Geographical episcopacy – a further response to Charlie Bell.

In my previous article on this site I responded to Charlie Bell’s article ‘Finding a way through’ by explaining that the proposal put forward by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the wider Alliance movement for a provincial solution to the current divisions over marriage and sexual ethics in the Church of England is not contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and would allow both liberals and conservatives in the Church of England to get what they want. Given that this is the case, I finished my post by asking why this proposal is considered problematic by Bell and others on the liberal side.

Bell’s response to my article was to post the following on X:

‘Au contraire, Mr Davie. The position you set out here in both unachievable within Anglican ecclesiology (hello geographical nature of the episcopate) and this demonstrable nonsense as a starting point. Folks, you gotta do better than this.’

If we set aside the unsubstantiated claim that what I wrote was ‘demonstrable nonsense’ what we find is that Bell’s objection to the provincial proposal is that it is  out of line with Anglican ecclesiology because of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate.’

In the remainder of this article I am going to look at the issue of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate’ and explain why it does not preclude the provincial solution to the current divisions in the Church of England advocated by CEEC and the Alliance.

When thinking about the nature of the episcopate the first thing that need to be understood is that the first bishops of the Church were the apostles. They were the people who were given authority by Christ to exercise oversight (episcope) over the elders, deacons and lay people of the earliest churches.

As Richard Hooker notes in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  the apostles were originally bishops ‘at large’ but in time some of them at least became bishops ‘with restraint.’ [1] What he means by this is that originally the apostles were given by Christ an indefinite commission not restricted to any one place, as we see in passages such as Matthew 28:19-20, John 21:15-17 and Acts 1:8. However, from the New Testament, and from later Church historians, we also learn that the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, subsequently put limits or ‘restraints’ on the exercise of their ministry. To quote Hooker again:

‘….notwithstanding our Saviour’s commandment unto them to go and preach unto all nations; yet some restraint we see there was made, when by agreement between Paul and Peter, moved with those effects of their labours which the providence of God brought forth, the one betook himself to the Gentiles, the other unto the Jews, for the exercise of that office of everywhere preaching. A further restraint of their apostolic labours as yet there was also made, when they divided themselves into several parts of the world; John for his charging taking Asia, and so the residue other quarters to labour in.’[2]

What was at first a general episcopal ministry exercised by the apostles thus became over the course of time a specific episcopal ministry relating to particular people and particular places.

The principle that episcopal ministry relates to particular people and particular places is one that has been observed in the Church ever since.

The episcopal ministry given to bishops at their ordination as bishops can in theory be exercised anywhere in the world. Thus, a  Church of England bishop can perfectly properly confirm or ordain not only in England, but in Hong Kong or San Francisco. However, for the sake of good order in the Church bishops are given particular responsibility for specific places or groups of people. Thus, in the Church of England the Bishop of Rochester has a particular responsibility for those who live in the diocese of Rochester (West Kent and the London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley), whereas the Bishop to the Forces has a particular responsibility for British armed services personnel wherever they are in the world.

The responsibility that most bishops have for particular places is what is meant by ‘geographical episcopacy’ and since ancient times a bishop’s calling to exercise episcopal ministry in a particular area has been symbolized by that bishop being given an episcopal title relating to a particular place within that area (hence Bishop of Rochester).

The provincial proposal being advocated by CEEC and the Alliance would involve the exercise of geographical episcopacy as it would involve bishops having responsibility for particular geographical areas. I have previously made this point in a theoretical description of what a conservative third province (the ‘Province of Mercia’) might look like.

‘Like the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, the new province would consist of parishes, deaneries, archdeaconries and dioceses. The number of dioceses that would initially be formed would obviously depend on how many parishes opted to join the new province, but one possible pattern would be for there to initially be four dioceses, one in the Southwest, one in the South and Southeast, one in the Midlands and East Anglia, and one in the North. Chaplaincies in Europe would come under the diocese for the South and Southeast.

Each diocese would initially have one bishop and one of these would be the archbishop of the province. There would be no fixed archiepiscopal diocese and the office of archbishop would subsequently be held by the senior bishop of the province.

A parish church in each diocese would be the cathedral. This would contain the bishop’s chair and would be used for diocesan services such as the enthronement of the bishop, ordinations, and the renewal of ordination vows on Maundy Thursday. The diocese would be named after the location of the cathedral and the incumbent would carry the title Dean. There would be no cathedral chapter and when not being used for diocesan services the cathedral would act as a normal parish church.’

As can be clearly seen in this description the geographical nature of episcopacy would be maintained in such a provincial arrangement. Bell’s suggestion that the geographical nature of the episcopate precludes a provincial solution is therefore mistaken.

One objection that has been made to the sort of provincial arrangement that I have described above is that it would involve the parishes of the new province being dispersed across the diocesan territory of dioceses belonging to the other two provinces. However, this is not a serious objection. There is no ecclesiological principle that says all the parishes of a diocese have to form a single geographical unit rather than being geographically dispersed. Until the Victorian period it was common for parishes to be situated in the midst of other dioceses (the parish of Croydon being a famous example) and today the 140 chaplaincies of the Church of England’s Diocese of Europe are widely dispersed across Europe, Turkey and Morocco.

If we therefore set aside the issue of geographical episcopacy as a red herring, what I would still like to know is what other problems Dr Bell and others have with a provincial solution.

---

[1] Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  Bk. VII.iv.1-2.

[2] Hooker, Bk.VII.iv.2. For the division of labours between Peter and Paul he cites Galatians2:8 and for John’s ministry in Asia Minor he cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk.III.16, andTertullian,  Against Marcion, Bk.IV.5.

A response to Charlie Bell – ‘Finding a Way Through.’

In his article ‘Finding a Way Through’ published on the ViaMedia.News website on 1 March Charlie Bell writes as follows about the request made by CEEC and the wider Alliance movement for ‘legally secure structural provision’ for conservatives in the Church of England who cannot in good conscience accept same-sex marriages, same-sex blessings, or the ordination of those in  sexually active same-sex relationships:

‘Simply shouting ‘legally secure structural provision’ doesn’t, frankly, do the trick, and is getting tiresome. For many – me included – these are questions not just about these prayers [the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’], but about a fundamental threat to our ecclesiology. Casting our ecclesiology aside and creating a ‘pure’ church within a church in order to appease those who will never really be appeased is not a good strategy. Suggesting that we can remain in any serious way ‘one church’ whilst having ‘legally secure structural provision’ is a demonstrable nonsense.

So – let’s sit down and work out how we can move forwards. If you are a reasonable conservative who opposes these prayers on theological grounds, we can and want to work with you to enable you to flourish in the same church as us. We want to ensure you have pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved – pastoral provision which, incidentally, has been cruelly withheld from so many LGBTQIA people for years. You do not have to buy into the lie that structural provision, with bishops out of communion with one another, special ordinations, confirmations, theological colleges, pseudo-provinces, and the rest of it, is the only answer – it isn’t, and it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t. We want you to feel supported, and we want to build each other up in the faith – and we can make this happen if we’re willing to put our minds to it, and ignore the extremes.’

I want to make a threefold response to what Bell says in these two paragraphs.

First, creating a new provincial structure for the Church of England  to provide for the differing positions of conservatives and liberals is not a ‘fundamental threat’ to the Church of England’s ecclesiology.

What CEEC is asking for is  internal differentiation within the Church of England by means of a re-configuration of the Church’s current provincial system. This could take the form of a new province for conservatives alongside Canterbury and York, a new province for liberals alongside Canterbury and York or a re-working of the two existing provinces to cover the whole country with conservatives in Canterbury and liberals in York. [1]

The key point to note about this proposal is that it is in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England. The Church of England has historically consisted, and continues to consist, as a combination  of two separate provinces, each their own Archbishop (both of whom have metropolitical authority within their own province and neither of whom is subject to the other), and each having its own provincial synodical structure consisting of a provincial Convocation made up of the two Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and an attendant House of Laity.  A meeting of the General Synod is simply a joint meeting of these two provincial synods, and the two Convocations retain the power both  to veto legislation proposed in the General Synod and to make provision for matters relating to their province (see Canon H.1 and Article 7 of the Constitution of General Synod).

Adding another province into the mix, or reconfiguring the two existing provinces, would not alter this ecclesiological structure in any fundamental way.[2] What it would mean is that the two (or three)  provinces of the Church of England could continue to meet together in General Synod to debate and legislate on matters of common concern, while their provincial synods could legislate to either maintain or change the Church of England’s current teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality, thus allowing both conservatives and liberals to have what they are looking for  within their own province or provinces.

Each province would hold that the other province or provinces is (or are) part of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and there would be transferability of ministry without re-ordination between them subject to a minister being prepared to accept the doctrine and discipline of the province to which he or she was transferring.   

The Church of England could thus stay together, but in a way which respected the conscientious convictions of both sides and would prevent the Church of England breaking apart entirely.

This approach would also give long term stability because General Synod would not be able to overrule the approach to marriage and sexuality taken by the separate provincial synods (since as at present convocations would be able to exercise a veto) and each province could set its own policy with regard to the future selection, training and appointment of clergy.

Contrary to what Bell claims this proposal is not ‘demonstrable nonsense’ since it would enable the Church of England to remain one church on exactly the same terms that it is one church today.  

Secondly, Bell assures conservatives that liberals like himself ‘want pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved.’  However, conservatives have made clear that the pastoral provision that would make them feel ‘valued and loved’ in accordance with their theological convictions are precisely the things which Bell says they cannot  have, namely, their own provincial structure, their own bishops from whom they would receive confirmation and ordination and licensing, and their own theological education institutions in which students  would be trained for ministry on the basis of historic Anglican teaching (including historic Anglican teaching with regard to marriage and sexual ethics). This means that what Bell offers with one hand he takes away with the other. He says that wants to make conservatives valued and loved, but he wants to prohibit the course of action that would make that a reality.

Thirdly, Bell declares  concerning what conservatives have said they need: ‘it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t.’  My response is ‘Why not?’ All that will stop it happening is people like Bell being unwilling to allow it to happen and I really cannot see why they would wish to do so. The conservatives’ proposal is, as I have said, in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England and it would result in both sides of the current disagreement in the Church of England getting what they want. So, what is the problem?

---

[1] See CEEC Visibly Different at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different_-_dated_26_july_2020.pdf and the CEEC video ‘We love the Church of England’ at https://ceec.info.

[2] Those who know their  church history may be aware that between 787 and 796 the Church of England consisted of three  Provinces,  since Lichfield was an archdiocese, and that the United Church ofEngland and Ireland which existed from 1800-1871 originally consisted of six provinces, Canterbury,York, Armagh, Dublin, Cashel  and  Tuam. The pattern of two provinces is therefore not cast in stone. Ithas been different in the past and could  be different again.

What do we mean by reconciliation?

In his opening speech in the debate on LLF in General Synod yesterday, Bishop Martyn Snow told Synod that  ‘The  missionary imperative for this day and age is reconciliation.’

I agree with him because the New Testament makes clear that the missionary imperative for every day and age is the ministry of reconciliation. We can see this if we turn to the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20:

‘All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.’

The important thing to understand with regard to these verses is that although the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ refer to Paul himself, this does not mean that that the ‘message of reconciliation’ is one that only Paul has been called to proclaim. Rather, just as all Christians (and not only Paul)  have been reconciled by God to himself through Christ, so also all Christians have been entrusted with the missionary imperative of sharing the message of reconciliation throughout the whole world and until the end of time.

If we go on to ask about the content of this message of reconciliation which Christians are called to share, we find Paul’s most comprehensive statement of its content in Ephesians 2:11-22 where Paul writes:

‘Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—  remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;  for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,  built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;  in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.’

What we see in this passage is that God’s reconciling work in Christ has both a horizontal and vertical dimension. It reconciles Jews and Gentiles, but it does so on the basis of reconciling both to God through the cross of Christ. In the words of the Evangelical biblical commentator Thomas Scott:

‘… Thus Christ was the peacemaker between Jews and Gentiles: and at the same time, he reconciled both of them in one body unto God; for the ceremonial law implied man’s state of condemnation, pollution, and enmity against God; to whom he could not approach, except on a mercy seat, and by priests, sacrifices, incense, and purifications; being at last kept at a great distance from him: but the death of Christ upon the cross took away that guilt, which was the cause of the enmity; that so, a holy God might honourably pardon and be reconciled to his rebellious creatures; and it made way for the communication of his Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners and so to destroy the enmity of their hearts against the holy character, worship, and service of God. Having finished this great design he had come by his apostles and ministers, to preach peace with God, and with each other, to the Gentiles who had been far off; and to the Jews who were outwardly nigh to God. For through the Person, sacrificed, and mediation of Christ, sinners of all descriptions were allowed access to God, as a Father, and were introduced with acceptance into his presence, with their worship and services, under the immediate teaching and influence the Holy Spirit as one with the Father and the Son in this great work of salvation, as well as in the unity of the Godhead.’ [1]

In Ephesians 2:22 Paul describes the outcome of God’s reconciling work as the creation of a new temple, a holy place inhabited by people who have been made holy through the work of the Spirit. This temple is the Church and in the rest of Ephesians Paul goes on to describe what it means for Christians to live in the Church as people who have been reconciled to God and to each other through the death of Christ.

Two key points in this description are, first, that Christians are called to live in unity with one another  in a way of life marked by humility, patience, and love. In Paul’s words:

‘I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,  eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ (Ephesians 4:1-3)

Secondly, in a first century social context marked by rampant sexual immorality, Christians, as those who have been reconciled to God, are to be people who not only refuse to practice such immorality. but even to talk to talk about it:

‘But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.’(Ephesians 5:3-6).

As John Stott explains, in these verses:

‘Paul turns from ‘self-sacrifice… to it’s very opposite, self-indulgence,’ from genuine ‘love’ to that perversion of it called ‘lust.’ The Greek words for fornication (porneia) and impurity (akatharsia) together cover every kind of sexual sin, in other words all sexual intercourse outside its God- ordained context of a loving marriage. To them Paul adds covetousness, surely because they are an especially degrading form of it, namely the coveting of somebody else’s body for selfish gratification. The tenth commandment had specifically prohibited coveting a neighbour’s wife, and earlier in this letter Paul has written of the ‘greed’ involved in unclean practises (4:19). So all forms of sexual immorality he writes, must not even be named among you. We are not only to avoid their indulgence, but also to avoid thinking and talking about them, so completely are they to be banished from the Christian community.’[2]

Paul also goes on in Ephesians 5:21-33 to describe the alternative to sexual immorality, namely,  a marriage between one man and one woman marked by a pattern of mutual subjection involving obedience from the wife and self-sacrificial love from the husband,  that reflects the archetypal love of Christ for his bride the Church of which earthly marriages are an image.

What all this means is that the Church, as a community of people who have been reconciled to God through Christ, is called to be a community which practices not only humility, patience and love, but also a community which completely rejects all forms of sexual immorality and practices godly heterosexual marriage instead. In this community there can be no room for same-sex sexual activity,  since this is a form of porneia, and no place for same-sex marriages since these are an ungodly human substitute for the form of marriage created by God to reflect Christ’s love for his Church.

The problem with the LLF/PLF debate  in the Church of England at the moment is that the majority of the bishops are promoting a truncated form of reconciliation, a form of reconciliation which emphasises quite rightly the virtues of humility, patience and love, but also gives liturgical recognition to sexual immorality in the form of the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships and same-sex marriages and the ordination of those involved in them.

The difficulty with this proposal is that the New Testament teaching about reconciliation does not permit of such truncation. It is not a menu from which you can choose some bits and not others. It is a single indivisible whole. If the bishops are truly serious about reconciliation being a missionary imperative for the Church of England they need to go away and think again.

---

[1] Thomas Scott, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with original notes and practical observations (London:1803).

[2] John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), pp.191-192.