Today I, like so many, offer my prayers and condolences to the members of the Episcopal Church. As an outsider looking in, I can only imagine how they must feel, but the words distraught and forsaken come to mind. The members of this church seem to have been, for lack of a better way of stating it, "put out" by those whom they considered to be brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. Most of them have just as deep a love for Jesus Christ and his Church just as anyone else, and to be told that "their house is not in order" must be devastating.
So in the wake of this grievous wound to the Body of Christ, I feel moved to pose two questions: Why do instances such as this occur in the life of God's people, and what does it mean to be in communion with the Church?
I think the answer to my first question, addressing why issues like this occur, is a lot simpler than many of us would like to admit: People disagree. I'm not saying there isn't more to it than that, but I think if we peel back all the layers, at the heart of matters like this one is the fundamental reality that people- even God's people- don't always agree with one another's beliefs, opinions, and perspectives. And Lord knows that's caused a lot of pain and suffering in the Church over the years.
In fact, the very first Christians dealt with such disagreements. In the 15th chapter of the book of Acts, the believers are already meeting together to hash out their differences. And, interestingly enough, their debate was over religious legalism. Some said it was necessary for a person to keep all the laws of Moses in order to be a Christian- essentially, one must become Jewish in order to become Christian. Meanwhile, others said that adhering to the Jewish laws wasn't a prerequisite for being a disciple of Christ. When it was all said and done, the Council of Jerusalem erred on the side of grace and inclusion, writing a letter stating that following Jesus wasn't about being a Jew or a Gentile (a non-Jewish person). It was about seeking the salvation of God through God's Son, Jesus.
But let's face it: One faction won the argument and the other went home
disappointed. And it's a pretty sure bet that many of those who argued that the laws of Moses needed to be kept held onto that belief, and they probably felt that those who didn't do so weren't true Christians. And while this is not seen as a "historical divide" in the Church, I think it's safe to say that there was some division created.
And such divisions have cropped up time and again throughout the Church's history. Christians who refused to accept every letter of the Nicene Creed were branded as heretics after 381 A.D. and were banned from the orthodox (here simply meaning "right teaching") Church. More councils were held, more disagreements came to light, and more heretics were branded. By the time of the official "split" between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) Churches in 1054, the faithful had already splintered into a number of factions across the known world. Each time this occurred, it was because a debate was had, one group won the argument and got to proclaim themselves as "right," and everyone else was branded a sinner, living in error and in need of repentance. And you could repent, or you could leave the larger fold.
Of course, while we're talking about splitting up in the life of the Church, let's not forget the whole Reformation. People like Martin Luther and John Calvin were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church because their views were seen as being held "in error," and the same went for their followers. Oh, and by the way, the whole Church of England was excommunicated after it underwent its own Reformation, so suffice it to say that the Anglican Church has been down this road before.
So why do instances like the one involving the Episcopal Church take place? It may all be shrouded in doctrine and theology and the notion of orthodoxy, but at the end of the day, they happen because people disagree. And the group with the most power gets to call themselves "right," and they then have the power to cut off those whose opinion doesn't carry the day.
As for my second question, I'm afraid that asking what it means to be in communion with the Church will only lead us down that path to disagreement once again. A Roman Catholic believer would likely say it means being in communion with Rome and the Pope. An Eastern Orthodox disciple might well say it means belonging to those churches that are headed by bishops who can trace their heritage all the way back to the apostles. At one time, for Lutherans like myself, being in communion with other Christians meant accepting the profession of faith found in the Augsburg Confession (and it still does for many). For the Anglican Communion, based on yesterday's events, it seems to mean more than ever that one must be engaged in the "right teaching" and "right action" approved by the majority. And that majority seems to think the Episcopal Church is not thus engaged. However, my point is this: I could ask this very question to a thousand different Christians and get a thousand different answers. So who is right, who is wrong, and who is in the communion of the Church?
I, for one, will defer to the author of Ephesians on this one and say,
"I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 3:1-6)
The Church is the Body of Christ, made up of all those who have been called by God the Father to faith in Jesus Christ, who are baptized into his death and resurrection, and who are bound together by the power of the Holy Spirit. And it is those who, bound together in these ways, bear one another in love, peace, patience, humility, and gentleness. That is what it means to be the Church, in my view, when we peel back all the layers and see that Jesus is at the heart of it all.
So, is this what we saw yesterday in the Anglican Communion? Is this what have we seen throughout the history of the Church? Has this been your personal experience? And is this what has Jesus Christ has taught, commanded, and invited us to do? Or have we, like some in the early Church, let religious legalism get the best of us?
So in the wake of this grievous wound to the Body of Christ, I feel moved to pose two questions: Why do instances such as this occur in the life of God's people, and what does it mean to be in communion with the Church?
I think the answer to my first question, addressing why issues like this occur, is a lot simpler than many of us would like to admit: People disagree. I'm not saying there isn't more to it than that, but I think if we peel back all the layers, at the heart of matters like this one is the fundamental reality that people- even God's people- don't always agree with one another's beliefs, opinions, and perspectives. And Lord knows that's caused a lot of pain and suffering in the Church over the years.
In fact, the very first Christians dealt with such disagreements. In the 15th chapter of the book of Acts, the believers are already meeting together to hash out their differences. And, interestingly enough, their debate was over religious legalism. Some said it was necessary for a person to keep all the laws of Moses in order to be a Christian- essentially, one must become Jewish in order to become Christian. Meanwhile, others said that adhering to the Jewish laws wasn't a prerequisite for being a disciple of Christ. When it was all said and done, the Council of Jerusalem erred on the side of grace and inclusion, writing a letter stating that following Jesus wasn't about being a Jew or a Gentile (a non-Jewish person). It was about seeking the salvation of God through God's Son, Jesus.
But let's face it: One faction won the argument and the other went home
disappointed. And it's a pretty sure bet that many of those who argued that the laws of Moses needed to be kept held onto that belief, and they probably felt that those who didn't do so weren't true Christians. And while this is not seen as a "historical divide" in the Church, I think it's safe to say that there was some division created.
And such divisions have cropped up time and again throughout the Church's history. Christians who refused to accept every letter of the Nicene Creed were branded as heretics after 381 A.D. and were banned from the orthodox (here simply meaning "right teaching") Church. More councils were held, more disagreements came to light, and more heretics were branded. By the time of the official "split" between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) Churches in 1054, the faithful had already splintered into a number of factions across the known world. Each time this occurred, it was because a debate was had, one group won the argument and got to proclaim themselves as "right," and everyone else was branded a sinner, living in error and in need of repentance. And you could repent, or you could leave the larger fold.
Of course, while we're talking about splitting up in the life of the Church, let's not forget the whole Reformation. People like Martin Luther and John Calvin were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church because their views were seen as being held "in error," and the same went for their followers. Oh, and by the way, the whole Church of England was excommunicated after it underwent its own Reformation, so suffice it to say that the Anglican Church has been down this road before.
So why do instances like the one involving the Episcopal Church take place? It may all be shrouded in doctrine and theology and the notion of orthodoxy, but at the end of the day, they happen because people disagree. And the group with the most power gets to call themselves "right," and they then have the power to cut off those whose opinion doesn't carry the day.
As for my second question, I'm afraid that asking what it means to be in communion with the Church will only lead us down that path to disagreement once again. A Roman Catholic believer would likely say it means being in communion with Rome and the Pope. An Eastern Orthodox disciple might well say it means belonging to those churches that are headed by bishops who can trace their heritage all the way back to the apostles. At one time, for Lutherans like myself, being in communion with other Christians meant accepting the profession of faith found in the Augsburg Confession (and it still does for many). For the Anglican Communion, based on yesterday's events, it seems to mean more than ever that one must be engaged in the "right teaching" and "right action" approved by the majority. And that majority seems to think the Episcopal Church is not thus engaged. However, my point is this: I could ask this very question to a thousand different Christians and get a thousand different answers. So who is right, who is wrong, and who is in the communion of the Church?
I, for one, will defer to the author of Ephesians on this one and say,
"I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 3:1-6)
The Church is the Body of Christ, made up of all those who have been called by God the Father to faith in Jesus Christ, who are baptized into his death and resurrection, and who are bound together by the power of the Holy Spirit. And it is those who, bound together in these ways, bear one another in love, peace, patience, humility, and gentleness. That is what it means to be the Church, in my view, when we peel back all the layers and see that Jesus is at the heart of it all.
So, is this what we saw yesterday in the Anglican Communion? Is this what have we seen throughout the history of the Church? Has this been your personal experience? And is this what has Jesus Christ has taught, commanded, and invited us to do? Or have we, like some in the early Church, let religious legalism get the best of us?