Very messy work-in-progress...

Introduction:

Ecclesiology (in its original sense) proceeds from a polity-perspective: how the Church appears to us. --> The question of the ecclesiastical is, if not exactly meta-ecclesiastical, in any case second-order in some way. --> Second order reflection automatically implies third, etc. -> And because it does, it entails an immediate problem of the management of such a space and complexity. -> You see, I'm skipping the ecclesiology -> break a certain ecclesiological spell, a fascination with church polity, a self-ish polity orientation towards what presents itself... -> exceed, precisely, the ecclesiological dimension. blah blah blah... am well on my way to becoming a practical presby-theologian or perhaps i should go back to being middens?

1. The term "episcoterian", as I call it, refers to a specific new form of ecclesiastical polity. It consists predominately in certain make-shift hybrid and/or blended styles of church management which maximally and coherently enfold all approaches to holy clustering, most notably episcopal and presbyterian polities.
2. Episcoterian styles are envisioned as primary polities-of-emergence whose cultural conditions have gradually taken root in the West, particularly in America today, owing to recurrent systematic failures in real conventional forms of church polity, seen across the board, i.e. regardless of denomination or tradition. This working group (imagined here as an "encampment") serves as a space to discuss and to reach for a greater understanding of critical issues surrounding what is, at first glance, a very strange and somewhat hard-to-navigate entropic polity-systems phenomena.
3. Episcoterian emergent polity functions on roughly the third-order of complexity. Nevertheless, despite sounding contradictory, it operates as a generalized ecology of ecclesiastical polities. It should be emphasized that episcoterian forms of complex emergent polity do NOT obviate Roman Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, or broadly Protestant confessions, creeds, catechisms, statements of belief, etc. To be sure, the meta-theoretical term "episcoterian" does not amount to syncretism by any stretch, insofar as what is at stake here are questions pertaining alternatively to the improvement of ecclesiastical polities in America, and not one's individual religious affiliation or polity-preference.
4. Episcoterian forms sketched herein are likewise not intended to thwart the authority of previously established (liturgical) directives, orders of worship, hierarchies, or principals of governance among Christians. This independent encampment is rather about imagining positive developments for a kind of mentally-distinct sanctuary (in the original etymological sense, meaning "building set apart") in order to amplify engagement among and within these holy clusters.
5. At the same time, I maintain that this special work finds its raison d'etre in widespread forgetting to do one thing: remembering the felt-sense behind Mt. 18:20 that "[f]or where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Thus, it serves as an added-structure of retreat (e.g. not unlike a camping trip back through your mind) by standing-under all "types" of ecclesiastical polity and epistemological zones of church governance which are already variously in use.
6. I posit that this markedly "mixed" episcoterian primary polity-of-emergence (better understood as "a-polity") is now developing in large part as a creative antiphon of sorts in the face of the challenge presented by increased complexity in the management of post-modern ecclesiastical affairs. Generalized episcoterian styles thereby tend to unfold in accordance with a "trans-" or "post-" religious orientation, for multiple reasons including the historical accretion of doctrine/theology or "divine things" into limited human considerations of governance, difficulties in concrete pastoral training and application, etc.
7. Holding in mind this essential structural question of/for generic tabernacle management as an independent value in its own right, a variety of "episcoterian" forms may obtain through an as-if prayerful passage of thought. This entails an important difference of logic or subtle shift in emphasis: recognizing as a separate issue from doctrine/theology the meta-theoretical question of group-theoretical ministerial management of polity systems, compounded by post-modern complexity in the 21st century.
8. In effect, then, the term "episcoterian" denotes a polity-transcending-polity (indeed, an "a-polity") by way of a deeper thinking-through together and fleshing-out of the concept of essential ecclesiastical "structure" considered as such, albeit without any necessary connection to doctrines/theologies otherwise related to church organization. This sustained inquiry into the relationship between doctrine/theology and polity allows for an expanded conception of holy clustering to precipitate whose envisioning as "a-polity" is most needful today.
9. Again, this a-polity stance or orientation proves highly important for the very reason of ameliorating recurrent systematic failures in conventional forms of ecclesiastical polity and church management. If they are sidelined or otherwise left unaddressed as a whole, then failures will continue to result in the spread of current cultural trends such as, but not limited to: diminished church membership in America, widespread declines in parish participation, losses in faith, mutual alienation, etc.
10. The Episcoterian Encampment is a place for discussion on this primary and emergent style of "a-polity" to serve for, open to those who are serious about improving upon both the obvious and maybe not-so-obvious limitations and at times outright failures of conventional forms of polity. Again, these problems also arrive more likely than not as a consequence of characteristically human mishaps in governance which, to reiterate, bear no necessary relation to differences in doctrine/theology, intensified further by post-modern complexity, and so forth.

Summary:

The episcoterian notion of "encampment" put forward is likewise neither a "connexional" nor "congregational" polity as popularly understood. It is irreducible to any real church polity "type" in existence owing to an emergent capacity to appropriately rise to the challenges of human limitations in group organizations, increasing post-modern complexity, etc.

And yet, this specific "episcoterian" theme maintains a broad linkage with both Presbyterian and Episcopal structures, which, when combined, gives it an overall distinctive quality as ... something else entirely. For this reason, a hybrid concept has been coined in the ongoing attempt to more accurately describe what is going on with church polity in America today, namely the emergence of "episcoterian" a-polity.

Is "episcoterian" a real thing? Well, if not, then it could be. Strange, yes, but necessary. And it also could be useful and fun. I invite you to join in thinking about ecclesiastical polity in this encampment, right about here, where there is a light that never goes out...

Define New Terms:

1. Episcoterian
2. Encampment
3. Holy Clustering
4. Polity-of-emergence / "A-polity"
5. Generic Tabernacle Management

Like Comment

Seen by everyone

Edited Jul 26