Archbishop of Canterbury To Lead Secretive Communion For Homosexuals

So much for secrets!

KJS is going to be SO jealous.

I can understand the secrecy esp. if it’s the wish of the clergy members themselves who may not be public.  No problem with that - they are a part of his flock. I don’t think the secrecy part is sinister.  However the Holy Eucharist part is problematic as many have already pointed out.

I can only hope this is a hoax.

If you read the .pdf file, it is pretty clear that the ABC wanted the secrecy.  Apparently, it is not normal for members of the group to give their names in preparation for other meetings, but the ABC wanted to see names in advance.  The ABC agreed to shred the names list, but he has also obviously asked that the meeting be secret, and the contents of his homily be kept secret.

It is the radical members of the LGBT community who are upset about the secrecy according to the Ruth Gledhill article.  They want the meeting to be out in the open—and, they are the ones who likely betrayed the ABC’s confidence.

I just can’t imagine that the ABC really thought that this meeting could be kept secret.  Surely, he must have known that this thing would get out to the public.  It would have been much better if he had simply agreed to speak to and with the group as part of the “listening” process, but not to be available during the time when Communion was being celebrated.  Or, he could even have agreed to preside over the Communion, but regardless, he should have announced the event himself and given his reasons for his involvement so that he could have been in control over the flow and content of the info.

I just can’t imagine what he must have been thinking.  Something about this is really suspicious to me, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.  The goof is way to obvious not to have some sort of plan behind it.

Just another nail in the coffin of +++RW’s legacy.

the snarkster

Why is it I keep hearing Bugs saying, “What a maroon, . . ” ?

Assuming that the LGBT radicals leaked this, it must be to show the ABC’s alleged “hypocrisy” for “disciplining” TEC, while at the same time celebrating the eucharist for LGBT clergy.

Two points: First, why did the LGBT radicals leak this now? What can we infer about what they expect the ABC to do when he meets the HoB? Second, as a maneuver to compel the ABC to let TEC slide, the maneuver seems likely to backfire. So who really leaked this?

I have to agree (once again) with Mrs. Gledhill:

My view is that if it fits with what he believes - and it surely fits with the ‘inclusive Gospel’ - he should celebrate the eucharist. But it was an error to both do it and then try to keep it secret. I understand he doesn’t much like the Internet and prefers more old-fashioned methods of communication. So I guess he’d have no concept of the futility of even beginning to try to keep something like this secret, especially when the very community itself doesn’t want it to be a secret. They even have a page on Facebook for goodness sake! Ok it’s ‘closed’, but still. I can see why they’re angry. With so many of them just having found the courage to ‘come out’, why should they give in to an Archbishop seeming to want to shove them back in?

Since we can’t know what +++Rowan’s real motives are here, since we can at least try to appreciate his difficult situation both in the C of E and in the Communion, and since it’s not at all clear how any sort of comment at all would contribute constructively either to any desirable resolution of our problems with the General Convention Church or to our ability to foresee the outcome of the various meetings on that subject that will be taking place over the next few months, my hope is that the orthodox blogosphere will not go completely ape over this.

But then, I have made a career of cheering for lost causes.  At one point I was even a Cubs fan…

If this is true, then it certianly explains alot. A decision to celebrate with and for those who are actively subverting the Christian faith and living in unrepentant sin is a betrayal of the Gospel. It is not “caring for the flock’ but facilitating its destruction and that of those caught up in this sin.

There are so many unknowns about this item that it may just be a non-story.  We don’t know what the Archbishop intends to tell this group; we don’t know that he will not require confession of sins from the communicants; and we only have the word of this little bulletin that he will be the celebrant at all.  I see nothing intrinsically wrong in his giving an “Address” to such a group; I’m sure they need a dose of “realities.”

Didnt any of you go to church yesterday and hear the pharisees criticizing Jesus for eating with sinners? Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, there is no difference between what Jesus was doing and this. Jesus was pretty specific about cleaning up your own act before criticizing others. Why dont we focus on cleaning up our own stuff for a while and leave the Archbishop alone?

Hey Craig—I think Matt just did it—“went ape.”

[Now attempting mischievous smiley face.]

I really doubt ++Rowan is serving God in faithfulness and in truth.

Fr Kennedy,

I recently found this forum/blog and really appreciate what I’ve found so far. Whether because of “newbie” status, or because only certain users can post original articles (or perhaps from simple ignorance on my part), I have been unable to begin a thread related to a Christian Post article from this afternoon (linked below).

Is there an instruction page for StandFirm newbies, or (if only certain members post articles), would you consider reviewing the article for inclusion?

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070917/29337_Key_Meeting_Expected_to_Set_Future_Course_for_Divided_Anglicans.htm

It’s also interesting to note where Archbishop Rowan’s former colleague in Wales, and member of the Primates’ Group reporting on TEC, will be just before Lambeth next year:
http://www.modchurchunion.org/Events/Conference/2008/Conference2008.htm
Archbishop Barry has at least been open about what he is doing (and where his sympathies are).
It is difficult to tell what Archbishop Rowan thought he could gain by this. Ruth Gledhill suggests that he hasn’t really cottoned on to the power of the internet to disseminate information (he doesn’t apparently like it or use it much). He may have honestly thought he could have a private time of worship with people whom he must in his heart want to support, and that no-one he didn’t want to know about it would find out. Perhaps a meeting such as this would serve to relieve some of the burden he carries for publicly having to uphold positions he doesn’t believe in so that he can hold the Communion together . . . who knows?
Anyway, just because you are as clever as a slice of brain pie doesn’t mean you are savvy.

lwrh—You must not know anything about Matt. Yes, he is hard core on this issue, but you can be well assured that he looks after “his own stuff” (as you put it).

Re: Iwrh says: “Didnt any of you go to church yesterday and hear the pharisees criticizing Jesus for eating with sinners?”

I read and preached on this Gospel yesterday.
I did not read/hear Christ affirm any act of sinfulness. Christ did not meet with sinners in secret and assure them of His support for their sinfulness.

++Rowan Williams is neither Christ-like, nor wise and discerning.  The man is not going to meet with sinners to change them; he is continuing with his MO of supporting same-sexual and other forbidden relationships.
What a spiritually weak shepherd of the flock!!!

lwrh,

If the ABC is going to this Service of Holy Communion with the purpose asking those present to repent of all sins (homosexuality included), then I say more power to him.  I applaude his Christ-like behavior and will seek to model his actions in my own life.

But this really sounds like a struggling-to-recover alcoholic making a beer-run for his buddies.

Uhhhhhh…  How do we know what substance of his message is going to be?  How do we know that he will celebrate the Eucharist with a solemn warning that if not repentant, then they are partaking unworthily?  How do we know?!?!?

Somewhere this very instant, there might be the most vile and disgusting person in society’s and God’s eyes that gets up tommorrow morning and repents and shines brightly in our Lord’s eyes.

One thing that makes me think this is a hoax is the list of names.  If the service is supposed to be secret, you would think that the names of the attendees would be secret, too.  Do you really think the clergy would send in their names to be put on a list that would be accumulating for who knows how long?  Do you really think this would reach the shredder without anyone except the ABC reading it?  RIGHT!  Not even the compiler is reading it.  9_9

St. Ox, et al—Let’s do be precise in our language. Ox wrote: “homosexuality,” which is the sexual attraction; all the debate is about living/behavior.

It is not clear from the underlying document how much of the secrecy and shredding Rowan Williams is aware of.  It may be that he was not privy to any of these spy-novel machinations—the document will be shown only to the Archbishop in the presence of a Steering Committee member and then shredded, etc.  But if he was aware of these secretive procedures, his credibility is gone forever.

St. Ox, et al—Let’s do be precise in our language. Ox wrote: “homosexuality,” which is the sexual attraction; all the debate is about living/behavior.

I’ll go you one better, Gator… (though I confess that I am not Anglican, so perhaps my perspective does not directly apply). The “debate” isn’t even over homosexual behavior. Allow me to explain;

I believe (as I think is implied in your post) that the unique “bent” which we each have (that “sin within me that is not my sin”) is really no different in kind from one another. I’m happily married to a wonderful woman, but I do find women attractive (and not men). I recognize this to be the case and recognize that to lust after one of my sisters in Christ (or to act on that lust) would be sinful. I accept that a person could have a concupiscent bent toward homosexuality and remain chaste… and I assume that’s what you’re saying. That it’s the sin we concentrate on and not the sinful nature (which we share in abundance).

Here’s where I would (with respect) differ;

We should accept that Christ died for sins that we aren’t personally guilty of as well as those for which we are… and that there truly is “Good News!” for those on the “other side” of this debate if they will but hear it.  That even the sinful act is not what calls a remnant out of the TEC.

It’s simply that when it comes to sin, you either call it what it is or call it something else. Those that I see represented here (and I admit I’m new) are not being asked to look at sin and say “I’m a sinner too - Christ calls the sinners”... they’re being asked to say that it isn’t sin at all.

Not quite going “ape” gator and Chip, but certainly this would make Communion with Canterbury impossible for some.

Let’s grant that the Archbishop is deficient in common sense: that’s pretty apparent.  Let’s concede that he is clueless about appearances.  And let’s admit that he has none of the characteristics of an effective leader: at the core he’s a reflective religious academic, after all, not a CEO.  But this is for a gathering in late November, when the landscape should be somewhat clearer.  He may well believe—especially if he has come down hard on the Americans—that he needs to explain himself to his domestic constituency, and most especially the gay priests.  He needs to demonstrate that he isn’t bigoted, and that he “listens” to them and cares.  I don’t think one can take this meeting, with or without the Holy Supper, as evidence that he’s going to do one thing or the other with the HOB.  The leaking of this actually makes it more difficult for him to support the Americans.  If some of the more radical gays leaked this, I don’t see what they thought they were accomplishing. 

More interestingly, this suddenly tells the world that there is a secret cabal of homosexual priests who operate like a secret society.  That hardly makes them look like people of integrity, does it?  If anything it reinforces the bad old stereotypes of the past—hardly helpful to their cause.

It’s simply that when it comes to sin, you either call it what it is or call it something else. Those that I see represented here (and I admit I’m new) are not being asked to look at sin and say “I’m a sinner too - Christ calls the sinners”… they’re being asked to say that it isn’t sin at all.

Well, Phototaxis, you’ve nailed it.

Again, if true, this is not simply “bad timing” or an unwise decision. It is, again, a decision to subvert the gospel, endanger the unity of the Communion and facilitate the continued blindness of those caught up in body/soul-destroying sin. This goes far far beyond bad appearances

The more I think about this, the more I have to agree with the lovely <a >old lady</a> above.  It strikes me as completely out of character for +++Rowan to try to do this in secret, in the first place, and beyond belief that such a brilliant man (academic though he may be), who has spent the last five years in the public eye through controversies and scandals of various sorts, could possibly believe that it could be kept secret, in the second place.  But even granting that, the whole “attendance list” business itself is highly improbable and contrary to all instinctive British notions of discretion and reserve (even ignoring the religious tradition of anonymous confession and so on).

We have numerous factions in the C of E, none of whom like +++Rowan as he is and all of whom would like to either manipulate him or discredit him to their own ends.  So upon reflection, I really think this is either a plant or a hoax (or both).

I’ll bet the whole thing is a hoax,but then again…..nothing in TEC should surprise us.  Shuks, I didn’t even believe about Spong when I first heard of him!

I am starting to think that this all really comes down to the understanding of Holy Communion.

Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said: “A Holy Communion service includes confession and absolution of sins and is a very solemn and significant act. Christians are told to examine themselves carefully before identifying so closely with the death of the Lord Jesus for sin and his resurrection to new life.”

If you believe what Sugden has stated, then the ABC celebrating Holy Communion with defiantly unrepentant sinners is appalling. If, on the other hand, you believe the Eucharist is simply table fellowship or you believe that in some mysterious way the Eucharist is effective despite the attitude of the partakers, then the ABC celebrating Holy Communion with defiantly unrepentant sinners is perfectly fine.

Sounds like too much Broccoli and not enough Bible to me….

Matt—I didn’t mean to belittle the seriousness of the issues. Just needed to smile a little over Craig’s 1960/70s jargon—“going ape.”

Update from timesonline.co.uk

Archbishop of Canterbury to hold ‘secret’ communion for gay clergy

Dr Williams has asked to know who will be present. Names will be on a list, which will be shown only to the Archbishop and shredded once he has seen it.

Among those attending will be the Rev Chris Newlands, the convenor and chaplain to the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Right Rev John Gladwin.

Also present will be the Vicar of St Peter’s, the Rev Nicholas Papadopulos; and the former chaplain to the Bishop of Salisbury, the Right Rev David Stancliffe.

Dr Williams’s mission to maintain the unity of the Anglican Communion, rent with schism since the 2003 ordination of the openly-gay Bishop Gene Robinsonm, has never appeared less likely to succeed.

The disclosure of the event could not have come at a time more likely to destabilise him. Later this week he is due to attend a meeting of US Episcopal bishops to discuss the crisis.

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury said today: “It should come as no surprise that the Archbishop is meeting pastorally with clergy and others affected by the current debates in the Church. Such encounters extend across the Church and right across the range of opinions found within the Church. Few of these encounters ever reach the public domain. That is exactly as it should be.”

Rocks,
Is this another Veggie Tales reference? Could you elucidate?

If, on the other hand, you believe the Eucharist is simply table fellowship or you believe that in some mysterious way the Eucharist is effective despite the attitude of the partakers, then the ABC celebrating Holy Communion with defiantly unrepentant sinners is perfectly fine.

Oh… it’s “effective” despite their attitude. Or perhaps better to say because of it. The question is “effective how?”

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 1 Corinthians 11:29

The Lord’s table should, literally, call us to communion one with annother… but we should be <u>in</u> communion before receiving… not use it to forge communion (pun intended).

:LOL:  DV…no not Veggietales.
Broccoli as in author of Bond, James. Obscure maybe but the alliteration of the B’s was too hard to resist. Too much Bond and not enough Bible.
I should have used Bond but broccoli is a funnier word

Not author…producer…..ok it didn’t work…shoot me! :-p

How different this is, than the priest holes of yore.

Gator “just needed to smile a little over Craig’s 1960/70s jargon—“going ape.” “

Yep, sonny, why I even remember way back when the idea was that sinners were s’posed to listen to the Church, instead of vice-versa.  Or wait now… Did I say that already? ...

You just have such a broad range of cultural references it is hard to keep up.
(And they say the conservatives don’t engage the culture. We do. We just do not succumb to it. Or at least, try not to ....)

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury said today: “It should come as no surprise that the Archbishop is meeting pastorally with clergy and others affected by the current debates in the Church. Such encounters extend across the Church and right across the range of opinions found within the Church. Few of these encounters ever reach the public domain. That is exactly as it should be.”

    It should also come as no surprise that meeting with this particular group and celebrating the eucharist with them might cause just the slightest bit of concern amongst the rabble.
    Damn! It’s that dratted internet again. A lot of gall they have publicising the truth and keeping everyone informed.

the snarkster

Moreover as is well known there are clergy in the Church of England who have refused to give assurances that they are celibate and Bishops who, contrary to their own agreed policy, apparently refuse to ask for such assurances.

Don’t tell.  Don’t ask.

The ABC has never really done well with secret societies…
Like the Masons

Deja Vu

And they say the conservatives don’t engage the culture. We do. We just do not succumb to it.

In the world but not of it, eh?
~_^

I see this as a positive move. I’m certain all who approached the rail, did so only after having confessed and repented of their sins.
Oh wait . . . . what do you mean?
Well, never mind.
No wonder it needed to be kept secret.

Laytone

I’m not sure, but has there ever been an occasion during the past Lambeths, Primates’ meetings, ACC meetings, etc when the
ABC did not celebrate communion with ‘questionable’ worthy opponents (!)?  He has never joined ++s Akinola, Orombi and co in boycotting communion.  Evangelicals in the UK will not approve, but he is ministering to a group of his flock.  If he were being consistent as a reasserter archbishop, he would be disciplining these clergy [although perhaps he is going to hand out horsehair underwear and whips].  But since he is very likely not really a reasserting ABC, he probably won’t.  And that should perhaps give us pause for thought about the outcome of the upcoming HoB meeting with ++Rowan.

Aha! All this secrecy talk got me thinking about the VRWAC, supposedly financed by the IRD, and I have just discovered that there is actually a VLWAC fueled by non other then the Theosophical Society
I have recently discovered a secret letter sent to justify TEC’s innovations.
At this very moment Dan Brown is working on the book and screenplay tentatively title The Shrouded Spong.

Rocks:  Isn’t that the book where Spong is proved to have been off to the far left in Da Vinci’s “Last Supper”

hmmmm; will +++RW’s actions and speach uphold Lambeth 1.10?

I thought this was a now whining no freekout zone?

“Archbishop celebrates private eucharist with sinners”

What gives?
Or have we forgotten, that even Jesus ate with sinners and outcasts?

WWJD?

Jesus didn’t just “eat with sinners.” He called them to repent and rejoiced when they did. He did not enable, facilitate, wink at, or encourage their sin…which is precisely what this eucharist would represent. Did you actually read the entirety of Luke 15 or just verse 2?

Or have we forgotten, that even Jesus ate with sinners and outcasts?

Oh, no, plainsparson, I don’t think we’ve forgotten that.  The forgetting - the ignoring - usually comes from the proselytes of Episcopalianism.  As you say (Luke 15):

Tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to Jesus,
but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying,
“This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

End of story?  Not quite.

So to them he addressed this parable.

“What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them
would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert
and go after the lost one until he finds it?
And when he does find it,
he sets it on his shoulders with great joy
and, upon his arrival home,
he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them,
‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’
I tell you, in just the same way
there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents
than over ninety-nine righteous people
who have no need of repentance.”

Yes, Jesus ate with sinners and outcasts.  But, what is the context?  They are lost.  And how are they found?  By doing the same thing Jesus commands us to do in his very first pronouncement: “Repent.”  Not by the decision of the rest of the community to be more “inclusive,” but by the decision of the lost to repent - metanoia - to completely reorient their lives in the way of Christ - the very thing Episcopalianism rejects for the group in question.

plainsparson, before commenting you might want to read those who have addressed this earlier in the thread, such as this one or also this one.  Just because we take our own sin and the body and blood of Christ and the real presence of the One who was from all eternity God the Son with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit seriously doesn’t constitute whining or freaking out.  Some things actually are sacred.

Matt,

No I didn’t stop reading. The question is why are the objectors objecting and what is Jesus’ action. The Pharisee and teachers object because Jesus, a rabbi, is eating with the unclean/ unrepentant. A clear violation of the rules of the time.  There is not evidence to suggest that the tax collectors and sinners repented prior to the meal or even during it. Jesus first action is to break convention and dine with the “unclean.”

Then follows several parables. Who are they addressed too? The Pharisees the teachers first and perhaps the sinners and tax collectors second.

The first parable is of the lost sheep: God is eager for the lost to be found and brought back: Jesus is dining with the lost in order to bring them back?

The Second parable is of the lost coin: God will seek out the lost endlessly and rejoice in the return: Jesus is seeking out the lost?

The Third is the Parable of the Lost Son. To much to write in an e-mail.

The end for me? That God will seek out the Lost relentlessly. I see nothing wrong with what the Archbishop is doing and it is in step with what Jesus would do.

DC, I agree with you - thank God that He seeks the lost relentlessly -  but I also note that repentance is mentioned in two of those tales - the lost sheep has need of repentance. The prodigal son certainly repents.

plains parson,

1. Jesus actually provides an interpretation for the first two parables and that interpretation is played out in the third. The Shepherd and the Woman rejoice when the lost thing is found. In the same way heaven rejoices when sinners “repent”. In the third parable “repentance” is demonstrated in the return of the son from the pigsty.

2. you say:

“There is not evidence to suggest that the tax collectors and sinners repented prior to the meal or even during it. Jesus first action is to break convention and dine with the “unclean.”

First of all, there is evidence that the sinners were “repentant” and that evidence is found in Jesus’ interpretations sited above.

Second, it is VERY dangerous to make the leap from these meals to the Eucharist. There are not only instructions with regard to eating with unrepentant sinners in the context of regular meals and hospitality (1 Cor 5 and 2 John 9-11). AND there are very specific instructions given by Paul with regard to the way we are to engage in eucharistic fellowship in 1 Cor 10-11.

The idea of sharing eucharist with unrepentant notorious sinners is repugnant not because it will harm the celebrant, but because it will harm the partaker and desecrate the sacrament.

Plainparson, when Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adultress, He told her to go and sin no more. He did not tell her to continue committing adultery. That is the difference here; if the ABC is validating the homosexual conduct of the clergy, he would be encopuraging them to continue sinning and putting their souls at risk. That is not the relentless seeking that Jesus did.

BTW, if anyone on this thread thinks that the ABC is engaging in this eucharist to “reach out to the lost” I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. He has made his own theological position on this issue known. He does not think these people are lost.

Well, I’d certainly endorse eating with sinners. I’ve experienced personally where Christian folks have become an exclusive country club and exile all others, even if there is no active sin which would call for a separation. American Christian often exclude to their own peril before the LORD. However ++Rowan does not really have a good track record on this sort of thing. Matt+ is correct in the full nature of Jesus’ message. Then Rev. Martyn Minns accepted the invitation to speak to Virginia chapter of Integrity, some thought he ‘saw the light’ while other were very critical for associating with heretics, I do not know if it was at a communion service or just a talk, I do know the message was “God’s love change me,” and his defense was that these people need the Gospel too. Regrettably it been too long ago that I’m unable to locate a link via Google in my quick search, but I remember reading the VA Integrity blog in that period and the reviews were mixed of cynicism to folks who actually respected his appearing and attempted to seek the message for an application (granted posting were not the were instantly convicted of sexual sins, but then we do nothing the Holy Spirit is the one who instructs, I can’t count how many times I hear a message on a sin I have in my life that one day the Spirit decides is the day it’s be addressed).

So in my mind, I have an example where this could be a good thing, however the track record of the cleric is one who would go with a ‘gospel of affirmations’ verses one of Transformation.

Matt+—Hee - I write too slow ... sorry, I’m not buying your bridge.

Jesus certainly didn’t collude with sinners to cover up their sin by shredding the evidence.

I hate to harp on this in light of the weightier theological issues relating to the Eucharist, but there are also canon law issues relating to the CofE’s standards for ordained clergy.  The reason for the participants’ insistence on shredding the document with their names undoubtedly is to avoid disciplinary action required by CofE canons.  For the Archbishop of Canterbury to be party to this subversion of CofE rules and processes is appalling—if not a violation of canon law itself.

“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.”  I Cor 5:11
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” I Cor.11:27-30

Of course this is just what +++Paul said.  I wonder if this is what the Public Health people mean by “risky behavior?”

Call me a bit naive but that the recognized standard bearer for the Anglican Communion(no matter how tenuous and tentative that may be)would not consider or worse yet disregard 1 Cor.11:23-32 and the present unrest in the Communion and go on and do Communion(sorry,grew up RC)with clergy people who are flaunting not only the teaching of Scripture but the Christian church’s(not just CofE)cumulative teaching on marriage and sexuality is helping the Anglican Communion commit hari-kari,not furthering unity.

The Eucharist not just any ‘ol meal. 

Again….this is too much like the recovering alcoholic making a beer run to please his buddies.

“Secretive Communion For Homosexuals”

But remember, everything revisionists do is open and above board!!  It’s the reasserters who are sneaky and secretive!!

Goodrich: “But then, I have made a career of cheering for lost causes.  At one point I was even a Cubs fan…”

I knew there was a reason to dislike you.
Cubs Win!
Cubs Win!
Cubs Win!
Holy Cow.

Dear Matt perhaps you should have taken that Corinthian passage to verse 12.
So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

Geez! Maybe I missed it above, but what about last Sunday’s first lesson, Exodus 32:1-14?

The people didn’t make the golden calf. Aaron did, because they wanted him to. (Read the whole passage, not just what’s in the lectionary. Heck, the whole chapter.)

At vv. 21-25 we hear more about Aaron’s bowing to the will of the people, even though he CERTAINLY knew better. What I’ve never quite figured out is how Aaron got off scot-free. I’d guess that Moses made a plea bargain.

Now, it wouldn’t take a seminary degree to draw parallels between this “story” and current events, would it?

I hope this ABp of C story turns out not to be true. Maybe the pdf can be inspected to see who really wrote it.

Maybe the participants would rather not be pilloried here and in places like it as notorious sinners desecrating the Eucharist by people who know nothing at all of their lives, backgrounds, beliefs, practices, conduct, or state of mind. Maybe they don’t want to be the next whipping-boys for the evangelical right, crying violation of canon law. Maybe their archbishop doesn’t want to be responsible for dragging their lives and careers into a political dogfight. Maybe he thinks that the decision to offer communion is best left to the priest who actually presides at it, and the decision to take it best left to those who take it, rather than by a group of people many thousands of miles away who know next-to-nothing of the facts on the ground and whose opinions are out of line with those of many in the church over which he presides. Perhaps he thinks that treating a Eucharist as a vehicle for political or theological point-scoring is itself a form of desecration.

Or, of course, maybe he’s a theologically ignorant heresiarch who needs some lessons in Eucharistic theology and scripture.

Sharing a meal with sinners is NOT what took place in the upper room that night.

“This is my body, do this in remembrance of me”

I recall a certain parable, about a certain wedding feast, at which certain persons who attempted to enter through the back door without having first been cleansed and clothed in wedding garments were cast out into the darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth

Speaking of being unjustly pilloried and people inventing whipping boys,Paul,did Fr.Jake or any of the guiding lights of pro-TEC blogging,ever retract his attacks on both Bishop Orere(apologies for spelling)and the spokesman for the Church of Nigeria,especially after the story of his supposed comments were proven fallacious and spurious?

Positive Phototaxis,
Check your account (top of page) for a private message.

Doesn’t anybody suspect that others set up this arrangement in the Archbishop’s absence, in order to embarrass him this week?  We do know of certain occasions when others spoke for him.  From the first, that is what I have guessed.  I see there is no really direct confirmation of these plans—just a vague statement that he has engagements with a variety or diversity (the “spectrum”) of church people.  I didn’t think this sounded like him.

What a silly Church.

lwrh, of course we should always ‘take heed lest he fall’, but in this case the warning would apply to what people are doing in the preceeding verses, so bringing it up here makes no sense.
I also think your other warning verse (Mt 7:1-5 (?)) was misused. Jesus didn’t say “Now go ahead and sin all you like! And if anyone tries to stop you, just say ‘Judge not…’ Neat trick, eh?”. IOW this was addressed as a warning against hypocrisy and unjust judgment. It wasn’t meant as an out for people to do whatever they like, and it doesn’t mean that its ‘judgmental’ to call sin sin. That isn’t judgment, it’s observation.

lrwh, I think one thing we need to realise is that Christianity is about things like conversion and sanctification as a basic part of a new life in Jesus.  Baptism and Confirmation are simply rituals we go through to (hopefully)  acknowledge that God really does those things.  Through those works of grace, which we seek, and receive, trusting Him, who we were, we’re not, what we did, we don’t, who we weren’t now we are, and what we couldn’t, now we do.

You said,

Jesus was pretty specific about cleaning up your own act before criticizing others. Why dont we focus on cleaning up our own stuff for a while and leave the Archbishop alone?

but first, for a Christian (by the New Testament meaning) we have “cleaned up our act” by turning from our sins to live a new life in Christ.  As for criticizing others, I still say there is a difference between saying a person shouldn’t do something dangerous and saying that person is a worthless fool for doing that dangerous thing.  One is callous criticism, the other is loving concern.  I’m sure you can see the difference,

Robert

Gledhill’s story on this is on the top of page 2 of the Times this morning btw.

I should have mentioned the headline is rather ironic:
“Archbishop calls secret service for gay clergy to halt slide towards schism.”
I don’t think it’s exactly working out that way.

Two weeks or so ago, “information came to light” that Bishop Orama had made inflammatory remarks about homosexuals. That information was soon exposed as false, and I hope this will be too. Meanwhile, is it really appropriate for us to be criticizing the ABC for something he hasn’t actually done yet?

hence the word “if”

In the fairy tale, The Beauty and the Beast , the handsome, narcissistic Gaston rallies the townspeople to join him in his efforts to lynch the Beast.  Belle, however, knows the Beast has a prince of a heart, and recognizes Gaston for what he is.

Those who know him and who have devoured his theological work know that ++Rowan has a prince of a heart.  I suggest that we cling to caution in interpreting the news reports and especially the headlines about this.  Some will no doubt use this report to make political hay, striving to embarrass and discredit   ++Rowan in any way possible.  That certainly is not our standard at Covenant.  Why don’t we consider more gracious possibilities giving the gracious leader we know Rowan to be.  What might the word “secret” realistically modify? Is it Rowan’s secrecy or the group’s secrecy? The “meeting,” as the source would like for us to assume?  Or is it the group itself that maintains confidentiality in order to protect its members from the pain of marginalization and alienation that is the welcome they can expect in much of Christ’s Church?  Could it be that this group’s members provide spiritual support to one another and provide a liturgical space for its members to safely seek fellowship with God, each other, and heterosexuals who extend to them the warm hand of fellowship?  If I take Lambeth 1.10 seriously, than I am committed to listening to such persons, and certainly to loving them.

Chris Sugden’s use of the word “problematic” is in fact what is problematic.  As I have shown in my exegesis of 1Cor 5, judgment and discipline is the task of the community alone and not the prerogative of individuals. Both Paul and our received tradition condemn such private judgments. 

Our Communion has already answered any questions we might have about the suitability of Eucharist fellowship with persons professing a homosexual orientation in our passage of Lambeth 1.10.  It suggests unchecked hubris when we elevate our own private judgment above the overwhelming and clear voice of the global community as expressed by several hundred bishops from every province in the Communion - which is what we have in Lambeth 1.10.  If homosexual persons are baptized in Christ, I am certainly committed by our community of faith’s decision in Lambeth 1.10 to sharing Eucharist fellowship with them.  In light of the Communion’s overwhelming support for Lambeth 1.10 (and here I refer particularly to the language about the Church’s duties to homosexual persons:“We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ”), I suggest that a greater cause for concern would be with any clergyperson who refused fellowship with such a group or rallied Anglicans perhaps unfamiliar with the Community’s decision on this matter to believe that faithfulness could possibly mean excluding such persons from our fellowship.

If homosexual persons are baptized in Christ, I am certainly committed by our community of faith’s decision in Lambeth 1.10 to sharing Eucharist fellowship with them.

Thanks for saying this, Craig.

They are certainly baptized, but they have willingly and unrepentantly discarded their baptismal vows and now they are teaching others to do the same.

“If homosexual persons are baptized in Christ, I am certainly committed by our community of faith’s decision in Lambeth 1.10 to sharing Eucharist fellowship with them.”

Lambeth 1.10 does not require sharing communion with them. But even if it did 1 Cor 5 and 2nd John 9-11 would deny it.

Craig Uffman writes (or waxes?) “++Rowan has a prince of a heart.”

Of course noone but the good Lord can look into one’s heart, but we all can look at a person’s actions, and those actions give a window into this “prince of a heart:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5462/#103008

Also something to note— “Holy Communion for a secretive group of what appear to be homosexual clergy.”

We’re talking leadership, not just a laity but those called to be set apart thus held to a higher standard.

While I’m concern we reach those trapped in sexual sins and have received communion with those known in heterosexual sins, I still believe there discipline needed, but in terms of Gospel changes not just separation. HOWEVER our witness completely evaporates when we accept clergy who are practicing any known unrepentant sin, it does not have to be sexual sins either.

Is it too late to raise the funds for Kevin Kallsen to attend this Secret Communion and videotape it to post on the internet?  Would be interested in a video record of what Rowan actually says to these mysterious folks.  Second thought would be to ask someone already planning to attend to liveblog the Secret Eucharist.

Perhaps he thinks that treating a Eucharist as a vehicle for political or theological point-scoring is itself a form of desecration.

Perhaps we think treating a Eucharist as a vehicle for secular political activism is a form of desecration.  Integrity routinely does this, and let’s not even get into “U2charist”.

Getting personal - before I got serious with Jesus, I was still in a church building and even serving in a liturgical fashion but I was ‘playing house’ with a lady. Today, I do think the rector should have refused my service, you know what, I’d been hopping mad. I do not thing the rector should have excommunicated me. There would have been a real risk that I’d walk out to either walk away from the Lord (which obviously I’d already was by my actions) or found a disobedient church to accept me (a little harder since I already was an Episcopalian ). However, I do not think I should have been around the Altar in my current state until I repented. I think there needs to a balance of both reaching out and standards upheld.

Again I do not believe the ABC has been faithful to preach the whole Gospel on this issue in the past and celebrating with unrepentant clergy he is communicating acceptance of this sin and derelict to his oath to uphold the faith once delivered.

As I have already e-mailed to Kendall on his article for this story:

We have asked for clarity; and, boy, have we got it if this story is true.

I have enjoyed all of the thread, a few are a bit off track, since Christ DID eat with sinners; although He DID also require repentance and amendment of life from each illustration.  The revisionists seem to forget the second clauses of each of these parables and illustrations given us by the writers of Holy Writ, those ‘repent’, ‘go and sin no more’ statements by Christ.

[comment deleted—off topic]

Hi Christopher Wells,

The lengthy comment you posted had nothing at all to do with the thread above, and as such was off topic and in violation of the comment policy. It was also a personal attack.

This is a warning.

Hosea, “getting personal” is for sure what this is all about.  If people get mad and go running to a more permissive “church” (be it liberal ‘pisky or Dew Drop Inn), can it be traced back to how they understand holiness?  Those of the “raca” persuasion (religious anti-Christ agenda) use Holy Communion as a rhetorical device because of their (willing?) ignorance in that regard.  Even we in the “conservative” camp tend to consider holiness as “the other h-word” much of the time because (?) of a chronic mis-use of the word.  (Indeed, when I’ve used the “h-word” before in a post on SF, the hits from SF to my own blog dropped by about 80% for the next week!)  God is (holy) love. When He brings us into relationship with Him (Jn. 17:3) His aim is to “forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn. 1:9).  Too often we look at passages like, “Be holy, for I am holy” and turn the other way, contenting ourselves to be “saved by grace” so we don’t really need to take it that seriously; forgetting that those words come from the same God Who said, “Rise and walk,” and “Peace, be still!”  “Holiness” down here is not about winning the pickle sucking contest, or drying up and blowing away, but simply about living in His grace.  At least at the start, I think that was the central beauty of Cursillo- a re-discovery of the beauty of holiness, and the wonders of all creation as a wonderful “side effect” of that experience.

It’s only when we lose track of that simplicity that we run into problems like the one on today’s plate!

OK- soapbox is free!  Love y’all!

Robert

Sarah,

If I cannot criticize Matt for engaging in unwarranted attacks on us on this blog—and indeed maligning us—*with a view to effecting reconciliation between us,* then I wonder what Christian use this blog could serve (see Matt 18.15ff.)?

And what of Steve Hulme’s helpful criticism this very morning, similarly noting Matt’s “ad hominem rhetoric” toward our blog(http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5720/#110209)? Does that also merit a warning?

Perhaps y’all could set up a meta-thread for those who wish to challenge Matt (and others on this site?) as Christian witnesses.

“with a view to effecting reconciliation between us,” that is, between Matt and us, as my “lengthy comment” intended to do

Christopher Wells,

Please read our comment policy, helpfully linked at the bottom of this page.

No—actually—you can’t take a thread at StandFirm and switch topics to “criticizing Matt” and that is not at all what this blog is for.

If you wish to “effect reconciliation” [which appears to mean that you wish for Matt to do what you desire him to do] you are welcome to approach him.  But it certainly will not be on a thread about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Nor will we be establishing a thread for you to criticize Matt.  StandFirm has its own purposes, and you are welcome to think ill of them or not, as you wish.  But you won’t be turning threads away from their intended topic with your strange antipathy towards one of our bloggers.

This is your second and final warning.  Please do not go off-topic again.

Thanks.

Matt,

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. While I certainly know the scriptures, I think that the view you put forth is very narrow. I, as a priest and pastor, would have a hard time finding anyone worthy of taking communion under your interpretation of Paul and Jesus. (in fact if I am honest, I’m not sure I could receive communion under you teaching, retched sinner that I am!)

If Communion is the Lord’s Supper and it is the place where we draw nearest to Jesus redemptive work on the cross and it is the primary place whereby the Body “remembers” the work of Christ- shouldn’t a sinner be welcomed at the table? (Let’s not narrow it down just too sexual sin, btw). I mean if the sacrament is the tangible place where we encounter the Body of Christ- where else is the sinner to do this?

What if one is repentant of some sin and not all? How is a priest to judge the repentant heart of the sinner? How is the sinner to be strengthened in their walk by the church? Does the Christian ever become sinless? It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that only the sinless can receive communion. I don’t think any Christian ever attains that status. I’m sure there is some heretic that argued that point, but it isn’t my understanding.

The church requires that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people as we approach the table.  Lambeth 1.10 doesn’t talk about communion per se- but does state that homosexuals are full members of the church. This gathering is a gathering of members of the Body of Christ. Why shouldn’t they, as sinners all, participate in the most sacred union with Christ and his Body? Is not Jesus redemptive act able to overpower even their sin?

plainsparson - in other parts of the Gospels that revisionists ignore, Jesus makes it clear that our salvation is by no means a sure thing, i.e., that some will not be saved, including those that call, “Lord, Lord.”  Perhaps I will be one of those; I beg mercy from God that it will not be so.  In any case, Jesus is able to overpower any sin, and already has, but for those choosing to unrepentantly remain in sin, it seems clear from Scripture that Jesus may just honor their choice.  That’s the problem with teaching that morality is irrelevant, and, in my opinion, one of the key reasons Jesus eats with sinners as a model for us: that we will not be tempted, merely because, “I got mine,” to abandon those that have, for now, forsaken life in Christ.

I don’t know the Anglican Doctrine, but for Catholics:
“Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.” (CCC #1385)

I take it that the issue is not the nature of the Anglican equivalent of Reconciliation (inner repentance, I assume) but rather what constitutes “grave sin.”  Surely adultery is grave sin….

Plainsparson, I know that I am interrupting your conversation with Matt, but aren’t you confusing two issues? In your post, you correctly note that only God truly knows the hearts of people at the altar rail. But the objection here is that the ABC (or any celebrant) is telling sinners that their conduct is not sinful at all. Thus the real problem is not the heart of the communicant, but the actions of the celebrant.

There is a difference between “secret” sins and “public” sins when it comes to the Lord’s Supper.  Yes, only God knows the heart, so the Pastor will unknowingly commune unrepentant “secret” sinners.  It is not the job of the Pastor to integrate the communicants about sins he does not already know about.  However, if a parishioner is living a public unrepentant sinful life and the Pastor know about it, he is duty bound to deny communion.  My Pastor has done so in the past (for example people living together without being married).  He always approaches the person ahead of time to tell them why they are not receiving communion, and what they must do to be welcome again at the rail.

I have joked on this thread because honestly that story is just surreal.

A priest should do anything he can to reach sinners including eat with them. Should a priest lead communion or ever offer it to a group dedicated to sin as the church defines it, No. Would anybody be arguing in favor of the ABC meeting in secret to lead communion of the Anglican Clergy Swingers Club?

This vaunted listening process should be with the laity because there isn’t supposed to be any actively gay clergy. If there are a Bishop has no choice but to remove them from their leadership role and suspend them until they repent of these actions. Failure to repent should result in them no longer being priests. If they can’t be a priest as the church currently defines it they should not seek or be one till the church redefines it.

This is what is so surreal about this whole innovative movement.
The church is evil and unjust as it is currently defined. Let’s change it by making a bunch of false promises so we can take over and make it good and just. Yes we will be a church whose leadership has spent the entire last generation lying and breaking oaths but that won’t keep people away. Yeah right.

Maybe this whole thing is an effort at Modern Religious Art ala Dali.

<a >CraigU</a>—Many thanks for your thought-provoking and illuminating essay; is Part IV available yet?

The points that you emphasize in this section—communal rather than individual responsibility for discipline, and the goal of the discipline being restoration of the miscreant to the full life of the community—are both well-taken and unarguable.  But there is, it seems to me, something of a tension in Scripture generally between the handling of the notorious sinner for his own sake and the handling of the false teacher for the sake of the community—a tension you touch on in your discussion of “leaven”: “prodigal sons and daughters do not threaten our Christian identity, except to the extent that they may tempt us to respond to them by surrendering ourselves to idolatry”, which with all due respect sounds to me a little like “the fire in the kitchen does not threaten the house, except to the extent that it may spread and burn down the building.”

Paul is obviously quite upset at the Corinthians, not merely because they have neglected to discipline the miscreant here, but because they are “puffed up” (v. 2) and “glorying” (v. 6, KJV)—they have been seduced from the Gospel by the very openness of the sin (in the name of tolerance? Broadmindedness? Modern, up-to-date thinking for the First Century?).  So the community discipline has the goals both of restoring the erring individual to the Body of Christ and of bringing the whole church back to a right understanding of the Gospel—which is of course a prerequisite for any external missionary work.

This does not help us directly, of course, in the question of the individual’s responsibility when faced with an entire apostate community.  But the Tradition has suggestive passages; for example, we are told by Irenaeus,

There are also those who heard from him [Polycarp] that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”—Adversus Haereses Book III, Chapter 3

So unquestionably yes, we are called to fellowship with sinners (otherwise we’d be quite lonely), and yes, discipline is a community responsibility.  But the application of these general principles to the specific situation(s) in which we find ourselves here is not straightforward, and may depend as much on our individual interpretation of the situation as on our (presumably communal) interpretation of Scripture.

Given all that, though, I agree that all this second-guessing and viewing with alarm of +++Rowan’s participation is not only premature and tactically unhelpful, but a failure in charity as well.  Let’s give the guy a break, for Heaven’s sake…

“I, as a priest and pastor, would have a hard time finding anyone worthy of taking communion under your interpretation of Paul and Jesus”.

Thank you, plainsparson, I’m glad you said it. 

Mr. Uffman, I like your subtlety in the Gaston example. 

While I don’t agree with all of his actions, I find it unworthy and counterproductive to malign the AB of C. 

Is “freak-out” regarding this article possibly misplaced?  Maybe this is no different than last week’s retracted rant about the Nigerian bishop(whose name unfortunately escapes me—I apologize) allegedly making homophobic comments, which turned out to be false. 

The only ones who can accurately speak to this “service” are the ones who are/were invited or the ones eventually attending.  What’s the point in having a cow over what the Archbishop “will do” or “will say”? 

Just asking…gotta go make the donuts…

TS

What if one is repentant of some sin and not all? How is a priest to judge the repentant heart of the sinner?

plainsparson: I’d like to take a swing at that pitch, if I may (I have always been a sucker for low outside pitches). Obviously a priest cannot stand in the aisle and do a mind scan on every person who approaches the rail. But what if the priest absolutely knows that a person is a “notorious and unrepentant” sinner? What then? That is exactly what we have with this restricted and secret eucharistic celebration. By definition, every person there will be in violation of COE canons and Biblical prohibitions and will also be absolutely unrepentant. Does that make it any clearer to you why many of us feel the way we do?

the snarkster

I would have no problem communing or sharing in communion with people who, like all believers myself included as one of the worst, struggle and falling into sin. I would, and do, have trouble communing and sharing in communion with those who willingly, defiantly, and unrepentantly engage in behaviors and teach others that it is permissable to engage in behaviors that the bible condemns. There is a huge difference, not quite understood by some on this thread, between repentant sinners and willfully defiant heretics.

I know of a priest who several decades ago actually excommunicated a parishioner—that is, forbid him from having Eucharist—because of a notorious adulterous affair he was engaged in.  It was made plain to the parishioner that he could not in his rebellious state, while refusing to confess and amend his life, partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord.  Every rule was followed (the bishop informed, etc.), and while out of the ordinary, was by no means thought by anyone familiar with the situation to be unjustified.  Fast forward to 2007: can you IMAGINE such a thing happening today?

VA,
“can you IMAGINE such a thing happening today?”

No today that person would start a blog so they can reach other people and live into the tension. Then start an advocacy group with some surreal name like “Chastity” and become priests. If they do it right perhaps they will get a Bishop to come and secretly listen to them.

Yes, pp, you can’t invalidate a biblical principle by coming up with a borderline case - that’s just not kosher. You wouldn’t do this in any other area of life. And the case you brought up isn’t even that borderline as snarkster points out.

Rocks—OUCH! So true, but that does hurt.

All of this speaks to the reason the Exhortations are not included in the aberrant 1979 Book.  The common man was given ample warning through them, and the older form General Confession, to at least purpose in his heart and mind to make amendment and contrition before approaching the rail, even if he could not then make an auricular confession and penance beforehand.

We gave up a lot with the ‘new book’, and now are reaping the results, I fear.

Pax Christi,
Chip+, cj

But what if the priest absolutely knows that a person is a “notorious and unrepentant” sinner? What then?

Exactly, snarkster.  His own service book tells him, on p. 409, that the whole idea he’s complaining about is licit.  Not only licit; the priest “shall” speak to the person living a notoriously evil life, and tell him that he “may not” come to the Holy Table.  Not take it under advisement as a possible course of action; shall.  So, if the 1979 book is such a glory of Episcopalian civilization, live with it.

VAAnglican,
I pray that it will happen today and tomorrow - as you described - a collaboration with the bishop, for it is the form of fraternal correction warranted in our disciplinary rubric, and I believe, rooted in Paul’s teaching.  As an ex-submariner, my eyes get a bit fuzzy on what it says about wife-beaters - seems to me I read something about the congregation giving the guy an old fashioned blanket party (not a fun time, and an historic form of unauthorized crew discipline in the Navy) before the priest excommunicates him, but I may be doing a bit of eisogesis there….

I would, and do, have trouble communing and sharing in communion with those who willingly, defiantly, and unrepentantly engage in behaviors and teach others that it is permissable to engage in behaviors that the bible condemns.

We have an entire book of the Bible written on just this particular subject. It’s called Jude.

from the Briar Patch,

Craig Goodrich,
Thank you for reading my essay.  By my count, excluding my mother, that makes you the sixth person who actually read what I wrote.  Mom thought I was a chip off the old block.

I agree with all of your observations, and especially the one about the application of those general principles to our situation not being straightforward. I do not know what we should do, except for us to agree that whatever form of discipline we execute be faithful and NOT simply expedient because we have lost patience.  I believe we are constrained by Scripture and tradition on what can be done and still be called ‘faithful discipline.’

That is why I provided the link to the ACI’s Communion and Discipline book in Part I specifically so people could read for themselves the recommendations to the primates and bishops by people far smarter and more learned than me.  Food for thought.

Again, I don’t see the need for freakout when this “service” is supposed to happen 11/29 and no one quite knows the nature of it. 

“There is a huge difference, not quite understood by some on this thread, between repentant sinners and willfully defiant heretics”.

But by definition of human nature, we are all sinners, whether repentant or not, and if you get too far in the literal mud of excluding, you end up excluding everyone, possibly except yourself.  Rather idolatrous, methinks. 

The bloggers at Covenant have already been labeled “colluders” with other “willfully defiant heretics”.  So, does that mean, if I come to the rail, am I not supposed to take Communion with any of them, or; if I’m a LEM that day, I’m supposed to refuse Communion to all of them? 

Obviously, there’s a reason why slippery slopes are called “slippery”.   

Food for thought—

God bless,

TS

Plainsparson:

you write

“I think that the view you put forth is very narrow. I, as a priest and pastor, would have a hard time finding anyone worthy of taking communion under your interpretation of Paul and Jesus. (in fact if I am honest, I’m not sure I could receive communion under you teaching, retched sinner that I am!)”

I think you have misunderstood my point here. We are not speaking of mere human sin. If human sin is an impediment to Communion you are correct that none would be able to partake. As I noted above, I would have no problem communing or sharing in communion with people who, like myself as one of the worst, struggle and fall into sin on a weekly, daily momentary basis. Every moment, in fact, we sin in that we do not love God with every fibre of our beings. I would, however, and do, have trouble communing and sharing in communion with those who willingly, defiantly, and unrepentantly engage in behaviors and who teach others that it is permissable to engage in behaviors that the bible condemns. There is a huge difference between repentant sinners and willfully defiant heretics.

“If Communion is the Lord’s Supper and it is the place where we draw nearest to Jesus redemptive work on the cross and it is the primary place whereby the Body “remembers” the work of Christ- shouldn’t a sinner be welcomed at the table? (Let’s not narrow it down just too sexual sin, btw).”

Of course. We are all sinners and need his body and blood as gracious nourishment in our daily struggle against it. But believers must not approach the rail to recieve the Body and Blood of Christ if they are at the same time actively and unrepentantly subverting his gospel and leading others to do the same.

” mean if the sacrament is the tangible place where we encounter the Body of Christ- where else is the sinner to do this?”

That is the place. Which is why the Eucharistic prayer is preceded by the confession and the peace.

“hat if one is repentant of some sin and not all? How is a priest to judge the repentant heart of the sinner?”

As someone said above, you can be certain that celebrating the eucharist with those in an organization dedicated to subverting the biblical teachings on human sexuality would necessarily mean communing with defiant and unrepentant false teachers. On a regular basis, in a parish, no one checks at the rail of course. You just assume that those coming forward are repentant as the scriptures and prayerbook command. If, as in the case above, someone is known to be actively and unrepentantly breaking the Law of Christ, then you take them aside at the peace or before communion and ask whehter they are willing to repent. If not, they must not be communed. I have had to refuse communion only once with a man who abandoned his wife without cause, sued for divorce, and would not seek counselling.

“Does the Christian ever become sinless?”

Not until death. Which is why his life must also be a life of repentance. 

“It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that only the sinless can receive communion.”

Not at all.

“I don’t think any Christian ever attains that status.”

you are right…at least on this side of the grave.

“’m sure there is some heretic that argued that point, but it isn’t my understanding.”

Pelagius.

“The church requires that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people as we approach the table.”

Precisely the point. Can you see why it might be impossible to commune wiht a group dedicated to promoting the blessing of bahaviors the bible condemns as sinful.

“Lambeth 1.10 doesn’t talk about communion per se- but does state that homosexuals are full members of the church.”

Yes, of course, I would never suggest otherwise. But Lambeth also says that homosexual behavior is sinful, so while homosexual people struggling with sexual sin are certainly welcome as are all Christian people, non-celibate homosexuals who are embracing, publicly promoting, and seeking to bless sexual sin are not…nor for that matter would those promoting adultery or gluttony or any other sin. 

“This gathering is a gathering of members of the Body of Christ.”

Who are actively encouraging flagrant rebellion against Christ, subverting the gospel, and promoting the blessing of the same.

“Why shouldn’t they, as sinners all, participate in the most sacred union with Christ and his Body?”

Because they are obviously not repentant.

“Is not Jesus redemptive act able to overpower even their sin?”

It’s not a question of “can” but a question of will. Of course Christ can overcome all sin. But he certainly gives us the freedom to reject him and defy his lordship and renounce our faith as these have done.

the Anglican equivalent of Reconciliation (inner repentance, I assume)

Not even close.  Here in Virginia, the Anglican equivalent of Reconciliation is “We gonna sue you, your clergy, your Wardens, your vestry, your Trustees, and your Little Dog too”.

Twisted Sister, the Prayer Book gives clergy the authority to refuse a person communion, an action which must be reported to and sustained by the bishop.  A lay eucharistic minister serves under the authority and direction of ordained leaders, and has no discretion (and therefore no accountability) in the matter.
What Fr. Matt is saying, and what keeps getting ignored, is that the New Testament call church leaders to exercise discipline.  The Prayer Book summarizes the conditions of discipline, allowing for a distinction between that which is public and injurious to the life of the congregation and that which is concealed and might be dealt with pastorally.
Yes, we are all sinners - but this article is talking about people who have not only continued in a sinful behavior but have been standing at altars and in pulpits.  This is serious business for the well being of the church.
I suppose you have a personal choice about whether or not to take communion with such - but Fr. Matt is not talking about private tastes.  He is talking about the overall well being of the church, and the issues in this thread have already caused whole provinces to stop coming to the rail with others.
In I Corinthians 11, Paul warns that we should stay back from Communion when a) we “profane the Lord’s body and blood” by failing to repent and by continuing in behaviors not “genuine” (11:19) to a redeemed life and b) when we “fail to discern the body” (which Ch. 12 indicates is the church) by acting in ways injurious to its unity.
The group with which ++Rowan is meeting is both “a & b”.  Their behavior is regarded as not genuine to the Gospel by all but an eccentric few in the church, and their willful assertion of their entitlements in church has fractured the body.

T. Sis.,

That’s really the point, isn’t it?  In Christ, we were sinners, as Scripture says, “such were some of you,” but now asks “What communion has Christ with Belial?”  Jesus didn’t give His life just to save us from the consequences, while we allow our sins to still enslave us (“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?”), but to free us from sin.  With all the glory to God for His grace, we can say that the sins I did, I now don’t, and the good I mocked I now do, because, through Jesus, that is what is in my (new) nature to do.

Jesus said, “He that is washed is entirely clean, except for his feet.” and “So you ought to wash each other’s feet.”  That’s really the best thing on this site is the chance to refresh each other from the world’s filth that tends to cling to us as we walk through it, and encourage one another in the Lord!”

Robert

My post above did not reflect it, but I’m familiar with the Prayer Book rubrics. 

“...but this article is talking about people who have not only continued in a sinful behavior but have been standing at altars and in pulpits.  This is serious business for the well being of the church”.

“The group with which ++Rowan is meeting is both “a & b”.  Their behavior is regarded as not genuine to the Gospel by all but an eccentric few in the church, and their willful assertion of their entitlements in church has fractured the body”.

++Rowan hasn’t met with them yet.  And, they have stood at altars and pulpits because of the bishops that put them there.  If your plan is to start refusing Communion all around, you would, by accurate design, have to start with the Episcopate and work your way “down”. 

I’m beginning to wonder whether any human behavior is “genuine to the Gospel”.  And, based on that, refusing Communion, while an ordained judgment call, can be, as I said, a very slippery slope. 

God bless,

TS

I’m beginning to wonder whether any human behavior is “genuine to the Gospel”.

Well, there’s the rub.  Is the Bible useful in any sense beyond symbolic fodder?  Or is the church an society for an esoteric few who “feel” God?
I think that the church is opened more by the Biblical Gospel.  Where it is preached, in most cases, churches grow.  The esoteric continue to huff, puff and dwindle.  But at least canons are “genuine” enough to confiscate property to perpetuate a few clergy jobs for the enlightened masters.

My comment over at Mrs. Gledhill’s blog:

Without judging the theological case for or against this event, an objective observer would have to say that it seems at this particular time to be at the very least monumentally impolitic.  I’m willing, though, to give +++Rowan the benefit of a doubt, and I sincerely hope this mild tempest in a very small teapot doesn’t distract us (or him) from the very real and difficult decisions that need to be made in the next couple of weeks.

<hr width=50%>
Andrew opines above, “... the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality.”

Exodus 32, Revised ed:
... And Moses said to Aaron, “Well, the calf is right out, but I guess the orgies are OK, because the wider beliefs of Judaism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality.”
... this reading comes not from the LXX, but the MCMLXs ...

I think there are some good questions raised. And I take what Matt is saying to heart. But I will push back. I think judging someone as a “heretic” or to quote the BCP, “person living a notoriously evil life” is not necessarily up to the just the individual priest.

If by heretic, you mean one is not correct (orthodox) in belief, then again how does anyone determine that? The priest is not sole arbitrator in this concern. If we look at the issues around homosexuality I would say that while three successive Lambeth Conferences have stated that homosexuality is incompatible with scripture ( I won’t argue that it isn’t), they have also called for careful study and consideration of science, for pastoral care, and for compassion and even defense in times of persecution. This might lead one to believe, that in the process of study, the church is not definitive on its understanding. Rather the Church is arguing for its traditional values while recognizing the need for further understanding of the complexity of human sexuality. I would push, that to be pastoral is not necessarily to exclude one from the Body of Christ (which refusing communion to a baptized Christian is essentially ex-communication).  So, inline with Lambeth conference teachings, the Archbishop is not incorrect to meet with or share the Lord’s Supper with those of homosexual orientation and even practice.

The second part is on the obligation of the priest “shall” speak to the person living a notoriously evil life, and tell him that he “may not” come to the Holy Table.

One would have to come up with a good definition of “notoriously evil life” to determine when too essentially ex-communicate someone.  The question for me is what is evil. It does not say in the BCP- a person who is notoriously sinful. One can be sinful without being “evil.” Now if you define evil and sin in the same terms, that is anything that takes or turns us from the will of God, then obviously I know of no one who could receive communion because no one is ever truly sinless. Rather, I think the definition of evil meant in the BCP as anything that seeks destruction of God’s creation or of God’s will. So if I find someone who is notoriously seeking the destruction of God’s creation or of God’s will, then I wouldn’t give them communion. These would include a variety of folks and categories.

Now, as a preist, I am obligated and under the authority of the church in the teaching and offering of sacrements. I am not a rebel preist and so will not perform services that are not in the apporved liturgies of the church- BCP or BOS. So I will not do something like same sex blessings, because the church has not authorized them. Even if my Bishop gave the authority, I would not perform them until the greater church apporved, and I am not sure if I could do that then.

I would however, celebrate communion with sinful people present and would give them communion if they approached the altar, with an invitation that only baptised people should recieve.

“One would have to come up with a good definition of “notoriously evil life” to determine when too essentially ex-communicate someone.”

I do think there is a subjective nature to that level as this thread has demonstrated a wide view of where to put a line for those who favor some sort of discipline and its placement at at different points.

One issue is *not* so subjective is calling blessed something Scripture forbids. In John 8, Jesus does not condone the woman’s behavior, while true He does not issue the Biblical sentence (note it would be illegal to do so (John 18:31)), what Jesus does do is say “go and sin no more.” Thus stating the woman’s behavior still was unacceptable & needed to change.

Not addressing my past behavior, in some effect it was condoned.  There were no consequences brought on me, until the Lord in His mercy allowed everything in that relationship to blow up in my face that I came to the end of myself and turned my life over to Jesus in repentance (Praise God, 12 years in November).

Maybe if the first steps were done, I should have been excommunicated if I remained stubborn, but there were no consequences to my sin and I was allowed to practice them as well as serve at the Alter. While I’m more lenient than Matt+ and others here, in trying to ponder what would level of relationship is needed to speak into a sinners life to confront the sin (note this was the parish I grew up in so maybe different stress on clergy than if I walked in off the street). Yet, I do not think those who are taking a tougher line than mine are not seeking a heart change in entrapped person, just drawing different parts of Scripture for best practice to bring repentance.

While I deeply regret the burden I must have place on a godly man in a mixed parish (the Lord allowed me a chance to write a letter a few years ago apologizing and hopeful an encouragement), I must write that at that time not addressing was an affirmation for me to continue. In a sense calling a wrong as a right by never addressing it. As clergy these folks should be held to an even higher standard than us schmucks in the pews.

Matt,

“I would, however, and do, have trouble communing and sharing in communion with those who willingly, defiantly, and unrepentantly engage in behaviors and who teach others that it is permissible to engage in behaviors that the bible condemns. There is a huge difference between repentant sinners and willfully defiant heretics.”

I would like to engage this conversation further with you. But I think at some point it would be beneficial to our conversation for you to recognize that while Lambeth and the Primates are upholding the current and past teaching of the church in this matter and that we as a church are also engaged in conversation and study of human sexuality. And by virtue of having the conversation and brining things out into the open- people will need to gather with those who argue for a change in that teaching and their will certainly be bishops, priest and deacons arguing, advocating and even teaching on all sides. At the same time Lambeth acknowledges that homosexuals are full members of the church. You really can’t have the honest and open conversation that is needed without gathering and conversing and sharing in communion with people you define as “willfully defiant heretics.”

“But believers must not approach the rail to recieve the Body and Blood of Christ if they are at the same time actively and unrepentantly subverting his gospel and leading others to do the same.”

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If sin is turning away from the Jesus- I would suppose that that would be a subversion of the gospel. Again, I’m not clear on what you mean. I suppose anyone who asks any challenging question of the church would fit in this category. So if all are sinners and all fall short of the glory of God, who isn’t by virtue of existing isn’t subverting the gospel? I suppose that is what is meant by “Jesus came not to condemn the world but to save it”  and that “Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life, and no one come to the father except by him.”  If Jesus is the only way to salvation than everything else is a subversion of that way. Again, by your definition no one can approach the altar.

“As someone said above, you can be certain that celebrating the Eucharist with those in an organization dedicated to subverting the biblical teachings on human sexuality would necessarily mean communing with defiant and unrepentant false teachers.”

Again- who isn’t subverting the Gospel simply by virtue of existing? Since in Creation we are made in God’s image and have freedom to be in relationship or not with God- aren’t we by our existence subverting God and thereby his Gospel? If the only way we can be saved is by the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross- then no human is in position to not subvert the Gospel. Why? Because the Gospel is Jesus- and it is only Jesus that saves. Now if communion is the place where we encounter Jesus as sacrament- and by virtue of baptism are invited to be part of his body- then who am I to refuse communion?

it seems to me that by the standards many of you hold, anyone who is divorced should be denied the sacraments. Jesus actually spoke about divorce while he remained silent about homosexuality.

lwrh - Short form is many of SF do hold to a strict Biblical standard on remarriage. I’ve joined many going into depth on that topic, but I’m going to flee temptation of dragging this thread that direction.

The Episcopal Café is reporting a clarifying statement from the CoE gay activist Colin Coward of ‘Changing Attitude’ which includes this rich statement:

We are inviting him, not he us, the Communion isn’t secret, the meeting is confidential, and many more members of the Consultation will come to this meeting than the normal number. Those who won’t be there are the misogynistic male gay clergy, who withdrew years ago when lesbian priests were welcomed.

In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.

<a >lwrh</a>—

If I understand correctly, the Eastern Orthodox impose a penance of six years’ abstention from Communion for divorce and remarriage, after which the remarried person is once again a full member of the Body of Christ.  Divorced priests are out of the question.  I have to say I find this combination of severity and charitable accommodation far superior to the casual, almost wife-of-the-month approach we seem to see in the General Convention Church (and throughout mainline Protestantism).

“But at least canons are “genuine” enough to confiscate property to perpetuate a few clergy jobs for the enlightened masters”.

I agree with you, Timothy Fountain.  And it will probably, sad to say(in a way), be property with not a whole lot of souls in it.

Short form is many of SF do hold to a strict Biblical standard on remarriage. I’ve joined many going into depth on that topic, but I’m going to flee temptation of dragging this thread that direction.

But, Hosea6:6, do these SF people stand up and call for schism on this basis?  Do they threaten withdrawal from parishes, dioceses, provinces and the Anglican Communion at large until such time as all remarried deacons, priests and bishops have been removed from the clergy, and all provinces of the Communion have agreed to no longer bless the remarriages of divorced persons nor ordain to Holy Orders those who have been divorced and remarried? 

I haven’t heard any global conflict of this sort in the AC.  I’m not aware of any provinces issuing such ultimatums to other provinces.  Maybe I missed it.

“Again- who isn’t subverting the Gospel simply by virtue of existing? Since in Creation we are made in God’s image and have freedom to be in relationship or not with God- aren’t we by our existence subverting God and thereby his Gospel? If the only way we can be saved is by the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross- then no human is in position to not subvert the Gospel”.

plainsparson, thank you for the ordained support.    Based on the above, in my view, the refusal of Communion can be a very sticky wicket.  I’m not sure that’s a road, were I a cleric, that I’d want to start going down, except, possibly, in very extreme circumstances. 

Craig G, my ecclesiology is not very straight today, but your statement

‘Divorced priests are out of the question”

may not be entirely true.  One of my friends(clergy) was in a solid Greek Orthodox church(although I can’t remember if they were Western rite or Eastern), and their priests could be divorced, I believe with your above outlined “penance”.  But, they absolutely were not allowed to be divorced twice, or else they had to resign their orders. 

Blogging here is always an education.  Thanks, all—

TS

Lorian,

The weakness of the divorce analogy is discussed at length <a >here</a>, starting at page 110 (p. 39 of the .pdf).  If this still leaves you wondering why few left when the Episcopal Church changed its divorce canon back in the ‘50s (it was controversial at the time), c’mon back and we’ll talk about it some more.

re: “hence the word “if”
My remark was intended for those commenters who, unlike you, were criticizing without qualifiers. My apologies if it seemed to be aimed at you.

And, even if this information turns out to be accurate, it’s not November yet. Maybe ++RW could be persuaded to change his plans. Anybody know the mailing address and correct salutation for a letter to the ABC?

I think it may be time to start writing the Queen.  The time may be near where the only thing that could hold the Communion together is for her displeasure to prompt ++Rowan to leave.

My understanding of divorce and remarriage in PECUSA (family in it since 1600’s) was that it was always forbidden. Indeed, Episcopalians had a rougher time with the issue than the Romans. However, marriage outside of the church (i.e. Baptist, etc.)was simply not recognized, treated like a civil marriage, and the civil divorce was all that was necessary. Pre revisionist Dio of Colorado would “annul” marriages that were clearly over due to adultery or physical violence, at the discretion of the Bishop. My Aunt was involved in such a process I believe. I don’t believe there was a canonical court, just the statement that the new marriage was permitted. Very hard to get.

That our Bigamous Bishop +Barry was consecrated is as outrageous to the orthodox as was the consecration of New Hampshire Rob.