Broken Fellowship
One of the more incomprehensible aspects of this controversy for our revisionist opponents is the decision many of us have made not to share eucharistic fellowship with them. I have not taken communion with or from my bishop since the summer of 2003 and I don’t plan to even consider doing so until he submits fully to the Windsor Report requests.
This is very difficult for revisionists to understand. After all, “no matter how much we disagree we can always come together at the altar.” I’m sure you’ve heard it before.
Many revisionists take this mantra to the extreme, inviting”any who feel the call”, baptized or not, to belly up and join in a veritable orgy of inclusive toleration. Of course this not only mocks the quite serious New Testament warnings with regard to the sacrament (1st Corinthians 11:27-32), it also represents a violation of the inviolable and infallible canons of the Episcopal Church. This might seem inconsistent to objective observers who, judging by past rhetoric, might expect revisionists to be sticklers with regard ECUSA canon law. This provides a great opportunity to remind such observers that revisionists are not interested in canon law for its own sake or because it represents the “movement of the Spirit”. They are interested in canon law because it is an effective revolutionary tool. They will say what they need to say and do what they need to do and use what/who they need to use to speed the march of history. When it comes to the revolution, they are quite consistent.
In any case, I intended this article to explain why many of us don’t take communion with or from revisionist priests and bishops and I suppose I should make my way back to the point. It is an important one because our absence at the Holy Table has been mischaracterized by some as a form of neo-donatism. The false accusation is that, like the donatist heretics of old, we will not share table fellowship because we think the personal moral failings of our colleagues invalidate the sacrament.
No.
In fact it is the validity of the sacrament that, personally speaking, necessitates my abstention.
The one Loaf of the Eucharist is not only a participation in Christ’s body and blood it is also communal proclamation of the One Faith we purportedly share with the apostles and all of Christendom (1 Corinthians 10:17; Ephesians 4:1-16). But the faith being proclaimed by revisionist priests and bishops is, in fact, not the faith of the apostles. It is a corruption of that faith.
Because participation in communion implies a common proclamation, our public participation with false teachers in the Eucharistic feast would thus represent a public participation in the false teachings they proclaim.
If on the one hand we say that revisionists are leading people further from the truth of Christ, deeper into the darkness, and on the other join the very same leaders in the primary public rite that at once proclaims our unity in Christ, we would not only send a very confusing message to the faithful, we would also betray the very truth the Eucharist was given to proclaim.
Just a cursory glance at the various New Testament passages that deal with the Eucharist will be enough to confirm that participation in the common loaf represents a proclamation of common faith. That’s why Paul is so concerned to keep the Corinthians from sharing table fellowship with those who claim to be believers but who consistently live and teach contrary to it (1st Corinthians 5:9-13). That’s why he admonishes the Galatians to anathematize or excommunicate the false teachers promulgating a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). And that’s why John exhorts his readers to deny even basic hospitality to travelers if they arrive bearing a false message (2nd John 10).
Participation implies unified proclamation.
It has been said many times and said well that ECUSA has become two bodies within one church. Nothing makes that de-facto split more manifest than our divided Eucharist.
This sad but necessary state of affairs cannot continue forever. But so long as the Episcopal Church embraces heresy, it must continue.
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
13 comments
I find it interesting that there have been no Episcopalian comments to this exellent post. I think the idea of “fencing the table” is alian to Anglicans. So this old non-comformist dissenter will jump in. As pointed out, Scripture does teach that communion can be barred from certain people. Non-Cristians, Heretics, Violaters of the short list given in I Cor. 5 and 6 and violation of the Mt.18 commands of the Lord. Now this may require adjudication by the church. I think the hardest thing for Episcopalians to do is to declare someone not-Christian. There is the idea that a splash of water or being born in a church members family is all that is needed. For this reason the EC is filled with the lost and some even are in top leadership positions. Could this be endemic to covenant theology? Most of these members think they are safe and not fair objects of evangelism—certainly outside the pale of being “judged.” So I see this as a real problem for Episcopalians.
The next problem is what are Christians to do? I will not take communion at an Episcopal table, not because there are not many fellow Christians there but I fear unprotected communion. Paul reminds us that it is *communion* which seems to require a mutual spiritual transference. Paul in I Cor.10 says that by taking the cup at idol temples we are in communion with demons and this should not be in the believers life. Now I am not saying that the table in EC is a table of demons, but it is not of faith for me to take the chance at any church in ECUSA. I long for the day that the Episcopal Church has repented and I am able to freely and without problems of conscience for me to take communion with you. I guess it is like the warnings of unprotected sex or “safe sex” on the physical area. This should tick off a lot of readers and bring down the wrath of the non-believers, but I am bound to what I see is in the Lord’s Word. If I am wrong, please prayerfully show me. I sure do want full fellowship with all true believers.
[1] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 4-25-2006 at 08:14 PM · [top]
Prophet Michaiah,
Thanks for this very good comment. I did not expect many comments because, as you point out, it is a very delicate subject among Anglicans. I think the Eucharist is central to so many Anglican’s personal faith (as it should be) that sometimes the personal aspect of partaking blinds us to the communal proclamations we are making.
I know that many readers of this column do not share in the Eucharist with their bishops. Some have said so publicly, some have not. There are also some very strong orthodox believers who have maintained Eucharistic fellowship. I disagree with that for reasons already stated, but I certainly understand it.
I suppose I wanted to write this to give air to a very sensitive topic that will become even more senstive and dangerous as time goes on.
[2] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-26-2006 at 02:44 AM · [top]
PM, I am curious as to what churches or denominations you have determined offer “protected communion”. ; > )
[3] Posted by Sarah on 4-26-2006 at 05:20 AM · [top]
Matt,
How does this square with Article XXVI:
I guess what I’m asking is: Is the corruption of the faith - evil as it is - “covered” under Article XXVI, or not? I have to admit - I count on XXVI a lot around here…
[4] Posted by Greg Griffith on 4-26-2006 at 05:54 AM · [top]
Greg,
This article addresses the donatist heresy which asserted the invalidity of sacraments administered by immoral or false ministers. If you re-read my article, you’ll see that I do NOT claim the sacraments offered by these ministers are invalid. Rather I make the same claim that Paul makes in 1 Cor 5,10,11 and Eph 4, that the valid sacrament is abused and twisted by false proclamation. By participating with them in the valid sacrament you partipate also, you proclaim your unity with, their betrayal of Christ.
In other words, BECAUSE the sacrament is valid, I will not partake with those who twist it and desecrate it by false teaching.
[5] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-26-2006 at 06:12 AM · [top]
Good comments all.
I just didn’t want to be the first to post. It was a bad day yesterday. Peace!
[6] Posted by Milton Finch on 4-26-2006 at 07:27 AM · [top]
Sarah, good question. I just look in the Dissenters Directory of Kosher Congregations.—-just kidding. I personally exclude those groups who are not even right on their stated doctrines such as Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Mooneys, etc. Also, if I know a congregation is known for being “anti-Christian.” If I know the leadership is sound and they stand for the truth I feel free, however many of these have rules that keep me out until I can be vouched for—-as in the NT use of letters, Barnabus vouching for Saul/Paul. If I am off traveling, we usually abstain just because we are not sure on either end. If it is a connectional church, we have to look at the entire denomination. For that reason I do not take communion at an ECUSA church for you know why, RCC (but they would bar me) as well as the Orthodox churches for the same reason. So it sounds pretty narrow doesn’t it. Not really, I have been all over the world and found churches that I felt comfortable in. Now just because I would not take communion doesn’t mean I can’t have fellowship with true Christians of every stripe. I am really very eccuminical, much more that most denominationalist. I know this isn’t a satisfactory answer for everyone, but I am bound by Scripture and also my conscience. You can pray for me to have more light if you think I need it. Peace and Power
[7] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 4-26-2006 at 09:59 AM · [top]
Thanks for the response, PM. I guess what I don’t understand is . . . if protecting communion is important, then I understand how you would not want to take communion in an “impure” denomination—which is pretty much every single mainline one, I would agree.
But how on earth would you know that some random non-denominational church in some city to which you are travelling would offer a “protected communion”? I can see that you would say “well, I know *not* to go to any ECUSA/Methodist/PCUSA/etc denomination”, but how would you know any old random non-denominational church would offer that kind of clarity and sureness? I just don’t get it, because it seems to me that the choice would be more like “ignorance is bliss—I don’t know this church a bit, except that it’s *not* one of the suspect denominations, so I’ll just attend it in blind hope”.
I ask because I could never hope to find a church that really offers a “protected communion” [I also don’t that scripture refers to that idea, but I’m talking practicality here in this comment], so I would just end up not taking communion. Ever. Anywhere.
[8] Posted by Sarah on 4-26-2006 at 06:31 PM · [top]
Sara, it’s not looking for a church or denomination that is not “impure” because we all fall short. The deal is to find a church that holds to the truth of Christianity and is under the Lordship of Jesus. Now how to do that in a strange city is the problem. First of all, most non-denominational churches don’t “do with communion” or maybe three or four times a year tacked on at the end while the roast burns at home. The exceptions would be the Plymouth Breathern and many Bible Churches and some others. C.H. Spurgeon had communion weekly and so did First Baptist in Dallas. So just like finding a good restaurant, you ask, read the adds, have a recommendation from someone, phone the church or pastor, show up and “sniff it out.” Granted, we can be fooled—-most everyone claims to be orthodox, at least on paper but we know when the test is given and the trumpet sounds and eveyone else bows to the golden idol do we really know who is and isn’t. Most good churches will sniff you out if you are comming to communion to see if you are in the faith. We just have to be faithful and do the best we can, but above all don’t take communion if the church or denomination is known to be apostate. Hope I didn’t offend too many of my Mormon friends.
[9] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 4-27-2006 at 05:59 PM · [top]
OK, You have made it difficult, if not impossible to respond to the previous posts. I can’t count the number of active ‘x’ controls, etc., I have encountered so that may I not respond to Sarah’s post.
So, here it is. The word heretic makes my blood boil. Inevitably I will hear it when I post at Stand Firm. The latest accuasation, the result of my so very strong belief in the sacrament of the Eucharist. A sacrament that I allow myself to accept as a gift from the Lord, and not from the priest who serves, seems to makes me circumspect. So be it.
Sarah, you have always been chomping at the bit to criticise me. So be it. As Kathleen Bates put it so appropriately, ‘Honey, I’m older than you and I have more insurance’
So, why, Sarah? Are you afraid I might have something to say?
I first took a look at this website as a request of my son. I thought there might be issues to discuss. What I found what a web-site where people professed their scriptual rhetoric at the expense of humanity.
I found a site where the Bishops were called bafoons, the Labrynith looney and Heidi a heritic.
It amazes me that we might think this type of thinking will lead us to one holy apostolic church.
What I hear on your site is sciptural rhetoric. What is rhetoric? It is the case for persuasion in the cause of victory. It is the wordly honors you may win by being a good ‘speaker.’ It may erode your honor to truth.
Sarah, have you ever read ‘Gorgias’ by Plato? In it is the idea that ‘dialogue’ is to demonstrate the superiority of philosophy (the quest for wisdom and truth) to rhetoric, the art of persuasion, which can all too easily lead to the erosion of one’s soul.
There is no dialogue here. Poor Terebinth, trudging along, being called absurd, unintelligable….keep up the good work, Terebinth,,
Even Matt Kennedy mocks you. Who is he anyway? All I have been able to find out is that he is the pastor of a struggling Anglo-Catholic Church in New York. He also loves pictures of himself. Why, prey tell, has he found an arena for his rhetoric in the South? Perhaps because no one else will validate his hatred?
I will tell you another thing you are chomping at the bit at - it is GC 2006 -it is seen as fertile ground where you can condemn. It is seen as a place whare you can segregate yourself from the sinners!
Well, let me get a bit dramatic here, and play the part of Veronica Lake. I have a son who will represent your state at convention. He has a pure nonjudgemental faith the I envy. He is the youngest in our state to have gone through BACAOM, the youngest to be an aspirant and go to seminary - yes, a so called liberal one.
If one of you dare to call him a heretic, dare to doubt his faith, there will only be One Judge.
Hey, I wanted dialogue a year ago, all I recieved was critcal rhetoric. I learned to play the game….
Heidi
[10] Posted by Heidi on 5-2-2006 at 10:30 PM · [top]
“Even Matt Kennedy mocks you. Who is he anyway? All I have been able to find out is that he is the pastor of a struggling Anglo-Catholic Church
in New York. He also loves pictures of himself. Why, prey tell, has he found an arena for his rhetoric in the South? Perhaps because no one else will validate his hatred? ”
I’ll let Sarah handle the rest of this as I know she will but let me take a little stab at some of the more inaccurate aspects of this paragraph:
1. I would NEVER mock Sarah. Nor have I done so. What on earth are you referring too?
2. I am not Anglo-Catholic. I’m evangelical.
3. My parish is thriving. In three years we’ve gone from an ASA of 47 to an ASA of 70 and this year we’ve been topping 90. In a diocese with a 19.4% drop in ASA over the last 12 years, 5% just last year, we’re breaking the curve.
4. I HATE pictures of myself. When I agreed to post here Greg asked for pictures. I didn’t have one to give him. He had to take one off of the photos page on our parish website.
5. I’m in the North, not the south, and since we are a growing church I have lots of people listening to me each week.
6. The only person full of hate here Heidi, seems to be you.
[11] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-3-2006 at 02:08 AM · [top]
Heidi,
We don’t use ActiveX here, but there is a cookie created to indicate whether or not you’re logged in. Perhaps your security is turned up so high it won’t accept cookies. I’ve never had reports of people having trouble loggin in or commenting.
On to your remarks:
Matt’s right - I had to find the picture of him myself. He was anything but enthusaiastic about providing me one.
And what exactly are you trying to say about the South with this:
Why, prey tell, has he found an arena for his rhetoric in the South? Perhaps because no one else will validate his hatred?
Two things:
First, we have long since stopped identifying ourselves as a regional group. The Internet is actually available outside the American South, and as a result our audience and members now come from all over the country and all over the world, from states as far away as Vermont and Alaska, and with the occasional visit from the Holy See.
Second, are you saying that only in the south do messages of hate find “validation”? I find this impossible to square with my experience, where the south is by far the most integrated region of the country, and where it produces and embraces more than its share of oddballs and eccentrics. Plus, I thought you were here to preach a message of tolerance and understanding. Instead, you seem to have painted an entire region of the country with a very broad, very prejudicial brush.
I’m dumbfounded that anyone from the other side of the Episcopal aisle would actually say something like this, but every day in this debate is a surprise for me.
[12] Posted by Greg Griffith on 5-3-2006 at 06:53 AM · [top]
It appears that over the months that it has taken Heidi to learn how to register and comment at the re-designed Stand Firm site, she has stored up quite a bit of inclusion, diversity, and tolerance in her own liberal-hearted, affirming, and generous way.
I can’t really quite make out the general drift of her comments . . . It appears that Heidi is happy that her son will represent the Diocese of Alabama as a “liberal” . . . but there is nothing particularly new or different in that, as most of the official representatives of that diocese are. I’m sure he is a wonderful person and in good company with the other representatives of the diocese of Alabama to General Convention.
I am not certain which comment of mine she is responding to from the past six months—surely not my exchange with Prophet Micaiah in the thread above, where once again, it appears that I am the “liberal flower child” between the two of us.
But Matt . . . truly, responding to her comments regarding me would be an intellectual fight unworthy of me—a fight with an un-armed woman, so to speak.
The good news is that Terebinth now has an ally that is worthy of his own abilities. I am happy for him.
[13] Posted by Sarah on 5-3-2006 at 08:59 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.