The theologian Paul Avis, in his handbook for those becoming bishops in the Anglican Communion, makes scarcely any reference throughout the course of the treatise to any distinction between a diocesan and a non-diocesan bishop. At one level this is refreshing, eschewing as it does any notion of a hierarchy within the order of bishops. However, on another level it is somewhat odd, for so much of the episcopal polity and praxis articulated throughout assumes the reader is ‘becoming’ a diocesan bishop, and is, consequently, at times irrelevant to those who are ‘becoming’ a bishop in an assisting role.

There is much to address in responding to such a rich and thoughtful range of reflections as given by Bishop Pete in his article published in the previous pages of this Journal. I was asked to respond to that paper from a theological perspective as part of the Ecclesiastical Law Society's 2022 day conference, and this comment piece has been based substantially on that response. So many areas of theological relevance are raised by Bishop Pete: the nature of authority in the Church of England, the role of the bishop, the shortcomings of the synodical process and the legal framework for evangelism.

The article examines some key writings in the works of Bishop John Rawlinson with relation to the development of Anglican Liberal Catholicism in the early twentieth century. The article aims to show how he contributed to the development of Anglican Liberal Catholic thought and practice in the period, especially with regard to views on authority and ecumenical relations.

In the spring of 1621, James I sent the Great Seal of England to his newly appointed Lord Keeper, John Williams, the Dean of Westminster. Naming an ecclesiastic to this position shocked contemporary legal and political commentators, and subsequent historians have generally shared this negative appraisal. Even more positive analyses have held that Williams’ primary attraction for the king lay in his intellect and learning, and an expectation that he would do James’ bidding on the Court of Chancery. Williams actually possessed both stronger legal qualifications than have traditionally been recognized, and a politico-legal philosophy that had helped to modify James’ own views of the role of his prerogative courts and powers. An examination of Williams’ career prior to 1621 reveals the development of a candidate uniquely placed to fill this particular role at that specific moment in James’ reign.

This paper explores the use of the Chewa and Nyanja concepts of mbumba and nkhoswe in Central Africa and Southern Africa as interpretive tools for an Anglican ecclesiology and theology of leadership. Following an exposition of these two concepts, it conceptualizes mbumba as a diocese, and bishops as nkhoswe deriving from Christ as Nkhoswe par excellence. These two concepts entail critical values including responsibility, accountability and mutuality, which can be used as a model to enhance the relationship between a diocese and bishop. Conceptualizing a diocese as mbumba and the role of a bishop as that of nkhoswe has the potential to enhance missional practice in Central and Southern Africa.

A critical analysis of the statements of Eusebius from Caesarea makes plausible the presumption that the indications of Papias administering an office as an ἐπίσκοπος in the city of Hierapolis in Asia Minor are not based on historically confirmed information accepted by Eusebius himself. Moreover these indications seem to depict a post-Eusebian construction. This presumption is likely to unsettle the historical reliability of Papias' episcopacy. This implies that Papias can no longer be treated as evidence for the hypothesis that for the congregations in the west of the Roman province of Asia the institution of an ἐπίσκοπος of the local church had already developed in the second quarter of the second century ce.