This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Anglicans, Bishops, Heretics, Diocesan Boundaries and Nicea

[Please note: My opinions and conclusions here are likely to offend my Anglican brothers and sisters. Out of charity I note this so that my friends, Anglican brothers and sisters whom I love and for whom I pray each day, can simply skip this post and avoid the offense.]

One has to pretty much be completely unaware of the Episcopal Church, or of the issues of the validation of same sex behavior and the blessing of same sex unions in the general arena of religion, not to be aware of what has transpired in the Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church's General Convention in 2003 where explicit permission (which was technically just short of the denomination's official authorization) was given for the practicing of homosexual behavior and the blessings of gay and lesbian unions. Since that time, those advocating such validations and blessings have attempted to paint the discourse in terms in reductionist terms (that it's just about sex, those opposed are homophobes, and so forth) while the opponents of such things have attempted to paint the discourse in maximalist terms (that it's about the authority of Scripture and the Tradition, that these are heretical movements worth "impaired commuion" and so on). Advocates of the validation of same sex behavior and the blessing of such unions want to point out that their opponents are guilty of hypocrisy: conservatives and traditionalists decry homosexual behavior and unions, but are more than willing to violate what has been canon law since Nicea: bishops don't cross diocesan boundaries. Thus, same sex advocates charge, the conservatives and traditionalists are hypocrites, willing to violate one form of Traditional ecclesiastical law so as to accomplish their agenda to uphold one narrow aspect of the Church's moral law.

But it would seem that the Windsor Report, which puts this understanding of the violation of diocesan boundaries to the fore in this debate has it wrong. Not only are conservatives and traditionalists justified in crossing diocesan boundaries, according to Dr. Robert Sanders, they are obligated to do so.

First of all, we can have done with the tortuous handlings of Scripture which attempt to do away with the prohibition of same sex behavior and same sex unions. Not only because these interpretations are so incoherent and do not stand up to closer scrutinty (for which see the voluminous work Robert Gagnon has done to eviscerate all these arguments--which is to say, at the end of the day, Scripture and Tradition are clear: same sex behavior is a violation of God's will and thus no same sex unions can be blessed), but more to the point, the licit or illicit nature of these acts and unions are not the point under consideration. Rather, what we must consider is whether diocesan boundaries must remain sacrosanct, even in the face of the heresy. As we will see, diocesan boundaries, though important, are not sacrosanct.

Ted Olsen, in his "Still Fighting Over Nicaea" writes:

The problem with the Windsor Report's reference to the canons of Nicaea, some conservatives have responded, is that it focuses on the wrong heretics.

The Arians, who denied the full divinity of Christ, were spotlighted at the Council of Nicaea, and most of the council's work focused on accurately defining Jesus' nature. But the 20 canons adopted, in addition to setting the date of Easter and regulating aspects of church life, deal with two other heretical groups.

The first are the Cathari, or Novatians. (This is the group referenced in the eighth canon, which the Windsor Report references.) While condemned as heretics, followers of Novatian were doctrinally orthodox. Novatian, in fact, had written one of the church's important works on the Trinity. This, then, was a group that could say the Nicene Creed with pride.

Indeed, pride was the issue: Novatians were outraged at how easily those who had lapsed under persecution had been received back into the church once the pressure lifted. They were also upset with lax church attitudes toward the twice-married. The solution, as they saw it, was to appoint rival bishops to "compromised" sees, which earned them a reputation as schismatics condemned by the rest of the church. At Nicaea, the Novatian bishop Acesius was personally criticized by Emperor Constantine, who had been more conciliatory with those who denied orthodox theology.

If a Novatian wanted to return to the church's good graces, the Council of Nicaea ruled, all they had to do was to "profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church." Novatian priests could stay priests. Novatian bishops had to be under the local orthodox bishop, but in many cases didn't even have to step down in rank (whether a Novatian bishop retained the title of bishop or became a priest was up to the local orthodox bishop). It's important that the ex-Novatian "be evidently seen to be of the clergy," the Council decided, so long as "there may not be two bishops in the city."

Canon 8, however was markedly different from the other one dealing with heretics: Canon 19, which addressed the Paulianists. These followed the bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, who was known both for heresy and an opulent lifestyle. He expressly rejected the deity of Christ, whom he considered an "ordinary man" inspired by the Word of God.

A Paulianist returning to orthodoxy had to do much more than simply offer a letter professing fealty to the church. "They must by all means be rebaptized," the council declared. Even clergy "found blameless and without reproach" had to go through ordination again. Clergy found unfit were deposed. Deaconesses were laicized. In short, they held a place between heretic and unbeliever. The church may have welcomed repentant Paulianists, but it was with a reluctant handshake, not with open arms.

So the question for today is applicability. Many orthodox Anglicans in the West see the Episcopal Church (USA) not just as wayward, but as apostate. Bishops who deny the authority of Scripture and declare that God has changed his mind on matters of sexual ethics, they say, are heretics, not just schismatics. The repentance of the Paulianists is in order, not the assurances of the Novatians. Anglican liberals may find parallels between Novatian rigors on remarriage and today's conservative emphasis on sexual ethics, but that doesn't mean that the Anglican Mission in America or other groups offering "alternative oversight" are schismatics, let alone heretics.

But, as Olsen notes, we should have done with the notion that diocesan boundaries are sacrosanct. If a bishop is in heresy (moral or dogmatic), then the faithful need an Orthodox bishop and lines must be crossed. In the Olsen article above, he refers to an essay by Dr. Robert Sanders, "The American Anglican Council : Nicea and the "Invasion" of Bishops in Other Dioceses". In it, Dr. Sanders writes:

When one reads the acts of the Council of Nicea, several facts become readily apparent. First, it was understood that bishops belonged to the order of the Church. That is to say, all Christians were to be under the oversight of a bishop. Further, there was to be only one bishop in each diocese, or only one ruling bishop. Third, bishops were not to officiate in dioceses other than their own, except perhaps, by invitation. There is, however, a critical exception to these three conclusions . . .

In regard to bishops, all the foregoing applies only to orthodox and morally sound bishops. Heretical bishops, morally lapsed bishops, do not belong to the Church. The faithful are not to receive Holy Communion from them nor accept their Episcopal oversight. Such bishops are outside the Church. This is utterly obvious from the canons and creed accepted by Nicea.

He proceeds to offer similar commentary as Olsen summarizes above. He then goes on to point out:

Not long after Nicea, a number of bishops embraced the Arian heresy. The orthodox were not allowed to come under their oversight. Among other things, that is what “anathematize” entails. Nevertheless, the order of the church presumed that every believer be under the oversight of a bishop. As a result, geographical areas were divided, containing both orthodox and Arian bishops, with the orthodox avoiding the communions celebrated by priests and bishops of Arian persuasion.

So what does Nicea teach us? According to Dr. Sanders:

It teaches us that believers need to come under the oversight of bishops, that they cannot receive from heretical bishops, and therefore, orthodox bishops must officiate in dioceses headed by heretical bishops. In short, if Nicea means anything, there must be a network.

The way forward here, then, is clear: orthodox must not only get out from under their heretical bishops and seek orthodox oversight, but orthodox bishops are obligated by their charism to provide oversight for orthodox beleaguered by heretical hierarchs. Indeed, not only that, orthodox bishops must anathematize, and therefore exommunicate until such time as they publicly repent and repudiate their heresies in writing, the heretical bishops.

Although his conclusion is directed to Anglicans, it seems we can discern a more general relevance as well:

It is a miserable fact that Christendom is divided into so many churches, sects, and parties. It is tragic that the Episcopal Church may well be in the process of division, adding more wounds to the body of Christ. These wounds exist because Christians are sinful. We teach false doctrine and live immoral lives. We cannot hide from this. The wounds of Christ tell us who we are. The one thing Christians cannot do is to deny these wounds exist, and even worse, to use the wounds themselves to deny the wounds. This is what the revisionists would have us do. They will use the Holy Eucharist to achieve a false unity based upon nothing but a vague sense of inclusion, bringing us together beneath a cross without cost, a cross without truth, a cross without sacrifice, and a Jesus without wounds. No, if we are divided -- and our divisions are not superficial, the very substance of the faith is at stake -- then we must set forth a crucified Christ by not celebrating Eucharists with those who deny the historical faith and morals of the universal Church. Only then can we be faithful to Christ crucified. Anything less profanes his broken body and spilt blood. That, above all, is why we must have a network.

Whether this were the third or fourth century A. D. or our own era, there is just no way around a simple historical fact: Scripture and the Tradition have repudiated the validity of same sex practices and therefore cannot bless such unions. This is disputed, of course, and the Anglican method of ecclesiology has no real way to handle the current crisis unless it does a very un-Anglican thing: take a stand on disputed doctrines. Those of us who have watched all these machinations for years, and for some of us these machinations compelled us to leave Anglicanism, and especially in the last two years, have no real hope, based on past primatial behavior, that anything of real consequence will be done. These matters likely will be pushed out once again to other committees who will study the matters that should be studied so that another commission can meet to discuss the studies and draw no conclusion other than that more study and dialogue needs to happen.

But this will not only not solve the crisis, it will only exacerbate it. Advocates of same-sex unions have wanted time to study how to maintain unity in the midst of this. They decry the so-called "rush to judgment" of some who want clear lines drawn. But the rush to judgment was made in August 2003 when all dialogue and communication was done away with as the Episcopal Church made up its collective mind to divorce itself from the consensus of the Communion and go its own way. The ECUSA hierarchy has been on record in just the past few months that they will not stop doing what General Convention 2003 said they could do if they wanted. Conservatives and traditionalists have said strong and fiery things. But no one is yet holding their breath over what the Anglican primates will do.

Posted by Clifton at February 20, 2005 12:00 PM | TrackBack