From Christian Today:
The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, the Most Rev Alan Harper, has spoken out on the “sin” of division plaguing what he calls the “tortured” Anglican Communion.
Speaking in his address on the Feast Day of St Mary Magdalene, he said he had come to believe that “division is a greater sin even than heresy”.
He appealed to fellow Anglicans to remember Paul’s call for patient forbearance in his letter to the Ephesians, warning that disunity and “open rupture” were a “sign that the full stature of Christ remains absent from the Body”.
Archbishop Drexel Gomez warned the General Synod of the Church of England earlier in the month that, “Unless we can make a fresh statement clearly and basically of what holds us together we are destined to grow apart”.
Archbishop Harper referred to his comments by adding that “a spirit of arrogance on both sides is causing people of genuine faith and undoubted love for the Lord Jesus to bypass the requirement for patience and for making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”.
“Speaking in his address on the Feast Day of St Mary Magdalene, he said he had come to believe that “division is a greater sin even than heresyâ€.”
An ANGLICAN said this??? The irony, the irony!
[blockquote]division is a greater sin even than heresy[/blockquote]
Well, then, the Church is steeped in sin from the git-go. She divided from the Gnostics, from the Arians, the East from the West, and the Anglican Communion herself is founded upon this great sin of division.
So what’s your point?
“So what’s your point?”
Perhaps, he is simply saying that we have learnt from having witnessed, and still experiencing, the rotten fruit that has grown from the divisions that have rent the Body of Christ in the past?
Can the Church learn from the shortcomings of the past, and perhaps try harder to stay together before it’s time to roll out the mutual anathemas that will then keep Christian from Christian for centuries?
Point of order, Nadine: the divisions from the Gnostics and the Arians did not “ren[d] the Body of Christ.”
“The unity of the spirit” does not equal the “unity of The Spirit” and there is no room in “the bonds of peace” for being “unequally yoked together with unbelievers”. While remembering that people on both sides of the SSU devide firmly “believe” that they are right, there is objective “truth” and it is always compatible with the clear, plain text reading of Holy Scripture. We might also remember that “the devil also believes…and trembles”.
The fog is clearing. Leader’s positions are coming more and more into sight. Refreshing…in a scary kind of way.
Well, here’s the deal: if the Anglican Communion is to continue as anything but a very expensive garden party, some sort of constitution better be in place to resolve matters such as same-sex issues, lay administration of Communion, Spongian theology, excommunications, and so on.
The Dean of Cathedral Church of the Advent, see of the Bishop of Alabama, also had similar thoughts: http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=3255
“division is a greater sin even than heresyâ€.
Heresy is the sin of rebellion and idolatry. God hates rebellion.
Continue to pray for clarity. God is at work.
DonGander
The fault line running through the Anglican Communion is between those who emphasize institutional “unity” (conformity, compliance or submission might be better words) and those who emphasize the Gospel’s content.
Jesus did not place his highest priority on club membership: [b] Mark 9:38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.” [/b]
Jesus emphasized the primacy of his message: [b] Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” [/b]
Even our Lord’s prayer that all be “one” is based on the message:
[b] John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their [i] message [/i] , 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” [/b]
I wish to note an idea within Timothy’s comment (#10).
For those who are theologically challenged, I wish to point out that the disciple of Jesus Christ brought the fact to Jesus that “we saw a man driving out demons in your name….” I especially wish to note that this “man” was “driving out demons” and not installing them. This is a salient fact in this discussion of “division is a greater sin even than heresyâ€.
DonGander
“Point of order, Nadine: the divisions from the Gnostics and the Arians did not “ren[d] the Body of Christ.†”
Last I checked, Arian orders were not considered in dispute at the time, nor were those of many of the Gnostics (at least, such as maintained holy orders passed down by laying on of hands from the same apostolic sources as the orthodox). Nor am I aware of disputes as to the validity of Arian or Gnostic baptisms performed their clergy who possessed such orders.
In what sense, then, were these individuals not part of the Body of Christ?
In error, perhaps (OK, I’ll preempt the likely responses by going beyond “perhaps” and straight to “certainly”) — but not part of the Body of Christ?
Argue, if you will, that such heretics needed to be cast out of the Body of Christ, much like (as we sometimes hear from both sides in the Current Troubles) a cancerous limb must be amputated — but I don’t think any catholic ecclesiology (including the Roman Catholic ones of my upbringing and education) deems them to have been “not-Church,” to have been *outside* the Body of Christ.
The only reason it may seem different (i.e., from the Great [i.e., East-West] Schism or the Reformation(s)) to us, from the luxury of our vantage point of living in 2007, is that the Gnostics and Arians are much more historically remote, and have no continuous, direct successor denominations to debate the point with us and claim equally the mantle of “Christian” (even if there are some modern-day people who de facto adhere to the same beliefs).
“…a cancerous limb…”
No, no, no Nadine, that’s what ++Peter said about homosexuality.
Nadine, what then constitutes heresy? Should unity trump all?
Just curious…
“division is a greater sin even than heresy”
This is from an Archbishop? Heresy is division. When you welcome heresy, then you invite schism . You cannot have heresy without schism.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I don’t think any catholic ecclesiology (including the Roman Catholic ones of my upbringing and education) deems them to have been “not-Church,†to have been *outside* the Body of Christ.
Catholic ecclesiology says that the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, yes, since these groups have been anathematized or excommunicated, they are “not-Church†and “outside the Body of Christ.â€
And, you’re in luck with the Arians:
http://www.arian-catholic.org/
Might be a perfect communion partner for ECUSA, don’t you think?
This man buried my mother and my father. He’s a good man but also a stiff, fairly charmless Englishman (with all that implies). He’s theologically conservative. It’s very significant that such a conservative Anglican should publicly declare that this is not a communion-breaking issue. There are of course many conservatives in the UK and in the US and throughout the Anglican communion who think like this (in my own corner of the world I know plenty such). Good for them.
john scholasticus, how do you difine the word “conservative”?
“conservative” in Irish Anglicanism means black shoes, full canonicals and Freemasonry. Not a lot to do with the Gospel or (shudder) ‘enthusiasm’.
Re #16: Phil, thanks very much for that link, but I’m strictly a traditional Nicene girl, myself.
And it doesn’t look like these “Arian Catholic” folks are any more continuous with the ancient Arians than today’s Wiccans are continuous with ancient druids.
Re Catholic ecclesiology etc, it is perhaps worth making our categories more semantically precise for this discussion.
For most of Christian history, a distinction has been made between anathematization and excommunication. The RCs only made the terms synonymous as of the 1917 canon law code, and I believe in the current canon law code the term “anathema” is gone entirely.
Anathematization, the more severe of the two penalties, *was* exulsion from the Church. Excommunication was/is being barred from the sacraments and other forms of the Church’s communal life, pending repentance and absolution, but expressly was/is *not* expulsion from the Church itself. Think of it as getting suspended rather than expelled.
So, there are in fact plenty of Arian bishops and presbyters and laypeople, and some Gnostic Christian bishops and presbyters and laypeople, who were running around merely excommunicated and not strictly speaking anathematized, so their orders and their baptisms were not deemed invalid, no matter how heretical their teaching or belief, and if they went orthodox, they weren’t re-ordained or re-baptized, were they? Unless you are perhaps aware of such instances?
Remember, a sacrament “is forever” — its mark is indelible.
We have already seen the result of this false choice. After a similar statement at a Diocesan Council by Bishop Peter Lee in Virginia we saw the natural result: the willingness of a Bishop to allow heresy leads to schism. What are Bishops for if not to discern and teach the orthodox faith. If all statements about the Christian faith are to be entertained (implying equal validity) then what is the faith. Radical relative individualism in a “loving” community? It would not worth getting up on Sunday to go the church…the Gospel would have lost its meaning and its ability to transform.
I agree with you, Nadine, that Arian orders were generally seen to be valid (though not all agreed), but I’m fairly sure the Ecumenical Councils dealing with the matter pronounced Arian belief “anathema.”
I see what you’re getting at, but, if throwing the name of Jesus in there with no reference to the Orthodox Faith is all that matters, then Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are also part of the Body of Christ.
“I see what you’re getting at, but, if throwing the name of Jesus in there with no reference to the Orthodox Faith is all that matters, then Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are also part of the Body of Christ. ”
Well, but JVs haven’t really entered the Body of Christ via trinitarian baptisms, have they?
And arguably, Mormons haven’t either. (I know they use the trinitarian formula, but their understanding is *so* off the farm… Personally, had I been bishop of Utah years ago, I never would have started this recognition of Mormon baptism, and +Irish would have needed to be properly baptized, or at least sub conditione — yet long before the Current Troubles, (P)ECUSA apparently decided corporately to acknowledge Mormon baptism.)
But look, I’m not saying parts of the Body of Christ aren’t in error, just that they *remain* parts of the Body to the extent that the individuals ever sacramentally entered it.
And if one part of the Body is in communion with another, severing that link is like scrambling eggs — theoretically possible to undo, but I have yet to see it really happen. So, before we all give up and exchange bulls of mutual excommunication with those we deem heretical, we really ought to learn the empirical lessons of church history, and perhaps try harder than our forebears did to avoid formal schisms and mutual excommunications.
Not saying never; just perhaps longer than previous generations took. “That they may all be one” is a commandment not lightly disobeyed, and formal schism leads away from complying with it.
Nadine #23: “”That they may all be one” is a commandment not lightly disobeyed, and formal schism leads away from complying with it. ”
Amen. And again let us say, Amen.
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
I don’t think Jesus equated “being one” with the kind of anything-goes tolerance that passes for unity in the Anglican so-called “Communion” [sic]. The incarnate Son and the Father are one in TRUTH, not in their mutual attendance at a jamboree. Heretics teach cruel lies and have precipitated the present-day disintegration.
Chazaq #25: “Heretics teach cruel lies and have precipitated the present-day disintegration.”
I am not a heretic.
I am, however, becoming increasingly impatient with those who would paint me with that broad brush. Indeed, I could easily substitute a number of terms for ‘heretic’ in your comment. ‘Ultraconservatives,’ ‘fundamentalists,’ ‘Biblical literalists’ all come to mind. Episcopalians does not. Anglicans does not. And, too, I would rather argue substance rather than call people names.
RE: “So, before we all give up and exchange bulls of mutual excommunication with those we deem heretical, we really ought to learn the empirical lessons of church history, and perhaps try harder than our forebears did to avoid formal schisms and mutual excommunications.”
Uh . . . the “empirical lessons of church history” were that it was a grand thing to excommunicate the Arians and the Gnostics. Thank God they did.
Now . . . we may draw valuable lessons from that excommunication . . . as in, for one thing, the church should continue to do that with today’s public and scandalous leaders who are heretics.
And here’s the thing . . . if the Communion doesn’t *recognize* the schism that the Episcopal church inflicted through its heresy, by way of formal church discipline, then the inevitable further division will occur.
That’s what happens to institutions which have no boundaries . . . meltdown into a swamp.
PadreWayne #26, OK, point taken about calling people by their names. I’ll rephrase that as “Heresy teaches cruel lies and has precipitated the present-day disintegration.”
Chazaq #28… Slightly less offensive.
Nadine has argued well here (even though she did not accept my invitation to go out for lemonade), but I wonder if it would not be more sensible to adopt the attitude that elements of the body will say together or separate on grounds of will/desire. not on theological grounds. Those that chose to go their own way, let them go. Is division good? It is to them – for the time being. Those who choose to hang together, let them do so. The wind that blows from the grave will separate the wheat from the chaff, won’t it? Why should we not let it? This will save all the to-ing and fro-ing above for which no resolution is possible. LM
Nadine Kwong wrote:
And if one part of the Body is in communion with another, severing that link is like scrambling eggs—theoretically possible to undo, but I have yet to see it really happen. So, before we all give up and exchange bulls of mutual excommunication with those we deem heretical, we really ought to learn the empirical lessons of church history, and perhaps try harder than our forebears did to avoid formal schisms and mutual excommunications.
Based on your logic the inhibitions (soon to be depositions) of the 20 former Episcopal clergy in Virginia should not be taking place. Your “tolerant progressive” position would not seem to logically support the current actions of TEC’s PB and the DVA’s +PJL who are suing parishioners and depose priests. Have you decried those actions?
Dear Larry (#30): I’m so sorry, I must have missed your kind invitation! And must have scrolled past it above… Please be assured that I’m always up to share a lemonade with a fine Christian gentleman! Raincheck then?
Dear Pew View (#31): I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic. The first schismatic action was already taken by the priests being inhibited, and helps make moot the wishes of any “tolerant progressives” to see a “safe space” carved out for the reasserters — *within* TEC. By everyone (on *both* sides, frankly) being in such a rush to create new “facts on the ground,” it undermines the middle holding, and many in the middle are quite frustrated over this, and believe it suggests that *neither* end of the spectrum is willing to accept anything less than *total* capitulation by the other, or else the other’s expulsion from the Communion.
Rather preempts the possibility of any “Neo-Elizabethan Settlement” in our day, I’d say.