The Problem of Communion

Common attempts at being faithful to both orthodoxy and unity

Communion among Christians is part of The Faith, not a pious footnote and not an option. The Apostles’ Creed commits the Christian to say, “I believe in the . . . holy Catholic Church [and] the Communion of Saints.” And in case one misses that “Church” is singular, the Nicene Creed says, “I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

And the outward organization of the Church reflected that confessed reality for the most part until Rome, the West, excommunicated Constantinople, the East, in 1054 with Constantinople soon reciprocating. Of course, the next lasting major split occurred in the Reformation, and the Protestants who left Rome have been splitting ever since.

Not only the Church through history has had trouble living up to what the Creeds say about it. Most Christians of mature age, at least in the West (Eastern Orthodox, to their credit, have experienced less apostasy and schisms.) have had to make hard decisions about remaining in or leaving a church or about dividing a church body. Most often, a church (Here, I mean a denomination or a local church.) has so gone into perceived error that the individual Christian has to wrestle with whether to stay or leave.

I had such an episode in my late 20’s as a member of a mostly Bible-believing Presbyterian church in North Carolina. I began keeping up with what was happening in its denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., however, and was more and more provoked by willful and grave error in the denomination. The beginning of the merger with the even more liberal United Presbyterian Church made matters worse as did a power play that forced women elders on my local church. (I objected over how it was done more than the issue of women elders itself.)

So I was already considering looking for another church and denomination when moving back to Texas solved that issue for me. But when I moved, I went further and determined that my days in the mainline Presbyterian Church were over. And I had been Presbyterian since being baptized as an infant.

Of course, not just individuals but church bodies often have to wrestle with issues of communion. My Reformed Episcopal Church (I joined and was confirmed in 2004.) left the Episcopal Church in 1873. Ironically, one presenting issue is that evangelical Episcopalian bishops and clergy, our eventual founder George Cummins among them, were involved in ecumenical efforts that included joint services with clergy of other denominations. High Churchmen in the Episcopal Church would have none of that. At that point, Cummins thought remaining in the Episcopal Church to be untenable. So he and others formed the REC. And we’ve had a complicated history ever since. (I say that with affection and appreciation of the good fruit of recent decades.)

In all this, orthodox Christians should seek to be faithful to what the Scriptures and Fathers teach about orthodoxy and unity. I think it’s fair to say that as a whole, we try. For better or for worse, here are some models of those efforts to deal with the Problem of Communion, to be faithful in both orthodoxy and unity:

Unity, period.

In this model, one does not leave a larger church body. It’s just not done. One may struggle for orthodoxy and faithfulness within that body, but one does not leave. It has oft been taught that one can even lose one’s salvation by leaving one’s church for another Christian body.

This is prevalent among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And this Anglican has to concede that it was the overwhelmingly prevalent model before the Great Schism of 1054. There is also a subset in this model….

Parties

This is the model of the Church of England since the English Reformation. And, no, I am not referring to consumption of sherry and gin. Instead of leaving or splitting the Church of England, there are parties with different and clashing outlooks, such as Anglo-Catholics, High (and dry) Church, Evangelicals, Latitudinarians which more or less became liberal apostates, more recently Affirming Catholics, etc. There used to be a few Anglo-Papalists, those who want the CofE to reunite with Rome, such as the late priest and scholar John Hunwicke. (His wonderful blog remains up for now.) But almost of those have individually “crossed the Tiber” into Rome as Hunwicke did in his later years.

I am probably leaving out a church party or two. But for most in the Church of England, leaving it or splitting is just not done. One may not go to church, one may be disgusted with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with most CofE bishops for that matter, but one remains in communion with the Lord of Canterbury even if he’s a lying snake like the one who just resigned and even if most of the bench of bishops are useless apostates. One does not leave. It’s just not done, not among proper Englishmen at least.

One is more likely to ignore or fight other church parties instead. The pamphlet wars of the 19th century give quite a lively taste of the latter.

Agreement on … Everything

This sadly was a common model in 19th Century America when denominations split and proliferated. Find an old edition of the Handbook of Denominations in the United States for a taste of that.

This model makes every issue a presenting issue, even a pre-Tribulation Rapture, musical instruments, tongues and snakes. The way to be unified is to agree on everything. Yes, a narrow view of church unity, to put it nicely. Better methinks is . . .

Agreement on Primary Issues

If one agrees on Christ, the Creeds, and on the authority of Scripture and avoids serious error that undermines these basics, then we are in communion or at least try to be. This is a common view, particularly among Christians who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. And even the leaders of those bodies are in constant ecumenical discussions.

This was partly a healthy reaction to the rampant disunity the Agreement on Everything model brought about. But most 20th Century ecumenicism went beyond agreement on the basics, beyond insistence on orthodoxy to a model so awful I hesitate even to mention . . .

Unity for the sake of Unity

Basics of the faith are put aside for the sake of unity. If the Creeds are still said, they are pro forma. I will not deal much with this model as it is completely inappropriate for orthodox Christians. Unity with apostates and heretics is out of bounds as Scripture and the Fathers make clear.

Further this bastard version of church unity creates the sort of conditions that make it necessary for actual Christians to leave or even forces them out. But it has to be said even too many orthodox Christians put unity above orthodoxy — or are just lazy and unfaithful — and in effect practice this model.

This model was very common in 20th Century mainline Protestant denominations and ruined them. A church without hard limits to unity will eventually apostasize. As the late great John Richard Neuhaus put it, “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

I wrote on the deadly danger of optional orthodoxy back in April.

Non-Denominational Communion of the Willing

This Anglican can certainly criticize this model. But I was in a Bible Church that more or less practiced this, and it was a good place for me for years.

Denominational issues are done away by being non-denominational and congregational in church organization or by holding on to one’s denominational identity lightly. Communion is usually informal with like-minded Christians. This model is very common among American evangelicals and fundamentalists. I’m not aware of it being common elsewhere but it might have become more common in Latin American in recent decades. Those more knowledgable on that, feel free to comment.

——

There are other models and subsets of models, which I hope to get into in due time. And much more can be said about the above models as well. But the above covers most Christians and churches, and this is getting long enough, so I will leave off.

But I do intend to make this a series as most Christians will have to wrestle with issues of communion as apostasy grows and attempts to take over more and more of the organized church. Frankly I think we are in the Great Apostasy which proceeds Christ’s Second Coming, though we are likely talking about a process of centuries not decades. But even if I am wrong, apostasy is spreading like gangrene, even in the Church of Rome — I never thought I’d live to see such a horrible Pope and College of Cardinals as the present. And losing the Church of Rome to apostasy would be a massive development. Even if Rome somehow regains its bearings, I think we eventually get to the point when Jesus’ cryptic question — “when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” — will become all too understandable. (Luke 18:8) As I wrote just before Christmas, I expect the faithful on Earth will become very few.

Books can be written on that — and you really don’t want to get me started again on the subject, do you? But we are already at the point where most faithful Christians are practically forced to make difficult decisions about communion. And, again, “the Communion of Saints” is no side issue. So wrestle with this problem of communion I shall.