Clergy discipline is of great importance to the morale of the Church. Scripture and the historic church, along with the Anglican Ordinal, have been of one accord in insisting that discipline begins with the household of God, and that church leaders are therefore especially accountable (1 Peter 4:17). I have observed serious breakdowns in this area on both sides of the ocean, but only in the West has this been done shamelessly. In the Episcopal Church, clergy divorce has become rampant in the last 35 years. While the so-called “gay lifestyle” of some clergy in the West grabs the headlines, rampant divorce among clergy, some with several marriages (let’s call this serial polygamy) is probably the more corrosive factor in the decline of those churches. Whatever the precise meaning of a bishop being husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), it seems to me to limit the highest office in the church to those who have not been divorced as Christians.
Article 34 may seem out of place in a section on discipline, as it speaks of the diversity of traditions within the church. It teaches us, on the one hand, to be slow to judge those who practice their religion differently from us. There are many customs ”“ which we term adiaphora ”“ which Christians may follow in good conscience. The Article goes on to state that we must follow our local traditions in cases where they are the law of our church. This Article lays the foundation for obedience to canon law.
Article 33 speaks frankly of excommunicate persons who by open denunciation of the church should be shunned until they repent and are publicly reconciled. This Article complements the disciplinary rubric which allows a priest to refuse Communion to a “notorious evil-liver.” For many Anglicans in the West the whole idea of excommunication seems quaint or even anathema, although the Episcopal Church USA has managed to reinvent it under the twisted rubric of “abandonment of communion,” which is being used to bludgeon the orthodox. In the Church of England, for instance, a priest can be brought up on charges to the bishop if he were to refuse Holy Communion to an openly gay parishioner. Coming from this permissive culture to Africa, I was rather shocked to find there the opposite tendency: large numbers of Ugandan Anglicans absenting themselves from the Eucharist because of irregular marriages which render them excommunicate.
Dr. Harmon, thanks for this. Dr. Noll is to be commended for this thorough treatment of the subject. Leaders throughout the AC should read it, come to grips with its warnings and directions, prayerfully consider what it says, and act accordingly. The whole piece is well worth the study and ought to be widely distributed.
Here are 2 excerpts to whet the appetite:
[b]Excerpt 1[/b] — Excommunicating bishops of the Episcopal Church or the Church as a whole may seem like a very long step to take. And it should be. No division of this sort should be taken lightly. On the other hand, for a church council to refuse to exercise ultimate sanctions when they are clearly called for is to undermine its own legitimacy. To put it bluntly, if the Episcopal Church calls the bluff of the Communion and the Communion flinches, the Communion will undermine its own authority and identity.
[b]Excerpt 2[/b] — In 2002, several Primates and theologians produced a document called To Mend the Net, an entirely reasonable proposal for careful Communion discipline, in which a church that finally refused to conform could be excluded. Even the Windsor Report held out the possibility that a church might choose to walk apart. But To Mend the Net was consigned to outer darkness by the Communion bureaucracy, and the “Windsor process†seems to have made excommunication (a.k.a., “walking apartâ€) an ever-retreating mirage.
We are here this week because, after ten years of patient but futile calls for repentance on the part of the majority of the world’s Anglicans, the Communion, under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has flinched. Hence while it may seem that we are the ones who have excluded ourselves, the truth is, as Hooker put it, that this is our reasonable service to God.
We are not breaking the communion. The title deeds of the Church are ours, not by our own merits, but by his eternal Covenant. Our city is the Jerusalem which is above, who is our mother. Our communion is with God in Christ, who is the author of Scripture and the author of our salvation. To Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus for all generations for ever and ever. Amen.
Thank you for posting this very important teaching. Dr. Noll has posted other papers on the issues at his website. They are essential reading.
[i]While the so-called “gay lifestyle†of some clergy in the West grabs the headlines, rampant divorce among clergy, some with several marriages (let’s call this serial polygamy) is probably the more corrosive factor in the decline of those churches. Whatever the precise meaning of a bishop being husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), it seems to me to limit the highest office in the church to those who have not been divorced as Christians.[/i]
This I am very glad to see. It is an issue that seemed largely to go under the radar in the past few years and it has implications for certain persons within orthodox Anglicanism as well. I honestly wonder whether confining this to bishops is too limiting. Perhaps clergy in similar situations need seriously to consider whether serial polgamy is an acceptable model for ordained leadership (while it does make a difference if one is not the offending party, remaarriage after divorce still sends a bad message in today’s culture).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
“Whatever the precise meaning of a bishop being husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), it seems to me to limit the highest office in the church to those who have not been divorced as Christians.”
Why not bind the laity to this standard as well? It would have disastrous results in the self-styled “reasserter” parishes which put a premium on secular “growth” strategies, but if same-sex unions are a communion-killing deal, then so should be re-marriage for anyone while the first spouse is alive, in the absence of an annulment. Of course, I would expect most “re-asserters” to resort to intellectually indefensible dodges about scripture being insufficiently clear on the issue, the former discipline being but a tradition of men opposed to grace, etc. etc. Kudos for Robert Duncan getting it, and Stephen Noll for almost, but not quite, getting it.
Unfortunately, as friends of mine can attest, the Episcopal Church has not been big on annulments.
One friend tried to get an annulment after a disasterous 48 hour marriage of impulse, but found that the only provision was a ‘declaration of eligibility of remarriage’ after civil divorce or something like that (it was a long time ago in another diocese, and I have forgotten most of the facts).
The Bishop also didn’t want to ‘set precidence’ or something like that by declaring an annulment, as he was up for retirement or transfer or something where he was leaving soon anyway.
Or maybe that was the same thing? I have no idea.
But yes, I think there needs to be stricter guidelines for remarriage after a divorce. Perhaps not as strict as the Roman Catholics, but stricter than our ‘anything goes’ mentality.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Agreed.
Dr Noll’s paper provides a very fine balance that Anglicans of all stripes should read, mark, and inwardly digest.
Many Anglo-Catholics (myself included) need to remember that we are not Romans stuck in the Anglican Communion. On the other hand, some Evangelicals need to remember that they aren’t Anabaptists stuck in the Anglican Communion.
I’ve been interested in the reactions to the GAFCON emphasis on the 39 Articles which help to establish Anglican identity by [i]excluding the extremes [/i]in most every case. Anglo-Catholics who are really Anglicans have nothing to fear [note to fearful Anglo-Catholics–read some of the commentaries on the Articles written from the Anglo-Catholic perspective like Bicknell, Kidd, and Forbes (even Newman in Tract XC for some real fun)] and you will be refreshed and put at ease). And, Evangelicals, by careful study of what the Articles actually teach (as opposed to what we think they teach) likewise will discover their true place within Anglicanism as distinguished from the more radical Continental traditions that are no more ours as Anglicans than is medieval Romanism. Anabaptists and Romanists alike need to look elsewhere for places to live out those convictions.
Seeking the balance of authentic Anglican ecclesiology will make us appreciate one another rather remain suspicious. Such realizations make it possible to envision the Bishop of Fort Worth at home in the Southern Cone, but that vision requires both self-confidence and generosity from all parties (characteristics that ought to abound in genuine Anglican ecclesiology).
I agree that Dr. Noll has published an article that contains some great insights on a first read. I plan on reading it again this evening and suspect that it is one I will return to in the future. As has been noted in earlier comments he is truly highlighting the balance that is in the tradition of our church.
On a separate note regarding comments 3 & 4 in this discussion, I have a couple of thoughts; I would like to share this afternoon. First, I am a divorced man, so I think this allows me, a certain perspective on this point. I agree that this level of restraint should be applied across the board. I will note as an exception to the broad brush wielded by Violent Papist in his #4, I regard my situation as one that would bar my participation, in many of the possible leadership roles. No doges, I just don’t see where they are possible here.
“The title deeds of the Church are ours, not by our own merits, but by his eternal Covenant.”
AMEN! Remember that God is bigger than the Anglican com