The pages of TLC have for some time now been revealing a badly divided church. Letters to the editor have expressed dismay at a claimed dismissal of the authority of scripture and tradition. Other writers have lauded what they see as openness and thoroughgoing inclusiveness. Still others have lamented the intense debates and held aloft the goal of unity. The appeals for unity sometimes suggest that the issues are not very important, which of course irritates both sides of any debate. Now General Convention looms on the horizon, raising the anxiety level even more. In such an atmosphere many are asking, "Is there not another way?"

Another way is indeed being tried, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. There Bishop Allen Bartlett has agreed to authorize me, or another bishop acceptable to the parishes and to the bishop, to provide pastoral and sacramental care. The congregations must pay their assessment for the episcopate and are urged to consider means of supporting diocesan ministries. Matters of ordination are expressly excluded, since that process involves diocesan entities in addition to the bishop. Nine parishes to date have made use of this provision. The congregations find difficulty in accepting the sacramental ministry of their bishop because of fundamental differences on the ordination of women and/or the ordination of candidates whose lifestyle appears to contradict scriptural standards of sexual morality. The disagreements are not the same in every parish. Most, but not all of the congregations, are affiliated with the Episcopal Synod of America, and the parishes vary widely in other ways. One is a classical evangelical congregation, another rather charismatic, another decidedly liturgical, another a classical catholic congregation, and so on. Yet all find themselves in profound disagreement with their bishop on theological and scriptural grounds. Another way has been attempted. How is it working?

This agreement has made it possible for the congregations to remain in the Episcopal Church and in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. That is no trivial matter, when one recalls how many priests and lay members have left the church in the last 15 years, a number which would be shocking if we tabulated it. Of course, it is not the ideal of diocesan participation. It is another instance of "impaired communion." There are some in these parishes who are uncomfortable with even a financial link with diocesan activities. At the same time, the diocesan convention refused to pass a resolution forbidding discrimination against anyone in the diocese "because of his or her concurrence with the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Eames Commission that the question of ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate in the Anglican Communion has not been finally decided." The fact that movers of the resolution were met by hisses and boos at the convention did not help the minority group feel they were welcome in the diocesan fellowship.

Another plus is that clergy and people have had a bishop as their pastor with whom they feel more comfortable. Some of the clergy have benefited from pastoral care from Bishop Bartlett also, which is a testimonial for him and for the clergy, too. Yet this additional pastoral ministry is a genuine contribution, especially in a diocese as large as Pennsylvania.

The congregations also have benefited from joint activities, such as a quiet day, a workshop on evangelism, a sharing of experiences on the search process for new clergy, and sharing some outreach ministries. These extra-parochial programs may not be earth shaking, but they are more significant than is usually the case anywhere else. In reality, we all know how difficult it is to have significant activity beyond the parish bounds, even with official diocesan encouragement.

Bishop Bartlett's juridical rights and responsibilities are fully observed. In two parishes already there has been the need for a search process for a new rector and the parish and the diocese have worked together in a helpful and respectful fashion. The bishop's concern for his occasionally troublesome sheep is genuinely appreciated in the congregations, and everyone knows that those on the other end of the theological divides have not always been applauding his generosity and understanding.

Is everything, then, lovely and wonderful? Of course not. The parishes concerned all know that this agreement has been made "through General Convention 1997." Decisions made by that body might have great impact on such an arrangement. In addition, Bishop Bartlett's actions are not binding on any successor. The charming expression "impaired communion" may obscure divisions, but it cannot entirely hide the realities.

Might this Philadelphia plan be a model for use elsewhere in the church? It does demonstrate that breathing space can be provided, that a healthier atmosphere of mutual respect can be achieved, and that the door is kept open for eventual reconciliation. One obvious problem is that the diocesan in this instance was willing to work with his problem sheep, even at the risk of complaints and scorn from elsewhere. Not all bishops would be so venturesome or so flexible. Indeed, some other diocese, which might desperately need such an agreement, might be one in which the bishop would refuse even to consider it. In England this fact is rather honestly faced. The present English procedure of "flying bishops" is a creation of the whole House of Bishops. The sacramental bishop there is a bishop of the province (of Canterbury or York) and not simply someone the diocesan can let in or keep out. Any national adoption of an episcopal visitors plan would have to authorize an appeal source when a diocesan's refusal appeared arbitrary or unfair.

The Philadelphia plan has real value for the short term. It is a testimonial to pastoral care on the bishop's part, to the congregations' loyalty to the church, even under great strain, and to the patience and restraint of both. In the long run, it is doubtful that this kind of arrangement would be the best. Ultimately, some form of parallel jurisdiction would, in my opinion, be required. The problem of ordination of candidates who share the convictions of the minority parishes would be a major factor. A 10th province (in our language) or a third province (in British terminology) would appear the only realistic alternative to schism.

Of course, the thought of parallel jurisdiction goes against the historic concept of the bishop, and his or her diocese. Yet is that historic ideal a reality in the U.S.A.? We speak of the Bishop of New York or Chicago or whatever, but is that person really the bishop of whatever? There are 20 or 30 bishops of Chicago or New York, or any large whatever. There is ours and a Roman one and a Lutheran and a "middle judicatory" person of the Methodists and Presbyterians and UCC and AME Zion, plus a few Mormons. The historic image of a diocesan bishop of a city in past history is a romantic ideal, when compared to a bishop of a cluster of Episcopal congregations in a modern American city. Parallel jurisdiction is what actually exists in the church in America anyway.

There is the possibility of "another way" by a 10th province or by the Philadelphia model with added provisions. As we seek to deal responsibly with the divisions in our ranks, it is worthwhile to ponder the experiment underway in the very city that will be host to the next General Convention. o