More Pick'n'mix?

Things have got a little heated again at Anglo-Catholic Central over obedience to Bishops, especially heretical ones. If your bishop preaches against the existence of the Holy Ghost, then clearly he has rejected the Christian belief. To be a Christian, you have to hold to the existence of the Holy Ghost. And yet there will be some folk out there who call themselves Christian who don't.


I preached on Tuesday about identity, and was followed the next day by a homily on individuality within a corporate identity.



It's easy to know whether you belong to a Company; your name is on the payroll, and on a contract of employment, and if you break the terms of that contract, you cease to be a member of that company. We are free to walk where we choose and to belong to any social grouping we choose, but our choice to belong to our social group restricts where we are allowed to walk. As soon as we step outside the bounds then we are giving ourselves an identity beyond that of our social grouping.


I've already written on Pick'n'mix religion before, in which people claim to pick the best bits out of all religions, wandering around a succession of disjoint practices in search of some enlightenment which is largely superficial, and makes no sense in any rational thought.


The Lord tells us that, to follow him, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. It is a clear statement that our freedom to walk where we choose is to be restricted if we are to be saved. To accept Christ is to be nailed in Him to the Cross. In doing so, we restrict our choices of what we can believe, what we can do and say before it becomes sin.


The modern debate seems to be focused on the flexibilities of the boundary between true Christianity and non-Christianity. The boundary is vague because only God is able to resolve this weird shade of grey into components of black and white. The ultimate decision as to who is really a Christian lies with God Himself. The Church has power to loose and to bind eternally, she has the keys to the front door and outside of her there is no salvation. But the Church consists of those who belong to God. He gets to say who's in her and who isn't.


Lest people feel comfortable with their position, we are reminded that there are those who cry "Lord, Lord" whom the Lord does not recognise. To be a member of the Church requires active obedience to God, and those to whom God gives authority. To claim an identity within that Church requires the awareness that whatever process we use to make judgments on the lives of others, that same process will be turned, like a mirror, onto ourselves.


Does this mean then that Benedictines will be measured against the Rule? Will Fundamentalists be measured up against each tittle and daghesh forte of the Bible? What about the Pick'n'mix Christian? What about the Catholic?

μὴ κρίνετε ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge , ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(St Matthew vii.1-2)

The word for "judge" is krino which also means to govern, separate or decide. It gives us the words critic and criteria, and the Lord challenges us with regard to our criteria.

If we we make choices and judgments inconsistently with the Christian Faith, then how can we expect God to judge us with any less inconsistency. If, in our lives, we make judgments by our own authority, by our own criteria, then God's awful mirror will be turned back on ourselves, and we will find our own methods of decision and reasons for separation turned against us.

We all have to make our own choices and use our private judgment in religion at some point. That is inescapable, and rightly so, because God wants us to choose Him freely. Once we have chosen Him, it is then that we are nailed to Christ, and bound by the Christian code. This means a rejection of our own authority in making judgments in favour of the doctrine given to the Church. It doesn't say that the Church makes all our judgments for us, but rather where the Church is specific then are we bound to follow.

So what about the selection of bishops and parish? Well this is where we start getting into difficult waters. Ideally, a bishop should be the arbiter and mouthpiece of the authority of the Church. He should be bound by the teaching of the Church and utterly devoted to the suppression of his own private judgment in favour of fidelity to the Church.

Historically, there have been so many instances when this has not been the case. All of the major heresies have had episcopal adherents; that is why they have been so high-profile! There have been heretical popes opposed by orthodox priests and bishops. The modern controversies are nothing new. They still involve bishops making the wrong decisions and imposing those wrong decisions on Christ's Church.

If the layman believes that a bishop has gone wrong, then what can he do? First he must go to his priest and ask whether this is right. The priest is the bishop's vicar in the parish, so if he agrees with the bishop, then the layman must be very sure that his reasons for doubting the bishop are grounded. If the priest disagrees with the bishop, then clearly there is the beginning of a schism here, since the priest no longer represents the bishop in view of his teaching capacity.

What can he do? He must look at the situation as impartially as possible and make sure that he understands that he must select the criteria according to the teaching of the Church. This is so dangerous because it is so easy to fall into the trap of private judgment. It behoves the layman to find some episcopal authority that match his belief. However, in selecting a bishop, he makes a decision, and by that decision he will be judged.

This is an intolerable position for the layman. With his bishop at odds with the doctrine of the Church, with his priest put in an invidious position, he is forced to make decisions himself which do not have the assurance of Christ's authority. He can only act on what he believes Christ to have ordained. The trouble is, is this not now the beginning of congregationalism within a Catholic Church, which undoes its catholicism?

What can be done?

Make a decision and stick to it until it becomes untenable?

Any other ideas?