Unfortunately, I was about to give a talk this afternoon and was not particularly amenable to reflection and so threw Article XXXVII across the continent and scored a glancing blow somewhere in the vicinity of Orlando, FL.
Scotist first asks if the War in Iraq is a just war. Oddly enough, I always have thought the War in Iraq is just. I initially supported it on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had fought an aggressive war in Kuwait and the survival of his regime after the Coalition forces had slaughtered his armies mercilessly (there are a few mass graves in that country that are to our nation’s credit after all) was predicated on an agreement supported by the United Nations but ultimately in the “equity jurisdiction” (as we say in the Imperium) of the United States and the United Kingdom. In retrospect, it was a poor agreement in that it allowed a manifest criminal against humanity and his own fellow citizens to enhance human misery between the Tigris and Euphrates for further years. Moreover, the lightness of its terms probably reflected old associations between Saddam Hussein and members of that Administration. I would not be surprised if a future historian showed that the ties between the United States and Osama bin Laden and between the United States and Saddam Hussein were far more significant than the ties between the two men themselves. But ultimately, the covenanters were bound before themselves and God to keep the agreement (tainted and indirectly formal as it was).
And so I believed that Saddam Hussein was making WMDs/ABCs etc. in violation of the agreement and therefore we were quite justified in removing him from power and ensuring the establishment of a popularly sovereign government. Of course, it wasn’t true. But once he was removed from power (no matter the justification), it is certainly just to ensure his government had a suitably legitimate replacement. My objection to the war lies in that the people currently in charge of its prosecution have practiced deceit on two nations and the world, providing an apparent legitimacy to the regime they removed. Give me a multinational mostly Muslim peacekeeping force (and a decent rebuilding plan, q.v., *Christopher) and I will admit the justice of continuing military action.
But as I said in comments to the Scotist, I don’t think baptized combatants in our tradition ought to be considered any more implicated in the sinfulness of the war than the rest of us, for each of us contribute to the legitimacy of the civil jurisdiction under which they fight.
But what of this issue of notorious sin? How should the disciplinary rubric be used? Our first clue comes from the older Prayer Books in the opening of the Commination:
BRETHREN, in the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend.
This liturgy harks back to the church discipline of the Patristic era and the early canonical penitentiaries. It’s not quite clear what era exactly is meant, since degrees of excommunication varied with location and era. But it at least gives possible definitions of notorious sin: notorious breach of the moral law. I’m afraid the notoriety is important, because it recalls the teachings of the Apostle on scandal. The discipline is in part medicinal for the object of excommunication, but its greatest importance is its instructive value for the other communicants:
But if we really want to understand the disciplinary rubrics, we ought to consult the Canons of 1604 ( which are now online )
26. Notorious Offenders not to be admitted the Communion.
NO Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion, any of
his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin notorious, without repentance-
nor any who have maliciously and openly contend ed with their neighbours, until they shall
be reconciled; nor any Church-wardens or Side-men, who having taken their oaths to
present to their Ordinaries all such publick offences as they are particularly charged to
inquire of in their several parishes, shall (notwithstanding their said oaths, and that their
faithful discharging of them is the chief means whereby publick sins and offences may be
reformed and punished) wittingly and willingly, desperately and irreligiously, incur the
horrible crime of perjury, either in neglecting or in refusing to present such of the said
enormities and publick offences, as they know themselves to be committed in their said
parishes, or are notoriously offensive to the congregation there; although they be urged by
some of their neighbours, or by their Minister, or by their Ordinary himself, to discharge
their consciences by presenting of them, and not to incur so desperately the said horrible
sin of perjury.
27. Schismatics not to be admitted to the Communion.
NO Minister, when he celebrateth the Communion, shall wittingly administer the
same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of suspension, nor under the like pain to
any that refuse to be present at publick Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church
of England; nor to any that are common and notorious depravers of the Book of Common
Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and of the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies
therein prescribed, or of any thing that is contained in any of the Articles agreed upon m
the Convocation, one thousand five hundred sixty and two, or of any thing contained in
the Book of ordering Priests and Bishops; or to any that have spoken against and
depraved his Majesty's sovereign authority in Causes Ecclesiastical; except every such
person shall first acknowledge to the Minister, before the Church-wardens, his repentance
for the same, and promise by word (if he can write) that he will do so no more; and except
(if he can write) he shall first do the same under his hand-writing, to be delivered to
the Minister, and by him sent to the Bishop of the diocese, or Ordinary of the place.
Provided, That every Minister so repelling any, (as is specified either in this or in the
next precedent Constitution,) shall, upon complaint, or being required by the Ordinary,
signify the cause thereof unto him, and therein obey his order and direction.
28. Strangers not to be admitted to the Communion.
THE Church-wardens or Quest-men, and their assistants, shall mark, as well as
the Minister, whether all and every of the Parishioners come so often every year to the
holy Communion, as the Laws and our Constitutions do require; and whether any Stran-
gers come often and commonly from other parishes to their Church; and shall shew their
Minister of them, lest perhaps they be admitted to the Lord's Table amongst others,
which they shall forbid; and remit such home to their own Parish-churches and
Ministers, there to receive the Communion with the rest of their own neighbours.
109. Notorious Crimes and Scandals to be certified into Ecclesiastical Courts by
Presentment.
IF any offend their brethren, either by adultery, whoredom, incest, or drunkenness, or
by swearing, ribaldry, usury, and any other un-cleanness, and wickedness of life, the Churchwardens, or Quest-men, and Side-men, in their next presentments to their Ordinaries, shall faithfully present all and every of the said offenders, to the intent that they, and every
of them, may be punished by the severity of the laws, according to their deserts; and such
notorious offenders shall not be admitted to the holy Communion, till they be reformed.
110. Schismatics to be presented.
IF the Church-wardens, or Quest-men, or Assistants, do or shall know any man within
their parish, or elsewhere, that is a hinderer of the Word of God to be read or sincerely
preached, or of the execution of these our Constitutions, or a fautor of any usurped or
foreign power, by the laws of this realm justly rejected and taken away, or a defender of
Popish and erroneous doctrine; they shall detect and present the same to the Bishop of the
diocese, or Ordinary of the place, to be censured and punished according to such Ecclesi-
astical Laws as are prescribed in that behalf.
In other words, in Merrie Olde Englande, the disciplinary rubrics originated as a prelude to a form of indictment or libel for presentment in the ecclesiastical court. As such notorious sins are only those that would be within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court. But there also seems to be concern for parish harmony in these canons, so that those barred in their own parishes wouldn’t wander to others. The other link in these offenses is that they are scandalous. They disturb the integrity of the local members of the Body of Christ. I’m afraid that in an age of moral uncertainty, they provide adequate license for double standards. What plays in San Francisco won’t play in Fresno. And while I disagree with the moral aesthetics of Fresno, I can’t say they are misinterpreting the disciplinary rubrics. They just should feel overjoyed to be welcomed in Sam Francisco, shall we say?
Which brings to bls’s latest post on another post of the Scotist. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but nothing is settled and nothing is worth ignoring until we determine how the property is to be divided. In a dense urban area like the one in which I live, the parishes fall into their little ideological niches. It’s easy for me to let a parish in La Crescenta go when I know Altadena or Pasadena or Beverly Hills are within reach. It’s harder for me to say such things in sparser areas where churches may be quite divided. How many Episcopalians already feel estranged in the rangelands west of Ft. Worth? Even in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, I know straight allies who became Lutherans because they felt unwelcome in their home parishes. Dividing the property in those cases injures both sides, no matter the division. Moreover, in this carbon-haunted world, I would like to stand up for the ideal of a parish within reasonable travel distance. I have lived my life within a half hour’s walk of an Episcopal church. I dream of jobs that will allow me close proximity to Anglo-Catholic parishes. But it’s easy for us to feel guilty about wanting the property. Isn’t it just property and assets and worldly pomp? No, it’s a part of our everyday world set apart for the public worship of God. It’s connected to a place. If you go to St. Edmund’s in Chicago, you’ll notice the affordable housing they’ve financed all around the church. The local soup kitchen for the homeless in my town started in a little house on the north end of my parish property. When we decide who gets the property, we decide how mission and place are going to be bound together. For while the disciplinary rubrics seem to belong to another age where the dirty laundry of villages like Frocester and Staleybridge and Spofford found itself aired in the parish, the modern parish still is very much in community with its surroundings. When we divide the property, we will shape little bits of America. It’s a question that shouldn’t be ignored.
