The Problem of Communion: Revisiting the Communion of the Willing

My Non-denom friends might be on to something…

Much as I did in my last entry in this series, I’m thinking out loud again and wrestling with the Problem of Communion. So your forbearance with any disorganization or omissions is appreciated.

One reason I began this series is that increasing apostasy is making the Problem of Communion more of a problem for rank-and-file Christians. Even those in churches that seemed bulwarks of orthodoxy find grave error sneaking through the doors and into pulpits.

The simple and very Protestant solution to such situations is to protest and then, if protests are not heeded, to leave for another church. But apostasy is so widespread and contagious that one may very well find the next church soon slipping into error as well. Should one hop from church to church and retreat further and further perhaps into a house church or an apartment cathedral? One could become like the proverbial pure Christian who tells his wife, “It is now me and thee, and I am not sure about thee.”

As I reflected on this problem, a model I briefly put forth as an option in my first entry in this series . . .

That model, which I once left behind when I became Anglican after being non-denominational for years, has now become more attractive:

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. [And, no, I did not and am not using “fundamentalists” in a pejorative sense.]

Now, no, I am not going non-denominational again. And (I hope I did not scare or comfort anyone wrongly in my last post.) I am not on the verge of leaving the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Nor do I necessarily recommend people go non-denominational or congregational. But my non-denom friends might be on to something. This model has flexibility that could be useful during this time of apostasy.

And I — yes, I of all people — think some flexibility is a necessity for the faithful today. Now I still think there are times one should leave a church. And I still think churches should exercise discipline against apostasy and grave error among clergy and other leaders. But hopping from church to church should be avoided nonetheless. And church-hopping is exactly what one will likely end up doing if one requires for communion that a church be completely disinfected of grave error. I am unaware of any sizable communion that is not afflicted with toxic leavens of error creeping in and with leaders who negligently allow the errors to gain a foothold, and that includes my own.

This is where a Communion of the Willing model might be helpful even in denominational and hierarchal churches. One remains technically in communion with one’s jurisdiction/denomination, de jure communion one might say, but not in practical communion — say, de facto communion — with any who are gravely errant in that denomination nor with leaders who wink at the errant.

That may seem a bit ad hoc — to use yet another Latin expression. But it may not be that different than what the apostles practiced. Look at how St. Paul dealt with the churches at Galatia, afflicted by heterodoxy, and at Corinth, afflicted by heteropraxy (i. e. errant practice). He dealt sharply with error and selectively excommunicated — those teaching a legalistic false gospel at Galatia and a man engaged in brazen immorality at Corinth. But Paul did not excommunicate whole churches at Galatia and Corinth, as messed up as they were. Nor did he throw up his arms and create new separate churches. Those churches remained recognized churches and St. Paul remained in communion with those problem churches while not with the worst actors in them. (And even the immoral man was reconciled after a time of repentance.)

St. John practiced and advocated a similar approach as set forth in 2nd John. After greeting “the chosen lady”, likely a church, with love and praise, he instructs that if a teacher comes along who “does not abide in the teaching of Christ”, then that teacher is not to be received or even greeted as a fellow Christian. It could be that church had mistakenly received a false teacher or two out of hospitality or open-mindedness. But John does not even hint at leaving a church or creating a new church. Instead, communion and fellowship is to be determined by faithfulness to “the teaching of Christ” in a selective way within the church without splitting or leaving a church.

I think such an approach can and should be practiced in churches that are orthodox overall but have their issues with error as most churches do. Is someone willing by being faithful to “the teaching of Christ,” to the Faith, to orthodoxy? Then there is a communion and fellowship. If not, then not. I think such communion of the willing, though imperfect, is preferable to constantly leaving and/or splitting churches in pursuit of a pure church.

At some point, I hope to go more into what this might look like in different church contexts. But if I were to do this now, this would become a long post that normal people would be unwilling to endure. So I will leave off with hopes that this is helpful, even if incomplete.