The Importance of Ecclesiology This essay is primarily about ecclesiology and my personal convictions on the subject. Ecclesiology is the study of what the Church is, how it should be organized and governed, and how it should fulfill its mission in the world. Second only to historical theology, ecclesiology is one of my favorite subjects. In my experience very few modern, American evangelicals are very interested in ecclesiology. I happen to think that might be a weakness in Christianity because, as I will discuss in this essay, Christ seems to have placed a high priority on ecclesiology by organizing the governance of the Church at the same time he was establishing the canon of scripture and the creedal statements of our faith. The history of early Christianity suggests that our ecclesiology is almost as important as our understanding of the Bible and of the nature of the gospel. It seems to me that some of the heretical pain experienced by Christians through the centuries could have been avoided by a closer study of ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is not an issue of salvation, of course. There will be people from every kind of church organization – and no organization – in heaven. From Baptists to Roman Catholics we will all someday stand together before Christ and learn how our ways of organizing church were both good and bad. This reality does not mean, however, that ecclesiology is somehow just a matter of personal preference without theological significance or power in our lives as Christians. We who grew up in the cultic and sometimes abusive ecclesiology of the old Worldwide Church of God (WCG) should know this better than most Christians. It does matter how we organize our churches and how we go about making decisions, prioritizing our missions, and deciding how we use our resources. It just doesn’t matter with regard to our eternal destiny as the Father’s beloved children in Christ. Whether I am right about the importance of ecclesiology for Christianity in general is immaterial, however. What matters is that it is important to me and it has become more important to me the longer I am engaged in ministry. Because it is important to me my study of ecclesiology and my personal convictions on the subject have led me to make a major, lifechanging decision. After 14 years as an elder in Grace Communion International (GCI) I have decided to join the Episcopal Church and seek ordination into the Episcopal priesthood. This essay is my attempt to articulate what I have learned about ecclesiology, the convictions it has led me to, and the way I have decided to live out those convictions. I have reached a point in my life and ministry when I want to live out my Christianity in a way that is different than the way I have lived it out for the first 38 years of my life. Terminology Some of the words used in this essay will require definition for some readers and some of the words need clarification as to how I am using them in this essay. Here is a brief list of terms that I will be using and what I mean by them. bishop: a Christian minister with spiritual leadership over more than one congregation; “bishop” is the traditional English translation of the Greek word “episkopos”. episcopal church governance: Church governance that gives priority to the ministry of the bishops (the “episkopoi” in Greek). When I use this un-capitalized phrase I am referring to the

form of church governance in general and not the specific denomination called the Episcopal Church.. Episcopal Church: when I capitalize it in this way I am referring to the specific denomination called the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. the historic episcopate: the idea that the bishops of our own time are the successors to a chain of authority that has been transmitted from generation to generation, through the laying on of hands, since the time of the apostles. elder: a minister of word and sacrament serving in a specific congregation, from the Greek word “presbyteros”. In the Episcopal Church these ministers are usually called priests or presbyters but I will use the word “elder” throughout this essay because it is the term most familiar to my GCI readership. Bishops, Elders, and Deacons The heart of episcopal church governance is the three-fold ministry of bishops, elders, and deacons. The earliest clear attestation to this form of governance is found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, from about 107 A.D. Ignatius’ writings show that this three-fold pattern of ministry existed and was clearly defined in Asia Minor and Syria within 40 years after the death of the apostles. Ignatius invokes the triune life of God in speaking about this way of organizing ministry: . . . stand firmly by the orders of the Lord and the apostles, so that whatever you do, you may succeed in body and soul, in faith and love, in Son, Father, and Spirit, from first to last, along with your most distinguished bishop, your presbytery (that neatly plaited spiritual wreath!) and your godly deacons. Defer to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ did to the Father in the days of his flesh, and as the apostles did to Christ, to the Father, and to the Spirit. ~ Magnesians 13. There is a general agreement among scholars that the Bible does not prescribe a specific form of church governance. It is generally understood that the Pastoral Epistles, for example, use the terms “bishop” and “elder” interchangeably to refer to very similar pastoral offices. However, the beginnings of the three-fold ministry found in Ignatius’ writings, and the beginnings of distinguishing bishops from elders, can be seen in the Pastoral Epistles. There we see Timothy and Titus being given the authority to appoint pastoral leaders, e.g. elders, in cities within a certain geographic area. Titus is told, for example, to “appoint elders in every town” of Crete (Titus 1:5). That would mean that Titus himself was, in some sense, something other than just another presbyter and was acting in a pastoral role towards the presbyters he was told to appoint. In other words, Titus acted like the Bishop of Crete even if the more developed episcopal system, with its specific terminology as used by Ignatius, was not yet in place at that early date. It is easy to visualize how the next generation of leaders after the generation of Timothy and Titus would have wanted to distinguish between pastoral leaders who were succeeding to the geographically wider ministry held by apostolic appointees such as Timothy and Titus and leaders who were succeeding to the congregationally specific ministry of the elders. It seems

reasonable to envision them taking the vocabulary from the Pastoral Epistles and assigning the word “bishop” (which means “overseer” in Greek) to those who were overseeing a larger area and the word “elder” to those who were serving in individual congregations. By the time of Ignatius it appears that the development of this system was complete in Asia Minor and Syria, at least, and may have been the accepted pattern throughout the Christian world by that time, including cities such as Rome and Alexandria. The significance of the episcopate (i.e., the bishops) in this three-fold pattern of ministry is to be found in what happened next in Christianity, between the time of Ignatius and the time of Athanasius of Alexandria. During that period from 100 A.D. – 373 A.D. the Church established which books would be in the Bible (the canon of scripture) and committed to writing a summary of the faith given to the Church by the apostles (the Nicene Creed). These two works of the Church were the product of almost two centuries of prayer, discussion, and effort on the part of Christians all over the ancient world but they were especially dependant on the ministry and work of the episcopate. As the pastoral leaders of the Church and the focus of ecumenical connection between all Christians, the bishops were the ones who represented the whole Church in the work of establishing which books would be regarded as sacred scripture and what the boundaries of orthodox theology would be. These three components – the episcopate, the Bible, and the creed – worked together to assure the accurate transmission of the faith originally given by Christ to the apostles. As the early Christians struggled to establish which versions of Christianity were faithful to the teaching of the apostles they looked to their bishops for pastoral guidance. The bishops used the creedal statements given to them by their episcopal predecessors to evaluate the various books that were available for use in worship and they chose the books that met two criteria: the ones that most closely matched the creedal statements given to them by the bishops who had gone before them and the ones that also had the most convincing claim to apostolic origin. These books, together with the books of Israel, became the Christian Bible. The creed helped the early Christians understand and interpret the Bible correctly while also helping them discern which claimants to the episcopate were really teaching what the apostles had taught. And finally, when the early Christians wanted to be sure that the creedal statements used by the bishops were a faithful summary of the apostles’ teaching, they went to the Bible for that confirmation (Justo Gonzalez offers a brief summary of this process in The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, pp. 62-66). So, the episcopate affirmed the Bible and the creed. The creed affirmed the Bible and the episcopate. And the Bible affirmed the episcopate and the creed. The three worked together, and continue to work together, as three legs of a tripod to ensure the faithful transmission of the faith of the apostles. For the earliest Christians, and for all Christians for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, and for the majority of Christians in the world today, there was no separation of the episcopate from the Bible and the creed. The Historic Episcopate What distinguishes the ecclesiology of churches with truly episcopal church governance from other churches is their use of the historic term “bishop” and their connection to the line of bishops going back through the centuries to the earliest days of Christianity. This connection to the earliest days of Christianity is called “the historic episcopate”. As the name would suggest, it is a statement about the history of episcopal governance. Specifically, it is a statement about that history as described in the Bible, the writings of the

Church Fathers, and the subsequent historical records of Christianity. In the New Testament we see that the apostolic leadership handed their ministry on to qualified people through the laying on of hands. In the early writings of the Church Fathers, such as Ignatius, we see that this handing on of pastoral leadership through the laying on of hands continued in the centuries after the apostles. It stands to reason, then, that this historic transmission of the episcopate could continue through the centuries into our modern era – especially if we believe that Christ is the head of the Church and that he has maintained the accurate transmission of the faith from generation to generation through the Holy Spirit’s work in the Bible, the creed, and the episcopate. At the same time we have to acknowledge that some gaps exist in our historical records, especially in our records from the earliest centuries. No modern bishop can establish with absolute certainty the name, biography, and lifespan of every bishop preceding him in the historic episcopate all the way back to the apostles. One bishop who comes close to being able to do this is the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) but even Roman Catholic historians admit that the list of Popes which claims to go all the way back to Peter has historically questionable points in it. In light of these two historical realities – that there has been a continuity of leaders and communities through the history of Christianity and that our records are admittedly incomplete – I believe there are two facts that are important to bear in mind. First, we know that leaders have lived and served in every generation, even if our records of the names of bishops are incomplete. We may not know with certainty the name of every bishop in a particular line of succession but we do know that churches existed and leaders were present. Secondly, even if our records were only deemed accurate as far back as, say, the 4th century A.D. (just to pick a number), that would still be an impressively long historical record. So, there is a continuity of leadership, community, and theology that runs through the centuries of Christianity. This continuity means that a minister is not a bishop simply because he says he is one or his congregation gives him that title. A bishop is a minister ordained to the office of bishop by at least three other bishops who were themselves ordained by others within the historic episcopate. The historic episcopate is a valuable Christian tradition that helps establish which bishops, and which churches, are living within the historic ecclesiology of mainstream, orthodox Christian church governance that traces its roots back to the apostles. To many Christians in communions outside the historic episcopate it may appear that valuing the succession of bishops through the centuries is a barrier to ecumenical dialogue and connection. In the case of the papacy this may be true to some extent. In the Episcopal Church, however, the historic episcopate is seen as a means to reunion and ecumenical connection between Christians from many different theological backgrounds. To understand how this could be so we must return to the historical roots of Christianity in the first centuries after Christ. The early Church was not uniform in its worship, practice, or even theology. There was considerable variation throughout the Roman world in those first centuries of the Christian era. The unity of the early Church was not found in their uniformity on all matters of theology and practice. Christians found unity in their common acceptance of the Bible, the creedal statements of the faith, the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, and the mutual recognition that their bishops accorded to one another as members of the historic episcopate. In Chicago, in 1886, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church affirmed the desire of their church to enter into communion and cooperation with other Christian denominations, not by

merging with other denominations but by returning to these early Christian principles of ecumenical unity. Their statement on this subject came to be called the “Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral” and it sets out four basic elements of the historic Christian faith that are needed to restore unity among the divided branches of Christianity: 1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God. 2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. 3. The two Sacraments – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him. 4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church. (From The Book of Common Prayer, 1979.) The Episcopal bishops were saying that if we all believe the Bible, affirm the creed, and celebrate the sacraments, then – as in the first centuries of Christianity – our bishops can acknowledge one another as members of the historic episcopate and pastorally lead us into ecumenical communion. But what if a denomination does not have bishops in the historic episcopate? What could it do if it wished to enter into communion with the historic episcopate and embrace the historic ecclesiology of mainstream, orthodox Christian church governance? The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) found itself in such a position a few years back. They wished to be in communion with the historic episcopate and in greater ecumenical partnership with the wider Christian Church but their bishops had not been ordained in the succession of the historic episcopate. The solution was for them to change their manner of ordaining bishops, beginning in 2001, to have them ordained by bishops from other Lutheran denominations that have preserved the historic episcopate and/or by bishops of the Episcopal Church. In this way they were able to reestablish their communion with the historic episcopate, enter into full communion with the Episcopal Church, and yet remain fully autonomous – with their own distinct denominational identity – as Lutherans. The ELCA and the Episcopal Church did not merge, they are two distinct denominations, but the ELCA received the historic episcopate from the Episcopal Church and the two denominations are now in full communion. (You can read more about this process at this link: http://tinyurl.com/6rhsvq9 ). I believe that such examples could point the way forward for the reunion of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. One final note about the historic episcopate: the authority of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is a subject that all churches in communion with the historic episcopate must address. One of the main reasons for the existence of the Episcopal Church is the fact that there are many bishops who have been ordained within the historic episcopate that do not believe, based on history and theology, that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Christians in the world. The bishops of the Episcopal Church, like those of the Eastern Orthodox churches, believe that the episcopally led churches within each nation or ethnic group should be autonomous in their governance while still being in full ecumenical communion, through their bishops, with the other episcopally led churches of the world. The Anglican theologian Austin Farrer expressed his decision to be an Anglican in this way: There are two overriding considerations. I dare not dissociate myself from the apostolic ministry, and the continuous sacramental life of the Church extending unbroken from the first

days until now. This is the first point, and the second is this: I dare not profess belief in the great Papal error. . . I cannot desert the apostolic ministry, I cannot submit to the Pope. And I was not born a Greek or Slavic Christian. I was born in this English-speaking world, where God’s merciful providence has preserved the form and substance of the Catholic Church, and freed it from papal usurpation. ~ “On Being an Anglican” by Austin Farrer, in The End of Man, pp. 50-51. This is my personal summary of the argument that Farrer is making: I should be in communion with the historic episcopate. Broadly speaking this gives me three choices: Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. I cannot choose Roman Catholicism because I cannot accept the Pope’s claim to immediate authority over all Christians everywhere. I do not choose Eastern Orthodoxy because I am not culturally, ethnically, or linguistically Eastern. That is to say, I do not join the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox churches because I am not Greek or Russian. As an English speaking person in the United States I am blessed to have the historic episcopate within my own cultural, national, and linguistic people group in the form of the Anglican Communion, which is found here in the United States in the Episcopal Church. If there were no Anglican Communion, or no presence of it here in the United States, then one of the Eastern Orthodox churches would be my next choice because I would be able to be in communion there with the historic episcopate even if I had to immerse myself in another culture or language to do so. I see great value in the historic episcopate. It connects modern Christianity to its roots in the life and work of the apostles. It provides historical continuity within the Body of Christ and provides some safeguards against heresy. And it represents a way of ecumenical life that allows distinct denominations to exist while still participating in the full communion of the Body of Christ. In summary, I believe that just as there is a mainstream, orthodox understanding of Christianity based on the Bible and the creeds so there is also a mainstream, orthodox ecclesiology based on the three-fold ministry of bishops, elders, and deacons. This ecclesiology has its roots in the earliest days of Christianity and it has been handed down, through the historic episcopate, to our modern age of the Church. What Episcopal Church Governance Is and Is Not To those on the outside looking in, episcopal church governance may simply look like “government from the top down” – but there is much more to it than that. In fact, the nature of the office of bishop within the historic episcopate, as well as the unique way that bishops function specifically within the Episcopal Church, creates a community of mutual accountability that is much more relationally healthy than just a “top-down” command and control structure. The first dimension of accountability is to be found in the historic episcopate discussed above. Through his or her ordination in the historic episcopate, as well as through the councils of the Church and the communion of bishops throughout the world, each bishop is held accountable to the larger body of Christ as it exists throughout the world and throughout history. The bishops of the Episcopal Church don’t trace their ordination to some guy who set himself up as a bishop and claimed authority to ordain people. Their ordination as bishops is rooted in centuries of Christian history. Therefore they are accountable to those who have gone before them and to the other bishops throughout the world who are also part of that historic episcopate.

The second dimension of accountability is to be found in the specific way in which bishops function within the Episcopal Church. Bishops in the Episcopal Church are elected by the clergy and representatives of the laity in the diocese where they serve as bishop. They are not appointed by their predecessors, nor are they selected in closed door meetings by a handful of clergy invited to participate in the decision. This electoral process creates a relationship of mutual accountability in which the clergy and laity of the diocese seek to discern the Holy Spirit’s leadership in who should serve as their chief pastor and then agree to submit to his pastoral leadership. This mutual accountability can also be seen in the governance of the diocese. For example, the diocese meets in convention each year under the bishop’s leadership to make decisions about the mission, ministry, and budget of the diocese. The bishop, the clergy, and representatives of the laity seek to discern, together, what the Holy Spirit is leading their diocese to do in the coming year. It’s not just the bishop telling everyone what to do, but rather the bishop leading the diocese in a pastoral way to make decisions about their life together as a church. For example, the bishop’s salary is part of the budget process that takes place in this convention. Since his salary is paid through the donations of the people in the parishes of his diocese he keeps them informed as to what portion of their donations are going to his salary. The Bishop of Western North Carolina, for example, will make $126,000 this coming year. (Here’s a link to the diocesan newspaper where they publish their budget. The bishop’s salary is on page 7: http://tinyurl.com/7fj9pen) How I Came to My Decision GCI is the only denominational life I have ever known. I often tell people that I was pre-natal Worldwide Church of God because my parents were members before I was born. It is no easy or simple decision, at age 38, to leave the only Christian community you have ever known. The first time I thought of entering the Episcopal Church was the summer of 1995, in the midst of the doctrinal upheaval that WCG was going through at that time. I visited an Episcopal worship service that summer – the first time I had ever attended a non-WCG worship service – and I was deeply move by the beauty, history, and Trinitarian language of the liturgy. At the time I was so deeply immersed in my life in WCG that it seemed impossible to imagine ever leaving it, but I did begin to think of the Episcopal Church as a second spiritual home. Beth and I were married the next summer in an Episcopal Church, though the ceremony was conducted by a WCG pastor, and over the years when we have been on vacation and wanted to go to church we have often attended worship in Episcopal Churches. While I was working on my M.Div. in the late 1990s I seriously considered whether I should remain in WCG or go elsewhere. I considered moving to the Episcopal Church at that time, but in the end I decided that I was being called to remain with WCG. That decision was based primarily on my sense of where I could be the most useful in the Body of Christ. It seemed to me that as a child of WCG, with a calling to the ministry of word and sacrament, I was best suited to help the people of my own faith community to move into the orthodox mainstream of Christianity. I felt that I was called to help with the process of reformation in WCG/GCI and I believe that the fruit of my ministry confirms that I was indeed called to this mission. For the last two years I have been prayerfully considering what the next phase of my ministry should be. One question I have asked myself is whether I still have the same sense of mission to serve within GCI. I could certainly continue to pastor the two churches I have pastored for the

last 12 years. The people of these congregations and the denominational leadership would be happy to have me do so and there is a certain appeal in continuing to minister here for another decade or more. Beyond continuing to do what I have been doing, however, there doesn’t seem to be a mission for me in GCI. I can pastor these two churches for another decade or more, or I can follow my heart in a new direction of ministry. It is in this regard that I have had to admit to myself some realities about my ministry that I have sometimes ignored for the past 14 years. As much as I love GCI, and am convinced that I was called to ministry here, being in pastoral ministry in GCI has required me to suppress certain parts of my spiritual personality. I care very much about ecclesiology. The how and why of church governance is important to me. My convictions about the importance of the three-fold ministry and the historic episcopate have grown more significant in my spiritual life over the years. I also love the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer and I am, at heart, a sacramentalist. To one degree or another I have had to set aside these values in order to be effective in GCI. Setting aside these personal convictions was acceptable as long as I had a higher purpose and calling in doing so. If I could see that I was being called to another ministry within GCI then continuing to set aside these convictions might make sense. But suppressing these parts of my spiritual personality in order to just continue doing for another decade the same ministry that I have done for the last decade does not seem like a good approach to me. I began to ask myself a couple of simplistic diagnostic questions: “if money were no object, what would I do?” and “if I knew I couldn’t fail, what would I do?” The same answer kept coming back: I would follow my convictions about ecclesiology, move to North Carolina, join the Episcopal Church, and seek ordination to the priesthood. In the end I asked one final question: “is there anything that GCI could do differently that might lead me to stay here?” It took a while for me to answer that, but in the end that question helped me see what I was really looking for. I realized that there were two circumstances that might lead me to stay: if GCI called me to a ministry that was compelling enough to warrant my continuing to set aside my personal values about ecclesiology or if GCI would establish a governance of bishops, elders, and deacons and have its bishops ordained in the historic episcopate – in a way similar to what the ELCA has done. In prayer and reflection, as well as in consultation with GCI denominational leadership, I came to see that I was not being called to a new mission within GCI. After that, when I was able to articulate my desire that GCI change its governance, I knew that I would have to leave. The people of GCI are happy with the ecclesiology they have, they are not going to change it. Their salvation does not depend on them adopting my views of what the Church is or how it should be governed. Within GCI’s system of governance it is not my role, as a pastor, to help decide what the ecclesiology of GCI will be. If I stay in GCI it will have one of two results: I will either grow more and more frustrated as the years go by and I continue to suppress my personal convictions on these subjects or I will create unnecessary turmoil and conflict in GCI as I agitate for changes that people in GCI are not interested in making. It seems to me that the only course of action which is both ethical and fair to myself and to the people of GCI is for me to go to a place in the Body of Christ where I can live out my convictions regarding ecclesiology. I am looking forward to my new role in the Body of Christ and I am looking forward to keeping up with all the good things that Jesus will do in GCI in the coming years. I especially look forward to staying in touch and in friendship with all the people in GCI that I love, and who love me, even as we continue to live out the unique callings that we have each been given.