So, as you can see, I’m not doing so hot on my new year’s resolution. Briefly put, the Christmas break was grand, with the notable exception of catching the 24-hour Norovirus in Germany. More enjoyable was catching up with my friend and erstwhile colleague Christian Schreiner (right, with baby Felix in the stroller) and his wife, Esperanza. There being practically no snow at all around Geneva, it was an added treat to go to a place that actually looked a little like Christmas. The break was capped off with a fun few days in swinging London with my pal, Stu. Now it's back to reality. Term papers are in, but I’m still up to my ears in preparation for oral exams. Hence, I now have time to procrastinate and do a blog entry.One of our term-end assignments was to do a brief reflection on an assigned piece of scripture, paying special attention to our particular national and ecclesial contexts, as well as our term's overarching theme of mission. My Bible passage was Acts 15:22-35, and, if you're interested, here are my reflections:
I cannot read this passage of scripture without calling to mind the deep divisions currently faced by my own Anglican Church of Canada and the worldwide Anglican Communion. This biblical text shows us the immediate aftermath of the controversial decision of the apostles and elders meeting in council at Jerusalem to “not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:21) by obliging them to be circumcised and to follow Jewish ritual law. In Canada, Anglicans are dealing with the immediate aftermath of last year’s controversial decision by General Synod—our “apostles and elders” meeting in council at Winnipeg—that the blessing of same-gender unions is not in conflict with core Christian doctrine. In both cases, we see churches struggling to discern what are the “essentials” (v. 28) of the faith, and what are matters of secondary importance.
Part of the fallout from that ruling in Canada is the recent decision by two retired Canadian bishops to leave the communion of the Anglican Church of Canada and instead come under the canonical jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. While technically under the oversight of the primate of this South American province, these bishops intend to reside and practice their episcopal ministry in Canada, ostensibly ministering to disaffected Anglicans upset with their church’s approach to questions of human sexuality.
This action, controversial in itself, has produced a flurry of reactions. In a recent pastoral letter to his church, the Canadian primate warned that any ministry exercised by these bishops would be considered “inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid.” In the primate’s letter, I can hear echoes of the epistle those gathered in Jerusalem penned to the Gentile converts, warning them about “certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us” (16:24).
At issue—both in first-century apostolic church in Jerusalem and the twenty-first century Anglican church in Canada—is authority. Those “certain persons” about whom the Jerusalem Christians warn were speaking without the church’s blessing or sanction and were, in fact, contradicting the church’s authoritative decision. Similarly, these Canadian bishops are acting in direct violation of accepted church polity and their own denomination’s authoritative decision, albeit a decision with which they profoundly disagree.
For me this then raises the issue of how a church body exercises decision making. Acts 15 makes the resolution of even so controversial an issue as the circumcision of non-Jewish converts sound relatively simple. We are told that after “much debate” (v. 7), “the whole assembly kept silence” (v. 12), and then James “reached the decision” for the council (v. 19), and that decision “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (v. 28).
Indeed, this last verse is one sometimes invoked by supporters of the Anglican Church of Canada’s ruling on the compatibility of blessing same-sex relationships with Christian teaching. Another part of Acts is sometimes also cited: “[I]f this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (5:38-39). But how does the body of Christ in any given place or time correctly discern what is “of God”? How do we know that what might seem good to us (for example, the blessing of same-gender unions) also seems good to the Holy Spirit? These are some of the questions and struggles this passage currently provokes in me, given my own context.
How then does any of this relate to mission? For the Jerusalem church, the answer is clear. A firm decision having now been made by the church leadership—and “with the consent of the whole church” (v. 22)—the evangelization of the Gentiles could now proceed unabated. For my Anglican Church of Canada, however, the question still hangs. While a decision has been made, it by no means enjoys unanimous consent—either within the Canadian church or outside in the worldwide Anglican Communion. The witness we offer to our country and to the world is frequently a fractured one, and one that often seems myopic and out of touch with the greater issues facing humanity and creation. And as we involved in the ecumenical movement are so painfully aware, our tendency to focus on that which divides us rather than unites often obscures the very Christ who we are called to proclaim.
