(ACNS) What is Lambeth ’08 going to say?’ is the question looming larger all the time as this final week unfolds. But before trying out any thoughts on that, I want to touch on the prior question, a question that could be expressed as ”˜Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?’. I believe if we can answer that adequately, we shall have laid some firm foundations for whatever content there will be.
And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre. I don’t mean speaking from the middle point between two extremes – that just creates another sort of political alignment. I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.
We are here at all, surely, because we believe there is an Anglican identity and that it’s worth investing our time and energy in it. I hope that some of the experience of this Conference will have reinforced that sense. And I hope too that we all acknowledge that the only responsible and Christian way of going on engaging with those who aren’t here is by speaking from that centre in Jesus Christ where we all see our lives held and focused.
And, as I suggested in my opening address, speaking from the centre requires habits and practices and disciplines that make some demands upon everyone – not because something alien is being imposed, but because we know we shall only keep ourselves focused on the centre by attention and respect for each other – checking the natural instinct on all sides to cling to one dimension of the truth revealed. I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church. While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice – about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material.
Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly. But the key points are confidence and authority. If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.
Some have expressed unhappiness about the ”˜legalism’ implied in a covenant. But we should be clear that good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance. Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity – indeed, ”˜generous love’, to borrow the title of the excellent document on Inter-Faith issues which was discussed yesterday. And we might recall that powerful formulation from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks – ”˜Covenant is the redemption of solitude’.
Mutual generosity : part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs. The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this – so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born. It is by no means a full agreement, but it will, I hope, have strengthened the sense that we have at least a common language, born out of the conviction that Jesus Christ remains the one unique centre.
And within that conviction, what has been heard? I want now to engage in what might be a rather presumptuous exercise – and certainly feels like a risky one. I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together. I want to imagine what the main messages would be, within an atmosphere of patience and charity, from those in our Communion who hold to a clear and traditional doctrinal and moral conviction, and also from those who, starting from the same centre, find fewer problems or none with some recent innovations. Although these voices are inevitably rooted in the experience of the developing world and of North America, the division runs through many other provinces internally as well.
So first : what might the traditional believer hope others have heard? ”˜What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us – Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives – so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways. We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle. We seek to love them – and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it : but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge. Isn’t it like the dilemma of the early Church – welcoming soldiers, yet seeking to get them to lay down their arms?
”˜But please remember also that – while you may say that what you do needn’t affect us – your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility. Imagine what that means where those neighbours are passionately traditional Christians – and what it means for our own members, who will be drawn to leave us for a “safer”, more orthodox church. Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ”˜gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.
”˜Don’t misunderstand us. We’re not looking for safety and comfort. Some of us know quite a lot about carrying the cross. But when that cross is laid on us by fellow-Christians, it’s quite a lot harder to bear. Don’t be too surprised if some of us want to be at a distance from you – or if we want to support minorities in your midst who seem to us to be suffering.
”˜But we are here. We’ve taken a risk in coming, because many who think like us feel we’ve betrayed them just by meeting you. But we value our Communion, we want to understand you and we want you to understand us. Can you find some way of being generous that helps us believe you care about us and about the common language and belief of the Church? Can you – in plain words – step back and let us think and pray about these things without giving us the impression that the debate is over and we’ve lost and that doesn’t matter to you?’
And then : what might the not so traditional believer hope has been heard?
”˜What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition. We know we’re pushing the boundaries – but don’t some Christians always have to do that? Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?
”˜We are often hurt, angry and bewildered at the way many others in the Communion see us and treat us these days – as if we were spiritual lepers or traitors to every aspect of Christian belief. We know that no-one is the best judge in their own case, but we see in our church life at least some marks of the Spirit’s gifts. And part of that is acknowledging the gifts we’ve seen in gay and lesbian believers. They will certainly be likely to feel that the restraint you ask for is a betrayal. Please try to see why this is such a dilemma for many of us. You may not see it, but they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence. And we have to say to some of you that we long for you to speak up for your gay and lesbian neighbours in situations where they are subject to appalling discrimination. There have been Lambeth Resolutions about that too, remember.
”˜A lot of the time, we feel we’re being made scapegoats. Other provinces have acute moral and disciplinary problems, or else they more or less successfully refuse to admit the realities in their midst. But those of us who have faced the complex issues around gay relationships in what we feel to be an open and prayerful way are stigmatised and demonised.
”˜Not all of us, of course, supported or took part in the actions that have caused so much trouble. Some of us remain strongly opposed, many of us want to find ways of strengthening our bonds with you. But even those who don’t stand with the majority on innovations will often feel that the life of a whole church, a life that is varied and complex but often deeply and creatively faithful to Christ and the Scriptures, is being wrongly and unjustly seen by you and some of your friends.
”˜We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’
Two sets of feelings and perceptions, two appeals for generosity. For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation. But there is the challenge. If both were able to hear and to respond generously, perhaps we could have something more like a conversation of equals – even something more like a Church.
At Dar-es-Salaam, the primates tried to find a way of inviting different groups to take a step forward simultaneously towards each other. It didn’t happen, and each group was content to blame the other. But the last 18 months don’t suggest that this was a good outcome. Can this Conference now put the same kind of challenge? To the innovator, can we say, ”˜Don’t isolate yourself; don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow’? Can we say to the traditionalist, ”˜Don’t invest everything in a church of pure and likeminded souls; try to understand the pastoral and human and theological issues that are urgent for those you are opposing, even if you think them deeply wrong’?
I think we perhaps can, if and only if we are captured by the vision of the true Centre, the heart of God out of which flows the impulse of an eternal generosity which creates and heals and promises. It is this generosity which sustains our mission and service in Our Lord’s name. And it is this we are called to show to each other.
At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life. What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians. The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness. We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be – a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration. But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question : ”˜Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’
This comment, anyway, is a pretty good one:
To the innovator (e.g., TEC): “don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow.”
‘The goal of this command is LOVE which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith’. So writes Paul to Timothy after instructing him to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrine. I Timothy 3-5.
There is a great deal in this verse about the motivation which must come before the difficult duty of correcting false teaching and teachers.
This is an excellent address. He absolutely nails it. Now, I hope the appropriate measures come along.
This is a sensitive, empathic and generous encapsulation of the positions of reasserters and reappraisers. But it appears to me to suggest a kind of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis trajectory as the only way forward for the Communion. The fundamental problem always has been that any genuine, negotiated synthesis would be seen by reasserters as an unjustifiable legitimization of scripturally unsupportable ideas, whether they be in the area of human sexuality or Christian doctrine. And I doubt that reappraisers will buy into the idea of a Covenant as a way of establishing boundaries of Anglican belief and practice, despite +Rowan’s gracious assurances as to its intent.
Yet I agree that speaking life to each other is much better than what has unfolded. As a reasserter, I’ve lately felt convicted to pray in love for those with whom I disagree, instead of letting my anger fester at the injustices perpetrated by certain leaders in TEC. I pray that God’s truth will prevail in an atmosphere of self-examination, love and humility.
Yes, this is a sensitive, empathic and generous encapsulation of the positions of reasserters and reappraisers. It clearly lays out the feeling for both sides. But, in the end, do feelings really matter?
Williams seems to think that feelings are all that matter. We acknowlege that the great saints of every age have put aside their feelings and died for truth. Why can’t Williams see that?
Don
#5, DonGander, yours was the one comment here that made sense to me. The big thing that you touched on was “feelings”. That’s the big thing that is being ignored by RW. FEELINGS are not important. They don’t matter. They are HUMAN, and encompass many things, mostly of satan, that are not HOLY. What is HOLY is what is of GOD, and that’s what the BIBLE tells us about. We need to put our “feelings” aside, because we need to put our “humanness” aside. We need to reach out to God to allow HIM to transform us into HIS image of HOLINESS!
THAT’s what RW seems to be missing.
Seriously…DonGander….”Williams seems to think that feelings are all that matter?” Considering that ++Williams is a world expert on the early Church I can confidently say that he does “see that great saints of every age have put aside their feelings and died for truth”
I like it. However what about the persecutions and prosecutions in TEC? What about leaders whose teaching is so far removed from the Apostolic as to be propagators of another religion?
The safe haven and a doctrine instrument of Communion may be the way ahead as well as a Covenant. Those already departed for other provinces need a safety net. Doctrine is important.
The Scriptures must be at the heart of our obedience.
Ian Montgomery
“We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive†as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives – so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways. We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle. We seek to love them – and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it : but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge.”
And this is what we reasserters have been saying to Ms. Russell and others on this blog over and over. Will it make any difference that the ABC has now said it, too?
i am so happy. imho he finally ‘gets it’. and not only that, he seems to really be aware of what is happening on the ground here. i have stopped going to church because i was so disgusted by TEC but was still hesitant to convert to big C. now perhaps i won’t have to leave….well done rw, great beginning. i pray for good solid follow through.
A commenter over at SF writes this about ++Rowan’s Presidential address:
[blockquote]
One of the principles Kendall Harmon often offers on his blog is the importance of avoiding “straw man†arguments. He says that you ought to be able to express your foe’s thoughts in a form with which they would agree, before you begin to work to argue with them.
So, like some of the commenters so far, I too disagree with the idea that you could find any unity between two such different religions. And I believe that his actions place him squarely in the reappraiser camp. But what do the commenters here think of his attempt to describe the reasserter’s arguments? Do they capture what you’ve been saying?
[[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14901/#258961]23[/url]] Posted by Tamsf[/blockquote]
I got a chuckle out of that comment because as I was reading ++Rowan’s address I immediately thought “this is exactly what Kendall is always talking about — can you accurately state your opponents’ beliefs and perspectives?
As for me, I thought ++Rowan did a pretty good job restating the reasserters’ / Global South position.
As for the “innovators” it felt at times like ++Rowan was straining to present their argument in the most favorable light and turn a blind eye to the much more aggressive rhetoric we often here from the Integrity folks, etc.
I was struck by this section of his restatement of the reappraiser argument:
[i]We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’[/i]
Yes, I’ve read some similar words by reappraisers and I don’t doubt that this is part of what many of them would say if they were pleading their case. But it highlights what is such a key concern of reasserters and which I think ++Rowan continues to HUGELY minimize (i.e. in his response to GAFCON). Are we indeed preaching the same Christ? That seems to be a lynchpin of ++Rowan’s restatement of the pro-GLBT position. And yet many progressive leaders have gone far far down the road to doctrinal heterodoxy and denial of what Christians always and everywhere believed and proclaimed for 2000 years. That’s where I think ++Rowan’s analysis ultimately falls far short. He doesn’t address this issue.
–elfgirl
#5, Don – I understand what you are saying about feelings. At the same time, this is an emotional issue and I think that understanding the emotional side of it could help us to at least react better to each other.
I think it is also important to understand the context in which this is delivered. It’s not a final promulgation like a communique, but rather an appeal to the Bishops gathered, as they enter into this final week, to at least understand and be aware of what others are feeling as we continue the process.
I don’t know (yet) if the reappraisers feel the same way, but as for what he said about the orthodox side of things (that Alli B referenced in #9 above), he stated so eloquently what my feelings have been as an orthodox Christian in the midst of this. For this I am truly thankful.
Yeah, he does, Elfgirl.
[blockquote]While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice – about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material.[/blockquote]
In this section, he acknowledges that there are differences in many things and he argues the need for the “holy office” and covenant to keep us on the same page.
From an earlier post: “…this is an emotional issue and I think that understanding the emotional side of it could help us to at least react better to each other.”
This is precisely why it is truth that is so important – nothing else will get us past the emotions.
Our Holy Scripture commands us to speak the truth in love…
I see much love and little truth in Williams’ address.
Don
Correction:
From #14;
Should read: “I see much love and little salient truth in Williams’ address.”
Stabbed by my own sword, eh?
Don
Wish he had said this 5 years ago. I am not ready to forget what he did in the sub group report.
#16 Actually the ABC has said the stuff about coming to Christ to be changed and that not all behaviors can be blessed. I just usually gets missed in the rest of his complex writing/speaking. Besides it does not fit what some want to hear and so is ignored.
Meanwhile this all may be too late for those of us whose trust in TEC leadership is long gone. TEC leadership will say yes, then later restate their own way what was agreed to in such a way as to justify doing the opposite. Hence the frustration, not just from the GAFCON folk but clearly from many at Canterbury.
None of this deals with the emergence of, at worst another religion, or trying to be generous, a sub-Christian religion which lies underneath the beliefs that are mouthed by the innovators.
Because of lack of trust I can say that this was a a wonderful address but it will take a lot more for me ever to believe our TEC leaders who may seem to agree.
We shall see.
Ian Montgomery
Amen, Amen Rowan!!
#11 the Elves wonder how well +++Rowan captures the “reappraiser” view.
I thought he did it pretty well, but I would add this: for many of us on the reappraising side, this is a justice issue, and that is why we seem (and, let’s be honest, are) so intransigent on it. To us, the appeals for moratoria sound like, “We want you to continue to oppress the afflicted until such time as we can get a consensus around the idea of stopping the oppression. Which, by the way, we’re pretty confident will never happen.” Now of course reasserters will disagree with this view of the situation; but I hope you can see that since we do see it this way, it’s very hard for us to justify compromises or even delays.
Reasserters, on the other hand, find alteration of “the faith once delivered” to be (at least) equally intolerable.
I don’t know if this constitutes “two Gospels,” but it’s certainly two very different hermeneutics that can lead — have led — to diametrically opposed conclusions about what God demands of us in some situations.
Like +++Rowan, I “find it hard at present to see another way forward [than the Covenant] that would avoid further disintegration,” but then I don’t think the Covenant will work either. The only outcomes I can see at this moment are either an outright split, or an institutional structure that allows so much space between reasserters and reappraisers that they might as well have split.
I posted this in a steam above. Having scrolled down the site I see it better fitting here.
“And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.â€
Oh,my gosh! I thought the primates DID clear guidance on what would be a grave and lasting divisive course before VGR was consecrated.
“Can you find some way of being generous that helps us believe you care about us and about the common language and belief of the Church? Can you — in plain words — step back and let us think and pray about these things without giving us the impression that the debate is over and we’ve lost and that doesn’t matter to you?â€
Why, oh why, ABC did you not say this to the TEC in New Orleans?
“At Dar-es-Salaam, the primates tried to find a way of inviting different groups to take a step forward simultaneously towards each other. It didn’t happen, and each group was content to blame the other.â€
BULL! It didn’t happen because you foiled it.
I love this speech, but he’s got to accept some personal responsibility for HIS failures, not the least of which is the way too late timing of it.
Ross, you and I agree for once.
Br.Michael,
“Wish he had said this 5 years ago. I am not ready to forget what he did in the sub group report.”
How many times must we forgive someone who sins against us in sub group reports Lord? Seven times? Nope, seventy times seven. (My “Message” translation 🙂 )
How do you deal with a problem like this in the Patristic manner?
Boundary Crossing and Creed and Canon(s), 381 AD
CANON IV.
CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.
NOTES.ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from among the bishops, and anyone who was inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as profane. (pp. 179 forward)
CANON II.
THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the
affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid
canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the [177]synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed
from the times of the Fathers. (pp. 176 forward)
see
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt
But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed
from the times of the Fathers. And that custom was for them to have missionary bishops attached to the See of orthodox bishops until they were self-sustaining. Heretical bishops were removed and orthodox ones installed – even by the great Athanasius himself.
Some canons are more equal than others, you know!
But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
Deposition?! Declaration of non-consecration and null ‘sacramental’ actions! Replacement bishops and clergy! A real set of actions.
Ross #19, you have hit the nail on the head, in my opinion, though we are on opposite sides of the issue: I have long thought that the key is that reappraisers believe this to be a justice issue, like opposing racism, and if that’s your conviction, of course you are going to be adamant about it. My belief — and I think that I have a lot of company — is that it is [i] not [/i] a justice issue, not the same sort of thing as racism at all.
I would also add that, IMHO, ++Williams should have (1) said all this years earlier, when there might have been more chances for healing the divisions, and (2) he should acknowledge his own responsibility for not having acted more decisively when he had the chance.
Don is right about the feelings issue. Feelings are meaningless, and paying attention to them as if they had importance is deadly. Only Truth matters. Rowan speaks like a moderate reappraiser in this. He is asking that we all try to see the truth in each other’s side so that we can find the truth together. This presumes that we do not already know the truth, that we haven’t received it. THIS is the real dividing line in the church; between those who believe that the truth has been given to mus and that it is our job to preserve it, and those who think the truth is something we discover or make for ourselves. Rowan believes the latter. He may want to remake the truth with as much unity as possible, but he is clearly calling us away from believing that the answer lies in holding fast to what we have received. He is asking for us to compromise on this foundational principle.
I also don’t recall seeing it in his resume that he is a “world class expert on the early church”. He certainly hasn’t shown any evidence of this.
I was going to be melodramatic and give a full bibliography for all of his various works concerning the early church, but as the list continued to grow, and as I realized that I was not going to get a grade on this I decided to give only a few books. But a comprehensive bibliography for ++Rowan Williams can be found at http://goringe.net/theology/?p=188
His book “Arius: Heresy and Tradition” is one of the single most important books on this early figure. He has reviewed major books on the desert fathers, and written at least three himself. Including “Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another” and “Silence and Honey Cakes” Dr. Williams has written many many scholarly articles but one that is recent and pertains to the early church is his essay “Does it make sense to speak of a pre-nicene orthodoxy” in the book “The Making of Orthodoxy” out on Cambridge University Press.
Anyway, just check out the bibliography.
There are books out written entirely about ++Williams ecclessiology, I doubt that the conclusion of the book is that the Archbishop only cares about feelings.
There are some posts above that want to argue that Williams knows little or nothing of the Church fathers. I just want to state that I never infered such and my question still stands, “Why can’t Williams see that?” I am assuming that he knows about the Church fathers, but I find it amazing that he does not show much evidence of struggling for their message and goals. Many Church fathers died far that message and would not relent. Williams indicates that we should die to make people feel better. If that were the objective of the Church then Jesus would never have gone to the cross, but Jesus made people feel very uncomfortable at times. Just as some brief examples, Saint Peter, the rich young ruler, and Herod.
Dr. Williams, give us the truth in love, please, and telll us to go and do likewise.
Don
So he has written some books on some of the church fathers and early heretics. How fascinating. Fascinating, especially in that in the three years I studied Patristic writers at King’s College in London I never recall coming across his work. Was he writing for the desert fathers as well as to them?
Regardless, as Don says, he shows little understanding of the early church, or at least true sympathy with its attitudes toward orthodoxy and heresy in his latest writings and in his leadership (if such it can be called) of the Communion.
22, I forgive him, but I don’t need to forget that he played fast and loose with the truth. Actions have consequenses and a person who has lied once may do so again. I still do not trust him. Remember God forgave David but the consequences of David’s sin persisted.