I know that there are those among us who feel differently. Some think that realignment would be a good idea and want to follow the Bishop. There are others who do not want to follow the Bishop or the Episcopal Church but would rather take a third option and walk away from the property and start over again. As I stated above, I think the best course of action is for us to stay together at least for the short term. If the realignment passes, we will then see how a continuing diocese is reorganized and whether we can in good conscience remain in the Episcopal Church. I believe we can.
I know that there will be some for whom this is untenable, who feel that the Episcopal Church is no longer a place they want to be. I want you to know that I understand this and that my desire for everyone is that they be in a place where they can be nourished spiritually. If some are feeling called to another course of action it is my hope that they will do so in a way that honors the deep and abiding relationships that we have formed here over the decades.
This Sunday the Gospel lesson is Matthew 13:24-43. In that parable a man sows good seed in a field. When the wheat begins to mature, it is discovered that weeds are growing among it. The servants ask the master if they should remove the weeds. The master says no because doing so would uproot some of the wheat which then will be lost as well. He tells them to let the wheat and the weeds grow together. Jesus then goes on to say that the wheat represents the faithful and the weeds are the children of the evil one. The point of the parable is that it is God’s responsibility, not ours, to separate wheat and weeds. We are to be faithful in our growth towards God and in maturing into the men and women he created us to be. God will deal with the unfaithful.
Are there weeds in the Episcopal Church? Most certainly, but there is also much wheat. Is it difficult to live in a weedy environment? Yes, but for decades St. Michael’s has been, a place of healthy spiritual growth, a place where the wheat thrives, and a parish which bears witness to the rest of the Kingdom to what the Gospel can do.
A friend wrote me this about Jim’s letter: “In my opinion, Jim Simons is misinterpreting the reading. It isn’t about the church. Matthew says that himself. Wheat and weeds exist in the world (v. 38). When Matthew talks about the church, the wicked are promptly separated from the righteous [see the wedding feast where one guest gets the boot (22:11-3), wicked picked from among the righteous (13:49), false prophets (7:15-20), less then genuine disciples (7:21-23), foolish bridesmaids (25:1-12), and more]. This passage isn’t about the present unsatisfactory situation in the church, it is about judgment of “the world†at the end of the age.”
I agree, David. If they are weeds, they are not members of the church Jesus built.
There is an exegetical issue here: The parable of the weeds is not about the church. It is about the world. As long as we are in the world, we will be surrounded and confronted by evil. That is not so with the church. There are numerous injunctions in the New Testament to the church to root out impurities, particularly those who are persistent in them (e.g, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; Titus 3:9-11; 2 John 7-11).
#1 What do you make of “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord” (Matthew &: 21 – 23). Matthew’s view of the church is perhaps more mixed than you imply. The separation between sheep and goats, like the wheat and the weeds, like those who do the will of the Father and those who don’t, occurs at Last Judgment.
Of course, excommunication/shunning is right for those who are known by the community to be notorious sinners if they repeatedly refuse the possibly of repentance. But Matthew seems to think that even some of those who are thought to be disciples (who perform miracles even in Jesus name) will be shown to have separated themselves from the Son of Man, at the Last Judgment.
#4 is spot on.
Every church has members who are unregenerate, heterdox, in error about some aspect of doctrine, stealth backsliders, etc. There are always “weeds amongst the wheat”. Their is no such thing as a church whose entire membership is 100% doctrinally pure. This is made clear again and again in the Bible where churches are written too about gross sin, misunderstanding, etc. The search for the perfect church always leads to another fracture in the Body of Christ. Just what we need, 11,001 new denominations and the splits continue ad nauseam. When will it stop? There is no greener grass. We must be the change we want to see where we are planted.
driver8 (#4),
As usual, I tend to agree with you. But let my add a qualifying footnote to your own qualifying comment.
Please note that this is an area where exegesis of the historical variety is actually quite helpful (a perennial topic of interest between the two of us). The “tares” or “weeds” spoken of in Matthew 13:24ff. aren’t just any old weeds, but a specific type of weed that is close enough to wheat in appearance as to make definite identification unclear enough that pulling up wheat along with the tares is a very real possibility.
But this is not so in other cases. I submit that we shouldn’t generalize this parable as referring to all weeds. It’s not hard to tell corn or soybeans from wheat. Or more to the point, farmers aren’t likely to confuse noxotious weeds like Canadian Thistles with wheat. There is no real danger of mistaking the different plants in such cases (at least if you’re a farmer, as the parable presumes).
You noted yourself that this parable doesn’t apply to situations where scandalous members of the church are “known by the community to be notorious sinners.” You are right that Matthew is more nuanced in his view of the Church than is often realized, but I also think he wasn’t as reluctant to pull out weeds in general as Augustine assumed in his anti-Donatist writings. Here is one place that careful historical criticism is indeed helpful, or even essential.
David Handy+
And, back to the letter….
Jim, this is very, very similar to the pastoral letter I wrote to our parish this past winter, about two weeks prior to our parish family coming together to vote on our bylaws re: accession.
Given that intro this may sound a bit self-serving, but I do believe you’ve done a nice job pulling together the things that will be important to your parishioners in the next months. And I would say especially in clearly identifying where you stand. That may be one of the most important statements because it will help folks gauge their own thoughts and prayers, and it will allow them MORE freedom, not less, to engage you in conversation simply because they can share their thoughts without getting tangled in trying to figure out yours. You get to be a sounding board; it won’t always be pleasant, but I’m confident you will be able to handle it.
May I also suggest that there be a “complaint policy” in place for you, the vestry and the parish, in order to minimize triangulation.
The Lord bring his glory to bear, in order to help you and your parish continue at all times to keep you keep your eyes upon Jesus.
RGEaton
#6 Zizania (weeds/tares) is presumably a semitic loan word. The specific plant it refers to, to my knowledge, isn’t certainly known. It may be related to a degenerate form of wheat that, in the early stages of its growth cycle, appears like wheat. This might connect to the “appearing” of the weeds in v26. On the other hand the slaves seen able to tell the weeds and the wheat apart at the point of the growth cycle in which the wheat bears fruit v28. And the reason the householder gives for not separating them until the harvest is not that they continue to look similar but that the weeds, which can at this point be identified, cannot be pulled up without uprooting the wheat v29.
The problem is thus, not one of identifying the weeds, but that the roots have become entangled and so the weeds and the wheat are to be left until both can be harvested – at which point they will be separated.
Of course, if we stick to a purely historical critical interpretation then any application to the church at all may become problematic. For, from the lips of Jesus, it more plausibly refers to the judgment and renewal of Israel. Perhaps we should see here a kind of remnant theology. But we’re run round this circuit before so I’ll leave it there!
Let me add that the separation that Jesus envisages (the wheat from the tares, the sheep from the goats, the wedding guests from those who are cast out, the wise virgins from the foolish virgins etc.) first of all implies a humble vigilance, a constant self criticism within the church and within the individual.
Not all those who cry “Lord, Lord’ and not all those perform deeds of power will find themselves gathered to the Son of Man when he comes in glory. The faithful are not simply to identify the deceptions around them but to be constantly attentive to their own self deception – are we practising our faith to gain earthy honour, are we correcting others whilst ignoring our own faults, as we even performing miracles but not obeying the will of the Father.
So there is a real sense in which we might appropriately look at the wheat and the weeds not simply as different groups but as marking a division that runs through our own hearts and calls us again and again to be attentive to our own disobedience and respond rightly to Jesus’ call to repentance.
driver8 (#8-9),
Thanks for your typically thoughtful and respectful posts. I actually agree with the thrust of both of them. And we haven’t even gotten into the whole realm of the eschatological nature of the parable of the wheat and the tares yet, and the implications of that eschatological perspective for how the parable is to be interpreted and applied during this long interim period before the end of the age, when the final sifting and separation takes place.
For now, let me just reply that there is more than one way of dealing with identifiable weeds besides uprooting them. For example, you can cut them down. It’s slow, laborious, and not always practically feasible, but it’s conceivable. I think few farmers would adopt the strategy that Jesus proposes in this parable and simply allow the weeds to grow until the harvest. And that may be part of the point, the unexpected twist that is featured in so many of the Master’s parables.
My point was that, if some other kind of plant was involved than one that looked remarkably like wheat in its early stages above ground, then it would be at least theoretically possible for the field to be weeded BEFORE the roots got so entangled. But in the parable, by the time the slaves notice the problem, it’s indeed perhaps too late. So the type of weed involved and the possibility of early detection may be crucial.
Anyway, I welcome your helpful comments. What might be more interesting would be to discuss how Augustine uses this parable as one of the central biblical texts in his anti-Donatist writings. And there my point would be to stress that the anti-Donatist writings of Augustine must not be played against his anti-Pelagian writings, or privileged over the latter, as our liberal theological foes so often do.
David Handy+
What the parable of the wheat and the weeds cannot mean is that the church does nothing about public unrepentant sin. We know that because Jesus teaches the church what to do when faced with such. Namely, to call such a one to repentance, to break the cycle of retribution by forgiveness of one who is repentant (forgive seventy times seven in contrast to Lamech’s boast in Genesis 4:24) yet if they stubbornly refuse to repent, to shun.
[b]Matthew 18:17 – 18[/b]
[blockquote]if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.[/blockquote]
Yes, driver8. We can certainly agree on that. A very gracious response on your part, and one that puts the focus where it matters in this protracted Anglican civil war. Well done.
David Handy+