Playing politics with fellowship

For shame. Seven of the primates at the big Anglican soiree down in Tanzania on Friday staged a public “huff” by not only refusing to participate in a communion service as long as Bp. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, was also there. Not only did they refuse, but they chose to issue a public statement describing how, sadly, they had to take their communion wafers
and go home (or back to the hotel).

A number of the Global South Primates have not shared in the Holy Eucharist today with their fellow primates. They include Abp. Peter Akinola, Abp John Chew, Abp. Benjamin Nzimbi, Abp Justice Akrofi, Abp. Henry Orombi, Abp. Gregory Venables, and Abp. Emmanuel Kolini. They represent more than 30 million faithful Anglicans.

Well, they are the ordained leaders of over 30 million Anglicans. The extent to which they actually represent them is difficult to say, since most of them don’t go through an election process similar to, say, Bp. Jefferts Schori. And, of course, morality is not about numbers.

They have released this statement:

On the Church of Nigeria web site. I.e., we have released this statement.

“We each take the celebration of the Holy Eucharist very seriously. This deliberate action is a poignant reminder of the brokenness of the Anglican Communion. It makes clear that the torn fabric of the Church has been torn further.

Here. Let us tug a bit more.

It is a consequence of the decision taken by our provinces …

I.e., us.

…to declare that our relationship with The Episcopal Church is either broken or severely impaired.

Scripture teaches that before coming to sit with one another at the Lord’s Table we must be reconciled. (Matthew 5:23-26 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-29) We have made repeated calls for repentance by The Episcopal Church and its leadership with no success. We continue to pray for a change of heart.

Oh, boy! Scripture!

Matthew 5:23-26 is an interesting choice to cite.

23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

So is the responsibility to be reconciled that of these seven Primates, or of the Episcopal Church? Well, the latter part of their sentence above (“repeated calls for repentance by The Episcopal Church”) certainly clarifies their stand. On the other hand, I read that passage from Matthew as not requiring repentance before God, but reaching out to others with whom you have become estranged. Which, to me, indicates that everyone involved needs to try to reach out, not just we naughty Episcopalians.

The second half of the Matthew citation is the odd one:

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Which sounds like more of a warning to those congregations who have sought to leave the Episcopal Church and abscond with its property, or turn it over to foreign provinces — like, say the Church of Nigeria.

The Corinthians passage is even more interesting:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This doesn’t speak at all to reconciliation (as the archbishops assert) but to how one approaches the whole sitting at the table of the Lord. To put in context:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead
without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

So either the archbishops are saying that Bp. Katharine is coming to the table without recognizing the body and blood of the Lord (which would be an amazing accusation), or they’re questioning the whole point of everyone being there (which is odd, since they pressed for the meeting), or they are indicating that some folks are vying to show which has God’s approval (which sounds more like these archbishops than anyone else there).

Weird.

To continue with the archbishops statement:

We are unable to come to the Holy Table with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church …

Whom we will not deign to name.

… because to do so would be a violation of Scriptural teaching and the traditional Anglican understanding, “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith” (Book of Common Prayer)

This misses (by wide marks) two points. First, it implies that the Episcopal Church in general, and Bp. Katharine in particular, have actually sinned and are actually aware of this, and so are ineligible to sit at the table. That’s evidently a given from their perspective.

Secondly, though, it turns things on its head. The instruction in the BCP is to the individual, not those around them. It doesn’t say, “Do not draw near if there’s a sinner around.” The implication is somehow that Holy Eucharist is invalid and, in fact, wrong, if it’s done with sinners, which is a very odd, even heretical position (not to mention making it highly unlikely that you could ever have a valid eucharistic service).

Indeed, looking at Jesus’ own actions, he sought out the company of sinners and those who needed to be shown “a new life.” He sat at table all the time with folks he knew had fallen short of the mark, or that would. His last supper was with one who he knew would turn on him — but he did not decline to eat, nor did he even drive Judas away from the table. Knowing how Peter would also betray him as well, he didn’t get all huffy and go back to the hotel, or issue a press release, but
he showed that even faced with knowledge of such a betrayal and falling short of the desired relationship, the sharing of the bread and wine was the most important thing he could do.

Would that these few archbishops could follow such an example …

This is a painful decision for us and also for our host and brother, the Most Rev¹d Donald Mtetemela. He understands our painful dilemma and accepts our decision. Pray for the Church.”

… rather than stage a public walk-out, so “painful” that it has to be publicized.

It sounds to me like these individual bishops, or their provinces, are the ones withdrawing from “communion” — especially since it wasn’t just a matter of not being with Bp Katharine, but the other 31 Anglican provinces (and primates) there.