Mark+,

Thanks for the response.  My hearty concurrence. I suppose in unusal times
or times of crisis exceptions should be considered - protecting the Bride is
our duty and may at times require extraordinary measures.  But the
functional word here for me is extraordinary.

Wayne+



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Clavier+ [mailto:anglican@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:22 AM
To: The Very Rev'd Erich A. Zwingert, SSC; Lexorandi2@...;
faithandlife@...; FrTonyClavier@...; kendall harmon; Michael
L. Ward; pfb; PsalmWhosoever@...; anglicansunited;
wgrundor@...; RichardKew@...
Subject: [FaithandLife] Territorial Episcopate


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@...