Baptism before eucharist: the table is not open to the unbaptised?

A strong line of support for baptism of infants (of believing parents) in Anglican theology has involved covenantal theology in which some analogy is drawn between circumcision and baptism.

Thus I find it interesting to read this text:

"If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it." (Exodux 12:48, italics not original).

Just saying ... (to those here and elsewhere in the Communion who advocate 'open table' welcome to the unbaptized to share in the eucharist).

Unity in the gospel: actually organization, practise, and doctrine matter

Picking up on a some comments made to my previous post, I suggest that unity in the gospel in line with Jesus' prayer in John 17 requires organizational unity, commonality in practice, as well as in doctrine. That we settle for less in most ecumenical discussions is understandable: our allegiances are so strong. But should we settle for less when Jesus himself did not? Should we accept the flawed understandings, to say nothing of unredeemed behaviour in the church which has both led to and sustained our divisions? If we do, it is not credible that we can claim to be living worthily of the gospel or walking in the way of Christ. 'There is one body ...'!

As noted below, it is true that substantial unity between Christians can be shared across denominations (e.g. evangelicals working together in common mission) and within a denomination in which orthodoxy and heterodoxy (e.g. Arianism) mingle. I am all for finding and working with as substantial unity between Christians as can reasonably be found; and I myself have enjoyed hugely and profited immensely from shared unity across denominations, and within my own theologically diverse Anglican church.

But I am not naive about limits to such unity. Evangelicals, for example, working together evangelistically often have to negotiate tricky issues around what happens to converts when 'converts' includes baptised-as-infants persons coming to 'adult faith': evangelical Baptists and evangelical Anglicans take different views on whether or not such conversions should be followed up with baptism! Within Anglican churches Arians and non-Arians mostly get on fine ... until, say, liturgical revision comes up and Arian proposals to sideline the creeds, or to rewrite them  get short shrift from a church which remembers it is constitutionally orthodox and not Arian!

Or, to take another example, relating to organization of churches, a lot of very fruitful church ministry and mission takes place ecumenically across denominations, including formal joint or co-operative churches (typically in Aotearoa New Zealand, in some combination of two or more of Presbyterian, Anglican and Methodist churches). Excellent. But push on further in deepening that unity ... we find, again and again, that Anglican commitment to episcopacy through an ordained-for-the-rest-of-their-lives individual is a point of division from churches which understand oversight differently (e.g., as I have had it explained to me, the Presbyterian concept of the presbytery as a shared, conciliar episcopacy).

I appreciate, as I have tried to note in posts below, that doctrinal agreement via a 'lists' approach is unlikely to enhance unity. But that does not mean that doctrinal agreement is not important for Christian unity. Regaining unity among churches currently divided by baptism, eucharist, and the ordering of ministry necessarily involves doctrinal agreement. If it is not about agreeing to 'lists' then I suggest it is about refinding together what Christ intended for his church in respect of baptism, eucharist and ordering of ministry.

I readily appreciate that Jesus looking upon his church rejoices at all expressions of unity between Christians. I do not believe that the Spirit of Jesus working in us is satisfied with the present situation. I am raising through these posts the question whether even the most ecumenically minded among us is willing to settle for an understanding of unity which falls short of Jesus' own understanding as expressed in John 17 and reinforced through the epistles. 'There is one body ...'.

Unity in the gospel: it is not about lists!

A helpful set of questions re unity has been posed by my friend and colleague, Bosco Peters:

"Is it just possible that it is the attempt to list off, in ever tighter "detail" "beliefs" rather than living the way Jesus lived that inevitably leads to ever greater division and has always done so? And that, hence, the search for lists of agreed beliefs is not going to lead to unity?"

I suggest, in response, that it is not difficult to answer both questions affirmatively while acknowledging a further question lies within the citation: what does it mean to live the way Jesus lived?

It is not just that we need to quickly set aside a whole lot of things that Jesus did which no serious follower of Jesus thinks we need to do (live as a first century Jew re religious practices; live as a first century Palestinian re cultural mores; undergo the baptism of John; only celebrate eucharist once in a  lifetime), but also that we are faced with (at least) two things to ponder carefully.

First, doctrine has mattered to followers of Jesus at certain points in Christian history in which difference has not been about 'lists'. Arians, for example, were serious, devoted followers of Jesus. But something in the following was troubling to the point of dividing rather than unifying. (As I understand it) Arians would not follow the orthodox to the throne of God and worship the Son as one with the Father. Or, to take a more recent example, Mormons are 'latter day saint' followers of Jesus, but something in their following of Jesus is troubling to orthodox Christian followers of Jesus, and so we are not united by merely following Jesus together.

Secondly, doctrine should matter to followers of Jesus in at least this sense: doctrine is about teaching and teaching was what Jesus did! Far from 'doctrine' being pitted against or simply distinct from 'following Jesus', we should ask how doctrine serves and supports our following of Jesus because it lays out and clarifies what Jesus taught (both directly in his lifetime and through the Spirit of Jesus working in the apostles beyond his resurrection). Eucharistic and baptismal doctrine, for example, should deepen our understanding of both Jesus' commands to 'do this' and to 'baptise' and of the support baptism and eucharist provide for our life in Christ. Ecclesiology - as great a dividing set of doctrines as any!! - essentially sets out what it means to be followers of Jesus together.

Well, much more could be said here. My present theme is 'unity'. My point here is that if doctrine as conceived in this church and in that one is dividing us, rather than uniting us as followers of Jesus, then it is very likely that we have developed an understanding of doctrine in relation to following Jesus which is itself divided from discipleship. A root and branch reform of doctrine which ties doctrine to discipleship so that doctrine serves our living like Jesus would greatly assist our reunion as Christians.

Who said the bishop is not the boss?

Miraculously made ill? An atheist who believes in miracles?

For overseas readers: we are having a bit of a contretemps in our main opposition party, whereby one MP (Chris Carter) has told the world (well, us in Kiwiland) that the leader of his party (Phil Goff) is not up to the task of leading his party to victory in the next election. Carter has been expelled from the parliamentary caucus and is under threat of expulsion from membership of the party. In the last day or so he has declared himself to be 'unwell.' Now our Prime Minister - like his Ozzie counterpart, an atheist - has made a few comments, including the pronouncement of a miracle:

"Key said the bid for sick leave was "a bit remarkable".


"Here's Chris Carter, he's told the truth about his leader and now he's in the sick bin for two months," Key said.

"He didn't look very sick to me last week. He looked fairly exercised about the fact that he didn't think Phil Goff could win an election, but he didn't look terribly sick."

Key joked that Carter should have to provide a doctor's certificate - something proposed legislation would require of ordinary Kiwi workers who take three days of sick leave.
"He's going to have to tell the New Zealand public that he genuinely believes that he is sick," Key said.

"He was asked that question last week, and he said no. He said he was concerned about the Labour Party and he was concerned about his leader. Miraculously, that's changed."
Key said he understood Labour was having great difficulty trying to expel Carter from the party and putting him on sick leave was "a way through that". " (From Stuff).

Whether Carter is sick or not I leave to the High Priests and Shamans of our Political Life to diagnose. What I do know is that it is a bit odd that so much attention is being paid to his view that Phil Goff cannot lead Labour to victory in the next election. Every sane, intelligent voter knows that already. They also know that (1) it has nothing to do with who is leading the Labour Party, (2) there is no wonderful/amazing/ prodigious successor to Goff in the Labour Party, (3) it is not helped by twerpish behaviour by certain Labour MPs :)

A second challenge of unity in the gospel: being Christ-centred

Notwithstanding centuries old divisions between Christian churches, to say nothing of millenium old divisions between churches (filioque clause, monophysitism ...), Christian unity in the gospel is possible because Christ prayed for unity among his followers. It is inconceivable that Christ would pray for something not possible to occur. Further, the mature Pauline theological vision of the great purpose of God for the world is summed up in one word: unity.

'according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ, as a plant for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.' (Ephesians 1:9-10)

On the one hand, Christians are divided unnecessarily by conceiving the gospel too narrowly. When the New Testament itself offers at least five versions of the one gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul), our talk of what the gospel is in respect of its content and meaning needs to allow for Holy Spirit-led 'diversity-in-unity.'

On the other hand, Christians are divided unnecessarily by insufficient patience in theological exploration. Many apparent divisions among us represent differences in presuppositions, or understanding of history which, with more care about the starting point for our discussions could lead (should lead) to converging unity in doctrine. To an extent, recent discussions in the past half century or so between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, and between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, along with some World Council of Churches work on 'faith and order' have demonstrated the possibility that with time and a fair wind of the Spirit, we could be one undivided church again. But it will not be in my lifetime!

I want to suggest here that we are also divided because we keep taking our eyes off Jesus Christ and lack focus on Christ as the centre of the gospel. It is a simple fact, for instance, that the church is the body of Christ. All of its ministry and mission flows from Christ. Any division among us over ministry order, sacrament, and the like, is misunderstanding about Christ in the life of the church: it is Christ's episcopacy, for example, and his sacrament. Not ours.

There is diversity in the body of Christ (as Paul teaches, 1 Corinthians 12), but no division, for Christ is not divided. Where there is division in the visible church then something is wrong. Responsible Christianity works to fix the wrong, not to tolerate it, nor to attempt to paper over the division.

(Incidentally, Preludium offers a very interesting post on a divisive issue of the day, women in episcopacy in the C of E. But both Mark Harris, and the men he takes to task, may be missing the point! The question is not whether democracy will prevail or should not prevail, but whether starting with Christ and remaining centred on Christ we discern in unity that his oversight of the church ('the great shepherd of the sheep') may be expressed on earth by any suitable person redeemed by Christ into his body). (Later: with a very good reply by Mark Harris to my point)!

The challenge of unity in the gospel

I subscribe to the view that true Christian unity, the unity Christ prayed for, according to John 17, is unity-in-truth, in particular the truth of the gospel. But the idea of 'unity in the gospel' is challenging in certain ways. For example, it troubles me personally when 'gospel' is so narrowly defined that 'unity in the gospel' means 'our church and just a few others' can work together because, not to put too fine a point on the matter, the others (including a host of churches everyone else in the church views as 'evangelical') do not share the same gospel as us. But I am equally troubled by that widespread Anglican phenomenon in which 'gospel' as a slogan is scrutinized for actual content and found to include multiple versions of the gospel, not all of which are coherent with one another! In short, one challenge of 'unity in the gospel' is defining what the gospel is (and is not).

I think this is 'the' challenge of unity in the gospel. There are some other challenges but I will leave them for another day.