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.
I have just posted a new blog post, 'Geographical episcopacy – a further response to Charlie Bell.'https://t.co/5qMh71WfIv
— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) March 11, 2024