Sunday, May 18, 2008

David Ould

Philippi or Corinth: Where is the Anglican Communion? A Response to Graham Kings

As I sit here at the beginning of May, one major question is facing all those who want to uphold the truth of the gospel in the Anglican Communion: should we go to Lambeth? Of course, for most of us that's an academic question - we don't have an invitation (although that's not stopping some). Nevertheless we have an emotional investment in the issue, for the question of how much we associate with those that we disagree with is (or at least should be) a constant dilemma for those who take the Scripture seriously, especially where there is clear evidence of willful unrepentance in the matter of public sin.

That is, of course, one of the considerations that drives many of those clergy and laity who are attending GAFCON but staying away from Lambeth. They are convinced that they must seperate themselves from those who promote the various theological innovations (not just in doctrine but in practise) that are currently tearing our Communion apart. In the first part this is a theological conviction - they look to texts such as these:

1 Corinthians 5:9  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 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. 11 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.

What is interesting here is that we are called to disassociate with these sorts of people if they "bear the name of brother". Or, put another way, if Gene Robinson were simply my atheistic bank manager then Scripture's injunction would not stand. Rather, it is because he "bears the name of brother" and yet wilfully continues in sin that we are called to not associate with him. Division, then, comes about because certain people claim to be Christian.

In the second part, the decision not to attend Lambeth is more pragmatic. There are those that have held out to us a confidence that we can still turn the ship around if we handle Lambeth well. They, too, are concerned with the direction that TEC, the ACinC and others have steered the Communion over the past decades. Nevertheless, others have no such confidence anymore. We have seen the leaders of TEC throw and such attempts to rectify matters back in the Communion's face. Why should Lambeth be any different? If the month-long conference were even to address these serious matters that now divide us (not that it is really planning to), if they even came up with serious resolutions - what good would it do? What real good did resolution 1.10 in 1998 do as we look back a decade later? It seems to many of us that all it has served to achieve is the crystallisation of our differences.

The orthodox, then, are faced with a difficult decision. To go or not to go.

One self-declared evangelical who recently addressed this question is Graham Kings at Fulcrum. Graham recently wrote an article entitled "Faith and Fellowship in Crisis". The Article seeks to make a case for orthodox attendance at Lambeth by framing the current divisions in the context of Paul's letter to the Philippians. So, with constant reference to the letter to the Philippians, Kings reminds us:
Paul starts his letter with thanksgiving and prayer. Philippians 1:3-4, 'I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for you all.'

and
In Philippians 1:5, Paul writes of their 'sharing in the gospel', which can also be translated 'partnership' or 'communion'. The Greek word is 'koinonia' which has become very important in recent ecclesiological and ecumenical concerns.
...
In his video this week, Rowan Williams described the 'middle sized groups' of the conference:
We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard.

and
In Philippians 1:12 Paul writes, 'And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that on the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless.'
...
It seems to me, that we could refer this to the concept of core beliefs and to adiaphora which the Windsor Report defines as follows:
As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church.

and
In Philippians 1:15 -18 Paul writes, referring to his detractors, 'Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill...What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.'

In Philippians 2:2, he continues, 'Make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.'

This is a powerful reminder for our concerns today and Paul uses it to introduce his famous christological hymn in verses 5-11, 'Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus...

In Philippines 4:2-3 he writes, echoing his earlier language, concerning specific people who are not united in the love of Christ, 'I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel.'

It seems clear from Paul that humility and unity hang together, while pride and disunity hang down and drag others down with them.

and finally
People usually go to Romans and Galatians for Paul's doctrine of 'justification by faith', but Philippians is also vital. Chapter 3:8-9 runs, 'that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.'

People in the church at Philippi were probably mostly Gentile, not Jewish, Christians. It is worth remembering, in the context of Lambeth 2008, where nearly all the bishops and their spouses will be Gentile Christians, that justification by faith is crucial - literally - not because it is easier than by the law, not because it is more spiritual than by the law, but because it thereby includes the Gentiles, who do not have the law and only have faith in Jesus Christ.

For Kings, then, it seems that we are a "Philippian Communion". We have disagreement, no doubt, but the letter to the Philippians shows us the beginnings of a framework by which we may yet come together and, in his estimation, Lambeth 08 fits that framework.

So the question before us must be "is the Communion Philippian, or something else?" Where is the Anglican Communion? Philippi, or somewhere else?

Those of us who are familiar with the Epistle will recognise that there were some serious problems bubbling away under the surface in that fledgling church. Paul's injunctions to "let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (1:27), "being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (2:2-4), "do all things without grumbling or questioning," (2:14) etc. make sense when we finally see him address one of the relational breakdowns in the congregation:
Philippians 4:2 I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. 3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There is some division, no doubt. But note how Paul makes his appeal for unity. Euodia and Syntyche (or "Odious and So-Touchy" as a former pastor of mine nicknamed them) have laboured side by side with Paul in the gospel. They are fellow workers and their names are in the book of life. Simply put, they are gospel people. They love the Lord Jesus Christ and are committed to the Gospel that Paul first taught the Philippians and which he reminds them of in the letter. They are, then, included amongst those of which Paul can say:
Philippians 1:3  I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

Such people, of course, exist in all our churches. Amongst us there are those who are equally committed to the Gospel and yet find it hard to get along. Some are envious of one another and seek to outdo their rivals in gospelling (1:15 ff.). They may be ambitious or conceited (2:3). Nevertheless they hold to the Gospel and are Gospel people. As Pastors and fellow believers we urge them to be reconciled on the basis of their shared gospel commitment.

And what is this gospel which Paul is convinced reconciles us both to God and to each other? It is centred around the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those great events provide not only the model for a Christian life of humility (2:5-11) but also the basis of Christian confidence itself. Our confidence is in what Jesus has done on our behalf, not what we might do:
Philippians 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is, first and foremost, a Gospel that brings righteousness - a right standing before God. That righteousness could never be attained by the law (and Paul knew, he had tried) but, rather, through faith in Christ.

And that was the Gospel that Euodia and Syntyche both believed and which would be the basis of their unity as, with the grace of God, they sought to overcome their differences.

There were, however, those in Philippi who did not believe this Gospel. They taught another Gospel that appears to have had Judaising tendencies. Paul had stern words for them:
Philippians 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh
...
18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

At the same time that Paul can call the rivals Euodia and Syntyche to unity, he also warns them to stay well clear of those who do not believe the Gospel that they share. It is interesting in Kings' article that no mention is made of this injunction, despite the fact that it lays side by side with the calls to unity with other Christians.

So which city is the Anglican Communion? It might be tempting to turn to Corinth - the Scriptural home of sexual immorality. We have seen above the clear call that Paul gives to disassociate with the unrepentant sinners there. Who, either, could forget this stern warning:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, 18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

It seems, then, that the Anglican Communion should better be expressed as being in Corinth, not Philippi, for the key issues that we are dividing over are remarkably similar to those that Corinth struggled with. The Devil's playbook has a long provenance. In one sense that conclusion is unavoidable.

But Kings wants me to understand the Communion as being in Philippi.

Well, so be it. If he is calling for those of us who might be called "Conservative Evangelicals" to be reconciled to those such as he who might be known as "Open Evangelicals" then that is a noble call and I would long to join him in it. In his piece (as we have seen above) he affirms the Pauline gospel of justification by faith alone and so we may agree on the gospel that brings us unity. Euodia and Syntyche may, once again, work together.

But that is not the whole story. For amongst our fellowship there are also dogs, enemies of the gospel that he and I agree on, and the same Paul that calls us to unity tells us to watch out for those enemies. They are not welcome at the table.

If the Anglican Communion is to be "in Philippi", and I agree with Kings that it is, then it is time to obey God fully and send the dogs, the enemies of the gospel, away from the table. The problem with Lambeth is that Euodia and Synthyche would have to share their Sunday roast with wolves despite the Philippian church being told that they should do no such thing.

There is, of course, an alternative. There is another gospel table where the dogs are not invited but Euodia and Syntyche sit side by side. At GAFCON evangelicals and anglo-catholics will set aside their rivalries for the service of a greater agreement. It would be great if Kings would join us, and he rightly notes that Paul would have it no other way. But if he wants to share his meal with wolves, our obedience to what Paul wrote to the Philippians will not allow us to come.

32 Comments:

Thanks, David. A solid dose of scripture is good for what ails us.
The Rabbit.

[1] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 05-09-2008 at 12:40 AM

Readers may be interested to note that Graham Kings has made a brief response at the Fulcrum forums.

That may be an interesting conversation and, at the very least, give us a further insight into the thinking of Open Evangelicals on this issue.

[2] Posted by David Ould on 05-09-2008 at 03:38 AM

Bear in mind the danger of historical parallels - even if they come from Scripture (indeed, especially if they come from Scripture).

Eden saw in Nassar a second Hitler and, refusing to appease him, led Britain and France into a disasterous and humiliating war.

Each French King after the Revolution refought the last revolt - so Charles X found himself acting in a way which might have saved Louis XVI, but left him running for his life. Louis Phillippe refused to “make Charles X’s mistakes” - but would probably have benefited from a stronger policy in 1848.

Re-fighting a previous conflict is a dangerous strategy.

[3] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 03:47 AM

Marcus, There might have been no way to appease Nassar...can anyone appease or be at peace for long with a bitter angry war/hate/conquest-minded group...(I’m not familiar with Nassar’s personality) but, like Hitler?  Bin Laden?  Saddam Hussein?  Would anything appease the Palestinians?  For how long?

[4] Posted by Floridian on 05-09-2008 at 06:49 AM

Many are they who will rail at the use of the word ‘dogs’ in this article.  But it will be a slight-of-hand to distract from the point being made - that certain bishops hold to a false gospel.  As people declare themselves ‘appalled,’ see if they conveniently forget to answer the charge of apostasy - a charge which if true fully justifies the use of the word.

carl

[5] Posted by carl on 05-09-2008 at 07:48 AM

Floridian, without wanting to distract the discussion away from David’s well argued attempt to draw scriptural / historical parallels with the current crisis in the Anglican Communion, a few points:

The Suez War was ill conceived from start to finish (see the Chief of the Imperial General Staff’s famous comment, “Of course we can take Cairo. But what do we do when we get there?") and badly carried out (Churchill said something like “I would never have been stupid enough to go in; but once in, I’d have never been stupid enough to pull out")

The trouble was Eden was fixated on the failures of the 30s and failed to appreciate the situation in the 50s. Invading and losing only strengthened the hand of Arab Nationalism - a situation we are still dealing with today (the blame for which, by the bye, can substantially be laid at the foot of President Eisenhower for knifing the British and the French, but that’s neither here nor there).

The substantial point is this, although keeping an eye to the past is essential (those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it etc), drawing too close a parallel is a route to disaster.

[6] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 08:01 AM

Oh, and calling the Palestinians a “war/hate/conquest-minded group” flies in the face of reality.

[7] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 08:03 AM

Marcus (#7) - I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 05-09-2008 at 08:14 AM

#8 - that might be an appropriate label to tag on Hamas, but including the whole of the Palestinian population is unpleasant. The vast majority want nothing to do with suicide bombings.

That doesn’t mean they don’t bear a considerable grievance against the Israelis for appropriating their land and subjecting them to systematic humiliations. However, they want nothing more than an end to war in their land and certainly don’t want to “conquer” anything (unless you consider the dismantelling of settlements built well into the occupied territory as conquest...)

Hate? Well, civil wars breed hate on both sides.

[9] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 08:42 AM

Marcus, I hope you’re right, but again - I haven’t seen any evidence of that either. Hamas can’t operate without shelter and support. Obviously they get plenty of both. Also, small nit - the Israelis occupy the land, but it was given to them by the west. Larger nit, through time immemorium land has changed hands, at the ends of wars as at the beginning. It is never just, it is never fair, and it is a very rare case for that land to be given back. Most people find a way to go on with their lives in those situations.

There have been too many announcements about wiping Israel off the face of the earth for me to believe there are many Palestianians who don’t feel this way. I don’t doubt there are some, but obviously there is a critical mass majority that is large enough to pretty much silence the rest.

[10] Posted by oscewicee on 05-09-2008 at 08:57 AM

David+,
Thank you for this excellent piece. I have been looking for something of substance to study for the summer and praying that God would give me thediscrenment to know what that might be. He has provided through you and this piece! It’s gonna be an interesting and enlightening summer indeed. Thank you again this is just great!
One other thing in this piece that I am sure will get glossed over and missed in the bulk of the meat of this but it struck me and noteable and that is:

“...should we go to Lambeth? Of course, for most of us that’s an academic question - we don’t have an invitation (although that’s not stopping some).”

Why shouldn’t those who have not been invited like Mr. Robinson go anyway just like Mr. Robinson? To me they will not be at the table with the “dogs & enemies” so they can be seen just like Mr. Robinson will be and give the contradiction to Mr. Robinson’s rhetoric. So, while they are not invited, just like Mr. Robinson, they should attend in the manner just like Mr. Robinson.

[11] Posted by One Day Closer on 05-09-2008 at 09:23 AM

May I suggest that the question isn’t merely “SHOULD orthodox bishops go to Lambeth?” There are honest differences of opinion on that score, and reasonable arguments can be made both pro and con.  +Duncan and +Iker are going (and so is my bishop, +Bill Love of Albany), not to mention orthodox primates like ++John Chew of Singapore and ++Gregory Venables of Buenos Aires.  Others are staying away in protest (++Akinola, ++Oromobi, ++Jensen etc.).

But in keeping with the focus of this article, the more important question may be, “Given that many orthodox bishops are in fact going to Lambeth,and so are all the TEC and Canadian bishops except VGR of NH, shouldn’t the orthodox ones SHUN their foes and AVOID any ecclesial fellowship with them?” That is, shouldn’t the orthodox refuse to share communion with the heretics, not exchange of the Peace of Christ with them, and so on?

Going to Lambeth and then pointedly SHUNNING the liberals may be a very effective form of clarifying boundaries.  And that is a very biblical concept.

Besides the Scriptures David Ould+ has mentioned above, others could easily be added.  I especially like to quote Romans 16:17-18, where Paul doesn’t mince words.

“I urge you, brothers and sistersm to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching you have learned; AVOID THEM.  For such people do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.”

David Handy+

[12] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 05-09-2008 at 09:46 AM

Continuing the thrust of my #12,

Given that Ephesians is the golden text that is highlighted by the Windsor Report, especially the strong appeal for unity in Ephesians 4, it seems apt to point out that there are key elements in that crucial text that are being overlooked or downplayed in this crisis.

That is, while yes, we are indeed to show patient forbearance to one another in Christ and be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (as the chapter starts out in Eph. 4:1-3), and while it’s true that it’s only when each and every part of the Body is working properly and in harmony that the growth of the whole Body of Christ takes place (Eph. 4:16) and we should balance speaking the truth with doing so “in love” (Eph. 4:15), there are important aspects of the total message of Ephesians that so often get lost in our discussions.  And alas, that includes in the WR.

For there is not only “one Body and one Spirit… one Lord...one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4-6).  There is also just “one faith.” We can’t leave that out.  “One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism...”

And the truth we are called to speak to one another in love has a definite content.  It doesn’t mean simply, “speak truthfully in love,” as it’s so often taken to mean.  And it most assuredly doesn’t mean this:
“Well, you speak YOUR truth in love, and I’ll speak MY truth in love, and we’ll all get along just fine.”

No, the immediate context makes it very clear.  The preceding verse to 4:15 speaks of people then, as now, being “blown about by every wind of DOCTRINE” (Eph. 4:14).  Thus, in the light of all the false doctrine going around, we are called to “speak THE truth,” i.e., the authentic gospel, here the Pauline gospel, in love to each other.  That is how the Body is built up.

Finally, the Windsor Report completely evades the importance of an unsettling and disturbing text in the next chapter, namely Eph. 5:7.  Recall the context. In the midst of some moral imperatives that include both stern prohibitions of sexual immorality and greed (Eph. 5:3-5), the writer continues,

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things (and the generic word for sexual immorality used in 5:3 and 5:5, porneia, would include homosexual behavior, along with all other sex outside of marriage) the wrath of God comes upon those who are disobedient.  THEREFORE DO NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM” (Eph. 5:6-7).

In light of our current struggles, I would confidently claim that Eph. 5:7 trumps 4:3.  What an impact it would make for HUNDREDS of orthodox bishops to refuse to take communion with their liberal colleagues.  Just imagine what a dramatic point that would make, with all the world watching.

David Handy+

[13] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 05-09-2008 at 10:08 AM

Oscewicee, Marcus,
Would that we all could grasp the fact that all land, wealth and power (Psalm 62:11) belongs to God alone and that we are only trustees and stewards and we followed God’s commands to share, be considerate, fair and forgiving.  In OT law, servitude and ownership were limited and God’s dominion and sovereignty was supreme.  And, oh yes, vengeance was limited too...there were cities of refuge in every region.  Anger, lust, pride and greed were (supposed to be) controlled through the Law.  Reading the law and commandments positively, we see the purpose was to promote communion with God, health, joy, freedom, contentment, peace and good will.

Back to topic, it is horrible to see a Church oppose God’s word and distort the meaning of truth, love, life and promote what is unhealthy, unholy, enslaving, degrading, destructive, deadly.

[14] Posted by Floridian on 05-09-2008 at 10:15 AM

#13 Strictly speaking, of course, the Liberal bishops are not, themselves, engaging in any of the above.

[15] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 10:41 AM

Marcus (#15),

I think you’ve missed my point.  The passage in Rom 16:17-18 I first quoted in #12 urges us to avoid people promoting false teaching in the church, and that would include anyone promoting the “gay is OK” delusion that is flatly contrary to Scripture and thus to the will of God.  A familiar, similar text is Gal. 1:6-9.  Those who promote a false gospel are to regarded as “anathema” and thus shunned.

According to texts like Eph. 5:5 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the kind of blatant immorality currently being promoted in TEC is a salvation issue.  Those who engage in such serious sin can potentially lose their eternal salvation.  ‘Tis sad and scary, but true.  And if so, it’s certainly serious enough to be a communion-breaking issue.

David Handy+

[16] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 05-09-2008 at 11:03 AM

David, honestly, take a step back and see how that approach looks. I’m sure you mean it from the best of intentions, but it bears all the hallmarks of the sin of pride. I am shunning you, I am refusing to sit with you, I am refusing to receive communion with you. I thank you O God that I am not like unto this publican beside me…

With particular regard to Holy Communion, surely it is better to disregard the person to your right and the person to your left and focus your eyes on Jesus, revealed in the Sacrament; his body broken, his blood outpoured.

In the end, to refuse to receive your Saviour when offered, whatever the offences of those receiving it around you, only damages you and stops you receiving that grace which flows from the Sacrament. It also hints at the insult given to the Great King when his guests refused to show for the feast.

[17] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 11:19 AM

Marcus, Shunning and setting apart may seem harsh - it is the opposite of permissive Boomer-style parenting - and yet setting apart IS inarguably the consistent Scriptural way to deal with rebellion and error.  The ‘setting apart’ should be done with humility, deepest regret, tears and heartache.  (Galatians 6:1) There simply is no other Biblical way of promoting truth and repentance, of restoring and reconciling people to God or of keeping the Body of Christ whole and healthy.

[18] Posted by Floridian on 05-09-2008 at 11:35 AM

PS, Marcus-- what David+ is talking about is NOT pride, but discernment and perception, and the light of Holy Spirit upon the Scriptures.

[19] Posted by Floridian on 05-09-2008 at 11:39 AM

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness

I reiterate the word meekness.

[20] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 11:39 AM

Well, Marcus (#17),

Two can play that game.  To set yourself above the clear and consistent witness of the Scriptures is even more blatant an example of pride and arrogance.

Now this could quickly spin out of control.  I don’t want to get into continueing to trade personal accusations of pride here.  I don’t know you, nor do you know me.  So neither of us knows, or could know, the heart and intentions of the other.

So let’s get back to objective matters, Marcus.  I might be wrong, since you’ve necessarily been brief, but it sure sounds like you are opposed to ANY “fencing” of the Table (to use the old-fashioned language).  That is, you seem to regard Holy Communion as on a par with Jesus’ open table fellowship with “sinners” and tax collectors.  That is, all are welcomne.  Period. 

Yes, Jesus ate and drank with prostitutes and other disreputable types.  But only the Twelve were at the Last Supper.  The historical tradition is very clear: sharing in the Eucharist is only for Christians.  Not for pre-Christians.  And not for ex-Christians.  We need to recover healthy boundaries.

David Handy+

[21] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 05-09-2008 at 11:39 AM

David, a fair point, well made!

However, this is where we return to my warning of earlier - the way to handle a specific issue in the first century is not necessarily a guide for handling a situation now. We must beware of imposing a parallel.

In answer to your question, if I were I priest, I wouldn’t allow the unbaptised to receive communion which I had consecrated. I would have a real issue with overt and unrepentant sinners (though how to deal with that without a messy scene is another issue).

Receiving Communion from another, however, is a different issue altogether. I wouldn’t dare look around me and say “that person is a sinner, I shall therefore reject the sacrament.” I would ignore my fellow men and focus my eyes on God as revealed in the host and the chalice.

[22] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 11:47 AM

It bears all the hallmarks of the sin of pride.

This is not the sin of pride.  He is not saying “Thank you God that I am intrinsically more righteous then that bishop over there.” He is saying that non-christian counterfeits have to be identified and called by their proper names. 

The Christian faith is defined doctrinally - not relationally.  A man is not a Christian simply because he is a member of a church.  A man is not a Christian simply because he is a bishop and exercises authority.  A man is not a Christian simply because he says he is.  A man is identified as a Christian based on what he believes.  The imperative (not request, not suggestion) for the believer is to separate from those who have proven themselves false brothers by teaching a false gospel .

carl

[23] Posted by carl on 05-09-2008 at 11:48 AM

But just to add one thing - I apologise if I said you were guilty of the sin of pride. I was warning that the approach you laid out could be so interpreted.

Pax vobiscum.

(And with regrets, I must leave the debate and get a train...)

[24] Posted by Marcus on 05-09-2008 at 11:48 AM

Receiving Communion from another, however, is a different issue altogether. I wouldn’t dare look around me and say “that person is a sinner, I shall therefore reject the sacrament.” I would ignore my fellow men and focus my eyes on God as revealed in the host and the chalice.

Marcus, I am completely with you about not looking to right or left in judgement at the altar rail. I am less comfortable about receiving the sacrament from one who denies basic tenets of the faith — and that such priests exist in TEC is not disputable. Are the host and chalice efficacious if administered by one who is arguably not Christian? It is an issue I struggle with. I don’t think pride has anything to do with it. I would not, for instance, consider myself in any way worthy of administering the sacrament.

[25] Posted by oscewicee on 05-09-2008 at 12:07 PM

Marcus (#24),

Apology accepted.  No offense taken.

As for your earlier #22, perhaps the key to avoiding pride and abuses in exercising the very serious function of ex-communication is that it is a matter for communal discernment, and not just up to the whims of any one person, whether priest, bishop, or primate.

That is, the famous text in Matthew 18:18 about what we bind and loose on earth will be ratified in heaven is addressed to you PLURAL, i.e., the whole Christian community makes the decision to impose discipline or not.  But Athanasius would never recieve communion from an Arian, or Irenaeus or Ignatius of Antioch from a Gnostic, and so on.  Yes, we are all sinners and we should remove the log from our own eyes before venturing to take the speck from a brother’s eye.  But while we all are sinners, not all are heretics.  And that’s my point. 

Pax tecum (vobiscum is the plural).

David Handy+

[26] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 05-09-2008 at 12:23 PM

The communal dimension of excommunication is one of the Anglican values which distingished it from some of the Anabaptists.  Thomas Cranmer in his *Reformatio Legum* faults the Anabaptists on this very point.

“Then they separate themselves from the body of the church and refuse to come to the Lord’s holy table with others, and claim that they are held back either because of the wickedness of the ministers or because of [the wickedness of] other brethren, as if excommunication could be perceived in, someone before the church has pronounced against him a sentence of excommunication in which it is declared that he is to be avoided like a heathen and a publican.” (Spalding ed. pp. 71-2)

[27] Posted by Bill+ on 05-09-2008 at 04:13 PM

I have thought for some years now that the Church is becoming increasingly Corinthian and needs a new Paul to call it to repentance and order.  Each time I read the letters to the Corinthians I see a new facet of the TEC problem.  It appears that the ABC does not want to be the new Paul the communion so desperately needs.  In his designation of “indaba” groups he is turning to Africa for his concepts.  As I read that, I felt a little thrill (not a rushing, mighty wind but a stirring of air) and thought: Those to whom we exported the Faith in the past have kept it intact, and now can return the gift to us just when we need it: ---if we are humble enough to acknowledge our need.  Maybe there is hope, or a source of hope that is beginning to emerge.  Disunity and separation are a sad testimony to human Pride that do Christ’s cause no good.  Pray that there may be found a way for us to live in peace with our fellow Christians, even if they are no longer brothers and sisters but cousins in the Lord.
Dumb Sheep.

[28] Posted by dumb sheep on 05-11-2008 at 08:38 PM

Marcus, IMHO you have an inadequate understanding of communion.  Even if you believe the focal point is the chalice and bread, even if you believe it actually turns into the body and blood of Christ, communion also involves the Body of Christ which is also the believers in whom He is in.  To ignore this is to not discern the Body of Christ and has warnings against it.  So communion is not a private act, but is an act of all the congregation together.  Now as to how the table is to be “fenced” is another discussion.  The gross failure of leadership has caused this to even be a problem.  If church discipline both of the members and especially the leaders, would be a reason for believers to not attend or be in fellowship with such a disorderly assembly which has set asaid the Lordship of Christ in this matter.  There is separation commanded from so called breathern who violate a specifie list of sins and also separation is also commanded from apostate religious grous, even though we can still love those who are believers.  I know this is so controversial, but that is mostly due to the years of neglect and loss of expertise in true church government that has become the “norm.” IMHO

[29] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 05-11-2008 at 09:04 PM

I think there are a couple of issues to be teased out here.

1) How do we respond to a father in God (be they bishop, priest, deacon or primate) who either (a) lives in a manner unbecoming to his office or (b) whose teaching is so off the wall as to be heretical?
2) What is the rôle of the community in discipline?
3) What is the rôle of the priest in discipline?
4) How should one view the Body of Christ (Communion) in relation to the body of Christ (people)?

Speaking personally, I take a very High Church view of this - if the priest has been validly ordained then the unworthiness of the man does not invalidate the sacrament itself. As a member of the congregation, it is for others to do this. I might, however vote with my feet and walk away. Much more difficult to do this if the person is your bishop.

Preaching an out-and-out heretical sermon would stop me returning to his church. Full stop. But by heretical, I don’t mean someone who takes a different churchmanship from me, I mean someone who has gone off the wall.

I take quite a High Church view of discipline and really don’t think it would be my place to discpline my fellows in the pews. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone - I would certainly not be able to pick up the metaphorical stone!

A priest, however, has a very different job. He is to call the sinner to repentance and the bring the lost sheep back to the fold. To be honest, though, if there is ever a situation where someone needs to have the sacrament publicly witheld from them, there will have had to have been a serious breakdown in relations which cannot bode well for either party…

Pax tecum (David) vobiscumque (group)

[30] Posted by Marcus on 05-12-2008 at 04:07 AM

Marcus, isn’t it interesting how we two are having a harmonic convergence.  That is what discussion/argument should do.  The bottom line is that nobody, especially the leaders is practicing church discipline and so the Lord and Head of the Church seems to be simply removing the lampstand and His people who are obedient are shelling out to other places.  Te absolvo

[31] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 05-12-2008 at 12:43 PM

Prophet Michah - I think it’s very interesting - and positive. I think the traditionalist wing of the Church is very tempted to cast stones at anyone who disagrees with them on any issue (me included, I hasten to add), forgetting that on 99% of issues, we are standing on the same spot (even if we’re facing different directions...)

[32] Posted by Marcus on 05-13-2008 at 03:32 AM