The answer is that they should lead us into a growing gospel fellowship on the one hand and to the development of alternative oversight on the other.
Taking alternative oversight first: the reason we’re interested in Episcopal oversight at all is that we believe in being part of an Episcopal church for good theological and pragmatic reasons. We are not Congregationalists in that we believe it biblical to be connexional. It is right therefore that it should not simply be the local congregation that validates its own senior ministry. Nor, as David Holloway pointed out a couple of years ago are we Presbyterian with its belief in a regulative principle. “Good” episcopacy is part of the “bene esse” of the church, in providing personal rather than committee leadership. However, where the teaching and actions of a bishop promote an unbiblical way of thinking, then we simply have to look elsewhere for a bishop. If we fail to do this then our congregations will not see us taking New Testament teaching seriously and the process of accommodation will continue.
Seeking alternative oversight is not necessarily a confrontational act. For a start it doesn’t mean finding alternative oversight for everybody. For many of us, our existing diocesan bishops are orthodox men who are fully supportive of our ministries. Such men need our support not our rebuke. To say that alternative oversight is key to a strategy for addressing our present difficulties is not to say that it should apply across the board.
We need to recognise secondly that the Church of England already accepts that there may be circumstances where alternative oversight is needed.
Read it all (Thanks to SS for the link).
Rob Thomas' Recent Speech to the Reform Conference
The answer is that they should lead us into a growing gospel fellowship on the one hand and to the development of alternative oversight on the other.
Taking alternative oversight first: the reason we’re interested in Episcopal oversight at all is that we believe in being part of an Episcopal church for good theological and pragmatic reasons. We are not Congregationalists in that we believe it biblical to be connexional. It is right therefore that it should not simply be the local congregation that validates its own senior ministry. Nor, as David Holloway pointed out a couple of years ago are we Presbyterian with its belief in a regulative principle. “Good” episcopacy is part of the “bene esse” of the church, in providing personal rather than committee leadership. However, where the teaching and actions of a bishop promote an unbiblical way of thinking, then we simply have to look elsewhere for a bishop. If we fail to do this then our congregations will not see us taking New Testament teaching seriously and the process of accommodation will continue.
Seeking alternative oversight is not necessarily a confrontational act. For a start it doesn’t mean finding alternative oversight for everybody. For many of us, our existing diocesan bishops are orthodox men who are fully supportive of our ministries. Such men need our support not our rebuke. To say that alternative oversight is key to a strategy for addressing our present difficulties is not to say that it should apply across the board.
We need to recognise secondly that the Church of England already accepts that there may be circumstances where alternative oversight is needed.
Read it all (Thanks to SS for the link).