a reset Anglicanism, outside the existing compromised structures? This would entail bishops who are committed to Biblical faithfulness, and who are inspired by a vision of the global church and accountable to its godly leaders. It would mean a ‘relational episcopacy’, where pastors have proper caring pastoral oversight rather than distant managers. Not bishops as monarchs, but servant-hearted and collaborative leaders in a system where as many decisions as possible are delegated to the local church, within a framework of proper accountability. This is what we’re trying to build in the Anglican Network in Europe.