MetaCatholic

(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)

Sometimes the articles make obvious the different context in which they were written, and reveal some of their underpinning assumptions. This is the case with the thirty-third:

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided
That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

More explicitly than any of the articles overtly dealing with ecclesiology this reveals certain assumptions about the Church. It places more weight on authority and discipline, and therefore on the Church as an institution. It stresses the Church as more than a local congregation, and, at the least as an interdependent body. And underpinning it seems to be a clear assumption that there is only one Church in this realm of England. After all, the excommunicate actually include various dissenters and, of course, Roman Catholics.

Once there are competing bodies all claiming the name “Church” discipline becomes a much more complex issue. That is illustrated most painfully and powerfully by the current situation in the Anglican Communion. But it can also be found in the Roman splinter group of the Society of St Pius X. Indeed, in the multi-denominational world when for many, Salvation Army members and Quakers are recognised as Christians, and their organisations recognised by some as Churches, it raises the question of what on earth excommunication can mean, if those who are neither baptised or communicate in the first place, are regarded as Christian. That doesn’t stop people talking as though the earlier situation obtained, but it does reveal a great deal of confusion behind the language that is rarely unmasked.

The article’s root lies in its allusions to St Matthew’s gospel:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17  NRSV)

This special Matthean material appears unknown to the developing Church of the first-century outside Matthew’s community, even if the degree of discipline it implies eventually came to be seen as the normal tradition of the Church, and, for Calvin at least, one of the marks of the Church. Yet, with the exception of one incident in Paul’s writing, (1 Corinthians 5) dealing with an issue of behaviour that was as unacceptable outside as it should have been inside the church, the overall method adopted seems to have been persuasion rather than coercion. No doubt that was in large part due to the rudimentary organisation, and diverse and disparate nature of the church. Coercive discipline was largely out of its reach. It does mean, however, that persuasion as a call to self-discipline has a good New Testament pedigree, and need not simply be a matter of helpless hand-wringing.

That is, I think, unquestionably where we are today. First, the history of the Church’s use of the power of excommunication has not been a particularly happy one. A burning ardour for holiness has all to often resulted in the burning of those declared unholy. Second, we largely lack the possibility of this kind of coercive discipline today. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, persuasive pastoring and prophetic preaching as an appeal to self-discipline are in many ways more congruent with the methods God chose to reach us through the incarnation.

One of the few situations I have myself envisaged as a possibility of excommunication has been the “What if a BNP election candidate turned up at church?” (Note to those outside the UK, the BNP is a racist and fascist political party, which often claims to be upholding traditional British Christian culture – i.e white mono-culturalism.) Yet I wonder what would do more good, the public posture of an excommunication, or regular and repeated denunciation of it from the pulpit, or a strong pastoral confrontation?

I conclude with a slightly off-topic video take.