I’ve just had a frustrating conversation with an
arch-Evangelical, who uses the scriptures to prove that we should not have
bishops.
By the ‘canon of scripture' we mean the choice of books incorporated into the
Bible.
When the emperor Constantine took the Imperial throne, there was no
canon, though it’s true that some measure of consensus did exist. It was
essential for the emperor to unite Christendom because a united Church could offer
stronger backing to his throne than could a Church fighting itself, a
church in disarray.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2dcd2/2dcd2f3ba2304fc91b599be1ed0ef93f9a8b4c36" alt="Related image"
Only anointed Bishops were chosen as delegates. Before each session,
these Bishops attended a Eucharist led by one or more of the Patriarchs. They
then sat in adoration of the blessed sacrament for an hour. Only then were the
delegates allowed into the chamber. Before voting on the books, one at a time –
each after its own debate – the bishops fasted and wore their robes.
Some evangelicals say we don’t need bishops, we don’t need
robes and vestments, that the Eucharist is a cerebral exercise of remembering. How
ironic these assertions are made by appealing to a canon of scripture decided in
the sacramental, clerical way it was.
For the CofE, article 6 of the 39 articles also reaffirms the canon as it is now accepted.
ReplyDeleteR Ballam