Bishops

[AlexLL]

Hello everyone! Recently I have been wondering if there is a large amount of difference between the way Methodists see bishops and the way groups like the Anglicans see bishops. Any insight is greatly appreciated!

 

[circuitrider]

Hello everyone! Recently I have been wondering if there is a large amount of difference between the way Methodists see bishops and the way groups like the Anglicans see bishops. Any insight is greatly appreciated!

There are differences. I'm much more expert on Methodism than Anglicanism. But the first thing I'd point out is that Methodist Bishops are still Elders (what the Anglican Church calls a Priest.) We don't have a second ordination for Bishops. Our Bishops are consecrated not ordained to the office of Bishop.

This is because John Wesley believed that Bishop and Elder (Priest) were the same office but with a supervisory role for Bishops.

There are some other differences in that we don't have our Bishops lead in confirmation since we don't view confirmation as a sacrament.

One important power of the UMC Bishop is the power of appointment. I'm not sure how that works in all Anglican communions. But in the UMC the Bishop decides where each pastor will serve.

Other Methodists out there, what other differences do you know about?

 

[AngCath]

From what I have understood, Methodists tend to describe their bishops in administrative/oversight terms while Anglicans describe theirs in apostolic succession/sacramental terms.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

In the Roman Catholic church, even the Pope is still a 'priest'. They likewise elevate and consecrate through the various offices. But Ordain only once. What's interesting is that we actually look more like Catholics in that regard, than our mother Anglicans. The key difference there is how Bishops are addressed. In other communions, phrases like "Your Grade", "Your Eminence", "Your Excellency' are common. Stemming from medieval times when Bishops WERE essentially Royalty. In the Anglican communion, there was a time when Bishops were appointed by the Kings. And even in the Roman Catholic Church, there was a lot of ingrained political pressure. In a time where your King or Queen determined your religious affiliation, a promise from the Pope to elevate your relative, who wasn't even a priest, to Archbishop if you'd convert your little country to Catholicism, wasn't really uncommon. And likewise for early Protestants (Congregational Protestantism is a much newer thing. Early Protestants, for the most part, had a similar ecclesiology to the RCC that they left.)

In the UMC, Bishops are usually still addressed with the Ecclesiastical title "The Reverend", and commonly by their title, "Bishop". In much the same way that Pastors of local churches might be referred to as "The Reverend", or "Pastor". Although the former is becoming less and less common (I myself really only use/see "Rev." in official correspondence, on paper, etc. It is on my business card, but I neither refer to myself as such, few of my parishioners do, and I don't have any expectation that anyone call me that. I have to admit, nothing against Clergy who use that title of course; but it's always made me a little uncomfortable. Though being raised in a part of the country that put a lot of emphasis on titles, I never refer to a Pastor, Physician, etc. as "Mister" or "Misses". If they have a professional title, Dr., Rev., etc., I use it. When referring 'formally', such as from the pulpit, I always use titles. i.e., "The Reverend John Doe once said", informally, I might say "Yeah my good friend John likes to say".) Not only would you never hear of a UMC Bishop referred to as "Your Excellency", it would probably be considered inappropriate.

LIKE Anglican and Roman bishops, however, the understood color is purple or (less commonly) red/blue. Though not all of our Clergy (especially in the south) where Clericals (The clergy shirt with a collar), and few of our Bishops do, it would be inappropriate for a non-Bishop to wear blue, red, or purple Clericals. And likewise, Bishops who DO wear Clericals, rarely wear any color other than purple, red, or blue (most commonly, purple.) Most often though, UM Bishops are identified by a red lapel pin:

And not by special clothing. Skull caps, rings, etc., are not used in our communion to designate Bishops (though I do know some Bishops who wear seminary rings.) The Crossier (shepherds staff) is used by our Bishops; but only in very formal instances. My Bishop only uses his Crossier once a year, at Annual Conference. It remains near where he sits and isn't moved, with the exception of Ordination, which is the only time we actually see him holding it, and he walks in with it, and places it on a stand during the Ordination ceremony. This is similar to the practice used by Roman and Anglican Bishops, except that they have more situations that they would consider formal enough.

While we don't REQUIRE Bishops do confirmation, some do. Our Bishop has a once a year confirmation retreat. Some churches/Pastors choose to attend, and have the Bishop actually confirm the children. As opposed to having it done during worship by the Pastor. Both are acceptable in our polity.

Finally, I'm not sure how Bishops are selected in the Anglican communion, but in the Roman Catholic church they are elevated by superiors. Especially the pope. In the UMC, it's the other way around. Bishops are elected by peers. At an event called "Jurisdictional Conference", United Methodist Clergy, who were elected by THEIR peers at annual conference, are sent. And their responsibility is to elect new Bishops, and appoint current Bishops. So it is Pastors who elevate and send Bishops, not any sort of upper-class Bishop (like an Archbishop, or the Roman Catholic Pope.)

Unlike both the Anglican and Roman Catholic communions, we don't have any sort of chief Bishop. There is no one Bishop we can point to and say "That's the head honcho". Whereas in the RCC, the Pope is the chief Bishop, and in the Anglican Communion, that post is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Also called the Holy See; which is the exact same title used by the Roman Catholic Pope. In fact, it doesn't go any higher than 'Bishop'. We have no Archbishops, Cardinals, etc. However, we do have one additional level of leadership, called Superintendents. (A Bishops official job title is General Superintendent, who is the General Superintendent of an entire conference. They have a cabinet of District Superintendents that the Bishop themselves appoint) These District Superintendents are not Bishops, they are 'installed', not consecrated or elevated. But they do have certain supervisory authority over Pastors in their District. Sort of like a School Superintendent and the Principals. Each Principal is responsible for the day to day operation and budgeting of their local school, and the Superintendent with the broader work and mission of the entire district. Likewise, DS's are responsible for the local churches in their charge, and the Bishop for the broader ministry of the entire conference. (Though Bishops do appoint, they do so under advisement from the DS's. The DS does not have authority to appoint, unless it's delegated by the Bishop. But they do counsel the Bishop on appointments and often, their counsel carries a lot of weight. In fact, we local Pastors discuss appointments without our district superintendent first, THEN they take it to the Bishop for advisement. Such as, if I felt I should move, I would communicate that with the DS, not the Bishop. Then the DS would talk to the Bishop.)

Did we miss anything?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

From what I have understood, Methodists tend to describe their bishops in administrative/oversight terms while Anglicans describe theirs in apostolic succession/sacramental terms.

In many ways, essentially, yes. Though we do understand the historical and biblical significance of the office of Bishop, and do understand them to have a specific calling and ministry in succession of the ministry of the Apostles. Though their role is not generally as chief of sacraments; but rather, as supervisor and administrator. We do sort of have a quasi-understanding though of the Bishops sacramental role; as there is significance, even if it's only in practice and not necessarily in doctrine, of having the Bishop do things like consecrating a new church, serving communion, or confirming. Even if these are all things Pastors are permitted to do.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight,

Are you sure about the ordination? I was under the impression that there was a three step ordination process in the Anglican and RCC churches where one is ordained a Deacon, then a priest, and then a Bishop. I understood there to be three separate ordinations.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

RomansFiveEight,

Are you sure about the ordination? I was under the impression that there was a three step ordination process in the Anglican and RCC churches where one is ordained a Deacon, then a priest, and then a Bishop. I understood there to be three separate ordinations.

The transitional deacon has been eliminated from the Roman Catholic Church. At least, that's what I was led to believe by an active Roman Catholic relative who is himself well-versed in RCC theology (and teaches RCIA; the classes required to join the RCC). In favor of a permanent deacon theology, similar to ours. Though, if a person is Ordained a Deacon, then decides to become a priest, they ARE Ordained again as a priest. That famously happened right here in St. Louis (Kirkwood, MO) when Pope Francis permitted a married Deacon to be ordained a Priest. One of TWO married RCC Priests with Children that serve in this area. Both permitted by Pope Francis (the other left the Priesthood in order to get married, and Pope Francis permitted him to return to the priesthood. A friend of ours is a parishioner of that church, a lifelong Catholic, and still thinks it's weird to see the 'Priests Kids' in church. Or hear a priest mention his wife.)

They are however, consecrated as Bishops, then elevated to Cardinal. For example, if you read the original of Pope John Paul I, he has written he chose the name John, for the Pope who consecrated him as Bishop, and Paul, for the Pope who then elevated him as Cardinal. I could be wrong; but it was my understanding that we're actually similar in that regard. Every Bishop, including the Pope, is merely ordained a priest, and then elevated beyond that. Pope Francis refers to himself as a Priest frequently even now.

But I am not a Roman Catholic, nor have I ever been. But when I married a (former) Catholic, I did spend a lot of time trying to understand what and who a Roman Catholic was. After all, raised Southern Baptist, I had a very negative, almost evil impression of the RCC. Even though their theology is not my theology, studying the RCC helped me grow an appreciation for that great church. Even if I still find myself disappointed in a number of their theologies.

I also forgot to mention, that up until a mere few days ago, women were not permitted to be Anglican Bishops. But as of now, they are. Roman Catholics, of course, don't Ordain women (Nuns are consecrated, not Ordained.)

Probably one other difference is that RCC Bishops, like other Priests, are vowed to poverty (though some don't live that vow well) and are paid very little and live in provided housing, the church provides for their needs. UM Bishops are often paid as well as the top paid Clergy in their conference.

 

[Dave-W]

studying the RCC helped me grow an appreciation for that great church. Even if I still find myself disappointed in a number of their theologies.

Hopefully that is in the process of changing. A friend of mine (a former employer of my wife) who helped develop Messianic Judaism is one of the founding members of a group called the Toward Jerusalem Council II.

They have had audiences with JP2, Benedict and Francis. They have already gotten the RCC to officially change their doctrine and publicly repent from teaching Replacement theology. They have regular meetings with Vatican theologians to discuss many other points of doctrine and the RCC seems willing to change if they can be proved wrong.

 

[AlexLL]

Thank you all so much for your answers!

 

[Liberasit]

I am Anglican and we view bishops as being presbyters who have a wider geographical area of ministry. In practice, this means that a bishop oversees a diocese, made up of many parishes (c50?). He (and now she) is responsible for the clergy discipline, and also for the general support functions of the diocese to enable those of us on the ground to be the hands and feet of Jesus. It's a structure that those in the corporate world will be very familiar with.

The main ordination is to that of presbyter, and once there there is no stopping being consecrated to bishop.

 

[circuitrider]

I am Anglican and we view bishops as being presbyters who have a wider geographical area of ministry. In practice, this means that a bishop oversees a diocese, made up of many parishes (c50?). He (and now she) is responsible for the clergy discipline, and also for the general support functions of the diocese to enable those of us on the ground to be the hands and feet of Jesus. It's a structure that those in the corporate world will be very familiar with.

The main ordination is to that of presbyter, and once there there is no stopping being consecrated to bishop.

Thanks!