Concerned Episcopalians of St. Lawrence Deanery

I have spent long hours reading the postings on this list serve, and trying to ask myself, "What can be done to prevent this mess?" and "What is the real cause of the problems we are having?" and it came clear to me today.

The cause of the problem is NOT conflict over the full acceptance of gays and their relationships, or the ordination of women, or the interpretation of Scripture, or the source of authority in the Church. These are truly not that much unlike literally hundreds of such conflicts in the history of the Church - indeed from its very inception at Pentecost.

What is different in this circumstance is the contemporary resuscitation of a very ancient and venerable heresy: the schismatic heresy of Donatism - a heresy which, curiously enough, arose and thrived (for a time) in the Church in Africa!

As most of you know, this heresy arose in AD 303 when the Emperor Diocletian forbid Christians under pain of death to possess books of the Holy Scriptures. Bishop Felix of Aptunga gave in to the threats of the magistrates and turned over the sacred books of the Church to the Roman authorities. In the eyes of Christians, this made him a traditor, a traitor, an unholy person, a sinner, and in the eyes of the Donatists, it also made his ministrations as a bishop invalid! The issue broke wide open when Caecilian was consecrated Bishop of Carthage by the same Bishop Felix. The Donatists refused to accept Bishop Caecilian because they would not accept the validity of his consecra-tion at the "sinful" Felix's hands.

The Donatists were rigorists. They believed that moral sanctity was necessary to Christians, and that any sacramental ministrations of sinful bishops were inva-lid. They believed that even those who communicated with those sinful bishops were con-taminated, and so they came to the conclusion that they, the Donatists alone, were the only true and holy Church. Their beliefs went to such an extent that they re-baptized their converts, believing their original Catholic baptism to be invalid.

The Donatists took possession of a number of churches, and, professing to consider everything that had been used by the Catholics unclean, they washed the pavement, scraped the walls, burnt the communion tables, melted the plate, and cast the holy sacrament to the dogs. Augustine found that such was their bitter and pharisaical spirit that the Donatist bishop at Hippo would not let any of his people so much as bake bread for their Catholic neighbors.

The theological issue had to do with the effect the moral state of a minister could have on the validity of his ministrations. It was this which was declared heretical in AD 411, and St. Augustine of Hippo became the champion of the Catholics in opposing that heresy. And Augustine's simple answer was that the validity of ministrations inhered in the OFFICE (e.g., episcopacy) and not in the PERSON. I can only add "Thank God" - because if that were not so literally no one would ever know if ANY ministerial actions were valid or not, because one could never know whether the minister was in sin.

Gradually Donatism faded away, and disappeared entirely when the Islamic Arabs conquered western North Africa and Christianity was obliterated there. But the heresy came to light again some 800 years later in the teachings of the British heretic John Wycliffe and was formally condemned with the rest of Lollard teachings at the Blackfriars Council in 1382.

Now notice that in the present conflict the problem arises when the dissidents declare to be invalid the ministration of bishops whom they believe to be immoral (Re. the ordination of women and gays, or the blessing of same-sex unions, etc.). That's the crux of the problem - everything else involves only personal variances in the interpretations of scripture or personal preferences and prejudices against the actions of GC. These latter issues merely mean that some Episcopalians think other Episcopalians are in moral error - are, in other words, plainly sinful.

But there is nothing whatsoever new about that situation. It has existed within the Christian Church ever since the beginning. What IS central to the problem is the resurgence of the Donatist idea that any personal immorality invalidates bishops' ministries - that is, when some people judge some bishops to be immoral, they repudiate the ministry of those bishops.

If that did not happen today, there would be no threats of schism or what-have-you. If we could say (as Christians have said to other Christians since the beginning) "Look, I think you are dead wrong in your moral judgments - but you are my bishop, nonetheless, and although I think you are dead wrong, I still believe that you can confirm and ordain and absolve and bless and consecrate and celebrate Eucharist - because your "validity" inheres in your OFFICE not in your PERSON."

I think the root of this problem comes from the contrast between those who look solely to Scripture for proper patterns of dealing with sinners, and those who look to the Church and its history for such patterns.

Scripture talks about what to do with sinners in the midst of the congregation (e.g. "Those who do commit sins you must rebuke in public, to put fear into the others." [1 Tim. 5:20] "If your brother does wrong...and if he will not listen to the congregation, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector."

[Matt. 18:15,17] 'Root out the wrong-doer from your community.'" [1 Cor. 5:13], etc.) But the Church, for 1700 years has tempered that at least to the degree of saying that the IMMORAL minister is not an INVALID minister.

And one last word on another angle: I think because of the gradual decline of serious and classical theological study and teaching in our day, the distinctions between dogmatic and moral theology have become blurred. Dogmatic theology - that is, the study of the dogmas and doctrines of the Church - is enshrined in the great Creeds of Christendom and in the deliberations of the truly Ecumenical Councils. This is the "core" theology of the Church - it is what the Church believes to be true about God and humanity and the relation between the two.

Moral theology, on the other hand, is an entirely different discipline. It is the study and teachings about the determination of the moral right and wrong of human actions. It has always been a speculative science, saying, in a sense, "X action is probably wrong because..." but, for instance, in moral theology there are literally dozens of considerations which make an action right or wrong. For instance, there is the intention of the actor, the circumstances of the act, the available options, etc., etc. So, for instance, lying is wrong - but it is not ALWAYS wrong, since it may be a way to be charitable and loving to someone, or to defend someone from harm, or to protect some property from theft. In fact, in classical moral theology, the definition of a lie is not just "Telling an untruth." but it is "Withholding information from someone who has a right to it." [The burglar has no right to know where my money is hidden so telling an untruth to the thief is not a lie; the rapist has no right to know where my teen-age daughter is hiding so telling an untruth to the rapist is no lie; etc.]

So, questions of moral theology need to be treated very differently from questions of dogmatic theology. Serious theologians have always recognized valid variations in positions and attitudes to moral theology among Christians - even among and between those who hold the same dogmatic theology.

And that is a serious problem now, since it is only in two issues of moral theology that all the storm is raging. There are no disagreements on dogmatic theology. By and large we are all in solid agreement about the theology of the Creeds and the Councils. The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection are broadly common between the two parties. (I know that there are some few fringe folk who disagree, but they are an inconsiderable handful.) What troubles me so deeply in our day is that we have people nobly claiming adherence to catholic and Christian tradition while they enthusiastically embrace the ancient and oft-disavowed heresy of Donatism. And we hear people making ultimate and unbending theological statements about speculative issues of morality which have always had many and varying sides to them. So I have a deep feeling that we have seen the Church replaced by the Bible, the Mother replaced by her Child, and a Treasure turned into an Idol.

Fr. John-Julian, OJN