<a href ="http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/features/respecting_boundaries1/">Go to Part 2 of this series</a>

The Windsor Report (2003) dealt not only with issues of human sexuality and holy order in The Episcopal Church and in the Diocese of New Westminster, but also with the issue of new missionary Anglican bishops being consecrated from outside of geographical provinces —hence the phrase “diocesan border crossing.” The principles here are ancient and catholic (only one bishop per human geographic area) and practical (only one person in charge at a time, please). As it turns out, these two principles are related (who knew? theology can sometimes actually be practical), but more on that in a future post.

The ways that this issue of diocesan border crossing has manifested are pluriform and need not be rehearsed here. Its most recent manifestation, of course, would be the declaration on the part of three bishops of a new alternative Anglican province, parallel to that of TEC.

I would like to introduce here a brief series of posts about the issue of diocesan borders. I am not interested in trying to deal point by point with current deeds or misdeeds in the aftermath of the 2003 General Convention. Instead, I propose to share some of my own musings, as a theologian, from a wider angle: historical, theological, ecumenical and (American) cultural. I am anticipating bringing up many more questions than solutions — a reflection of my own current state of mind on these questions.

In the next post I will take up the Council of Nicea. I will take a look at its wording, and discuss the meaning of such an ancient canon law today. Does canon law have a statute of limitations? I will then turn to theology proper. Leaning heavily on the episcopal ecclesiology of Eastern Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas, I will discuss the centrality of the bishop to the church, and the fundamental nature of the church as geographically bounded and defined. After that I will turn to ecumenical issues. What are we to do now that we live after both the great Schism and the Reformation in the West with regard to overlapping ecclesial structures? And what do we do with this ancient notion of the church being bound to geography when some of us find ourselves in the confusing cultural cauldron of the American melting pot?

Although I anticipate bringing up many questions without providing much hope for easy answers, I will be transparent and give away my concluding proposal. My hope is that, in the face of all the confusion, the Anglican Communion will pull through as that continuing witness to the unity of the ecumenical church that it has so often been at its best moments. I say “witness to” the ecumenical church, because, unlike other sister communions, Anglicans have never claimed simply to comprise the ecumenical church en toto, or even as primary example. My hope is that we can, as a kind of “icon” of the church ecumenical, maintain a stance of boundary respect, at least among those who are in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Why I hope to conclude with this point, and what it may imply, will have to wait for future posts.