Archive: A Wesleyan View of the Episcopacy

By Kenneth Cain Kinghorn

The roots of the United Methodist episcopacy reach back to September 1, 1784 when—in a private home in Bristol, England—John Wesley “set apart” the Anglican clergyman Dr. Thomas Coke as “superintendent” of the Methodist work in America. Wesley instructed Coke to ordain Francis Asbury when he arrived in America, and subsequently, to consecrate him as co-superintendent of American Methodism. Thus, Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury became Methodism’s first two bishops.

At the time of American Methodist beginnings, there were relatively few Anglican clergymen ministering in the colonies, and most Anglican priests were not keen on giving the Methodists holy communion.[1] Although on several occasions John Wesley urged the bishops of his church to send more clergy to the American colonies and to consecrate an American episcopacy, England’s bishops procrastinated. Wesley lamented, “They had nothing to do with America” (Letters, VII, 262).[2] When the War of Independence severed America’s political ties with England, many of the Anglican priests returned to England or migrated to Canada, leaving the American Methodists with virtually no access to the sacraments. As things stood, with out an Anglican bishop the Methodist preachers had no possibility of ordination. Wesley knew that if the Methodists in America were to have an ordained clergy it was up to him to provide it. So he consecrated Thomas Coke as a superintendent (bishop) for the American Methodists.

Wesley’s View of the Episcopacy

John Wesley’s consecration of Thomas Coke as Methodism’s first bishop resulted in the birth of a new denomination—the Methodist Episcopal Church. Although the American Methodists incorporated the word Episcopal into the name of their church, the Methodist episcopacy differed from that of Anglicanism. As was the case with many other matters, John Wesley’s view of the episcopacy influenced American Methodism.

First, John Wesley rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession. This theory maintains that the New Testament apostles, through the laying on of hands, transmitted the Holy Spirit to an unbroken succession of bishops. Allegedly, all who are not in the continuous line of succession are not valid Christian bishops. In 18th century England a number of Anglican bishops charged those who denied apostolic succession with “rank atheism.” Nevertheless, Wesley contended that apostolic succession was “a fable, which no man ever did or can prove” (Letters, VII, 284).

Moreover, Wesley did not accept the concept of “a third ministerial order” — a supreme prelate who governs the entire church. In contrast to those traditions which accept a pope, a patriarch, or an archbishop, Wesley found no biblical basis for a preeminent episcopal chair which bestows upon the occupant certain powers greater than that of the other bishops.[3]

Second, John Wesley held that the episcopacy is an office, not an order. In his early ministry Wesley believed that the offices of bishop and presbyter were two distinct orders (or ranks) of the ordained clergy (Letters, I, 274; II, 55). However, study and pragmatism[4] led Wesley to the conviction that the New Testament uses the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” synonymously (Journal, III, 232).[5] According to the Wesleyan tradition, if a separate order of bishops were necessary, “It would follow that [denominations without bishops] are no parts of the Church of Christ!—a consequence of shocking absurdity” (1862 edition of British Conference Minutes, I, 36).

The United Brethren and Evangelical Churches’ views of the episcopacy corresponded with the Wesleyan view. Referring to the consecration of the first two bishops of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (William Otterbein and Martin Boehm), historian A. W. Drury noted, “That office, and not order, is meant no one will question.”[6] Similarly, the former Evangelical Church elected bishops, but never as a separate ministerial order.[7] When in 1946 those two denominations merged to form the E.U.B. Church, the bishops were designated “agents of supervision, not a separate order,”[8] and they were subject to the church’s General Conference (1947 E.U.B. Discipline, ¶ 437).

Third, John Wesley opposed an imperial episcopacy. Many 18th century Anglican bishops had little contact with the church, claimed special privileges, and refused accountability. A number of these bishops held plural offices which entitled them to several “livings” at the same time. Bishops with multiple livings compounded personal wealth, while they doled out pittances to others who looked after the churches. Bishop Richard Watson of Llandaff, for example, lived almost all his life at Windermere, while holding a university chair at Cambridge and maintaining 14 other widely scattered livings.[9]

In Wesley’s day the Anglican episcopacy was often obtained through political maneuvering, trading favors, and bribery.[10] Some bishops sat in the House of Lords and engaged in secular enterprises which yielded them money, pleasure, and power. However, they gave little thought to the churches for which they were responsible.[11] One historian noted, “The interests of the dioceses and the needs of the people do not seem ever to have been considered, nor would any bishop have been criticized for staying only a few months in a diocese if the chance of preferment to a more lucrative [bishopric] came his way.”[12]

Wesley insisted, “The plea for the divine right of Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church” (Letters, III, 182). For Wesley, a bishop—in order to be effective—must maintain regular contact with the thoughts and needs of the lay and clergy members of the church. He had little patience with those imperial bishops whose arrogance, venality, and absence of biblical convictions caused them to place reason above Scripture and to neglect the flocks which they were obligated to feed.[13]

The early American Methodists agreed with Wesley’s conviction that bishops should move among the laity, and the new church’s first conference made accessibility a requirement of the episcopacy (1785 Discipline, p. 7). On one occasion, General Robert E. Lee, president of Washington College, at Lexington, Virginia, invited Methodist Bishop Enoch Marvin to deliver the school’s commencement address. Following the ceremony General Lee claimed Bishop Marvin as his dinner guest, but the bishop declined the invitation, explaining that he had promised “to break bread with Brother Senseny” the village blacksmith.[14] Because Methodism’s bishops traveled among, and conversed with, the lay people and clergy, the episcopacy understood the church’s needs and opportunities.

The British Methodist Conference of 1769 summarized the Wesleyan view of ecclesiastical supervision. The Methodist preachers agreed:

“1. To devote ourselves entirely to God; denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing, to save our own souls, and them that hear us. 2. To preach the old Methodist doctrines, and no other, contained in the minutes of the Conference. 3. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist discipline laid down in the said minutes” (Minutes, 1812 edition, I, 87-89).

Thus, three elements emerge as the Wesleyan view of spiritual leadership—personal consecration to God, fidelity to Methodism’s doctrines, and patient fortitude. These components were profoundly to influence American Methodism’s concept of the episcopacy.

The Episcopacy According to the United Methodist Discipline

Building on the foundations of Scripture and the Wesleyan tradition, the United Methodist Discipline outlines the responsibilities of those whom the church elects as its bishops (¶ 514. 1-8). The church recognizes that the episcopacy is a demanding ministry, and the Discipline calls for bishops with specific gifts and graces. Three episcopal qualifications stand out as particularly important.

First, the United Methodist Discipline calls for bishops who are committed to God and to a disciplined spiritual life. Episcopal leadership “should rise out of nurtured and cultivated spiritual disciplines and patterns of holiness” (Discipline, ¶ 502.1). The requirement that spiritual leaders dedicate themselves to God and to holy living reaches back to God’s law revealed at Sinai: The priests “must consecrate themselves or the Lord will break out against them” (Ex. 19:22).[15] Religious leaders must “be holy to their God, and not profane [God’s] name” (Lev. 21:6). They “should guard knowledge … for [they are] messenger[s] of the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 2:7). In short, all that the priests did and said must be “for Yahweh.”[16]

Likewise, the New Testament stresses the spiritual and moral qualifications for church leaders, especially bishops. Bishops “must be blameless; [they] must not be arrogant or quick-tempered … or greedy for gain; but [they] must be … lover[s] of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled” (Titus 1:7-8). “A bishop must be above reproach” (I Tim. 3:2). According to Scripture, character is primary. For that reason, the church stipulates that bishops must be persons of “spiritual discipline” (Discipline, ¶ 502.3).

The Wesleyan Covenant Service contains the following prayer of commitment for all United Methodist Christians, and the bishops of the church should model its spirit: “I am no longer my own, but thine. Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt; put me to doing, put me to suffering; let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee, exalted for thee or brought low for thee … I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.”

Second, the United Methodist Discipline expects the episcopate to instruct the church and to uphold the biblical revelation. Bishops are to serve as theological teachers to the church (Discipline, ¶ 514.4). Accordingly, they must take time for study and self-renewal (¶ 502.2). The Discipline supports racial, cultural, and ethnic pluralism, but not doctrinal pluralism (¶ 16). There is but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father” (Eph. 4:6). The requirement of orthodox faith echoes the New Testament charge to Christian leaders to “contend for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

In Wesley’s day, some of the Anglican bishops regarded it their first duty to be doctrinally tepid and theologically ambiguous. Some boasted, “There must be no enthusiasm, no heroics.”[17] Certain members of the episcopal “bench” feared more being suspected of believing too much, than of doubting everything. The Discipline, by contrast, calls for bishops who welcome the challenge to “guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith” and who accept the commission to “support the evangelistic witness of the whole Church” (Discipline, ¶ 514.1, 7).

Third, the United Methodist Discipline stipulates that the church’s bishops be prophetic and courageous. Despite the few who object to military images, the church is at war against sin, injustice, and evil. Jesus declared, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Paul contended, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm” (Eph. 6: 12). Because Christianity is locked in cosmic warfare against evil, its bishops must courageously “lead and oversee” the church militant until it becomes the church triumphant (Discipline, ¶ 514.1).

Jesus foretold that there would arise “false prophets in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15) who would “lead many astray” (Matt. 24:11). Peter also warned against those false teachers and leaders “who will secretly bring in destructive opinions [and] will even deny the Master who bought them” (II Pet. 2: 1-3). Paul grieved over those leaders who “desiring to be teachers” do not understand “either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions” (I Tim. 1:7). Bishops are to stand forthrightly in the front line against false doctrines and unholy practices which seek to insinuate themselves into the church. Episcopal leaders must have “a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the [apostolic] teaching, so that [they] may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).

Jesus is, of course, the “chief shepherd and bishop (episkopos)” of the church (I Pet. 2:25, KJV), and he calls earthly overseers to lead his followers. The Wesleyan tradition understands the episcopacy as consisting of persons who are holy in their lives, catholic in their faith, and apostolic in their courage. Paul articulated an important reality when he quoted an epigram that circulated among the early Christians: “Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task” (I Tim. 3:1).

Kenneth Cain Kinghorn is vice-president at-large of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is an ordained UM minister and author of numerous books, the most recent being The Gospel of Grace (Abingdon, 1992).

Notes

[1] S. D. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, 10th ed., London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1916, p. 170.

[2] References to John Wesley’s Letters are to the John Telford edition, 8 vols., London: The Epworth Press, 1931.

[3] See British Conference Minutes, 1862 ed. (1744-1798), I, 36.

[4] See Henry D. Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989, p. 295.

[5] References to John Wesley’s Journal are to the Nehemiah Curnock edition, 8 vols., London: The Epworth Press, 1938.

[6] A. W. Drury, History of the United Brethren Church, third revised ed., Dayton: The Otterbein Press, 1953, p. 185. See also John Lawrence, The History of the Church of the United Brethren In Christ, 2 vols., Dayton: United Brethren Publishing House, 1888, II, 51.

[7] Raymond W. Albright, A History of the Evangelical Church, Harrisburg, PA: The Evangelical Press, 1942, p. 174.

[8] Paul Himmel Eller, These Evangelical United Brethren, Dayton: The Otterbein Press, 1950, p. 121.

[9]  J. H. Whitleley, Wesley’s England: A Survey of XVIIIth Century Social and Cultural Conditions, London: The Epworth Press, 1938, pp. 296-97.

[10] C. J. Abbey and J. H. Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., London: Longmans, 1878, II, 26.

[11] John H. Overton and Frederick Relton, The English Church from the Accession of George I to the End of the Eighteenth Century, London: Macmillan and Co., LTD, 1906, p. 95.

[12] John R. H. Moorman, A History of the Church in England, New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1959, p. 279.

[13] See J. Wesley Bready, England Before and After Wesley, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1939, pp. 62-63.

[14] Paul Neff Garber, The Romance of American Methodism, Greensboro, NC: The Piedmont Press, 1931, pp. 117-18.

[15] Except when noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

[16] See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., trans. from the German by D.M.G. Stalker, New York: Harper & Row, 1962, 1965, I, 242.

[17] W. H. Fitchett, Wesley and His Century: A Study in Spiritual Forces, New York: Eaton & Mains; Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, 1908, p. 144.