If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honor. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honor of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.
There was a two-fold problem being addressed here. First, the issue of duly appointed overseers not being recognized by the congregants. Something was wrong with the appointing group, the overseer himself, the church body, or some of each. Without particulars we have no way to intelligently speculate. What we do know is that churches were expected to welcome the appointed since, according to Nicene canons, the overseer was to be from that church, and if none were qualified, one was appointed from the outside. In either case, if something was discovered making the overseer unwelcome, the church evidently rejected him to find another.
Second, the overseer was going to another church with an established leadership and began interfering with and undermining authority. With this in mind, we can see why the first church might have rejected him. In any event, such an individual was to be stripped of any position and excommunicated. As I noted previously of Nicaea - Canon 16, a leader is rejected for a reason, and the new church has every right and responsibility to investigate.
As to a rejected overseer, if he takes a place amongst the elders and serves in humility in that role, so much the better for all involved. The spiritually mature man will be able to serve, and the body will have the benefit of additional wise counsel.
There was a two-fold problem being addressed here. First, the issue of duly appointed overseers not being recognized by the congregants. Something was wrong with the appointing group, the overseer himself, the church body, or some of each. Without particulars we have no way to intelligently speculate. What we do know is that churches were expected to welcome the appointed since, according to Nicene canons, the overseer was to be from that church, and if none were qualified, one was appointed from the outside. In either case, if something was discovered making the overseer unwelcome, the church evidently rejected him to find another.
Second, the overseer was going to another church with an established leadership and began interfering with and undermining authority. With this in mind, we can see why the first church might have rejected him. In any event, such an individual was to be stripped of any position and excommunicated. As I noted previously of Nicaea - Canon 16, a leader is rejected for a reason, and the new church has every right and responsibility to investigate.
As to a rejected overseer, if he takes a place amongst the elders and serves in humility in that role, so much the better for all involved. The spiritually mature man will be able to serve, and the body will have the benefit of additional wise counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment