These issues have been debated in ecumenical dialogues for quite some time. It seems that it is perfectly possible to have local oversight focused in one ‘bishop’, even a quasi-one ‘primus inter pares’, without being committed to any theory of necessity of succession of that order to validate the authenticity of a particular church. The turning point seems to have been, as to some extent above with baptism, in BEM, the Lima Document. BEM shows both a ‘bottom-up’ and a pneumatological approach to ministry. The community is prior and out of the community God calls some to ordained ministry by the Holy Spirit (Paras.11, 15). The Spirit confers authority in the act of ordination: ‘..this act takes place within a community which accords public recognition to a particular person.’ (cf. the outline above of the transmission of authority). ‘The New Testament does not describe a single pattern of ministry which might serve as a blueprint or continuing norm for all future ministry in the church.’ The statement on the threefold ministry is worth quoting more fully (Paras 22, 23):
Although there is no single New Testament pattern nevertheless the threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon may serve today as an expression of the unity we seek and also the means for achieving it. Among these gifts a ministry of episkope is necessary to express and safeguard the unity of the body. Every church needs this ministry of unity in some form in order to be the church of God………’
At no point in the text of BEM is the essentiality of any theory of Episcopal apostolic succession made dogmatic, yet the threefold pattern is commended. What is also commended is that the Episcopal, presbyteral, and congregational elements of ministry are all important. Historically, oversight may have taken various forms and the Spirit seems to have used them all in varying degrees. The pneumatological emphasis is seen very much in the assertion in para. 33 that ‘ In the history of the Church there have been times when the truth of the Gospel could only be preserved
‘The same Lord who sent the apostles continues to be present in the Church. The Spirit keeps the Church in the apostolic tradition….’
This is a key statement that provides authentication to any church, denomination, or group which has sought faithfulness to the Faith, but for a variety of reasons has not preserved, or never developed, a visible episcopal ministry in a third order sense. The BEM argument moves on to the key phrase that episcopal ministry is a sign though
not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church. (Para.38). The argument
then turns an interesting corner to state a principle of re-union that has been gaining ground steadily in recent years that as long as the churches remain separated, all lose something of each other. It is not a matter of episcopal churches looking at non- episcopal churches as though they have a missing order of ministry. The Episcopal Church may well lack the distinctive emphasis of the separated church. Hence BEM concludes with a very principled assertion that (Para.54): ‘Openness to each other holds the possibility that the Spirit may well speak to one church through the insights of another.’ (The particular context of this section was the ordination of women). These themes are taken up in the document, Apostolicity and Succession, produced by the Church of England House of Bishops in 1994. In careful language it broadens the concept of succession. (: 21)
‘Although apostolic succession of faithfulness to truth is carried in the whole community (emphasis mine), it is also integrally related to the continuity in a God- given ministry of oversight.’ And interestingly goes on: ‘The concept of a sacred tradition of teaching antedates (emphasis mine) the concept of an apostolic succession of pastors, but the second was seen to be necessary to safeguard the first’
Apostolicity and Succession further opens up the discussion started by BEM on ‘sign
but not guarantee’. It sees apostolic continuity in the faith over time as essential to the church’s life but stops short of pinning this solely upon bishops. It then boldly touches
on the thorny issue of ‘unfaithful’ bishops in the course of ecclesiastical history. (Para.59 :23)
…Whose juridical succession could hardly be faulted. Yet they have not been reckoned to share in the apostolic succession because they have not been seen to share in the tradition of Catholic teaching and the universal communion of the local churches.’
And further on the report again highlights that whilst bishops are a ‘sign of assurance’ to the faithful that the church remains in continuity with the apostles teaching and mission, no individual bishop can provide this assurance on his own. Taken at face value, this report drops strong hints that we can see something of convergence and even congruence in thinking from very different starting points. The balance of charisma and whole community, reminds us of the need to allow charisma (as God given) to operate within the body, but also within the context of the whole body to be tested and discerned. One might thus see in this Anglican document, a Pentecostal/charismatic paradigm.