Increasingly, I find myself having conversations with lay people and colleague pastors about the point of having District Presidents, especially as budgets begin to tighten and people struggle with shipping thousands of dollars off to the black abyss of District administration (aka “missions”). I find myself more and more at a loss for words as I study church history and the scriptures. Clearly, the scriptures have an Episcopal system in place – despite all protestant translation bias (Episcopos = “Overseer” rather than Bishop, etc.). Reading Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition, clearly Bishops are in place even then. It’s an undeniable fact that the church had Bishops. How does having District Presidents mesh with this paradigm? Well, that’s up for debate. I would put forth though, that most Lutherans believe District Presidents are mere administrators. They attend meetings, preach at church anniversaries and eat potluck dinners . . . but that’s about it. We don’t hold a view of our church leadership that is vital and essential to church unity. And, speaking purely pragmatically, we could probably do without them and be financially better off.
I just finally finished Zizioulas’ “Eucharist, Bishop, Church.” My head is still whirling! I found it to be a very verbose and repetitive volume, but also very insightful and thorough as he studied the unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the first three centuries.
The book centers around revealing what constitutes the unity of the Church. It’s a volume worth reading in the current “ecumaniac” minded protestant world. Most Christians agree that unity in the church is something to be sought after, if people could just “put away their differences” and become one. Essentially, it is a ploy to throw away “doctrines that divide” and have a superficial, face-value “unity” in the absolute minimalism of orthodoxy. But was that the mind of the early church from the first three centuries? Zizioulas argues and makes a strong case that it isn’t. The catholicity of the church does not consist of a minimalistic “unified diversity” and/or parts making up the whole.
Rather, his conclusions on Ecclesial unity are essentially as follows:
Ecclesial Unity is Trinitarian. The three key elements of a) the Holy Eucharist, b) as presided over by the Bishop in the c) sacramental synaxis of the Church constitute the unity of the church. Indeed, the Bishop is seen as the “lynch pin” that holds the entire unity together. Zizioulas cites Cyprian when he says “it is a fundamental and inviolable principle that the Church is nothing other than the people united around their Bishop and the flock bound to their shepherd (Ecclesia plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens). The Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop, and if anyone is not with the Bishop, he is not in the Church.” p.139
“This axiom was a direct and natural consequence of the mystical view of the Church as the body of Christ manifested historically in the Eucharist, and of the position of the Bishop in the eucharistic assembly. Since the Church was the body of Christ and because the eucharistic synaxis was this body, for this reason the head of this assembly automatically became the visible head of the Church in that place. In consequence, the Bishop’s position in the Eucharist alone is the primary, complete and ecclesiological justification for the authority which the Canons ascribe him.” p.250
One Eucharist, One Bishop, One Church. This conclusion impacted Church unity because in the first three centuries, there was only one local church in a given geographical place, with one Bishop presiding over the one Eucharist. (cf.The First Ecumenical Council, canon 18). This changed with the later 4th century arrival of parishes, which allowed priests to take on a Eucharistic role. “The parishes that appeared for reasons of practical need were not regarded as self-contained eucharistic units within the diocese, but were dependent on the one episcopocentric Eucharist as organic offshoots.” p.254 This Tradition is maintained in the Orthodox church to this day by means of the Antimension, a rectangular piece of cloth consecrated and signed by the Bishop and in effect, giving the parish license to conduct Divine Service in that place in the absence of the Bishop.
“Each single Church, gathered around the Bishop and culminating in his person, is not simply a part of the whole within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church; but in as much as she communes in the whole in the unity of the Holy Spirit, she is herself one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, i.e. the “fullness” of the “body of Christ”. p.248
Bishop as “pin” of Orthodoxy & Eucharist. Zizioulas is careful not to say “where the Eucharist is, there is the Church.” “For as this present study has shown, to have the notion of the “Catholic Church”, the Eucharist is not sufficient, but Orthodoxy is also required; while the consciousness of the Church of the first three centuries, as expressed through Cyprian, was unable to recognize eucharistic fullness in a schismatic Church, even if she celebrated the Eucharist. Of course, as was stressed at the appropriate place, this position of Cyprian’s was not accepted in the West where Augustine’s conception of schism ultimately prevailed.” p.257
And as schisms and heresies continued to develop, the Bishop’s role became more and more teaching focused as true orthodox Bishops were store-houses of Apostolic truth.
From the first three centuries, the unity of local Churches in the one “Catholic Church throughout the world” understood as their identity with the one whole Christ, was expressed in history a) as a vertical relationship of each Church with the one and whole Christ mystically present in the one Eucharist, to which the Bishop was connected as the visible head, possessing the “charism of truth”; b) as a historical reference back to the past and the full identity of each Church with the primitive apostolic Church; and c) as a latitudinal extension of each Church to the inclusion and communion of the Churches everywhere on earth, if and insofar as the first two conditions held good for them. p.159
True gnosis consists in the teaching of the Apostles and the agreement existing from the beginning in the Church throughout the whole world and the extension of the body of Christ through the succession of the Bishops to whom the Apostles had entrusted the various local Churches. p.128-129.
The over arching principles were firstly that “orthodoxy is unthinkable without the Eucharist” and secondly, “the Eucharist without orthodoxy is an impossibility.” p.133. This was the dynamic in the post-Polycarp milieux of gnostic heresies and schisms which increasingly became ecclesial in nature. The glue holding both principles together in real time and specific space is the Bishop.
Summary
Zizioulas’ ultimately seeks to demonstrate the mind of the Church of the first three centuries regarding unity and “catholicity.” Basically answering: “where is the church?” In the current post-modern, protestant world view, the church is an invisible, universal thing. We first see the church described as universal “GK: katholikos” in Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr. 8.2). It has come to mean a “universal church” separate from local Christian communities. However, Zizioulas’ study concludes the opposite – that local Christian Churches are indeed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in her fullness because she is the store house of both the Eucharist and the Apostolic Truth (Orthodoxy) as led by the Bishop.
“Being the leader of the one single eucharistic assembly and offering the Eucharist in its name, the Bishop was seated “in the place of God,” and his throne was the living icon on earth of the heavenly throne of God given that the Eucharist on earth was nothing other than a true antitype of the worship of God in heaven. The Bishop offered to God through his hands the body of the Eucharist in which the Church in that place was united, thus becoming the very body of Christ. . . . The salvation of the members of the Church consequently passed through his hands. Now we see why anyone who does not go through the Bishop in his relationship to God is “worshipping the devil” (Ignatius). Hence, also the axiom formulated by Cyprian, that the Church is in the Bishop and that “where the Bishop is, there is the Church.” p.249
This mind of the early Church about the centrality of Bishops in the life of the Church is very informative. It is a far cry from my current, “take ‘em or leave ‘em” pragmatic understanding, that’s for sure! The vital and essential nature of Bishops for both the Eucharist and Orthodoxy has been made clear in Zizioulas’ work. Cyprian’s comment “Where the Bishop is, there is the Church” is more telling of the mind of early church than that of post-reformation theology’s tag line of “Where the word is preached in purity and the sacraments are administered in accordance with Christ’s command.” The glaring missing link is the Bishop.
I stumbled across an excellent article written by an Orthodox Priest talking about Christmas. The article discusses at length how truly pagan the season has become in our midst and gives some enlightening direction about amending our own practices to resist the temptation to celebrate Christmas before it arrives. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as we have been going to 8 million Christmas functions over these past few weeks. It’s a really neat article and I highly recommend we read it and take its words to heart and hopefully reclaim Christmas! I post this on the eve of the “mini Holy Week” of Advent, where the Great “O” Antiphons may be prayed and focus on some solemn joy of Advent and prepare for the coming King.
I saw on the news last night that Bishop Seraphim Storheim has taken a leave of absence in the midst of abuse allegations. Let us pray that these are only allegations. I only post this here because Bishop Seraphim was a priest at 
