Periodically we hear calls for bishops to be ‘released for mission’ or of the need to create ‘missionary bishops’. In both cases this seems to mean that bishops should be given more time, or should be appointed solely, to do ‘hands on’ mission activities. Yet this is to misunderstand the nature of leadership and would leave the prevailing institutional ethos of the Church of England unscathed.
The great need is not for bishops to find time to do more visits or to give lectures or even to preach, but for them to exercise leadership in such a way that the section of the church under their oversight achieves its mission goals. Their situation is directly comparable to that of a general, whose role is not to pick up a gun and charge the enemy, but to direct the battle. Doubtless this may be helped in the bishop’s case by visiting, lecturing and preaching, just as a good general will find time to visit his frontline troops, win their confidence and explain to them his strategy. But the means by which the bishop will discharge his duties effectively is primarily by finding the resources for the church to achieve its calling, and by directing them to that end. Read more (pdf file)
Friday, 5 January 2007
Article (John Richardson): No particular place to go? The role of bishops in the mission of the Church of England
at 10:11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment