With regard to those presbyters who have offered sacrifices and afterwards returned to the conflict, not with hypocrisy, but in sincerity, it has seemed good that they may retain the honor of their chair; provided they had not used management, arrangement, or persuasion, so as to appear to be subjected to the torture, when it was applied only in seeming and pretense. Nevertheless it is not lawful for them to make the oblation, nor to preach, nor in short to perform any act of sacerdotal function.
This council preceded Nicaea by 15 years and addressed matters concerning those who had come through persecution: how they fared, to what end they may have succumbed before returning to the church, and what future they could have within the company of believers.
Elders had succumbed under some measure of pressure to offer sacrifices to idols and then later returned to the church with full sincerity and desire to worship the only true God. Those that return are to be honored according to their former place as long as the persuasive acts used against him were legitimate, in that a discovery of apparent torture through chicanery or misdirection by the elder and torturer shall not be tolerated by the church. Regardless of whether or not the tortures were legitimate, if the elder worshiped falsely he was not allowed to practice in any capacity as was normal for a spiritual leader of the church, whether an offering, preaching, or priestly service.
This punishment will seem harsh to the contemporary church. A case would be made that the gospel is of forgiveness, and if forgiveness is given, it should be full and free. I sympathize with that. Whatever measure of acceptability we view here, the council was wise to not rush to restore the elder to full responsibility. We would do well to take caution in restoring fallen spiritual leaders, not immediately thrusting them back to the limelight if at all.
Also noteworthy to point out is that the elders had these duties of service which became solely the purview of the overseer (i.e., bishop). Apparently, the distinction between elder and overseer had not become so tiered as to allow an exchange or intermixing of duties within the local church. This offers a graduated step between what we see in the New Testament and what later became a full acceptance of the bishop and archbishop (or metropolitan) noted in the Nicene canons.
This council preceded Nicaea by 15 years and addressed matters concerning those who had come through persecution: how they fared, to what end they may have succumbed before returning to the church, and what future they could have within the company of believers.
Elders had succumbed under some measure of pressure to offer sacrifices to idols and then later returned to the church with full sincerity and desire to worship the only true God. Those that return are to be honored according to their former place as long as the persuasive acts used against him were legitimate, in that a discovery of apparent torture through chicanery or misdirection by the elder and torturer shall not be tolerated by the church. Regardless of whether or not the tortures were legitimate, if the elder worshiped falsely he was not allowed to practice in any capacity as was normal for a spiritual leader of the church, whether an offering, preaching, or priestly service.
This punishment will seem harsh to the contemporary church. A case would be made that the gospel is of forgiveness, and if forgiveness is given, it should be full and free. I sympathize with that. Whatever measure of acceptability we view here, the council was wise to not rush to restore the elder to full responsibility. We would do well to take caution in restoring fallen spiritual leaders, not immediately thrusting them back to the limelight if at all.
Also noteworthy to point out is that the elders had these duties of service which became solely the purview of the overseer (i.e., bishop). Apparently, the distinction between elder and overseer had not become so tiered as to allow an exchange or intermixing of duties within the local church. This offers a graduated step between what we see in the New Testament and what later became a full acceptance of the bishop and archbishop (or metropolitan) noted in the Nicene canons.
No comments:
Post a Comment