Place Of Bishops In United Church

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31384, 1 June 1967, Page 11

Place Of Bishops In United Church

Opposition to the functions of bishops in a future united church were voiced at a special meeting of the Christchurch Presbytery held on Tuesday to discuss a General Assembly report on the npnistry of the church.

Until 1965 no mention of bishops had been made in inter-church negotiations but they had now "popped in,” said the Rev. I. G. Mcßride. Most opposition was over the bishop’s function as the chief ordaining minister and his position as senior minister in the church. Reading of the Greek New Testament said that elders were at first identical to bishops, said the Rev. H. J. Crawford. If the bishop was necessary for ordinations, this cast a shadow of doubt over the full, apostolic validity of Presbyterian ordinations. The implication was that those who had been ordained at the hands of a Presbytery were inadequately ordained. "I can find no reason for believing that Christ had promised to be more fully present at an episcopal than a Presbyterian ordination,” he said.

The Rev. J. P. Edgar said It appeared that the negotiating churches were bending over backwards to try not to hurt the Anglicans. “You must not suspect the Anglican negotiators of swinging one across us,” said the Rev. D. Glenny, who is a member of the church union committee. No Anglican negotiator had ever suggested that there was anything wrong with the ministries of other churches. “I don’t think many of our people or ministers would be happy about bishops as the chief ordaining officers,” said the Rev. A. Ross. A'bishop as a pastor to pastors was desirable but not essential. Mr R. J. Griffiths said that the idea of a three-fold ministry would give the wrong idea of the church being pompous. There was the fear that the threefold system would become hierarchical and not a unified system, said Mr N. Creighton. The Presbytery, which has to report its findings by June 29;' decided to, recommend that the bishops be elected, that they serve terms of set periods, and that they retire at an age set hy the church. The Presbytery alio expressed its disapproval of several sections of the report dealing with the ordination and administrative functions of the bishop. It said there was a need for the bishop to be responsible to some body, and, not just responsible for certain duties and functions.