A Point of Tension

Post Reply New Topic

In certain tradition streams within Christianity, it was or is [you would have to check the most recent pronouncements] the case that the officiating priest / pastor / minister / ritual expert should not admit nor serve notorious sinners, particularly in the context of the Eucharist. Those in certain sins should not, absent repentance and absolution, be allowed to communicate, to marry, in some cases to enter the church. Specific rules of course vary with time, place, denomination.

We perhaps should not here concern ourselves with the issues of evidence: must the community believe him a sinner, must the priest KNOW he is a sinner, and so forth.

But it seems to me there is a clear conflict with the principle of forgiving and praying for those who sin against you. This principle has in some places and times extended to shielding or rescuing the one who is seeking to kill you, or helping the persn looting your house with getting the suff nto his vehicle.

Can the two be reconciled?

Say the Mayor is suspected of looting public funds, known to have awarded lucrative contracts tio his brother, suspected of being engaged in hanky-panky with the greengrocer's wife, her daughter, and the daughters daughter AND son, and has been heard making course remarks about the virginity of Mary and the deity of Christ.

Must the priest refuse to allow him - unshriven goes without saying - to approach the altar?

OR

Must the priest turn a deaf ear and a blind eye and leave any sanctions in God's hands?

----------------

Orwell, this question is in its context neither silly nor insane, and I place no restrictions on how you may choose to respond. The English is as plain as I can make it.

Marriage - most couples coming to the altar these days are cohabiting and/or having sex. In Catholicism, now and today, the priest will marry them. He may encourage them to live apart; he can't make them do so, nor refuse to marry them - the sacrament does not depend on being "in a state of grace". (If, however, the groom and best man are passing around a flask while waiting for the bride to finish fussing over her dress, and there's question of whether the groom or his official witness are too inebriated to completely know what they're about - the priest can in that case call a halt to the ceremony until they've sobered up. Full understanding and consent are required.)

Eucharist - The answer here is going to depend on what you consider the Eucharist to be. Is it truly Christ? Is it a symbol? Is it some type of both/and? In any of those cases, how seriously do you take it?

Tangent: There's what my Catholic tradition holds it to be - and there's what I've witnessed at a mega-church; that being trays of grape juice and crackers passed along the rows, with my sister and I getting very strange looks of the 'we thought you were Christian!! !' type when we refused. Christian we were; but not in communion with their church - and that is a major aspect. Even at an Orthodox liturgy, I would not receive the Eucharist - not because I could not, not because their Eucharist is 'invalid', but because of respect for/acknowledgment of the fact that our Churches are yet separated.

Off-tangent: The priest first and foremost has the duty of protecting the Eucharist. Good faith on the part of the one approaching Communion is assumed, and in that regard it is between the person and God; but in your example, if the priest knows for certain if those thing are true, he must refuse the Mayor Communion. First, there's the matter of scandal. (But forgiveness can cause scandal as well; "what will people think!" is the weakest of the reasons.) Second is the priest's duty to his Lord - he is the minister of the sacrament and that is a conscious and intentional role; he is not a vending machine and then and there, he is standing in for Christ. What Paul said about "eating and drinking condemnation" ties in here - in Catholic tradition, it is itself a sin to receive the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin. If the priest is aware of everything the Mayor is up to, or even a small part of it, then by giving the Mayor Communion he is making himself complicit in that further sin. The sin's not against the priest; he can't forgive it in that sense, but he can and should refuse to enable it.

If all of it is only suspected - and if there's the chance that the Mayor has just gone to Confession with another priest - than he cannot be refused Communion.

The issue is not whether or not forgiveness is available, but whether or not a contrite heart is present.

If the mayor approaches the altar with a contrite heart known only to himself, let the tear in his eye show evidence ... and then if anyone later asks about that, let it be made know to all.

Fr. M. Basil Pennington's report on his visit to Mt Athos has some illuminating data on variation in attitude among the Orthodox monks on just how strong the separation should be seen to be.

While I cannot claim to KNOW, one has heard what seems to be indications a percentage of clergy who going by church affiliation might be expected to regard the Eucharist as real have adopted a variant of the don't ask don't tell thing. Wasn't there a scandal not long ago on the issue of admitting a known proponent of abortion?

The danger, of course, comes when a priest relies on public assumptions rather than his own investigations and knowledge. Don Camillo and the "suicide" is a role model there.

Myself, in the unlikely event it were up to me, I would marry them and trust God and the sacrament, refuse the mayor absent repentance and absolution, and not turn over Jean Valjean.

Yes, doing whatever is best for the overall health of the assembly.

This from the Book of Common Prayer, essentially the version I was exposed to::
¶ If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion, the Minister shall know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; he shall advertise him, that he presume not to come to the Lord's Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.

¶ The same order shall the Minister use with those, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign; not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord's Table, until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties, so at variance, be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make amends for that wherein he himself hath offended; and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his frowardness and malice; the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the Holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate. Provided, That every Minister so repelling any, as is herein specified, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary, within fourteen days after, at the farthest.

This seems to me to fall under the greater rubric of general church discipline.

Church discipline IS Biblically supported.

I think a modern-day philosophy of congregational discipline hinges on two things: Our present-day culture within the church, and the urgency that was necessary in the early church to keep congregations cohesive.

The second of those is something we've lost--no one here (in the US) really poses a clear and present danger to Christian worship, at least not from the outside-in. Even the Supreme Court upheld WBC's right to assembly and speech/expression. No, I don't agree that what they are doing is good, right, and moral, but it IS protected. So not even an extremist and hateful religious group need fear judicial or other governmental control.

Because we lack the same sense of urgency and high-alert status the early Christians did, I think most churches have become rather lax in how they handle un-Christian behavior. We want to keep everything quiet, unexposed to the public and even the rest of the congregation, for the sake of corporate solidarity and peaceful unity. Thus we allow certain behaviors to persist among our congregants as long as no one makes a big fuss about it, and if ONE or TWO people speak up against something they feel is wrong within the church, THEY are the ones run off for being troublemakers.

I believe in all things we should find the balance between dealing with disciplinary issues in a culturally relevant way AND remaining consistent with the epistles. The spirit of what some might call "disfellowshipping" was never to permanently exile church members, but to persuade them to reject sinful behavior by using simple psychology: Rejected by your church family, you must consider the benefits of having that family versus the risks of continued unChristian behavior. In other words, is persisting in sin really worth losing your spiritual family? It SHOULDN'T be worth it, and the great personal loss entailed in being abandoned by the church SHOULD turn the sinner back to the church, abandoning unbecoming behavior and striving to be more Christ-like.

Unfortunately this is not how it works in today's reality.

And we reserve discipline for extreme cases. For example, a respected Sunday School teacher will be quietly asked to step aside if it becomes known he or she is an alcoholic. Even worse for paid staff-members. I've been told in no uncertain terms that if there is even so much as a HINT of marital infidelity that might become publicly known, I am to report it IMMEDIATELY because, whether it's something I do or something that my wife does, it could very well cost me my job. Our senior pastor always informs new ministerial staff that if they like to drink on occasion, they better not do it anywhere in the tri-state area. I've posted several times in other threads about my own struggles with a "rival" church member and all the wrongs done to my family in our church because of that and related reasons. There is at least one other occasion in which an instance of adultery prevented us from hiring an amazing musician; she plays in other churches now, but only because she's moved on to places where her past can't follow her.

Those are typically very quiet, private matters that the general congregation will never know about.

What generates the most noise, especially in much larger churches, are people who genuinely do cause trouble: openly gossiping about other church members, embarrassing the pastor/pastor's family (when it isn't deserved), divisive behavior (playing church "cliques" against each other), challenging doctrine/practices in ways which are disruptive, disrupting an assembly, and so forth. Anyone acting in a grossly destructive way doesn't deserve to so much as darken the door of THAT church--and if that's the way they feel about it, why should they even WANT to in the first place?

The thing is, we're scared of so many defamation lawsuits that could arise by making private matters public. If there's a problem within a church, the whole congregation SHOULD know about it and be prepared to make things right. They should not fear dividing the church if the church is unified in doing what is best for all members, especially members who have been done an injustice by another church member or even a church leader. For those who are doing something that is destructive to the greater church life, they SHOULD be openly rebuked and corrected--in the spirit of correction and not humiliation. It's perfectly acceptable to tell someone not to come back until they change their ways. Your desire here is not the punishment of a perpetrator, but rather making that person see the worthlessness of the ways of the world and how beneficial church life really is. I think the church would actually be a MORE friendly and MORE loving place is disciplinary standards were higher like the early church rather than watered-down as they are in most places today.

That also means that churches needed a heightened awareness of what acceptable behavior is and what it is not. Nowhere is it written that dissension is a sin; only is it a sin if it threatens the unity of the church and if the dissension is against the Godhead Himself. There is nothing wrong with debate or clarification of doctrine; there is nothing wrong with challenging questionable teachings. However, there ought to be an appropriate, set-aside time and place for these kinds of things. Our pastor has an open invitation for us as a congregation to meet with him and point out what is wrong in his message. The middle of a sermon during a service is NOT the right time.

Sunday School/[whatever you do at your church] and Bible studies are perfect examples of places to actually DISCUSS doctrinal issues and/or how church views relate to secular life. Unfortunately, the thing that has really disappointed me about how these are run (in my experience) is that students are not prepared to ask questions or discuss the Bible, nor are teachers adequately prepared or willing to handle Biblical debate. Many churches even strive for financial transparency so members can see exactly where their tithes and offerings are going. These issues can even be debated/discussed in committee meetings and in general business meetings open to the entire congregation. Again, this is a great opportunity for debate that I've rarely seen dissension, something I also think is a shame. The only dissension I've ever seen had to do with silly stuff like "do we really need to spend $X on a new organ?" Seriously, people put more scrutiny in that sort of thing than they do with, say, hiring a new worship leader.

No one will kick you out for openly disagreeing in those kinds of situations.

People will throw a fit if you're a keyboard player known for sleeping around.

But they'll say nothing if you're a mere pew-warmer known for partying every Saturday night.

And they'll tell you to keep your mouth shut when you're wife is escorted from the grounds because the pre-school "minister" (using that term loosely) doesn't understand what it looks like when a child suffering from chronic ear problems has tubes.

===

Now I've said ALL that to say this: A church congregant who is allowed to attend should not be refused services during an assembly. If you're going to deny someone something, like communion, then you shouldn't let them come through the door in the first place. It is written that whoever takes the bread of the cup in an unworthy manner is guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of Christ. If someone has not confessed Christ as his Lord and Savior, he is not worthy. I would go so far to say that even a believer who holds a personal grudge against someone or, as I've been guilty of myself, harbors any kind of bitterness towards a fellow believer, or if someone has refused to at least acknowledge to himself and to God that he has wronged another person, whether intentionally or unintentionally, then that person is not worthy and should not take part in communion--EVEN IF there is no reason to discipline that person before the entire assembly.

It seems to me the discussion here relates more to Catholic or Catholic-style rites, and I pretend no authority to tell a Catholic what to do. But it seems to me that one who wishes to act in accordance with behavior emulative of Christ and realizes the desire to be Christ-like in actual practice ought to be allowed into the assembly, forgiven by the assembly just as Christ forgives, and allowed the benefit of the assembly--including all ceremonial privileges of which he may partake (only) in good conscience. ONLY if a person is guilty of some chronic behavior that would prove divisive, threatening, or disruptive should he be excluded from the ENTIRE assembly, not just certain aspects of it with the understanding that he will be welcomed back pending a change in behavior and attitude.

You posted this as I was writing the other response! This is somewhat what I was referring to myself, the difference being that I'm not Catholic and am unfamiliar with the Book of Common Prayer. But I'd extend that to participating in worshipful assembly as a whole, not just communion. I think two people at odds with each other should work out their differences beforehand or, if no resolution can be found, content themselves by "agreeing to disagree" and merely let the matter drop. There is nothing wrong with one person employing a spiritual leader to become involved and help them resolve their dispute, though this doesn't have to be necessary. If they can quietly handle this on their own and they pose no threat to a worshipful assembly, there is no need to exclude them from any service or portion of a service. However, I do think if one person can drop any hidden malice from his heart and mind, he may allow himself to participate in communion. A person who has wronged another and has tried to "make good" with that person and failed need not do more than ask God Himself to judge between the two of them. He may take communion with a clear conscience in such a case. But if a person who has suffered harm and refused reconciliation cannot forget his bitterness towards the fellow believer who has wronged him, he should excuse himself from taking part in communion because of an unclean, bitter heart.

Furthermore, no congregant should EVER judge a person negatively for declining communion, but rather pray that God will remove whatever reason the person may have against it. Even better--if you are the cause for which someone feels he cannot take communion, even if your heart is clear before God, then neither should you take it.

BCP is Anglican Episcopal, but aside from Henry the 8th and developments since in Canterbury and Rome close enough on many points.

Thanks for very full discussion, some f which I will come back to - part of my wife;'s family was shunned by other parts at one point, for example.

Not communicating can have many reasons - I am told many Orthodox rarely take communion not feeling they are close enouh to a state of grace.