As many as have not merely apostatized, but have risen against their brethren and forced them [to apostatize], and have been guilty of their being forced, let these for three years take the place of hearers, and for another term of six years that of prostrators, and for another year let them communicate without oblation, in order that, when they have fulfilled the space of ten years, they may partake of the communion; but during this time the rest of their life must also be inquired into.
As with a previous post, I have trouble understanding how a Christian can go to these lengths. Perhaps initially they were not, but took part of God's word and the working of the Holy Spirit with them into apostasy as they even forced other believers into the same. But here they are returning in repentance to the church and seeking absolution for their great sin. At this point we can assume these are now true, faithful believers willing to endure the ten-year wait for full communion. And in this and every prior case, the overseer could alter the time based on the individual and his circumstance. This way justice and mercy could walk together.
Note on the first nine canons
As I was reaching the end of this set of those who forsook the faith in various degrees and coupling that with the disciplinary actions documented in the canons of Nicaea, I was impressed by the technical clarity of each description and the appropriate consequence for acceptance into fellowship. The matter was clear and settled. No sudden appeal for mercy could assuage the spiritual leadership. Only a walk of faith over an extended period would suffice for a measure of leniency. These canons were not inventing a sin to discipline, as the Pharisees were wont to do, but seeking to correctly acknowledge what was already known as sin and addressing it properly.
Perhaps modern church bodies are missing out on something here. I do not know of any that so fully and clearly outlines what should happen to those who fall away and wish to return. The appeal to unique, individual circumstances is effective in overriding systems of governance both in jurisprudence and the church. And I can understand that to a point, but maybe we should be taking the trouble to specify to some degree what is expected to enter back into full fellowship, then use it consistently. Both matters, appropriateness and consistency, are difficult to define and enact. And does this line of reasoning cross a line stepping away from grace, and if so, to what degree? I am still working through this one.
As with a previous post, I have trouble understanding how a Christian can go to these lengths. Perhaps initially they were not, but took part of God's word and the working of the Holy Spirit with them into apostasy as they even forced other believers into the same. But here they are returning in repentance to the church and seeking absolution for their great sin. At this point we can assume these are now true, faithful believers willing to endure the ten-year wait for full communion. And in this and every prior case, the overseer could alter the time based on the individual and his circumstance. This way justice and mercy could walk together.
Note on the first nine canons
As I was reaching the end of this set of those who forsook the faith in various degrees and coupling that with the disciplinary actions documented in the canons of Nicaea, I was impressed by the technical clarity of each description and the appropriate consequence for acceptance into fellowship. The matter was clear and settled. No sudden appeal for mercy could assuage the spiritual leadership. Only a walk of faith over an extended period would suffice for a measure of leniency. These canons were not inventing a sin to discipline, as the Pharisees were wont to do, but seeking to correctly acknowledge what was already known as sin and addressing it properly.
Perhaps modern church bodies are missing out on something here. I do not know of any that so fully and clearly outlines what should happen to those who fall away and wish to return. The appeal to unique, individual circumstances is effective in overriding systems of governance both in jurisprudence and the church. And I can understand that to a point, but maybe we should be taking the trouble to specify to some degree what is expected to enter back into full fellowship, then use it consistently. Both matters, appropriateness and consistency, are difficult to define and enact. And does this line of reasoning cross a line stepping away from grace, and if so, to what degree? I am still working through this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment