Comparative Literature: On Promoting the Ministry of Bishop Johnston

The Great Collaboration spreads

Bad news for ACNA.

Next thing you know, Canon Kearon will be hosting a meeting and ++RW will issue an incomprehensible statement, and the Anglican and TEC dioceses will both receive huge shipments of fudge delivered by the container-load to every parish, and Barry Morgan, Phillip Aspinall and Gregory Cameron will be sent to witness everyone signing on to a Covenant without section 4, and they will all live happily ever after.

I wonder if Nicky Gumble is aware that an invitation to Shannon Johnston is the same as one to Katharine Jefferts-Schori or Gene Robinson?

Possibly one of our readers across the pond can ascertain if this is an invitation with “eyes wide open” or one where a wolf is being slipped into the sheep pen.

Well, the FAQ document sure was enlightening.  So Tory was set on a strategy of abundant reconciliation from the time he was selected as rector of Turro.  That could lead to a whole basketful of questions in and of itself.

Nothing wrong with reconciliation.  In fact, I preach it regularly in terms of being Christian brothers and friends with our faithful Christian brothers and sisters who are still in TEC.  But you will not see me walking down the street holding hands with the TEC Bp. of Louisiana or the Bp. of Mississippi because both have spoken openly on issues that contradict the clear meaning of scripture; AS BISHOPS, those who have been called by God to lead their flocks into truth and who took very clear vows when they were consecreted as bishops.  They may be wonderful people [and the Bp. of MS is] but we are walking different paths, we chose those paths, and for us who chose to follow Christ, Him we will follow.

Nicky Gumble was a lawyer before he became an Anglican priest. I suspect he is as wise as a serpent as well as being as innocent as a dove.

I actually appreciated these documents from Truro.  As I see it, we can divide the concerns with what Truro/Baucum did into two categories:  1) Concern over Truro cavorting with a heretic; and 2) Concern over Truro, as an ACNA congregation, sending inconsistent messages.

1. Concern over Truro cavorting with a heretic - in my opinion, the test here would be to determine how were would feel if Truro/Baucum did what he did if Truro were still a TEC parish.  In other words, if an orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese with a bishop like Johnston said and did what Baucum said, would there be a scandal?  I don’t think so.  In fact, we might praise the differentiation.  I think that Baucum lays things out pretty well on pages 6-8.  I think that Baucum is to be applauded for trying to involve Johnston in with orthodox leadership.  Rational thought and argumentation frequently do not people over.  I think that putting Johnston in a context of orthodox believers is wise strategizing.  I also can see Baucum’s definition of “Christian brother”, while holding out the possibility of a heretical (as opposed to apostate) Christian.

2) Concern over Truro, as an ACNA congregation, sending out inconsistent messages - I think that Truro is showing that it is continuing in the original spirit of the Discernment Process that Lee killed on the orders of KJS.  I think the fact that Truro has come back to that document and its original spirit even though the Diocese has completely repudiated it, is a powerful witness.

Now, despite all of the what I have just said, I would also say that anytime you need to release clarifications of what you really meant, you probably should have been much more careful with what you said in the first place.

RE: “In other words, if an orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese with a bishop like Johnston said and did what Baucum said, would there be a scandal?”

It would be outrageously wrong for an orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese to state that a revisionist activist bishop like Johnston is a brother in Christ and to introduce him to possible areas of “ministry” within another province.

So yes.  That would be horribly wrong.

Sarah:

Absent more than what you write, then yes, agreed.  But with the fuller explanation, then no, I disagree with you.  If a rector in a TEC revisionist diocese said something like “while our bishop at least appears to believe the basic Gospel I believe that he remains a Christian even though he holds clearly false teachings”, I think that we would all be cheering him on.  If an orthodox rector in a revisionist diocese sought to involve his revisionist bishop with orthodox leaders internationally, we would cheer him on.

I guess that I would ask you Sarah - do you believe that Johnston can fairly be described as a “Christian” or as a “non-Christian”?  Is it possible for someone to be a Christian and also hold heretical beliefs?  If we say “no” to this question, how many people are we excluding?

I have always seen there to be the following taxonomy:
1) Orthodox Christians - have the important doctrine right - e.g. ACNA bishops, Dan Martins, Greg Brewer, Stanton, and the like
2) Heretical Christians - believe in the absolute core (as Baucum describes) but are in serious error over important doctrine - e.g. Johnston, Doyle, etc.
3) Apostates - don’t believe in the core Gospel - Jefferts-Schori, Spong, Bruno

Now, I will repeat that I think that the way Baucum initially made the statement was rife with potential misunderstanding that badly needed clarifying.  For him to suggest (as the statement did) that Johnston was just fine, and just a different flavor of Christianity, and that he would help open up places for Johnston to exercise his influence and ministry in the Anglican Communion raised the red flags.  No doubt.

But I think the bigger question here - how heretical Christians ought to be dealt with - requires us to go a bit farther than “gotcha” quotations.

RE: “If an orthodox rector in a revisionist diocese sought to involve his revisionist bishop with orthodox leaders internationally, we would cheer him on.”

No, “we” wouldn’t. 

Revisionist bishops are false teachers and are to be spurned.  Church discipline is to be enacted upon them, and if that fails then individual Christians do not engage in the act of Eucharist with the false teacher, nor do they promote his “ministry” to others.

The question—your later question—as to whether somebody is a Christian while a heretic is a red herring—not brought up by you but persistently and perniciously introduced by the defenders of Baucum.

It’s not important as to whether Johnston is a Christian or not.  It does not matter nor can we *ever* know until heaven who is or is not regenerate in Christ.  The issue is how to deal with false teachers and those promoting scandalous and public sin.  That is the issue.

Can one be a false teacher and yet regenerate?  I’m sure so.

Can one be a a believer and practitioner of human sacrifice and yet regenerate?  I’m sure so.

The question is how to shield the flock from the practitioner of human sacrifice, not to engage in navel-gazing as to whether the practitioner is, in fact, regenerate and will someday repent of his dreadful beliefs.

Paul’s teachings about how to deal with false teachers is not a teaching on how to deal with non-Christians.  That does not come into the equation.  It is on how to deal with false teachers who are a part of the visible church and in authority.  The first answer is to expel them.  The second answer, in the absence of expelling, is to engage in individual and corporate fencing off and repudiation as much as possible.

James W., thanks for a well-reasoned thoughtful comment (as can almost always be expected from you!).  I appreciate your engaging specifically with what Tory+ and Truro released in the FAQs document.

I was offline from about 20:00 GMT Thursday night until a little bit earlier today (Sunday May 6th), and so have finally been able to now finish reading everything Truro released.

I have to say in all honesty, I’m surprised and disappointed to find so little substantive comment here.  Matt’s article here does not address in any way the substance of what Tory+ wrote, which included some detailed theological explanations for the position he has taken in regard to calling Shannon Johnston a brother in Christ, his commitment to reconciliation, and where he has or has not drawn lines in terms of relationships.

After probably 100+ comments on all the combined Truro threads here, and the clamor for a response from Truro, to now find so little serious engagement with what’s been written is frustrating.  If that’s how SF has decided to play it, so be it.  It’s your blog.  But I’d expected a more serious dialogue from you all, not merely more of the same one-sided snark.

Am I the only one concerned by this?  I’m hoping the surprisingly shallow response is just because this was released on a Friday, and that there will yet be more engagement with what’s been written.

Hi KarenB, I think everybody has said most everything there is to be said.  I’m sure there will be more from various people, but I don’t think there’s much more engagement to be had.  It’s clear that there is strong disagreement, and continue to assert those disagreements over and over isn’t going to make people on either side change their minds.

Seriously, do you think that anything that Truro has released has actually addressed or assuaged the clearly-articulated concerns that people have had about the details of its settlement in regards to its relationship with Bishop Shannon Johnston?

Sarah, Yes, I do in fact think Truro quite clearly addressed concerns that had been raised:

- why call Shannon Johnston a brother in Christ?
- has Truro been muzzled?
- what specifically did Tory mean by saying he was prmoting Shannon Johnston’s involvement in some opportunities in the UK

Obviously I can’t speak to whether the concerns were “assuaged” - I’ll have to assume not since none of you expressing concerns have indicated that you’re any less concerned.

But I think there’s plenty of substance in Tory’s response that could fuel a fruitful debate.  Tory has thrown back some Scriptures justifying his position, etc., and yet rather than addressing those or offering any counter-interpretation or exegesis, all there has been is a sort of snide “see we were right all along”  kind of response.

You write:
It’s clear that there is strong disagreement, and continue to assert those disagreements over and over isn’t going to make people on either side change their minds.

But that’s EXACTLY what the SF team seem to be doing.  You keep repeating your own arguments rather than RESPONDING to anything written.  Nowhere in the article by Matt+, his comments, your comments, or Jackie’s comments is there a single quote from what Tory+ wrote.  It’s as if you’re responding to a fictional argument or character.  Why not actually engage his argument rather than beating him up for what you *think* he said?

Quote him.  Make your case against him.  But the ridicule and failure to address this matter at the level of theological substance beyond the initial judgment that Truro has surrendered to the heretics is truly troubling to me.

After all, some fairly well-respected leaders like Bishop Guernsey, David Roseberry, Dean Munday, and others have expressed some support for Tory and Truro’s position.  Are you dismissing them all as possibly having anything to contribute to this discussion?  Are they all wrong?  If so, you’ve got a much bigger issue to fight than merely Truro’s surrender.

-

RE: “rather than beating him up for what you *think* he said?”

We’ve already *quoted* what Truro/etc said. There was no “think” he or they said involved, Karen.

RE: “Why not actually engage his argument . . . “

I’m sure that someone will trouble themselves to “engage” his “argument” as they find the time.  I’m a bit surprised that you would think we wouldn’t recognize that Father Baucum would have all sorts of justifications and reasonings for why he said what he said and why Truro did what it did.

RE: “After all, some fairly well-respected leaders like Bishop Guernsey, David Roseberry, Dean Munday, and others have expressed some support for Tory and Truro’s position.”

Well actually—their comments have been rather extraordinarily cautious, and their “defenses” have been very general and oddly vague.  But either way, I don’t gauge my assessments about peoples’ actions on whether others agree with them or not—surely that’s been clear since 2004. I’ve openly disagreed with scads of conservative Anglicans and even more scads of revisionist Anglicans.

RE: “If so, you’ve got a much bigger issue to fight than merely Truro’s surrender.”

Absolutely true—there’s no question that this is not confined to Truro.

As I pointed out above—it seems clear that there are two groups who deeply disagree on some very important principles and values. 

I don’t think those two groups are going to agree, Karen, no matter how much different arguments are “engaged” or how many “dialogues” are had.

One issue that I have not seen addressed [maybe I missed it along the way] is the how/why Fr. Tory and Bp. Guernsey agreed to an agreement whereby Bp. Guernsey has to get permission from Bp. Johnston to make a pastoral visit to Turro.  I know Bp. Guernsey released a letter that he was fine with that, but what does that mean?  Given all the pain that Turro has suffered at the hands of TEC, having a TEC bishop who is 4-square in favor of same-sex blessings [and permitted one to take place the same week this settlement was disclosed, can we say mud in your eye] deciding whether your bishop can come and pay a pastoral visit on you just leaves me bewildered.

Capt. Father Warren,

I was not party to the detailed negotiations, just a Truro member, but here are some of my thoughts:

Truro, lost the litigation for the property. The deeds to the various church properties are now all with the Diocese of Virginia. As owner they could have excluded anyone from their property, whether bishop or not. Based on the negotiated details agreed to by the Diocese and Truro, they will not exclude bishops during the period of the lease, but have agreed to a protocol that states that permission “will not be unreasonably withheld” for a bishop to visit Truro on the property. This protocol acknowledges the diocesan property ownership while permitting Truro as lessee to operate according to its Anglican life as a parish.

Is this ideal? No, but is it workable without having any negative impact on our parish life and on our relationship to our own bishop? I believe it is. This protocol will, of course only have effect during the period we continue to use property that now belongs to the Diocese of Virginia.

I just read the FAQ.  I think it does a good job of explaining the “brother in Christ” and the “ministry opportunity”.  It also explains adequately why Bishop Johnston is given veto power (to be exercised sparingly) over visiting ACNA bishops.  Regretfully, it’s not accepted by some at SF, but as they themselves would acknowledge, in the end, their opinion matters little.  God is the one each of us must give an accounting to, not SF or JTB. I think Truro will just need to continue their work, knowing that many reasserters are wishing the best for them.  God bless Truro Anglican.

Sarah re: your comment #14 and these words:

RE: “rather than beating him up for what you *think* he said?”

We’ve already *quoted* what Truro/etc said. There was no “think” he or they said involved, Karen.

I apologize if I was unclear, but I thought the context of my comment would make it obvious I was referring to quoting anything at all of the new press release from Truro.  Can you point me to any quote or posting of even one sentence of the long FAQ document (other than the Nicky Gumbel quote at the beginning of Matt’s article?)

Hi KarenB

“Matt’s article here does not address in any way the substance of what Tory+ wrote, which included some detailed theological explanations for the position he has taken in regard to calling Shannon Johnston a brother in Christ, his commitment to reconciliation, and where he has or has not drawn lines in terms of relationships.”

1. this post is not an “article”. It is an illustration of just how far off track Truro and, now, Nicky Gumble are in this matter. It is a simple thing to compare the voluminous rationalizations Truro has published to explain away its collaboration with false teachers - with the very clear passages that forbid what Truro seeks to justify.

2. I have read the FAQ. Frankly, as theological explanations go, it is an embarrassment. I will be explaining why it is so in a future article.

3. What is increasingly clear is that Truro is far more interested in making peace with heretics than protecting the sheep. It is incredibly sad.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28691

A faint ray of optimism flashes through your mind.

Turning to the Johnstons you ask, “So, have you guys decided to stop letting your son watch porn?”

They smile at you in the way one smiles at the benighted, “No, silly, of course we haven’t changed our minds about that. We’ve prayed long and hard about giving porn to adolescents and we’re sure Jesus is leading and guiding us. How could we change our minds? Of course we know that you won’t change your minds either. But Virginia has decided not to let our different viewpoints on pornography stand in the way of our relationship. She sees it as part of our Christian walk to work as hard as we can to be as close as we can.”

“That’s right honey,” Virginia adds, “The Johnstons are our brother and sister in Christ. Shouldn’t we do everything we can to restore our relationship with them? So guess what?

You suddenly feel very sick, but manage to force out a “What?”

“Well,” she continues cheerfully, “The Johnston’s son Paul has decided to go on a summer mission trip to South America and they’ve invited me to go over to their house one evening a week to lead Paul in a bible study on the topic of missions! Isn’t that exciting?”

“I’m speechless” you say,

“And, get this, to demonstrate that we’ve decided to move on from past hurts, I’ve promised to introduce them to that new English couple we met at church…you know the one with a son Paul’s age? The Johnston’s want to invite him over to spend the night. Isn’t that wonderful?”

but is it workable without having any negative impact on our parish life

#16, Bill, I appreciate your response.  I know nothing of the detailed negotiations and I admit that upfront.

I believe the arrangement whereby Bp. Johnston decides whether Bp. Guernsey can make a pastoral visit to a parish over which he [Guernsey] has episcopal authority is just inherently wrong and the fact that Turro’s leadership was willing to accept this in order to retain property as a lessee is damaging.

I say this because as Anglicans, we are those under episcopal authority.  The diocesan Bishop is the authority in the Anglican Communion.  Titular heads like the Presiding Bishop or the Archbishop of Canturbury have no authority [until recently] in a Bishop’s diocese.  We have fought battles over one bishop meddling in the affiars of another Bishop’s diocese.  And so the foundational understanding in the Anglican Communion is that the Bishop is the authority of the Church by viture of leading his diocese.

Maybe at the end of Turro’s “lease”, nothing will have happened.  Bp. Guernsey will make his pasotral visit[s] to Turro unimpeded and Turro will move to another location and everything will be as it should.  But, nonetheless, this precedent will have been made and one of the flawed heresies of TEC [that other Bishops and in particular the Presiding bishop can meddle] will have been introduced into ACNA [no matter how inconsequential it may appear].  I pray that will not begin to spread like a cancer within that body.

Capt. Father Warren #20,
Your worries are directly addressed in the FAQ: the permission is needed only because EDV owns the property.  When Truro meets their bishop on different soil (e.g. at their church camp), no permission is needed; and thus neither after they have moved out of the historic buildings.  It is explicitly not episcopal oversight that is acknowledged, merely the rights of a landlord.

And Father Matt: #19, Nicky Gumbel is not some naive British boy.  If Nicky Gumbel was asking Bishop Johnston to preach, I would be more concerned.  It seems your analogy doesn’t fit the facts.

Thanks John, but I think this brings us full-circle.  I believe it was Fr. Matt who asked a long time ago why was there not apparantly a contingency plan to vacate the property so as not to put episcopal pastoral oversight under the ultimate authority of another bishop [no matter how pure the motives of that other bishop]?

I know that for every question I ask on this, there will be a very reasonable answer, I accept that.  So, it is done; I just wish it didn’t happen this way.  Thanks again.

It is incredible to see the number of people so willing to throw out what the New Testament unequivocally teaches with regard to heretics. Sarah was right on another thread when she compared the tack being taken by Truro and her defenders to that taken by those defending SSB’s in TEC. Somehow “meeting Gene” or recognizing just how much “prayer” went into the decision or reading TSOHC was supposed to make it okay that scriptural injunctions were being ignored.

The same here. The New Testament is very very very clear about how believers are to deal with false teachers. Granting them legitimacy in the church is strictly forbidden. Instead they are to be cast out, their offices removed, their authority rejected and denied.

But somehow we are supposed to accept that this “reasoning”:

“It is also important to note, as Tory has spoken before, his inspiration in dealing
with the Episcopal Church (its clergy and laity) has been inspired by and modeled
after St. Francis de Sales’ ministry in the early 17th century diocese of Geneva.  He
has also learned much from St. Augustine’s various rhetorical strategies in his
controversies with Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians, and Pagans.  From experience
and study he has concluded that love – commitment to the eternal well-being of his
theological opponents – must be the motivation and design of all persuasion and
polemics.  In truth, despite his years in Lexington, Tory still loves Episcopalians in
general and Bishop Johnston in particular and is encouraging them to consider more
deeply the “grand mystery” that many were never taught (Ephesians 5:31-32).”

Trumps 2 John and 1 Cor 5?

Notice the foul way the word “love” is used here in order to subvert what the New Testament actually teaches. The New Testament never sets “discipline” and “love” against one another. The best way to love a heretic is to do precisely what the scriptures command: remove him from office, deny him ecclesial fellowship, refuse to grant any hospitality to him. Loving the heretic means disciplining the heretic.

If I commit adultery, I have broken the marriage covenant. It really doesn’t matter what I feel in my heart about my wife. I’ve broken my vows. Unless I am willing to repent of these actions, the marriage is over. I am no longer a faithful husband and should not be considered one even if I still have loving feelings in my heart for my wife.

It doesn’t matter what Johnston feels in his heart about Jesus. He has publicly broken his baptismal and ministerial vows and is, therefore, no longer to be considered a “brother”. He may have warm fuzzy feelings about Jesus, but he has betrayed the cross of Christ, trampled on the gospel, wants to devour the sheep and has no remorse or repentance at all. Calling one a brother in Christ is a travesty and a betrayal of everything the NT tells us about dealing with heretics.

And to suggest Karen B as you seem to do that the following in any way addresses the problem in a substantive was is absurd:

“A. These are not opportunities to promote the teachings that have divided the
Anglican Communion.”

Wrong. You legitimize the false teacher - you legitimize his teachings. That is PRECISELY the point of 2 John 10-11

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, rdo not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works.”

Even Greeting a false teacher, according to the apostle John is to take part in his wicked work. No amount of spilled ink will help Truro escape from the fact that Bishop Johnston is being treated, greeted, and welcomed as a legitimate Christian leader in direct violation of the apostolic commands.

But hey, at least Truro prayed about it first.

“They are instead ones in which Bishop Johnston will have the opportunity to meet orthodox Anglicans in England and learn about another part of the Anglican tradition to which Tory is deeply committed and, regrettably, which is in short supply in North America. That is why he is taking Bishop Johnston to England.  Tory will have more to report later this summer.”

Right, we’ve already seen what this means above…Nicky Gumble writes that he is:

“looking forward to welcoming Bishop Shannon Johnston and Tory Baucum to our Leadership Conference in London. Our prayers are with them – and all our brothers and sisters at Truro Anglican Church and throughout the diocese of Virginia – as you work together to bring peace, unity and healing…”

And we’ve seen how directly this quote conflicts with the Apostle John’s instructions.

Welcoming Bishop Johnston…betrayer of the gospel, giving him a tour of evangelical churches, welcoming him as if he is a legitimate Christian leader is to Participate in his wicked work.

So what kind of effect do you think this will have on Christians on the edge, struggling with sexaul identity and sin? If Truro, of all places, believes that promoting homosex is something one can do and remain within the pale of the Christian faith, what am I holding back for? I can have sex with other men and as long as I uphold the creed I’m fine.

Legitimizing a false teacher Necessarily legitimizes his false teaching.

“In addition, Bishop Johnston and Tory have discussed that there may be areas of
ministry to which both could contribute without violating their own or the
recipient’s integrity. An example is raising funds to allow young Muslim men from
Darfur to rebuild a Catholic church in South Sudan that was burned down by North
Sudanese soldiers.”

Because really, its all about the guys with the collars getting along together. It’s important that all onlookers recognize that two Christian leaders, though disagreeing about doctrine and the bible, can get together when it comes to things that really matter. Because that’s, really, what the gospel is all about. People overcoming their by comparison smallish differences over scripture and getting along to make the world a better place.

I am beyond disgusted.

Hi John Boyland,

“And Father Matt: #19, Nicky Gumbel is not some naive British boy.  If Nicky Gumbel was asking Bishop Johnston to preach, I would be more concerned.  It seems your analogy doesn’t fit the facts.”

What on earth are you talking about? I did not call Nicky Gumble a “naive British boy”??

Instead, I say that he is a Christian leader publicly violating clear apostolic commands.

And what on earth does giving him a pulpit have to do with anything? 2 John is referring to giving hospitality and public greeting to heretics.

And that is precisely what Nicky Gumble plans to do.

“Facts” are inconvenient sometimes John.

Nicky Gumbel is not some naive British boy.  If Nicky Gumbel was asking Bishop Johnston to preach, I would be more concerned.

Mr. Boyland,
Perhaps the good Mr. Gumbel is not a naive British boy, but he is clearly naive about what his statement means in American English. Specifically:

1. The invitation to bishop Johnston to attend an “Anglican Leadership Conference” implies that bishop Johnston is an Anglican leader.  If Mr. Gumbel recognizes the new “affirming evangelicals” as the leadership of the Church, this leads one to wonder where Mr. Gumbel is headed.

2.  His statement appears to place Truro Anglican into the diocese of Virginia (the EPISCOPAL diocese).  He makes no mention of the ANGLICAN diocese of the Mid Atlantic- the diocese to which Truro Anglican actually belongs.  The Anglican diocese is not included in the prayers for healing- although it and its parishes have been under assault by TEC for 6 years now.  Is he anticipating the Truro will rejoin TEC??

3.  There is no requirement or restriction placed upon bishop Johnston spreading his false gospel among the leadership to be invited. In fact, apparently he is being invited to spread it (“we are so looking forward to welcoming….”).  Why not invite VGR to come?

Matt+, thanks for taking the time to reply to some of the detail from the Truro FAQs and my comments.

It’s very clear to me in reading your #23 that the heart of our disagreement in this matter is the question of one’s definition of a “brother in Christ” and what it means to be a brother in Christ to someone, and WHEN do the Scriptural commands to disassociate and having nothing to do with a false teacher or someone living in notorious immorality come into play?  When does someone stop becoming a brother and become apostate?

Tory+ writes in the FAQ document:

Bp Johnston confesses faith in the risen Christ, as outlined in the Nicene Creed [...]  This is orthodox Christian teaching on Jesus. This is a reliable criterion concerning whether or not someone is a Christian (Acts 16:31 and Romans 10:9).  This does not mean that his life or teaching is always consistent with the professed faith. At times, this can be said of all of us.  [...] The term “brother in Christ” normally describes persons who look to Christ alone for salvation. It need not connote a close relationship built on a high degree of theological agreement and affinity.

Can you address this defnition of what it means to be a “brother?”  What does the NT is sufficient to be IN Christ?  I have always understood it to be what Tory affirms above.  One may be a brother living in sin., a backslidden brother, a deceived brother, but still a brother? 

You continue to focus on the 2 John and 1 Cor 5 passages in terms of having nothing to do with false teachers, and those are very important and critical passages, I agree.  But I fear that you are wrong to use them as proof texts as if they trump everything else in Scripture, particularly passages about being patient with and gently correcting those who have fallen, and yes even those who are promoting false teaching or publicly opposing those teaching the truth. (see below for some examples.) 

2 John and 1 Cor 5 would lead me to have nothing to do with John Spong (denying Christ’s Lordship, Resurrection, salvation through Christ alone) or VGR (living in public notorious sin).  But I’m not sure I see that Shannon Johnston fits obviously into either category described in those 2 passages, and obviously Tory+ doesn’t think so, and I think it would be worthwhile to delve more deeply into these passages - not because I’m trying to convince you I’m right.  I may not be.  It’s just that I don’t think I’m alone in seeing this is less black and white terms than you do, and I’d really like to look at the Scriptures together, beyond just the two passages you keep citing.

Firstly, the 2 John passage clearly teaches us to disassociate from those who deny Jesus as Incarnate Lord and Christ.  You are repeatedly stressing 2 John 10 about not even greeting false teachers.  But does not verse 7 give us the specific DEFINITION of false teaching that applies for verse 10?

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.  (2 John 1:7 ESV)

Based on what Tory+ has said (I cannot speak from personal knowledge of Johnston) Shannon Johnston confesses Christ as the Incarnate Lord who died for our sins and rose again.  So, in such an instance, does verse 10 apply?  Can and should you apply it more broadly to any false teaching, even very serious false teaching unless it touches a core doctrine about Christ’s life and work?  Tory+ seems to think not, and I am inclined to take a similar reading of Scripture.

So what about 1 Cor 5? 
  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11 ESV)

This is obviously a critical passage in this instance since it is refering to someone who bears the name of “brother” but who has been causing public scandal to the name of Christ by practicing incest.  I can understand how you would extend it by applicatin to anyone who proclaims false teaching and supports sexual immorality in the church. 

My questions and comments: first of all, later Paul encourages the church in Corinth to restore this man after his repentance.  Wonderful! The discipline and excommunication accomplished it’s purpose.  Presumably he was a truly brother, not just a brother “in name only” when he was in notorious public sin - in fact Paul asserts he was IN the church (and thus subject to their judgment).  Thus a “brother” before his sin, during his sin and after his repentance.

So, the man’s notorious incest does not stop him from being a brother.,  He repented and was restored.  But he did not STOP being a brother when he was in sin, merely he was a brother who was excommunicated.  So, how can you use this passage to attack Tory+ for calling Shannon Johnston a brother? 

Secondly: the goal of the discipline is love and restoration, not just mere public rebuke for the sake of public rebuke and preserving the “purity” of the church and its reputation (though that IS a goal as well.)  We don’t have Paul’s earlier letter.  But presumably there HAD been attempts to correct this man and lovingly teach him and call him to repent before the command to publicly disfellowship him.  When was the line crossed?  How long are we to patiently and lovingly teach?

Finally a few other passages from the Epistles that talk about our response to sin and false teaching and the call to gentleness:

Gal 6:1
1   Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

2 Tim 2:25-26
25   Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
26   and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

1 Tim 6:3-11
3   If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
4   he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
5   and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

[...]
11   But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

I particularly note that nowhere here is Timothy called to disassociate from those teaching false doctrine.  He is to pursue love and gentleness.  YET, In 2 Tim 3 Paul seems to have no hesitation to tell Timothy to have nothing to do with certain unholy, ungodly men. 

I ask honestly, what is the difference?  Am I mistaken in seeing calls to treat some categories of sin or false teaching differently than others?

I’m reminded of a passage in 1 John:

I Jn 5:16-17
16   If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.  17   All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

John seems quite clear in focusing on false teaching about the person of Christ, the spirit of antichrist, as sin that leads to death.  You and I would totally agree, I imagine, in our response to publicly shun and disfellowship and call a heretic anyone preaching unorthodox Christology, such as Spong.  (I focus on him because I have publicly heard him deny Christ’s resurrection…)

But for those who confess and teach orthodox belief about Christ but who teach false doctrine about other things, or who are trapped in sin?  What then?  Tory+ puts Shannon Johnston in this category.  I don’t know Johnston well enough to judge, personally.  Never met him, never heard him preach. 

But I do see more than two categories in Scripture than just “brother” and “heretic.” 

I see a continuum of:
- those who are IN Christ, with whom we are in full fellowship and whose life and doctrine consistently conform closely to Scriptural standards and apostolic teaching

- those who are in Christ and affirm the truth of Christ’s person and work but who are caught in some sin or teaching something contrary to sound doctrine, whom are to be corrected, instructed, rebuked, and then disciplined / disfellowshipped if they persist in sin and false teaching.

- those who are not in Christ, who are teaching something contrary to apostolic teaching about Christ’s person and work

There seems to be Scriptural precedent for continued association with those in my second category…

This has gotten long, sorry.  But it does seem to me this is the crux of the matter and I’d welcome your response.

Thanks Matt+ for your patience in reading this.  Apologize if I’m rambling.  It’s 102 where I am today and my brain is a bit fried….

Apologies for typos and grammatical errors in my comment above.

I think I should add a few words to one sentence near the end to make things clearer:

I wrote:  There seems to be Scriptural precedent for continued association with those in my second category…

I think I should add the qualification:  “at least for some time.”  As at some point if someone persists in sin I fully agree they need to be disciplined / disfellowshipped.

I spent the last hour typing up a response KarenB which subsequently disappeared.

In sum:

1. your exegesis of 2 John hinges on ignoring v.9 (a common error). Verse 9 broadens the scope of the text to all who “run ahead” of apostolic teaching.

The rest of your argument tends to hinge on this fundamental misreading. It has been, by the way, a favorite misreading of those who want to compromise with heretics. They do so typically by ignoring the import of verse 9.

2. Your use of 1 and 2 Timothy is distressing because you take pains to pit passages of scripture against each other…this is not the first time you have tried to argue for a contradiction between various biblical texts, denying their harmony in order to support Truro’s actions.

3. You use texts that have nothing to do with false teachers but deal with fallen brothers to try to trump texts that deal explicitly with false teachers.

4. You illogically suggest that because Paul calls a repentant Christian sinner a brother that it is okay to call an unrepentant heretic one. You use an odd juxtaposition of 1 Cor 5 and 2 Cor….missing the point that Paul does not call the person in 1 Cor 5 a “brother” but says instead that he “bears the name brother” but his actions belie the name…which is why Paul casts him out of the church.

5. You assume with absolutely no warrant and with everything in the text telling us the opposite that 1 Cor 5 comes at the end of a long process. Rather, Paul seems to be responding to a situation he had just been informed about by boastful letter from Corinth. The incestuous couple was a source of pride for the Corinthian community - a testimony to their freedom in Christ. Paul took immediate action.

6. you pit Gal 6 which does not deal with false teachers against 2 John, 1 Cor 5 - not to mention Gal 1:6-9 which deal with false teachers specifically.

7. Your argument for a “continuum” again hinges on ignoring verse 9 of 2 John.

Matt+ thanks for your response.  Sorry you lost your first one,  I’ve had that happen, and it’s frustrating.  I had my own share of computer problems earlier today.

I’m going to take some time to reread the passages quoted in light of your comments.  Not likely to comment again tonight… Just wanted to say I appreciated your addressing what I wrote.

Matt+

I’ve been prayerfully reading 1John, 2John and 3John tonight in light of your earlier comments, and I’ve also been reviewing a few commentaries.  (I’ve got the IVP and Matthew Henry commentaries handy.  Will have to wait until tomorrow to access anything meatier.  My internet connection is lousy tonight and I’d likely have trouble downloading any PDFs…)

I’d like to focus on your assertion that 2John 9 broadens the scope of the command to disassociate and have nothing to do with false teachers from those who deny Christ (2 John 7) to any who some how “run ahead of” apostolic teaching or promote any false teaching.

I just don’t see it supported in the text.  If we take the Christological controversy referred to in 2John as following on from the problem with false teachers about Christ in 1 John, there is a clear unity of theme and subject.  ALL the references to false teaching and the antichrist in 1John chapters 2, and 4 seem to be about false teaching about Christology, especially 1John 2:18-23 and IJohn 4:1-3

Since 2John 7 explicitly mentions the antichrist, it would seem to be linking back to these previous passages in 1 John, unless I am wrong in asserting such a link or any kind of sequential nature of these 2 books.  (However I just checked the ESV study Bible notes, which also seems to also explicity link 2 John 7-10 with both 1 John 2 and 4).

So, if 2John 7-10 IS linked to 1John 2 and 1John 4, I just don’t see how these texts and this explicit context permit you to broaden this command to disassociate from false teachers to those who are NOT teaching false Christology.  If that antichrist reference weren’t there I’d probably be quick to agree with you, but given 2John 7, I *still* think this pasage is about Christology in light of the context of 1 John.  Are you perhaps putting too much weight on 2John 9 in developing your exegesis that allows you to broaden the command to disassociate from ANY false teacher?

There’s probably more I could write. But for tonight, I’m really just narrowly focusing here on reading and exegeting the Johannian epistles.

For now, please accept that I completely agree Scripture commands that those who teach are to be held to a higher standard and that false teaching is a grave matter and false teachers must be corrected and opposed.  But I had always understood that 2 John 10 was only about those teaching false Christology, and I’m honestly still not convinced this passage allows you to make a case for having nothing to do with Shannon Johnston if indeed his Christology is orthodox. 

Other passages perhaps…  I intend to go back to 1 Cor 5 and Galatians, but I’m out of time and energy tonight.

Thanks in advance.  And if you have any commentaries you’d recommend on 1John - 3John, I’d welcome your recommendations.

Ugh, sorry.  The way I wrote my Scripture references above means that Bible Gateway is mostly linking to passages in John not 1 John or 2 John.  Sorry!

Hi KarenB

You’ve successfully argued a point that has no bearing on the actual question.

If, perhaps, I had suggested that 2 John v.7 did “not” refer to a particular Christological controversy in John’s day but “only” to heresy in general then you’d have a point.

But that is not what I said.

I fully agree that 2 John 7 and indeed many sections of 1 John deal with a particular Christological heresy.

But so what?

My argument, and it is not just mine, is that v. 9 broadens out the context and addresses heresy in general.

Biblical writers can, and often do, in the context of dealing with one particular problem lay down broad and general principles.

So, for example, the context of Galatians, the particular controversy has to do with the influence of the Judiazers.

But when Paul writes in Gal 1:6-9,

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 not that there is another one, but pthere are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

The particular “different gospel” to which he refers is the gospel of the Judaizers. But notice he broadens out the context in v.8 to include any gospel other than the apostolic one.

The same basic progression is going on in 2 John…which is why it won’t do simply to say that John is dealing with a particular heresy. Yes. And so was Paul. And both apostles in the course of dealing with particular heresies provide principles applicable to all heresy…Paul in reference to any other gospel and John in reference to all who run ahead and bring any other teaching apart from the teaching of Christ

So it will not do simply to point out that both apostles had a particular heresy in mind.

Of course they did. That is true but irrelevant since in the course of dealing with that one heresy, they address heresy in general as well.

I’m not in my office so I don’t have access to academic commentaries but….

Here’s a decent article that shows, I think, the significant flaws and the serious consequences of misreading v.9 as you are doing:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/996-2-john-9-an-abused-passage.

Don Carson seems to recognize v.9 applies generally to all heresies as well:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/loveofgod/2011/05/27/numbers-36-psalm-80-isaiah-28-2-john-2/

Same seems to be true with John Macarthur:
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/63-4/truth-the-test-of-christian-hospitality

“when somebody comes along and offers teaching beyond Scripture, you have a problem. First Corinthians 4:6, listen to this, “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes…listen to this one line…that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written.” You can underline that, 1 Corinthians 4:6. “Not to exceed what is written.” Don’t go beyond that.

Answer: yes…yes. It is the teaching about Him which, of course, is consistent with His teaching. You could never separate the two, could you? And that’s why you don’t need to argue over whether the Greek subjective or objective genitive is in view here, there’s nothing to choose between. Both are the same. The truth about Christ is taught by Christ. The point is, the biblical revelation about Jesus Christ…if someone goes beyond that or does not remain true to that, they do not have God. Listen, you can’t be saved without the gospel. You can’t even be saved with a warped gospel. You can’t be saved without believing in Jesus Christ. You can’t even be saved without believing in the one true Christ.”

Again, no one denies that John’s immediate context given in v.7 is a particular Christological heresy. I certainly don’t deny it. But in that context John in verse 9 broadens the context to include anyone who “runs ahead” of the teaching of Christ. This is why Don Carson applies this text in the way he does above:

“John’s stance is much like the old minister who hears some newfangled doctrine and opines,

The crucial issue, of course, is not whether one is “progressive” or not, or a “traditionalist” or not: one could be a progressive in a good or a bad sense, and a traditionalist in a good or a bad sense. Such labels, by themselves, are frequently manipulative and rarely add much clarity to complex matters. The real issue is whether or not one is holding to the apostolic Gospel, whether or not one is continuing in the teaching of Christ. That is the perennial test.”.

Amen.

Thanks Matt+  - wow at least I was successful in some argument (high praise from you!) too bad though you deem my argument irrelevant. (smile, I’m saying that with a chuckle…) I appreciate “sparring” with you and trust it’s iron sharpening iron.  I’m being challenged to prayerfully dig deeply into Scripture in this mess, and that is ALWAYS a good thing…

I’ll look forward to browsing that link on 2 John 9.

Let me just clarify one small point in case it’s unclear.  I’m NOT saying 2 John 7 - 10 is only about the *specific* 1st century Christological heresy referred to in 1 John, but I think it can and should be applied to ANY Christological heresey about the Person and work of Christ. 

Thanks to Amazon’s “look inside” feature, I was able to do just a little bit of browsing of John Stott’s commentary on the letters of John (part of the Tyndale NT Commentary series).  I enjoyed this section discussing the interplay of commands to both truth and love in 2 John, and will let “Uncle John” have the closing words from my keyboard / fingers tonight - I think this gets at the heart of why this issue and our debate here matters.  Defense of truth and genuine love for each other are commanded.  How can we grow in both?  I pray this blog debate will cause us to fervently seek God on that question and ask Him if we’re lacking in obedience in either area!

So here’s Uncle John:

Our love is not so blind as to ignore the views and conduct of others. Truth should make our love discriminating…On the other hand, we must never champion the truth in a harsh or bitter spirit…So the Christian fellowship should be marked equally by love and truth, and we are to avoid the dangerous tendency to extremism, pursuing either at the expense of the other. Our love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened by love. We need to live according to Scripture which commands us both to love each other in the truth and to hold the truth in love.”

- John Stott: The Letters of John, page 207 (Tyndale NT Commentary series)

P.S. if anyone can find a link online where I can access Stott’s full commentary on the Letters of John, I’d be VERY grateful for the link!  Thanks.

Hi KarenB

“I think it can and should be applied to ANY Christological heresey about the Person and work of Christ.”

Well you’re still taking the position that verse 9 only deals with Christological controversies. I encourage you to read the links above with regard to the use of the genetive in case in verse 9. You are narrowing the meaning of the “of Christ” in verse 9 to mean only “about Christ” at precisely the point where most believe John intended to broaden it to include both to the teaching “about” Christ and the teaching that is “of” or from Christ - including thereby all teachings that go beyond apostolic teaching.

Also I did not mean to be dismissive of your post above in which you argue from the context of the particular christological error john faced. Its hugely important to do that context work and you did it well.

I am still trying to understand the very basic issue here- if the bishop is a “brother in Christ” and his ministry worthy of sharing with Anglicans worldwide, why, exactly, is Truro no longer a TEC church?

The other thing I am wondering about is- where is the outrage from the TEC revisionist stalwarts?  I am inclined to think that bishop Shannon is carrying out a strategy- it is quite unlike the HoBD to remain silent when they see a bishop out cavorting with ACNA people.  Imagine if this were +Dan Martins or +Mark Lawrence heading off to London with Tory Baucum- there would be Title IV lynch mobs roaming the streets.

If the past few years have taught me anything about TEC/EDV is that these entities are far less monolithic and coordinated than we might imagine.  It is impossible to know what is being said to Shannon Johnston about consorting with…enemies is isn’t the right word; “competitors” better captures it since loss of Anglican market share seems to be mostly what TEC is concerned with.  This relative quiet might be an aspect of how the settlement with Truro has altered the landscape by ending TEC’s involvement with Truro.  While what Bishop Johnston now does in relating to Truro and ACNA may be, and surely is, distasteful to the culture warriors on the other side, the resolution of the property issue deprives TEC of a direct say over what happens now between EDV and Truro/ACNA.  It becomes a matter of inter-denominational relations rather than a struggle for control over property.  My own view is that looking back ten years from now, TEC/EDV (or whatever is left of those entities) will see the settlement as the moment it began to lose whatever control over the question that most dominates its thinking:  Who speaks for Anglicans in North America?  Empty buildings will have hard time competing with full ones on that question.

Sarah:

This is a very important and interesting discussion, but I’ve been really busy as of late and haven’t had time to engage.  I do want to clarify something though.  You wrote:

The question—your later question—as to whether somebody is a Christian while a heretic is a red herring—not brought up by you but persistently and perniciously introduced by the defenders of Baucum.

It’s not important as to whether Johnston is a Christian or not.  It does not matter nor can we *ever* know until heaven who is or is not regenerate in Christ.  The issue is how to deal with false teachers and those promoting scandalous and public sin.  That is the issue.

Agreed that we can’t, nor should we, inquire whether any particular person is actually “saved” or a true Christian.  I realize that my comments may have suggested that I was advocating such an inquiry, but that isn’t what I meant.

Rather, consider the following situation.  You’ve got ten people sitting on a stage.  They are asked the following question: “Very briefly, summarize the core of the Christian gospel”.  Now we have injected them all with a form of truth serum, so they all must speak the truth about what they actually believe.

Seven of them say something like this: “We are all sinners deserving of death, but God sent His Son Jesus Christ to earth to become one of us, and who, though without sin, died on the cross and so atoned for our sins.  We are saved by grace alone and are called to follow Jesus and become his disciples.”  And we’d say “okay, that sounds pretty orthodox to me.  These people are Christians.”

One would say something like this: “Well, Christianity is our path to God, but that doesn’t mean that others don’t have equally valid paths to God.  We should generally adhere to Jesus’ economic teachings and pursue progressive causes, but we shouldn’t think that Jesus is the only way to God.”  Another would say something like: “Well, the early Christians lived in a very superstitious world and so believed in a lot of things that have since been proven false.  There isn’t really a personal God and Jesus most likely died when crucified.  Rather, the disciples just had a really powerful emotional experience when their friend died and it is that emotional experience that we should seek.”  And yet another would say “Jesus taught that we need to be spiritually authentic and honest - that is the true good news - as long as we are open and honest about who we are, God loves us and accepts us.”  To these final three, we would say “interesting belief systems, but they most certainly are not - by their own definition - authentic Christianity.

It would seem to me that - without inquiring into the hearts of any of the ten persons - we could categorize 7 of them as being “Christian”, and 3 of them as not being “Christian.”

But suppose then, that follow up questions are asked.  Of the initial 7 that appear to be orthodox Christian, we learn that one believes that the Jews don’t need Jesus Christ because they are still under the OT covenant with Israel.  Another believes that having great personal wealth is a sign of favor from and obedience to God, and so they preach a prosperity Gospel.  Yet another believes that homosexual behavior is just fine.

These three individuals thus all would teach serious heresies that are in contradiction to the Bible.  But would we characterize them in the same way as someone who isn’t by any definition a Christian?

This isn’t to speak to the issue to disciplining a false teacher in the Church.  All these three would be false teachers in that they espouse heresy.

But I do think it is important to the issue of how you might describe these three heretical Christians who are guilty of false teaching.  To the extent that they do apparently largely believe in the basic gospel, they are “Christians” and thus “brothers in Christ.”  But to the extent that they pervert the Gospel and raise other authorities over and above Scripture, they are not “brothers in Christ.”  I see that there is nuance in this.  If someone says - without clarification - they are a “brother in Christ”, I think that it is unwise, as it is rife for misunderstanding.  But if the differences are clearly delineated, then I see this as much less of a concern.

Hi Jamesw,

If the ten “people” were ten pastors and/or bishops your comparison might somewhat analagous to the situation at Truro.

If we made that change, I don’t think Paul would give any of the three the name “brother in Christ”. 1 Cor 5 is fairly clear that when one bears the name but acts in ways that belie it, the church is not to afford them the legitimacy or comfort that the name “brother” provides. Doing so not only harms the leaders in question (affirming them in their error) but harms those in the flock who may be prone toward following them in it.

I think 1 Corinthians 5 is instructive here.  Paul is writing to the
Corinthian church whose leaders are tolerating, even celebrating a man who
claims to follow Christ while publicly involved in an unlawful sexual
relationship.

But even knowing this, he greets the leaders of the church, and lauds
some of the things they are doing (right) while very strongly
criticizing the things that are wrong.  While he condemns the man
involved in incest in the strongest terms, he doesn’t burn bridges
with the leaders.  He says that the church is sanctified in Christ,
called to be holy (hence Paul urges them to fulfill this calling).  He
pleads with them, cajoles them, speaks loving words to them, warns
them, and ends with some of the most important and well-loved texts of
the New Testament (1 Cor 13 on love and 1 Cor 15 on the resurrection).

In other words, Paul distinguishes between the person who is engaged in unlawful sexual behavior and those who tolerate/celebrate it.  With the former, he will not even eat; with the latter he’s willing to discuss.  The former is one who “bears the name of a brother” [but isn’t]; the others are still part of the church. So I think there is Biblical precedent for Baucum’s decisions, even as there is for the stricter line Matt (and TJ) would take.

Hi JamesW—I was planning to respond but find that Matt’s response is the same as my own.

Hi John Boyland, I see you missed the point of the text which is summarized at the end:

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone nwho bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging ooutsiders? pIs it not those inside the church2 whom you are to judge? 13 God judges3 those outside. q“Purge the evil person from among you.”

Paul instructs the Corinthian church leaders not even to eat with those who defiantly rebel against God and still want to bear the name Christian. Disfellowship such people so that people will not be fooled by their false profession.

Your position seems to be that while we should not eat with the sexually immoral who call themselves brother its totally okay to eat with and call brother those who lead the Lord’s little ones into sexual immorality.

I hope you see the absurdity of your suggestion. Don’t disfellowship the wolf…just the sheep the wolf devours.

Everywhere you look in the NT the leaders who lead into sin are worthy of infinitely more condemnation than those who commit the sins itself.

No doubt Paul was writing to the church leaders not only to correct their misunderstanding of the gospel but also to instruct them not to allow anyone to call himself a brother who defies the commands of God.

“So I think there is Biblical precedent for Baucum’s decisions, even as there is for the stricter line Matt (and TJ) would take.”

Only if you take the absurd position - that its okay to embrace a heretic but we must shun those the heretic leads astray.

Baucum has invited a wolf into the fold and calls him brother.

“So I think there is Biblical precedent for Baucum’s decisions, even as there is for the stricter line Matt (and TJ) would take.”

Let me first say that I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence with Matt+.

My own take, actually, is that indeed we should engage bishop Johnston as a brother in Christ.  The first order of business is to remove said brother from the office of bishop, since he has seriously gone astray, and is leading others away from Christ and His Church.  After that, we need to extend such ministry to him as will lead him to repentance and restore him to faith.  The problem I have with what Baucum is doing is that he has jumped right to the second, and indeed has gone farther, by introducing Johnston as a leader and teacher.

Let us also remember that Johnston recognized the depositions of Baucum and all the other Virginia clergy- supposedly to Johnston they are not presbyters- so this is very one sided.  Baucum is recognizing the orders of a man who has excommunicated himself, while Johnston recognizes the removal of orders of Baucum and every one else in ACNA.

Dear Matt+ #43,
  In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs Christians to disfellowship those in flagrant immorality and the other behaviors you quote. He’s not talking about heretics per se.
If someone doesn’t like the fact that Paul says to disfellowship the man in incest and doesn’t say to disfellowship those who approve of incest that’s their problem, not mine.

Many reformed Christians claim that Roman Catholics are heretical (praying to saints, proclaiming novel doctrines ex Cathedra and so on).  Should they refuse to eat with, or associate in any way with them?  Should we refuse to even greet an R.C. priest?

TJ: You raise some good points.  Yes, I agree that heretical bishops (such as +Johnston) should be deposed, but unfortunately that hasn’t happened yet and won’t happen for a while. 

Regarding the deposition of Baucum+.  In the current humpty-dumpty situation in TEC (Even AKMA has been asked to renounce his orders and the privileges conferred on him at his ordination just because he wishes to be transferred to the Episcopal Church of Scotland, one of the closest to TEC in its theology in the AC), “deposition” doesn’t need to mean anything exception “transferred out.”  (I think even 815 has stopped the “Mr. Duncan” nonsense, but I wouldn’t be surprised to be wrong here.)  I would venture that Bishop Johnston probably would be happy to recognize Baucum+ as a presbyter in a separate Anglican tradition.  But if Baucum+ recognizes +Johnston more than vice versa, that’s just yet another example of unmerited grace.  Jesus recognized the authority of Caiaphas and of Pilate, even though no recognition was reversed.

Hi John Boyland

“In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs Christians to disfellowship those in flagrant immorality and the other behaviors you quote.”

Right, idolatry, greed, reviling, etc. It’s not an exhaustive list but a representative one. There are many such lists in the NT, none meant to be exhaustive but illustrative.

Your suggestion that those who Jesus says should have a millstone tied to their neck and dropped into the sea do not qualify under this principle…is, again, absurd. The only way you can make that argument is posit that Jesus is just fine with wolves in the flock but not fine with members of the flock that are devoured by the wolf.

You also, of course, have to read this text in exclusion. The moment you harmonize with other texts that deal explicitly with heretics the fullness of the absurdity of your argument is made even more clear.

“If someone doesn’t like the fact that Paul says to disfellowship the man in incest and doesn’t say to disfellowship those who approve of incest that’s their problem, not mine.”

Again, you seem not to get the point. Paul lays down a principle for the church to follow. That the Corinthian church was not following that principle before he laid it down is not a good argument to support Tory’s+ continued defiance of it.

When the apostle commands something, Christian leaders do it. That the Corinthian church may have been confused in the absence of apostolic teaching on a specific matter is no excuse for people with the full benefit of clear apostolic teaching to defy it on the basis of the past ignorance of the Corinthian leaders.

1 Cor 5, the Truro edition

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church2 whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you”...that having been said, those who bear the name brother; who teach sexual immorality, lead in the worship of idols, bring the drunkards more wine, teach the swindlers how to swindle more effectively, I say embrace them, feast with them, welcome them into your churches, introduce them to sheep in other folds, make joyful fellowship with them. Of course, more will be lost and led astray because of their teachings and the confusion your actions may cause, but if a few souls must be damned to promote good relationships between clergy, it’s worth it.”

“deposition” doesn’t need to mean anything exception “transferred out.”

Well, right, not in the same world where “I do not renounce my orders” means “I renounce my orders.”  But that is the world of KJS and RW, not the world of orthodox Christianity.

But if we live in a world where words have some meaning, then the words used to depose the 500+ priests and bishops who were driven out of TEC mean something.  To think otherwise is merely to buy into revisionism, which begins with the revision of the language.  If ordination and deposition have no meaning, or mean something different than they did 5 years ago, why would “marriage” have the same meaning it did 5 years ago?  Or Resurrection?  Or is there such a big difference in the use of the indefinite article versus the definite article, as in “I am a way to the Father” vs. “I am the Way…”

TJ #48:
I don’t think we are in disagreement.  Let’s use words (e.g. “marriage” or “resurrection”) for what they really mean.  I merely meant that words from 815 need to be parsed against their own actions.  When +Shaw claims to be “orthodox”, we need not be deceived.  I don’t recognize that the TEC “depositions” actually remove the privileges conferred on ordination; I don’t think you do either.

2 John, the Truro edition:

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works…of course when I say, ‘everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ’ I am referring specifically to those who explicitly deny the affirmations contained in the Nicene Creed which, I know, has yet to be written but I’m an apostle so I can see the future and stuff like that. So, to be clear, I’m only referring to those who deny the affirmations that will one day be found in the one day to be written Nicene Creed. If a teacher comes to you who believes the one day to be written Creed but denies a few of the Lord’s minor peripheral teachings on the nature of adultery and sexual immorality, to pick a random example, then what I have written above doesn’t count. Just so we’re clear.”

John Boyland,
You are correct, I believe ACNA orders to be valid.  However, I think due to being something of an old fashioned Anglo Catholic, it is evident to me that those bishops who falsely deposed the priests who serve Jesus Christ and who have ordained false priests in their place have, indeed, themselves abandoned the communion of Christ, and are therefore the outcome of their actions was to remove themselves from the episcopal office, and they are, in fact, excommunicated.  The abandonment of communion (in this and many other ways) by the majority of the TEC HoB is what the Global South churches are recognizing when they break communion with TEC.  Of course, this is only one of the several causes of broken relations between TEC and GS, but only reinforces why Johnston should not be introduced around the Communion as a leader and a teacher.

I know this thread has gone dormant, but I just thought I’d share what I found to be a very helpful sermon as I was following-up my study of 2 John:

One of John Stott’s sermons on 2 John is available online

http://www.allsouls.org/Media/PlayMedia.aspx?download=file&media_id=50691&file_id=56536

It’s excellent, talking about the integration of truth and love, as well as love and obedience in the lives of believers.

Highly recommended.