I felt compelled to write this in response to all the talk about doing away with the territorial episcopate.  Pass it on if you like.

"ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL, BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE HELPFUL"

A Traditionalist's Defense of Territorial Episcopacy
 
 
It is the nature of disordered times for people to look for immediate solutions without giving due consideration to the enduring effects of those solutions.  In the heat of the moment, traditions can be easily abandoned or demolished to the injury of future generations.  One can see this in the Reformation itself, with the abandonment by many Reformed Churches of salutary practices such as Eucharist-centered worship, commemoration of saints, and sacramental rites.  I would suggest that the movement among conservative Episcopalians to abandon the "territorial Episcopacy" ranks among this group.  Indeed, I will go even further by arguing that such an abandonment would, in its effects, be almost as damaging to historic Anglicanism as the assorted changes brought about by revisionists.
 
First, it must be admitted that the territorial episcopacy itself isn't absolutely rooted in Scripture.  While one can find in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. Paul and others references to episkapoi, nowhere is there an explicit teaching that these overseers have territorial jurisdiction.  Obviously, the development of the threefold ministry is shrouded in mystery, so it is difficult to say anything terribly precise about its character.  On the other hand, from the start there was apparently an idea of jurisdiction, as evidenced by Paul being an apostle to the Gentiles and Peter an apostle to the Hebrews.   Also, in 2 Corinthians, Paul seems to view Corinth as his own sphere of apostolicity unlawfully breeched by others.
 
If not explicitly Biblical, however, the idea of a territorial episcopate undoubtedly developed very early on in the life of the Church.  Certainly, by the time of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch some notion of territoriality had become normal.  And from that moment onwards, the territorial Episcopacy took deep hold within the Church, becoming increasingly bolstered canonically over the centuries.  In short, while the territorial episcopacy may not itself be Biblical, it certainly holds claim to antiquity, if not apostolicity.  This, in and of itself, should give pause to any headlong movement to dispose of it.
 
Let's now turn our attention to the Reformation itself.  One of the primary reasons for the break of the Church of England from Rome had to do with the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy.  Anglican apologists railed against the jurisdictional invasion of the Church of England by the Bishop of Rome.  Indeed, the important apologies of both Henry Hammond and John Bramhall drew heavily from the early Church to demonstrate the gravity of this jurisdictional breech by the Pope.  In almost all cases, archiepiscopal and episcopal jurisdictions were to be honored: the very fabric of ecclesiastical order depended on that.  Thus, they argued the pretensions of the Papacy necessitated a "just separation."  Thus, from the Reformation onwards, the territorial episcopate has been knitted into the fibers of historic Anglicanism: to alter it might very well reshape Anglicanism itself.
 
Two exceptions to this rule of territorial episcopacy come to mind.  The first is the wholesale invasion of diocesan and provincial territories during the Arian controversy.  But this is clearly a good case for the exception proving the rule.  While orthodox bishops did invade Arian dioceses to minister to beleaguered flocks, this was both frankly admitted and not viewed as a development away from the territorial episcopate.  To my knowledge, no one during this time argued that the Arian problem necessitated the abandonment of the territorial diocese and province.  To the contrary, the assumption was that just as the dioceses and provinces preceded Arianism they would also survive it.
 
The second exception is, I think, more a figment of the popular imagination than historical: namely, the so-called Celtic Church.  Some have argued that conservatives need to begin modeling themselves more on the Celtic idea of ecclesiastical order than on the Roman one.  I believe this to be a dangerous development.  First of all, we know very little about the nature of the Celtic Church.  What we do know mostly comes from Celtic hagiography and later writers such as Bede or Gerald of Wales.  To found any system of Church governance on the primitive Celtic Church would be folly, based, as it would have to be, more on romantic notions than on firm history.  Second, the period to which this appeal is made-the 6th - 7th centuries-was a time in which Christianity was just taking hold in an ancient pagan society.  Once Christianization had been given a century to take hold, territorial boundaries were quickly established.  And even before then, there was a system of informal episcopal jurisdictions based on tribal boundaries.  Besides, one fact we can be sure of about the Celtic episcopate is that it was inextricably bound up with Celtic monasticism.  Indeed, in places like Wales, the bishop was often subordinate to the abbot.  So far, I've heard no one advocate for this!
 
So, let's be clear about one thing: the territorial episcopate has been the model of the church governance from nearly the very beginning of the Church.   It has survived the fall of empires, barbarian invasions, different cultural settings, the Reformation, and even modernity.  It deserves, if nothing else, the benefit of the doubt and not to be dismissed lightly  To put it bluntly: "What is the justification for abandoning a two thousand year old form of Church order?"
 
At this time, that justification seems to be based absolutely on the current situation.  Those advocating for the change are addressing a serious pastoral issue: ministering to isolated orthodox churches in heterodox dioceses.  Instead of enabling the preaching of the Gospel and the spread of Christ's Kingdom, presently the territorial episcopate often enables an unimpeachable assault on the established Anglican faith and practice.  People such as Bishop Bennison can harass traditionalists largely unmolested, safely protected as they are behind a territorial wall.  If it weren't for that wall, argue many, then these parishes could more easily be helped.
 
The embrace of a network episcopate, however, would cause more problems for conservatives than it would solve.  First of all, bound up with the territorial episcopate is the notion of the Church reclaiming creation for Christ Jesus.  The role of the Church, in accordance with Romans 8, is functioning as Jesus' agent of redemption not just for humanity but for the whole created order.  The bishop, serving as the shepherd of flock in a given area, serves as a symbol that this part of God's creation has been reclaimed, and that there the Kingdom of God is being planted.  To tear the episcopate away from territorial jurisdiction would inevitably be further to lose sight of this idea and to bolster the misguided notion of a bishop functioning as a sort of godly CEO.  Instead of grounding the episcopate in the tradition of the Church, this would bring it squarely into the 21st century.  The damaged ancient episcopate would be replaced with a novel postmodern one.
 
Gone too would be an important aspect of the unitive nature of the episcopate.  Instead of all peoples and lands being united by the episcopate, a network episcopate would lead to further plurality.  In our present situation, perhaps nothing more would happen than orthodox bishops ministering to the beleaguered orthodox parish.  But one can easily imagine a more peaceful time when the network would lead to evangelical and catholic churches affiliating with likeminded bishops.  Indeed, it would not be too difficult to imagine a situation in which congregations developed "episcopal profiles" and formed search committees to interview various network bishops for affiliation.  This would lead, of course, to large parish wielding enormous power since bishops would not want to risk losing them.  This is, in fact, the situation within the Continuing Church.  Bishops would serve at the mercy of powerful congregations.
 
 Third, what works for conservatives could also work for revisionists.  What argument could there be against a liberal network being formed in the diocese of Pittsburgh or even the Anglican Province of Nigeria?  Would the whole Anglican Communion dissolve into hundreds or thousands of networks?  Would there be networks for liberals, conservatives, evangelicals, catholics, blacks, upper class Anglicans, and so on?  Would not the network episcopate ultimately lead to Anglican tribalism?  Ultimately, "I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos, I belong to Cephas" would cease to be a scandal; it would be something to uphold.  In seeking to defend the faith, conservative will have merely brought about the creation of the postmodern Church.
 
Instead of advocating a break with Christian antiquity, conservatives should do two things.  First of all, admit that the problem is not with the territorial episcopate, but with the American Episcopal version of it.  A typical Episcopal bishop holds far more power than his counterpart in other Anglican provinces.  The norm in the Episcopal Church is not so much a territorial episcopate as it is episcopal fiefdoms in which bishops can do almost anything they like without facing a serious threat of external or internal discipline.  
 
Secondly, conservatives ought to behave like their predecessors during the Arian controversy.  If there is a beleaguered orthodox parish in another diocese, then by all means invade and minister, and then be prepared to suffer the consequences of that action.  We should all be scandalized by having to invade other dioceses and provinces.  We should admit this frankly and openly, while at the same time stating openly that the current situation leaves no other choice.  If canonical or other legal action is taken, then conservatives should rejoice that they will suffer for their faith and embrace the chance to witness joyfully in advsersity for the historic Church.  In this way, Jesus Christ will be glorified, the people edified, and the ancient order of the Church left intact to resume its historic role once, in God's good time, the present crisis has passed.
 
 So, let's have no more talk of networks or attacks on the territorial episcopacy.  The ancient territorial episcopate is there for the good order and governance of the Church.  In that role, it has served the Church Catholic superbly during the past twenty centuries.  And its abandonment will do far more harm to Anglicanism than many, if not most, of the other developments of the past fifty years.

Mark Clavier+
All Saints Anglican Church, Arden, NC
anglican@...

"Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God must be a rebel as well as a king."
                                                           G.K. Chesterton


--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...