Tag Archives: excommunication

Chapter 51: brothers who do not go far

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

A brother sent on an errand who expects to return to the monastery the same day is not to dine outside the monastery.

Why stay?

I have to admit, I’ve struggled with this chapter of the Rule. I’ve studied different commentaries and feel deeply unsatisfied with the general acceptance of a strict use of excommunication for accepting hospitality of others. In this instance I must humbly accept the wisdom of experience from Benedictine’s who live under the Rule and their view.

Over the last year I have deeply valued the reflections of Philip Lawrence OSB, Abbot of Christ in the Desert. He writes, on this particular chapter,

For monks from our monastery, it is necessary to eat outside and yet at times we spend too much on eating and look forward to our town trips simply as escapes from the discipline of monastic life. It should be the other way around–although we must admit that even for Saint Benedict’s monks it seems that they must have liked eating outside, since Saint Benedict has to tell them not to do it!! (Philip Lawrence, “Chapter 51: Brothers on a Short Journey”, Benedictine Abbey of Christ in the Desert, January 27 2015, http://christdesert.org/Detailed/922.html)

Lawrence points out earlier in his reflection the emphasis to remain part of a community particularly during this time of ‘incredible individualism’. It is the discipline of community that he speaks of that again strikes me. It is easy to speak of community, it is something altogether different to live out.

I am part of a small group that tries to live out small aspects of ‘community’ in our lives. We do not go far in this exploration but their is an intention at least. I have found myself, over the last few weeks, failing to live out anything of the virtues of community with particular members of the group. I have confessed to them my faults and have sought forgiveness. The particular failing was around the issue of shared meals. One member has struggled privately recently and, although I have prayed with them and tried to make myself available to them and offer them an open invite to come and share any meal with my wife and I, they have not come and I have not chased. I have allowed, slowly over time, for them to be left off my priorities until we meet in person again.

Community must happen even when it is not convenient. It must be a daily activity which we do both deliberately and naturally; deliberately when it is tough and naturally over time.

It is on this issue of eating together that a shared daily rhythm of life is important.

My wife and I currently have a guest living with us. I have yet to sit down and share a meal with her and my wife. Our diaries haven’t naturally synced and I doubt they will without us forcing them. It is easy, without deliberately trying to counter it, to become two ships that pass in the night. Sharing space but not lives. Community takes intentional strategic systems in place to ensure its flourishing. For Benedict, as we have seen over the last year, the key moments are in prayer and around the table. St. Benedict sees these two parts of life as of central importance.

Reflection

I hope that most parishes aspire to some ideal of community even if they don’t achieve it nor strive too hard to attain any semblance of it. Which parish church would not wish for people to feel like they belonged to a church? Some will encourage people to be part of small groups that meet during the week for discipleship and add to that a Sunday service and one planning meeting or two and… that’ll do. These are all potentially good things and chances for people to meet are great but how is it fostering the discipline of community?

The discipline of community challenges our self-autonomous desires to be in control. We want to make choices that work for us but here’s the rub: community doesn’t always work for us.

With my group I have discovered that it’s great when it fits into my pattern of living but when there is expectations that I should be inconvenienced by another, well, no one is forcing me to! Seeing the situation from another’s point of view was deeply upsetting. God, during a particular prayer time, showed me what my lack of discipline in community said to the person in need of fellowship. They needed someone to share the burden of the pain day in, day out, and I had neglected to truly know that, to see it in their face and the silence. It had worked for me not to work out an evening to share a meal with them. If they had turned up I would have welcomed them in but it had to be on their terms when, community is about sharing the terms of relationship.

Loving Father, you bring us into community, not because it’s easy and feels good but because it is where we are formed into people who love others as you love us. Lead us by your example out of our incredible individualism into radical community of grace and mercy.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 44: how the excommunicated are to make satisfaction

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

He who has been excommunicated from oratory and the community table is to prostrate himself in front of the oratory door when the Divine Office is concluding.

Do we need penance?

It all sounds very severe and humiliating to literally lie face down for an extended period of time in front of others. Two things to quickly note: one, to prostrate yourself has similar roots to the word ‘worship’ we prostrate ourselves before God, is this also ‘humiliating’? The second point is about the role of humiliation.

Humiliation means ‘to be humbled’ or ‘to be brought to a lowly position’. Prostrating oneself is going to the lowest one can go physically. What a wonderful enacting of a metaphysical positioning of the heart; we make visible that which is invisible, like a sacrament,

A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification (Cathech. Trident. II. i. 4)

Many commentators point out how alien this concept of physical manifestations of repentance is to our modern day sensibilities and it made me wonder, “why?”

Firstly there is a historical aspect to the thought of penance in this way. When we think of repentance we think of saying “sorry” but as my Mum used to say,

It’s no good just saying sorry, you have to mean it.

I’m afraid, Elton John, you might be wrong: ‘sorry’ isn’t the hardest word to say!

Repentance, in the Bible seems to require some physical acting out of the inward turning back, ultimately to God. John came to proclaim a baptism of repentance. To be baptised, therefore, is to physically and publicly enact your turning towards God with the symbolic burying (in the water) and the rising to new life (out of the water). As baptism cannot be repeated in fear of denying God’s eternal adoption of us into His Kingdom, the Early Church, and still in the Roman Catholic Church (amongst others), the role of penance became that symbol of re-turning after some sin or grievance had been made. Often these were a set of prayers or a pilgrimage to a particular holy site or relic.

During the time of the Crusades, however, the Church began to develop an idea of ‘indulgences’, a form of tax on repentance; one would pay for forgiveness/pardon from the Church as a form of penance. This was very lucrative and paid for the war against the Turks and the Ottoman Empire. Later, Pope Leo X needed funds to complete the building of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome and so encouraged official pardoners to ‘cash in’ to cover the costs of the building project. These abuses were one of the primary causes of Martin Luther’s Wittenberg protest which officially started the Reformation.

We, in the protestant West, feel uncomfortable with St. Benedict’s use of ‘satisfaction’ for grievances because it flies too close to penance and indulgences. We want to reject that and proclaim freedom from such arcane understandings but we can’t fully believe this freedom to be true. We still have, in post-reformation religion, the language of penal substitution. Penal Substitution is the idea that Christ, by his freely chosen and perfect sacrifice on the cross, was penalised for sins we, ourselves should suffer for. Christ satisfies the demands of justice and pays the price of sin; death. The language of this theory is so transactional: payment of debts, satisfying an angry God who demands we repay Him for grievances against Him. It is too karmic for me and not enough of the power grace.

Luther was protesting against a system which had abused this ‘transactional’ approach to forgiveness and so used the language understood by the people to say,

Christ has paid off your debts. You don’t need to pay money or do anything except accept the forgiveness. If you need to feel that the indulgence or penance is completed then think of it as Christ doing it for you.

This is correct; we don’t need to pay someone to earn forgiveness from God, it is freely given by His grace. The problem, however, is we have not fully grasped the reality of the end of the transactional view of God’s justice. Grace, in my reading of Scripture, doesn’t say Christ participated in a real transaction with a wrathful God who is waiting for us all to balance our books. Grace speaks of Christ belittling and revealing the weakness of such an approach altogether. God was not separate from the cross, He was on the cross. God wasn’t receiving payment for sins, He was entering into the stupidity of that sacrificial system to end it, making it obsolete.

I don’t think Christ was paying God for my sins because I don’t think God is needs something to balance out my bad deeds before he forgives; he surely isn’t that petty. God does not withhold his mercy, that’s the wonderful truth about grace.

This notion of substitution centres in on Paul’s words in Romans 6:23,

For the wages of sin is death…

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see where this literal idea comes from. I read these words as meaning that if we sin, i.e. we turn away from God, reject God, deny Him, we die. This makes sense if God is the giver and sustainer of life. God offers us, in relationship with Him, life and if we move away from the source of life we will die. Where did we get this notion that if we sin God will actively cut us off as a punishment?

To put it in another way, we don’t need to pay God for our sins because He isn’t asking for payment. The wages aren’t coming from God. We will receive death, not from God but as a natural consequence of refusing the payment of life. As Paul goes on to say in Romans 6:23,

…but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We want to live under the stick and know punishment. God wants us to live in true freedom and to know His free gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, the source of abundant life.

Try reading Matthew 25:31-46, the image of the sheep and the goats, without the concept of karma (we need to have more good deeds by our name than bad) or balance books or any form of transactional justice. We naturally want to see this view of judgement as God, sat on His throne in heaven, with a list seeing who’s been naughty and nice. God is not Santa so let’s start believing that fact! The wonderful truth about God’s grace is that He’s not counting. He offers us the free gift of life which we can receive with joy or opt out of.

St. Benedict’s proposed ‘satisfication’ may strike us as too petty and humiliating but some of us still hold too much to a similar view when we preach the cross as ‘satisfaction’ of an angry God.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The Liberalism Delusion

The second aspect to why our modern sensibilities think this concept of physical manifestations of repentance is alien is cultural.

This Christmas there’s one book that I would really like (no pressure!) and that’s John Marsh’s book, ‘The Liberalism Delusion’. Regular readers of my blog will know my blatant disagreements with the form of liberalism prevalent in British culture today. John Marsh, in his synopsis of his book, sums up my questions concisely. He suggests that the flaws in liberalism are: ‘human nature is good and rational’, ‘the more freedom the better’, ‘morality is unnecessary’, ‘the individual is of overriding importance’, ‘greater equality is always beneficial’, ‘science is certain and benign’, ‘religion is untrue and harmful’, ‘history and tradition are unimportant’, ‘universalism and multiculturalism are beneficial’ and ‘we are shaped by our experiences not by our genes’.

I might, if I get hold of the book, write a full review of the book but for now it would be worth taking three of these ‘flaws’/‘delusions’ and outlining his proposition in our current discussion on penance and repentance.

Firstly, ‘human nature is good and rational’.

At the heart of liberalism – and of its forerunner the Enlightenment – is the rejection of the Judeo-Christian belief that human nature is flawed, believing instead that we are born good and wise; although later warped and corrupted by parents and society. These ideas became popular in the 1960s, especially in areas like education, which became child-centred. This led to the decline of discipline and undermined parental authority. However recent scientific discoveries in genetics – including the Human Genome Project – and in psychology have shown that human nature is indeed flawed. In religious jargon we are sinners; and science has proved it. (John Marsh, “‘The Liberal Delusion’ by John Marsh – synopsis”, Anglican Mainstream, December 2 2014, http://anglicanmainstream.org/the-liberal-delusion-by-john-marsh-synopsis/)

With this view of human nature, sin becomes an unnecessary and dirty, guilt inducing lie to keep us trapped, unable to flourish, rather than the fact of our own brokenness and need for healing. If human’s are essentially good then we are innocent until proven guilty. The problem, however, is that liberalism also promotes the idea that ‘morality is unnecessary’.

If we are good we do not need morality, restraints, regulations or religion. Many liberals regard moral rules as unproven, unscientific and having a traditional or religious basis; they maintain children should be free to make up their own minds on morals, without the influence of parents or schools. So undermining morality is consistent with liberal principles; the outcome is a society that is non-judgemental, value-free and amoral. (John Marsh, “‘The Liberal Delusion’ by John Marsh – synopsis”)

If we desire a society which is value-free and non-judgemental then the sort of penance that St. Benedict is proposing is bound to be out-dated and alien; this is religion at its most harmful! The wisdom of the Christian tradition, however, witnesses to our deep need to enact, embody and manifest that which is internal. We are symbolic creatures who benefit from ‘making visible that which is invisible’. This tradition of physicalising repentance is much more than proving to one another the truth and completeness of a transformation or ‘rebirth’, it is also about proving it to ourselves. We mark in history, physically, the momentous occasion of a decision; we sign a document, we submerge and re-emerge from water we gather witnesses to testify to a declaration of belief and change of heart/mind.

Our liberal culture would refuse this, however, because ‘history and tradition are unimportant’.

Many liberals regard the past as an era of ignorance, superstition and darkness best forgotten, and strive to free people from history and tradition. So in liberal societies there is a tendency for the past to be forgotten, and for history to be downgraded as a subject in schools. However history is necessary for our self-understanding and identity.

In my mind there is a more dangerous characteristic of our liberal society and it, ironically, shares this with other fanatical ideologies such as fascism and communism and that’s not only the forgetting of the past but the re-writing or re-interpreting of the past.

I have already outlined my discomfort of the projecting onto of the story of St Aelred of Rievaulx, reframing his ideas and ministry as overtly pro-homosexuality. Some have even gone as far as proclaiming St Aelred as ‘gay’. It’s wrong. Imagine, if I were in fifty years time, to promote the idea that Alan Turing was straight and he the way he lived his life was not what he truly wanted, there would be uproar and rightly so. If we view our travel through time as one of pure progress culturally, always becoming more and more enlightened then we will always feel the need to correct the stupid, narrow-minded ancestors and re-interpret them saying to ourselves,

What they meant to say was…

We cannot tell what they were thinking or seeing. We cannot teach them how to look at the world because they were different to us, not worse, different. We cannot colonise the past with our culture.

Indeed, when you explore monasticism as just one example, you discover that our fore-fathers and mothers made discoveries and solved problems we are struggling with today. There is a well-spring of wisdom we’d do well to draw from the past. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we reject the past as uninformed and bigoted; maybe it is us who have stepped back in our understanding of the world and ourselves as humanity.

Reflection

Making amends is a natural desire of human beings. We want people to show us that they regret their actions or words against us. Before we forgive we want to know that we can trust them again. In this way, the ‘satisfaction’ St. Benedict is proposing is legitimate and understandable. The problem comes when we project that onto God in His dealings with us.

God does not require us to prove to Him our repentance for He knows our hearts and knows when we are truly turning to Him or not. Penance is for each other not God. In this way the ‘satisfaction’ is about reconciling the community together and not about the earning the reality of God’s mercy upon the sinner. The prostrating is not about earning forgiveness but about rebuilding trust and re-bonding the division made by the transgression.

In our churches there are times when we divide ourselves and others off from one another. We say something, or do something which hurts, disappoints and upsets a brother or sister. Saying “sorry” doesn’t rebuild trust, it may help, but it doesn’t complete it. Physicalising regret communicates a genuine change of heart and mind to the other and rebuilds relationship. If someone is unable to suffer public humiliation they will never achieve humility, which, as we are continually reminded of in the Rule of St. Benedict, is the very heart of healthy communities and the very centre of the Kingdom of God.
Merciful Father, we confess our sinfulness and praise you for your unending love, grace and forgiveness of us. We thank you that you are the source of life and we are invited to drink from that well. We thank you for the perfect revelation of your love through Jesus Christ on the cross. We thank you for suffering in that way to show us your character and desire for relationship with us.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 34: the apportionment of necessities

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Under no circumstances should complaining be tolerated no matter what the reason. Anyone found complaining should be subjected to most severe punishment.

What to do with our complaints?

I had hoped that last week’s admission of personal struggle would be a one off occurrence but it seems I must continue to bear my burdens publicly this week. Before I do that I would like to to give testimony of God’s faithfulness in helping me work through the parts of my discipleship that I find difficult.

After writing my post on how much I resist the call to be less materialistic and to go out into mission with ‘no gold, or silver, or copper in [my] belts, no bag for [my] journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff.’(Matthew 10:9-10a) I had a conversation with my wife. She encouraged me to name those things I am particularly connected to and discussed how they could be destroyed by fire or flood or theft and our response if that was the case. Aside from my books which I am still too possessive over I did find myself more open to letting stuff go and giving stuff away to the right person. He has helped me to look at my property in a different way and I continue to pray about my addiction to my books!

This week St. Benedict talks about the distribution of property and the same sentiment as the previous two chapters is discussed. He does, however, move his command onto a different ‘weakness’ and is equally severe towards it than he is to possession; grumbling, or to give it its proper term: ‘murmuring’.

Murmuring gives this sense of gossip rather than just a heartfelt objections to another (‘grumbling’). We’ve all been a victim to this, haven’t we? When, whether we would say it to their face if we were given a chance or not, we discuss someone else to our friends or confidantes behind their back. Murmuring is so contagious. If you are in a conversation with someone and they start to talk about an absent person it is hard to stop the conversation for they might, given time, speak well of them and you can rejoice in them but gossip hides itself behind ‘good will’, ‘concern’ and other worthy feelings. As a listener it is hard to not be drawn into commenting on them. Even if you pluck up the courage to name gossip the other person can easily say,

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love them, but…

When we read St. Benedict’s severe rebuking of this practice of ‘grumbling’ it should show how gentle the Rule of St. Benedict is in comparison. These words on grumbling are so strong and firm that it surprise us that he takes it so seriously. Why?

Murmuring it seems is the start of much larger problems. I know this from experience! It is enjoyable to discuss people and share news and stories but it can quickly turn to judgement over them and then to pride in ourselves that we are ‘not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers’ (Luke 18:11) There is a reason, within the Christian community that Jesus sets up a way to deal with conflict and disagreements.

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. (Matthew 18:15-20)

This is very present at the moment and I’m currently wrestling with this directly. Somethings that I’ve become aware of by studying this passage:

It is important to note that this approach to conflict is for within the church. We should not take this out of the Christian community and place upon non-Christians the yoke of Christ if they do not intend to carry it. We shouldn’t judge people by a standard they never intended to live by in the first place. So this is about challenging other disciples in how they are walking out their faith in order to encourage more faithful obedience to Christ.

In many ‘churches’ (and say it like that because the question of ‘what is a church?’ has become complicated in our context) it is not always clear as to who is a disciple of Christ and who isn’t. This is a much bigger topic than we can handle right now but it’s important to understand that Jesus’ words were being heard by a small group of people who needed to be clear as to whether they were a follower Jesus or not due to the persecution and cost that they would pay for being a Christ-disciple; in our day it is easy to say “I’m a Christian” even if it isn’t so easy to live it out. So because membership to the church now is so easy we cannot necessarily immediately bring out this process with grievances we have with another. Having said that, The principle of going and talking directly to another person and pointing out how they’ve hurt you is a healthy challenge to us all.

There’s also a challenge in this passage about whether the person has sinned against you or not. In my circumstance the person has hurt another member of our church so, if we are take this command at face value it should not bother me and I should leave it to the two people to sort our their own grievances. In practice this doesn’t work out as simply as that. Indeed I’m reminded of Paul’s understanding of the Body of Christ,

If one member suffers, all suffer together with it. (1 Corinthians 12: 26a)

A person’s actions, when known by other members of the Body of Christ, impacts others. We cannot, after hearing of sin claim ignorance and think nothing of it. I am torn, however, in my situation as to whether I am the right person to go to the other and point out their fault; is it any of my business? I’m challenged because their actions have hurt me and upset me and I am not at peace with them. Jesus does tell us, clearly,

So when you’re offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24)

As it weighs heavy on my mind I cannot stay silent about my concern. People close to me ask how I am and I cannot speak of my burden as it would be making my complaint to the wrong person. The more I do not speak to the other more I’m needing to speak of it to others and so grumbling begins. It vents this desire to ease my concern by sharing it with others but it can never lead to true reconciliation without me voicing this complaint to the person who has wronged me or caused another member to suffer.

The final thing that I’ve been challenged on is how we should treat people who do not heed the Church’s teaching, whether that is the historical Church or the local expression of church (small group, house church, Christian community). Jesus suggests we treat them like ‘a Gentile and a tax collector’ and it is in this statement that we return to our reflections on excommunication. The practice of excommunication is not about pushing someone out into the wilderness to fend for themselves but it is a change of the nature of relationship with them. In this instance to treat someone like a Gentile and a tax collector is to look at the examples as to how Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors; of going out of his way to save them.

And as Jesus sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”… “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” (Matthew 9:10-11,13b)

In our churches we already invite non-believers to sit and share in our worship and we ask no questions; we desire them to come to know the love of God and to respond by taking up His yoke and committing to the process of being transformed into his likeness through obedience to his teaching and the direction of the Holy Spirit: the same should be said for these people who wrong us and refuse to listen to the correction of the Christian community. Their position within the church will change and, if they are part of the teaching or guidance of the church then they will need to be removed and to be treated as those new to the church. We do not cut our relationship with them but we must acknowledge that they have shown, by their lack of repentance, that they need space in order to hear again the call of God upon their life.

Reflection

Grumbling, complaining and murmuring are rife within the Church. We indulge in this past time far too often and we do ourselves a great disservice. To put it more severely, we encourage more sin and division by participating in it and this is why St. Benedict is so strict on the punishment for it.

This is so much easier to say than to live out and I, personally, fall down regularly on it. I write all this with a very heavy heart and I am, during these times, regularly finding myself weeping at my part in the Church falling short of the glory of God. As I walk through a personal battle with it I’m praying that the Lord will have mercy on my weakness and strengthen me to resist the temptation. I pray for him to save me, a sinner, to heal me and to bring me to greater obedience to Him.

I pray also for wisdom for the whole Church to be bold enough to live out this challenge to face conflict in a healthy and Godly way. There are added complications in my current situation which I need insight to manoeuvre but I beg the Lord to walk this path with me that He would show me how all things are being reconciled in Him.

Forgiving Father, I ask that you would have mercy upon your Church. I pray that you would defend it against temptation and strengthen us to live out your gospel in our lives. I cry out to you, our Saviour, to lead us and grant us wisdom to walk the narrow way of your Kingdom.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 29: readmittance of departed brothers

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

A brother who has left the monastery, either through his faults or by expulsion, and wishes to return must first promise the complete amending of the fault.

Can we welcome back?

I am taking a short break from Riding Lights Summer Theatre School to write this post. Our theme at the summer school this year is ‘Peace: Make It or Break It’ and I want to write a bit more about ‘reconciliation’ in the light of ‘peace’.
In this week’s chapter, St. Benedict challenges us with even more radical hospitality and grace towards those that cause conflict and division. His compassion and grace is matched by a firm resolve to remain committed to those that hurt and upset him and he calls us to do the same. This resolve to welcome back a previously unrepentant monk is granting that brother the chance to experience grace and forgiveness.
I have written, in the past, on the social tool, ‘Open Space Technology’. This means of discussion has several principles to facilitate multiple creative conversations to occur and to be united together by a common goal or desire. There is also one ‘law’: the law of mobility that suggests that if a participant is not learning or contributing in a particular conversation they should leave and move else where,

In this way, all participants are given both the right and the responsibility to maximize their own learning and contribution, which the Law assumes only they, themselves, can ultimately judge and control. When participants lose interest and get bored in a breakout session, or accomplish and share all that they can, the charge is to move on, the “polite” thing to do is going off to do something else.

I had real difficulty with this aspect of Open Space Technology but I have come to realize, through experience, that it is not about self-autonomy but about the necessity for us to step out of the heat of relationship before it breaks irrecoverably, to gather some perspective, to admit weakness both on the part of ourselves and the others involved and to make a decision as to where to go next. We all are autonomous to a greater or lesser degree; God has given us free will to use, to choose what we do and where we go. Some people will abuse that freedom and cause harm to others or demand their choice is held in higher esteem than others but it is in that freedom we are advised to discover the beauty of real relationship; with God and with others.

Phalim McDermott, Artistic Director of Improbable and an Open Space practitioner, once talked with me about this law and said there’s a reason it is sometimes called the law of two feet (even if those feet are only metaphorical). The first foot is used to retreat from a place, to propel you out. The second is the more important foot for it is used to send you to the next place. That place could be back into the group you left, to repent, to turn back or it could be to go somewhere new. I once noted,

What the law of two feet does do is enable the whole to function and feed itself. The parts need to be attuned to where the information may need to be passed to in order to grow and develop and create. When this happens then the second foot is an important engagement of the individual with the whole. It is not clear, however, if this indeed is how it is used.

In order for community to function it requires the parts to freely choose to participate in the whole. This commitment will require a handing over of a certain amount of autonomy for the ‘common good’. It mustn’t, however, lose all traces of freedom of choice as that free element contains the free choice to commit and to love. Communities are healthy when they hold that tension between the individual choice and the relational imperative. St. Benedict has balanced this to give space for people to be removed without a door being locked to them.

The three strikes aspect maintains the need for the community to be protected so one person’s will is not encouraged and fed so they take the power on themselves completely; for relationships that are based around only one person’s desires are abusive and unbalanced. This aspect of St. Benedict’s Rule, I feel, allows the gracious hospitality of reconciliation without compromising the strong encouragement to challenge our selfish tendencies as fallen humanity. It is radical in that it challenges while, at the same time, welcomes.

Reflection

After a breakdown of relationship how do we give space to the possibility of reconciliation? Do we really hope and pray for such healing to happen? I can talk for ages on my desire to be reconciled to someone who has hurt me but do I actively give space and time for that to happen? It’s far easier to cut the ties with them and move on. To seek healing means to allow mess to exist close by and our lives to be impacted by it. The real path to reconciliation and peace is working hard at entering into painful and difficult spaces to take the battering of relationship breakdown holding onto hope. We, as Christians, enter into conflict with our sights fixed on the end promise that all things will be re-bound together through Christ who is the source of all things and the goal of all things.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him— provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard. (Colossians 1:15-23)

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.(2 Corinthians 5:16-20)

Loving Father, I thank you for your grace that despite my many failings and stepping away from you you always welcome me home. The door is open. You do not force your will on us but call us to accept the task you desire. Transform my heart to be more like yours, flexible and open yet steadfast in love. Teach me to reconcile and to participate in your ministry of bringing all things together for good.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 28: those who do not change their ways despite much correction

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

…if all this is to no avail, the abbot must wield the surgeon’s knife.

How do we reconcile?

It has not been easy to travel the last six weeks with the reflections on discipline, conflict and division. To have your prayer life shaped by the reading and meditating on such concerns, even hypothetically, causes a great burden to fall. I can’t wait until my prayers are shaped by utensils and hospitality but for now we must continue.

This week it is the heaviest of all the chapters on punishment. I will re-iterate a correction of the common understanding of excommunication for those of my readers who may have forgotten. Excommunication is not the total dismissing of a person from a community (well at least not in monastic life). Excommunication is aimed at being temporary and in this state the abbot still has contact and authority over the ‘wayward brother’; there is still hope of healing and a full re-instating. What is being discussed in this chapter, however, is the ‘surgeon’s knife’ (in another translation it is read as ‘amputation’).

I preached on Sunday about reconciliation, a theme the Lord continues to bring me to reflect on. I said in that sermon that I consider true reconciliation, the uniting of two parties with conflicting views and beliefs, to be humanely impossible. There is no argument or rationality that has ever changed someone’s deeply held convictions, those things that shape our identity. This is a matter of a spiritual shift; the work of reconciliation is a deep transformation down in the secret of all parties’ hearts. This takes time, trust and a transcendent commitment to the work of peace beyond rational thought and understanding.

There is obviously a human aspect to this work; the choice is left solely on the part of both conflicting parties to participate. This is understandable as all relationships are based on a free choice to be ‘bonded’ to another. If there was no freedom of choice then the relationship would not be genuine. Love requires freedom to exist. To be ‘re-bonded’ (which is what reconciliation literally means) requires that same freedom. Reconciliation cannot be forced upon anyone.

If we consider this in the context of peace talks between any warring parties at the moment (Israel/Palestine, ISIS/Christians, Russia/Ukraine) we can begin to see how purely rational, intellectual peace negotiations continual fail. Legislation which forces ‘peace’ is a fake peace and never a true reconciliation. What is required to encourage real reconciliation is a spiritual change on both sides; a commitment to attempt to freely choose to love. For humans who struggle to trust in the unseeable future, the miraculous changes in our spiritual core or the change of the lens through which we see the world, this reconciliation is impossible. We cannot imagine how we could ever trust someone who has hurt us so severely and so we resist. We begin the stalemate conversations of

They move first.

No They move first.

It seems strange, at first, to read in this chapter that it is after advice, the use of Scripture, excommunication and even the extreme: flogging that St. Benedict suggests

If even this has no effect, let him try greater things – his prayers and those of the other brothers – so that the Lord may cure the sick brother, for he can do all things.

There is a great realism here in how St. Benedict sees correction taking place. He knows, like us, that we will try all human avenues first (praying that they will work, of course) but in the end we must stop and invite God in to work in the place where only God can work. There will be times when the ‘sickness’ can be cured simply and we are encouraged to participate in that healing work through action. Then there is the time when all possibilities have been explored and you pass the patient onto the expert.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Anointing with oil

All of this makes me think about the role of oil in liturgical settings.

(bear with me)

The use of oil is a contentious issue and one that not many people think much about. There are specific occasions when oil is required: baptism, confirmation, ordination, healing and the Last Rites. The biblical understanding of anointing with oil is not clear. It is mentioned 20 times in the whole canon and there is a distinction between ordinary oil and ‘anointing oil’. This anointing oil must be kept holy and separate,

”It shall not be used in any ordinary anointing of the body, and you shall make no other like it in composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you. Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an unqualified person shall be cut off from the people.” (Exodus 30:32-33)

There are strict rules in the Law of Moses as to the use of this oil but in the New Testament there is very little mention or use of oil. The disciples use oil on the sick (Mark 6:13) and James, in his letter, advises its use on the sick too (James 5:14). God is said to use oil on Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)

My understanding, having read both Scripture and Church History is that anointing oil is to be used on people who are to be set apart; that is why we do it at baptism, confirmation and ordination. The use of oil in the ministry of healing and preparation for death is to set the sick person under the complete care of God. The use of oil in healing ministry is to be done cautiously due to an overuse and, therefore, belittling of its symbolic significance.

James, in his letter, is clear that prayer for the sick is what will save them but he does encourage anointing. So which is it?

I would want to say that the use of anointing oil is symbolic of the complete handing over of a patient to the mercy of God. This maintains an honouring of medical professions and the human intervention on diseases. We can pray whilst attempting human medical support and God will honour that but there comes a time in illness when doctors cannot do anymore. This is, of course, a particularly sensitive issue at the moment and I will not repeat my view on the Assisted Dying Bill. It is at this time of the end of medical support that anointing is to be done. This could be done when the patient decides to no longer receive medication or at the point the doctors no longer offer any help.

Anointing becomes the physical ritual that marks the end of looking to humans for help and the naming of our full trust in God to act in this situation. This is not to say that we do not trust God when we seek human support, God uses humans in his work, but there comes a time when God must work the impossible; this, in the case of illness, is either to heal miraculously or to guide a person into the rest of death. I still believe that only God can do that leading and if we humans attempt to take that control we overstep ourselves and it is called murder/suicide.

if we look at St. Benedict’s thoughts on discipline then this final removal of a brother from the monastery is a death of one kind. This should be the absolute last resort and must be done with the greatest revelation of the wisdom of God. It should not be done lightly or without the handing over of the situation totally to God. The burden of responsibility placed upon the abbot cannot be overstated and the pastoral sensitivity in these cases is paramount.

If we take the analogy of choice in death a little further here, then I would suggest that it is not the choice of the brother or the abbot to break this bond between them but the choice of God and there must be that time of waiting for God to act in the situation. This time cannot be rushed and a great deal of listening must be done. A service where the brother is anointed would be an appropriate symbolic act and we wait, in the midst of that suffering, for the hope of God to be revealed.

Reflection

In all moments of reconciliation there needs to be a deliberate stepping into the mysterious, miraculous hope of God. Without this submission to transcendence real reconciliation, in my mind, cannot be achieved. It is a step of faith into the unknown which, from our side, is always into darkness. Hope and light will be found if two things are present; God’s mercy and care as well as the choice of the conflicting party. The mercy of God is trustworthy and true and can be relied upon. The free choice to participate from our opposition is more tricky. More often than not it requires us to submit anyway as a sign of our desire to be in relationship with them. This is a tough task and we resist it more often than not.

I want to pray for the big conflicts currently being played out in the world today. I pray for both Israelis and Palestinians that they would cease the cycle of violence. I pray for ISIS and the Christians fleeing Mosul that they would succumb to the peace and love of God. I pray for Russia and Ukraine that they would know the mercy and care of God and enter into the beautiful dance of community and peace.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 27: the abbot’s care of the excommunicated

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The abbot must show great concern for the wayward brother

How do we deal with failure?

I am always amazed when a football team doesn’t do very well and the Manager is called to resign or step down. There was a period a few years ago when it seemed like the moment a team lost a game they’d change their Manager! The same is true in politics. Sometimes these removals from roles is for the best but other times it is a knee jerk reaction to the experience of ‘failure’.

Failure is not allowed in our culture. It is a sign of weakness and our survival depends on us “winning” (as Charlie Sheen put it). The problem is, of course, we’re not perfect… not even me (particularly not me!) Sooner or later we’re going to make a mistake and if we live in a climate of fear about failure it becomes increasingly stressful the more you have success because the more you succeed the higher the stakes are and the further you have to fall.

I want to reflect on a very local issue for me for a moment.

The Leader of the City of York Council, Cllr. James Alexander, has been in post since 2011 and has been on a mission to deal with long standing issues in the city. One of these long standing issues is congestion. Being a small city with historic walls surrounding the central area and a large amount of pedestrian precincts for tourists and shopping, our roads in York get clogged very quickly. There are some who could use public transport more (or cycle) allowing many necessary drivers to get where they need to go in the city. The problem is, no one is willing to admit that they don’t need to drive.

To attempt to do something about it, James Alexander, after discussion, instigated a trial to close Lendal Bridge, a prominent transport passageway across the River Ouse. It was always going to be controversial and it was always going to be complicated to communicate the change but the Council faced an onslaught of criticism. There were some (like myself) who had no strong views either way but were willing to see the trial through and ride the wave of discomfort experienced in any sharp change. The criticism did not cease and many people were penalised with the fine used to police and enforce the restriction.

Cynics went out in force to accuse the council, and James Alexander personally, of attempting to increase their pay packets by gathering the money accumulated by the fines. Everyone had a personal story of why they needed to drive through the zone at a given time and the fine was a sign that the council were heartless and un-compassionate.

At the end of the trial, the cynics and opposers had managed to sustain their complaint and continued to demand a retraction of the restriction. The council decided to extend it further and promised to revisit the issue. There was strong opposition on the grounds that the way the council had enforced the restriction was unlawful and the council reversed their decision, opening the bridge for traffic.

James Alexander had failed! The only just action was for him to leave office with his head down and admit that everything he thinks and does is wrong. His opponents could then, in the glory of being right step in and take on the role of power.

I have to admit a personal interest in this. I respect James Alexander. I don’t agree with all his choices. I could name some of his failings and mistakes but I have always felt that he has deep desire to serve the people of York and to keep promises he made in an election. I also happen to like an opponent of his, the previous head of the council, Lib Dem councillor Andrew Waller. Andrew and I sit in many meetings together and continue to work together. So James’ failure is Andrew’s success.

After the re-opening of the bridge the council agreed to repay the fines, after advice from an outside agency was involved. This was the ultimate admission that the whole closure was a mistake and must have been deeply embarrassing for James and his councillors. I was more upset, however, when his opponents were not satisfied with his embarrassment but wanted his resignation. It was never just about this particular issue it was about the annihilation of an opponent!

Mistakes are made. Failures happen. I am reminded of an interview with Russian theatre director, Lev Dodin when he said,

Failure… leads to quite artistic things, because if you are not afraid of failure you can try, you can experiment, you can search for new ways, whereas when you are afraid of failure you wouldn’t do it, you would do it the way you did it yesterday… (Lev Dodin in conversation with Robin Thornber at the Royal Exchange Theatre, Manchester, 23rd April 1994, Michael Stronin (tr.), cited in Maria Delgado and Paul Heritage (eds.), ‘In Contact With The Gods?: Directors Talk Theatre’ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996) p74)

In an interview, James Alexander admitted his mistake and explained he was trying to solve a problem that continues today; that of congestion. He asked for the alternatives to eleviate this problem and promised to search for the solution. The interviewer was not satisfied and pressed him to acknowledge his embarrassment further and even decide to resign.

I felt for him. Over the last two years I have got to know James a little bit and I know how much he cares about his work. I get tired of cynics. Cycnicism is yet another sickness our culture suffers from. It is addictive and damaging. It kills hope and encourages bitterness and resentment. It stems from a competitive spirit which engulfs us and brings nothing but death. There are some in the city of York who seem to be particularly cynical and spiteful. The way people speak of public figures is violent and horrible. The pressure felt by many of those who try and serve the citizens is immeasurable and I feel for them. I long to be able to help them in their distress. No one deserves the sort of treatment they receive at times.

Imagine that every time you make a mistake people turned round and dismissed you, stopped talking to you and forced you to give up parts of your life. Imagine that you upset a partner and you were forced to leave your home and children. Imagine if you upset a colleague at work and were forced to leave your job. It is easy to get rid of someone who has succumb to weakness or made a mistake. This is an easy punishment but this is not excommunication!

In this chapter it is made clear that excommunication is aimed to be a temporary state where the abbot can give his utmost care for a member of the community who is struggling. This is not about enforcing more embarrassment and pain. It is not about taking some strange pleasure in rubbing salt into a wound. This is about caring for ‘the sick’.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The church is for sinners

St. Benedict quotes Matthew’s gospel,

those who are well do not need the physician, but those who are sick. (Mt 9:12)

In their chapter on the Church in ‘Red Letter Christianity: living the words of Jesus no matter what’ (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2012), Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo quickly begin talking about hypocrisy,

[SHANE:]Here’s what I’ve come to realize: people do not expect Christians to be perfect, but they do expect us to be honest. The problem is that much of the time, we have not been honest. We’ve pretended to be perfect and pointed fingers at other people.

[TONY:]While Saint Francis recognized the church’s failures and hypocrisies, he still saw it as a community of faith where Christ could be encountered. When young people say to me, “I can’t be a part of the church because the church is full of hypocrites,” I always say, “That’s why you are going to feel right at home among us.”… In the end, we’re all hypocrites.

I’m always struck by the issue Jesus tackled lots: hypocrisy. He does not condemn the Pharisees. He never sought to destroy them or eliminate them; he always sought to name the issue – hypocrisy. The Pharisees were not un-saveable, beyond redemption; they were sick like everyone else and Jesus named their sickness. Jesus loved and respected them and wanted to see the Pharisees flourish. Jesus says that many of the Pharisees are close to the Kingdom of God (Mk 12:28-34).

It is easy to dismiss failures but harder to live with them because when we see them being forgiven and redeemed by God and are forced to ask,

Can I too be forgiven?

It is easier to condemn than to hold and seek healing. It is easier to end suffering with a quick decision than wait and seek surprising hope. This is my ultimate issue with the Assisted Dying Bill; it’s easier to die than to hope. I do not blame those who suffer great pain to want it all to end ‘now’; I know that desire to succumb to the abyss for it surely is a comfort compared with the searing pain of this life. If you look around you and there is nothing to live for why bother? Why continue?

I’ll finish on a painful and personal truth: I often ask if it would not be better just to end my life. What a mess the world is in. How much pain I cause without even knowing it. All my attempts at improvement fall and I am weak. If there is no hope of me achieving the perfection which is demanded upon me then I should end it all now. I feel this in the darkest points of the night. I feel the desire of the countless number of people who look at this world and the failures of us all and think we should just end it all now; why wait?

It is not compassionate to agree and encourage that action. Compassion is acknowledging that thought, feeling that pain and the reality of that desire but, to be Christian is to proclaim hope. To look at the world through a different lens. The lens of Christ says it is worth holding on. It is worth the wait.

I was deeply struck by Lord Falconer’s response to the church requesting a Royal Charter to look into the issues raised by the Assisted Dying Bill. Falconer is quoted as saying, that the matter must be discussed urgently.

Why rush? The same was said two years ago in General Synod about women being allowed to become bishops; in the impatience of a motion we rushed it and it fell. Now, after time and facilitated discussion a better, strong case is formed and led to healthy commitment to one another.

Reflection

Yes it’s easy to push ourselves and others into the abyss of rejection and loss but that is not what God does to us. He judges us but commits to the healing and redemption as well. He will not reject nor abandon us in our weakness, hypocrisies or failures. He knows that failures shape most of what we do and that fear is crippling. He speaks hope of renewal and new life to us; that is the Christian message.

For my friend James Alexander I say, ‘Do not be afraid. God gives you a second chance and you’re still loved.”

To those struggling in the temptation of making a clean break and retreating from those they have disappointed or let down, either through moving or death, I say, “Do not be afraid. God is the Good Shepherd and he will find you, wherever you run to, and he will comfort you and restore you.”

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us sinners.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 26: those who meet with the excommunicated without leave of the abbot

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

If a brother dares speak with or meet with the excommunicated brother, without the express permission of the abbot, he shall undergo the same penalty of excommunication.

Why can’t I speak with them?

A short chapter this week on the role of authority; a topic that is increasingly contentious in our culture. I have written on the subject before and have reflected at length on it from a personal point of view. I encourage you to search on this site for previous posts on the topic (you’ll find a few!)

The post I thought of first was this one from February which quoted from an article by Anna Mussmann called, ‘Millennials Think Authority Figures Are Untrustworthy Idiots, And Modern Culture Is To Blame’ In this article Mussmann argues that popular fiction is both commenting on the shift in attitudes to authority and wisdom as well as encouraging a particular culture amongst the younger generation.

I continue to reflect on the popularity of changing rules and traditions. There has been, in my opinion, a rise in challenge to long held traditional views and the bending to popularism. Popular media is being used cleverly to move goal posts to argue for a rethink on any moral or ethical standpoint. The way it has been done is similar in approach each time:

A lobbying group begins by publicising the story of a bullied minority who are discriminated against and face daily injustices. Once the public see and hear of this plight of the opposed they have good will and (if we’re honest) feel suitably guilty for making another person feel that way and, being British with colonial guilt now ingrained, do all they can to elevate their oppression. Once this good will is felt and vocalised and people are emotionally invested the lobbying group then proclaim that they are a majority voice and begin approaching politicians who love to say yes to majority voices. With the politicians on side they then move to change legalisation and, therefore, the character of the society.

All this happens with clever use of media, persuasive rhetoric and stubborn campaigning. None of these things are wrong, in fact I am glad that people are able to speak freely and protest against injustices. My issue is that at times the bias is skewed and a balanced debate cannot be had because of unfair game playing by political crusaders. The approach relies heavily on two things: subtle shifts in the use of language and a high reliance on emotive stories to cover up exaggerations and twists of logic.

There is one other thing which is involved in this and why, I think, there’s been an increase in major moral debates in government in recent years; no one understands or respects authority outside of subjective individualism.

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue to say it: our culture is sick. The disease is individualism. The symptoms are isolation, violence in action and language, increase in suicide, imbalance in wealth distribution and the subtle crumbling of social institutions and groupings. The cause: an increasing bias towards unchallenged liberalism.

Of course what I am arguing here is simplistic and overly generalised which, if I were to face up to opposition would need to go into more detail but for now my observations stand as a starting statement. What is clear is the breakdown of trust in authorities leads to no stable ground on which to build a commonality in society. It is right to hold authorities to account but where does it stop?

The Assisted Dying Bill has been widely discussed and, I am glad to say, faced great opposition. My concern is that if the Bill passes the arbitrary six months will be challenged, the ‘terminal illness’ will be challenged and, in our ‘legal precedent’ culture the floodgates will be opened. My use of floodgates will already prickle some of the more liberal of my readers and I stand again in the position of oppressed by the popular, liberal agenda.

Our society wants free will unrestrained. I don’t blame society that but when the Church sides with them and blesses their freedom of choice and calls all their choices ‘Christian’, Christ-like I have a problem. To be a Christian is to be under authority. To be ordained is to be under authority. To act in disobedience to that authority must be challenged (in love) and done to bring you back to the authority given by Christ himself to His Church. The Right Reverend Dr. Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, an outspoken liberal bishop has been very public in his challenges to authority on the issue of Same Sex Marriage along with many other ordained brothers and sisters. It was Rev. Rachel Mann’s, poet in residence at Manchester Cathedral, article on the recent issue of Rev. Jeremy Pemberton’s denial of licence to minister by his bishop, Rt Rev’d Richard Inwood, because of Pemberton’s marriage to his now husband Laurence Cunnington that made me reflect the most.

In the article Mann writes that the only thing Jeremy Pemberton has done wrong is got married. This is not true. Jeremy has broken Canon Law by refusing the authority of the church in to which he was ordained; authority held by his bishops. In acting against the wishes of this authority he has opened up the need for disciplinary action. He has sworn an oath of canonical allegiance to that authority and that authority must be allowed to act in the manner set out in accepted documents. In order of those documents to be changed there needs to be a thorough debate and discussion. Within that discussion there must be sacrifice on both sides and for reconciliation and peace to be achieved we must allow our selves to be challenged by God through the painful process of community.

Discipline in a Christian setting is about shaping someone into the likeness of Christ, who, himself was under authority. It is not a natural thing for us to reject obedience and we fight against it at every corner (Adam and Eve’s instinct still beats within us!). We don’t understand discipline and it always seems ‘unfair’ but that is what changes us. I repeat my assertion from before; authority must be held accountable and hence why I have promoted before the need for multiple authorities to be held in balance but it is important that we know what the rules are. The problem with the continual erosion of authority is that it encourages repetition. The great prophets and revolutionaries of human history are the ones who know and appreciate authority; who act under it and are humbled by it.

Reflection

Discipline is always a difficult subject and neither party ‘enjoys’ giving or receiving it but it is necessary. To be transformed is to be changed and change is painful and difficult. To live in community is to accept life under an authority; an authority of a Rule and that of an abbot. In parish life there is less explicit authority as anyone who doesn’t like a particular community leaves.

How do we exercise authority in a parish church? What does this look like? How do we accept the admonitions of others and how do we encourage each other to be accountable?

Heavenly Father, you sent your son Jesus to be an example of life under authority and you gave unto him all authority in heaven and earth. He then gave it to His disciples. He gave it so they could proclaim the gospel and to bring your people into a relationship with you. Help us to know how to wield and receive authority.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 25: grave faults

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

A brother guilty of a graver fault is to be excluded from the common table and the oratory

Who is excommunication for?

Dealing with excommunication in a culture like ours is difficult to understand. The last two weeks reflections have been an exploration of the need for context; the first week, the context for St. Benedict and the second, our own context. The two are very different in both cultural norms and the inevitable difference between cloistered life and parish life. I don’t want to dismiss these chapters, however, just because the specifics are not applicable (or not easily so). It has made me consider how, in parish, we deal with grave faults and what do we deem grave faults.

Once I started asking myself what constituted ‘grave faults’ I was struck by the clear answer:

If a brother is found to be stubborn, disobedient, proud or a murmurer, or at odds with the Holy Rule, or scornful of his elders’ directions.

Some of these do not affect those of us outside monastic vows and a ‘Holy Rule’. There are some, however, that do and leaves us with a sour taste in our mouth, or it does for me anyway. For I am stubborn (at times), disobedient (at times), proud (a little more). I struggle with ‘murmuring’ and it has been known for me to allow my lack of understanding of directions to work out into action. Most of these failings are kept buried in the secret place of my heart and I assume the same must be true of at least some of the brothers in Benedict’s communities. There s some universality of these faults that make me ask whether there is something else to be considering here, rather than the generic struggle with sin.

Excommunication and admonitions are not about personal battle with sin or the continual work of the working out of our salvation but more about protecting a community from the out workings of that sin. The ‘penance’ is there to protect others from the necessary impact of sins control of us. It is one thing to be committed to one another in our weaknesses and quite another to be battered and bruised by another’s failure to control sin.

It if often said that there are extreme circumstances when one must leave the presence of another in order to love them. I’m thinking here of addiction, violent behaviour or temptations. If you are trying to stay clean from substance abuse but are in a relationship with someone who cannot control their own urges, to stay with them would put undue strain on yourself to resist. Step out from the situation and you may be stronger then to love and support them.

We live in an age where we pay too little attention to the interconnection between all things. We delude ourselves into thinking that what we do does not affect others or our environment. Our actions and sometimes our attitudes impact others who we don’t even know and therefore do not consider. This, for me, is the problem of the individualist elements of liberalism. We consider ourselves masters of our own happiness and are willing to concern ourselves with others up to the point of which our own freedom and rights are intact. Sacrifice and self denial seem to play little to no part in these forms of liberalism.

I have struggled with the ethical and moral conversation in our country because of this issue. I am pro equal rights but without a balanced and realistic anthropology we fall into self autonomous entities striving for personal gratification creating violence of the heart and action and great conflict. I won’t reiterate my personal view to adopt a Hauerwasian approach to social ethics but I recommend, if you’re interested, to read my most recent post on it and/or search this site for any mention of Stanley Hauerwas.

For me it seems apparent that all our actions and attitudes impact others and that is why personal sin is a corporate issue. If I steal it impacts others. If I abuse substances and cripple myself with addiction this impacts others. John Donne famously noted, ‘no man is an island’ and it remains true. The sin of one is the sin of all. In the blindness of our own individual pride we consider this unfair when we judge some faults to be graver than others and we compare others’ faults with our own.

I was sat with someone in Food Bank on Monday whose experience of humanity was not glowing to say the least. With a history of sexual abuse, neglect on both personal and social level and indoctrination by self justified criminals this person was now an unrepentant thief who saw it was only fair to steal from corporation and the rich as they are doing far worse without punishment. They did not care or give a second thought to the impact of their cations on others. They wanted to consider their actions morally justified but, unfortunately their actions impacted others in ways they were not willing to accept.

The social dynamic of excommunication becomes apparent with ‘graver faults’ for we still understand this form of punishment for these sorts of ‘crimes’. If someone is a sexual predator is right to impose sanctions which put no one else in risk whilst at the same time communicating to the offender that their actions are not healthy or appropriate in a social setting.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

No Condemnation

As excommunication relates to both admonition and protection of community it must be a last resort and must be managed by a superior. If it is used at every situation then love cannot be shown and the failed brother will feel overly condemned. This condemnation is neither just nor godly. I’m reminded of Paul’s assertion,

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)

If too harsh a sentence is placed upon a brother then it may well lead them to succumb to sin even more. Here we return to the story of Cain and Abel. Cain already feels injustice has been done to him by God. God, in his next encounter with Cain, is clear when he expresses his love and care of Cain despite excommunicating him to Nod. Cain responds with pity and repentance and God forgives and protects him. The punishment is dealt for murder but even then God is bigger than sin and can forgive even the gravest of sins if we let him.

I’m reminded of a story Tony Campolo tells of a conference where he was invited to speak. It was just after Jim Bakker was exposed for his part in a sex scandal and before Campolo was introduced the moderator said,

We must learn to distance ourselves from the likes of Jim Bakker, lest the world out there think we are all like him.

This is not an appropriate understanding of excommunication for it does not leave room for repentance and forgiveness. Campolo goes on,

When I got up to speak, I said, “First of all, this is no time to distance ourselves from Jim Bakker. This is the time to embrace a Christian brother who is suffering. If we don’t do that, we negate what Jesus is all about and contradict all that we say about unconditional love. We should be embracing him, not establishing distance from him in his loneliness and time of need. Second, the only difference between Jim Bakker and the rest of us is that they haven’t found out about the rest of us yet. There is enough garbage in each of our lives that if all that was true about us was flashed up on a screen in the middle of a Sunday morning service, almost all of us would have to resign and run away and hide ourselves. Almost all of us have secrets, but we haven’t been exposed, so it does not befit any of us to condemn someone else who actually has been exposed.” (Tony Campolo in Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne, Red Letter Christianity: living the words of Jesus no matter the cost (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2012) p.28)

My immediate reaction to that was one of restraint,

But Tony, I haven’t been involved in deliberate financial fraud and sexual indecency!

And as the thought crossed my mind I realised that I am comparing my sins and judging them to be smaller or less significant to Bakker’s. God looks on all sin as the same and forgives them with the same weight and seriousness: sin is sin, to fail is to fail. We are all condemned but (and here’s the great news!) we are all forgiven.

“Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” (Luke 7:47)

Reflection

How do we deal with faults in our communities and parishes? Do we push people out for ease of life? Do we jump too quickly to punishment and condemnation rather than seeking the best for both individuals to receive God’s just and righteous grace and the community to be defended against temptation?

I’m struck again by the need for an abbot to know each monk in his care, to judge the correct and wise approach to penance. This cannot be done with universal markers. This admonition must stem from relationship, without that then it will be faceless and broad condemnation rather than supportive loving guidance and direction. Our penal system remains faceless and it is only when people are listened to and understood for the uniqueness of their context, motives, etc. can they be restored and transformed. This is why I’m a big supporter of restorative justice.

Perfect Judge and Loving Father, I’m sorry for all my faults both conscious and unconscious. Forgive me in your great mercy and lead me to the right path by your grace. Help me to forgive those that hurt me and whose actions impact me. Defend me against evil and lead me not into temptation.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 24: the measure of excommunication

It is ironic that after beginning to reflect on forgiveness and modes of reconciliation I should be in need from you, my dear reader, for forgiveness. I am disappointed with my self that I was unable to meet my deadline for publishing a post last week. I have my excuses! I am set to fly to Portugal in a week or so and to take some time out of public ministry takes an equal amount of time to prepare. I’m off for two weeks and so the last fortnight has been almost none stop; every moment available to work has been filled and, I’m sorry to say, one of my rest time has been taken over too. I’m also trying to think of the time I can carve out to write the next two weeks reflections in lieu of me going away. Maybe I should leave it until I get back…

Anyway please forgive my tardiness and lack of writing. I hope you understand.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

For minor faults a brother should be kept from eating at the common table

Why are we not afraid of excommunication?

I have been reflecting on the nature of excommunication and why it is not used all that much anymore. The banishment of a member from a community is not all that big a deal in our society. We excommunicate ourselves so often that to banished by someone else is a familiar experience. In our highly individualistic culture many of us are already starved of meaningful relationships and community that to be told not to participate is of no great significance. In fact maybe our equivalent is to be forced to stay in community as penance!

It was Billy Ocean who once wrote,

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

I’ve never fully understood that lyric but I’m inclined to disagree. When the going gets tough, the tough dig in It takes boldness and strength to stay even when relationships are sour and there is a breakdown of communication. It is path of suffering and heartache to walk that way and no one will walk it without ending up with scars but we walk it because God chose to walk it and it is in his shadow that we journey.

In olden times when we were more aware and appreciative of the worth and value of community, families and our social aspect to be cut off from other humans, to experience the complete lack of connection with an other would be a shocking and terrible thing. Today, when loneliness is so rife, this experience is not a punishment but almost an accepted reality. To be self-sufficient, self-reliant is an expectation and to be dependent on another is weakness of the highest order. This lie is a sickness that needs a drastic healing.

Excommunication, being refused a place at a common table, is in no way a punishment or a fear in our age; it is an expectation and assumption of millions of people. Mother Teresa famously said,

The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty — it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There’s a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God. (Mother Teresa quoted in REACH, col.27, no.4 (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Home Mission, 2001)

I’ve been reading Ian Mobsby’s and Mark Berry’s excellent book, ‘The New Monastic Handbook: from vision to practice’ and reached a chapter on practicing healthy communities. When talking about trust and belonging in new monastic communities they write,

The formalised virtues and spiritual practices become the bedrock for developing trusting and accepting relationships in the ecclesial community. Some new monastic communities encourage people who have to work hard at maintaining a healthy relationship, meeting regularly to ensure that communication difficulties or problems do not occur or escalate over time.

When a breakdown of relationship happens the punishment is not excommunication anymore but super-communication because loneliness is now a default not relationship. It pains me to write or acknowledge that but it is so true.

Reflection

The challenge today when living in community is not about how to get people to come, it’s about how to get them to stay! Everyone wants to be in community. There is an ideal community they hold to and the reality soon strips that romantic vision away. When the reality of living with others’ brokenness hurts (and it will hurt) staying feels like a punishment; it is no longer easy or expected.

Relationships of love, however, require a choice, to stay or to leave. This choice must be present at all times and must be genuine. To keep people in community is no longer loving but you hope that each member will find the strength to stay and bear the fruit from trust and belonging. The healing of our individualistic culture will come from people living the life of committed relationships of love. This is how we, as Christians, reveal the reality of God, to live in the supernatural strength of His love, grace and forgiveness and allow Him to shape us, as His body, into His likeness, God in community.

Holy God, Three in One, how beautiful is your love and fellowship! We desire to know and participate in the Triune strength of community. We need your strength to help and hold us at those times when our weakness breaks others and divides us. Save us from our selfish ambitions and vain conceits.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 23: excommunication for faults

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

If a brother is found to be stubborn, disobedient, proud or a murmurer…

When is enough enough?

As we head towards the middle of the year and, having prayed through the Rule of St. Benedict for 24 weeks, I have begun to ask:

What happens when someone fails to live in accord with others?

We all hold some ideals of behaviour and moral decisions, however loose they are. We are all soon aware, after spending any time with other people, that we all fall short of our own expectations and the expectations of others. It is easy to beat ourselves up over our repetitive failures and disappointments and easy also to point out the faults of others. Even if the ‘law’ does not exist in concrete terms there are always guidelines or expectations within a group of correct ways to behave and when those expectations are not met there is a cry for justice or a lesson to be learnt.

Having reflected a lot on discipline over the last two weeks and how I respond to different forms of it being exercised on me personally, I have found that I appreciate it when people package criticism or complaint within a reminder of deep and real relationship. I wrote two weeks ago about the need to be known; to be in a long term trusting relationship, where character formation can happen. Our deep changes in character cannot be done in a vacuum or in some distant, business-like environment but in deep and loving relationships. I respond to people who have committed to me before they tell me my faults.

It is important not to automatically jump over the first stage of St. Benedict’s guidance to admonition. The Bible suggests if one hurts or causes conflict within the Body of Christ then they should be told, privately, on two occasions. This is harder than many of us are willing to give credit for. To go and tell someone directly and in love, in case of falling into reproof ourselves, is tough and vulnerable. It is easier to gossip and moan behind their back and then gang up with others and expel them… I sadly speak from experience.

The ‘failings’ of a fellow Christian is easier to speak about when the matter is small but we put it off and imagine it will be a one off. Rarely, if at all, are the large indiscretions not preceded by smaller minor offences. There is always that first sign of trouble. Take the story of Cain as an example.

After Cain and Abel take their offering to God and God prefers Abel’s to Cain’s, Cain’s ‘countenance fell’ (Genesis 4:5); he gave up. It was that small thing that shows he had allowed envy and jealousy into his heart. It was this small moment when he gave in to that voice in his head which said,

God loves Abel more than you because you’re… and he’s… It’s not fair.

That small paranoid voice that demands more attention or interprets others actions wrongly is a small seed which can fester and grow. It can quickly escalate into bitterness and anger and then to murder.

The question is when do you say something? When is enough enough?

In my family I was taught it was easier to talk about a small, relatively isolated issue before it embeds within someone’s character/personality and before it gets tightly woven into multiple and varying examples of actions and choices; before everything gets complicated and muddied. I was also taught it was easier to apologies at this stage rather than having to go back over many incidents. If you can acknowledge a problem early on it is easier to manage/‘master’ (Gen 4:7) It’s as God says to Cain,

If you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

Resisting selfish instincts is hard work and to keep watch over them is a full time occupation that is why we are put in communities, into families. The correction, however, must be done with love, which is patient and kind, not envious or boastful, etc. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) To face wrongly expressed ‘truths’ is often painful and unhelpful in developing in character. What is needed is both grace and truth.

So when is enough enough? I’d say when it is easier to say something gently and patiently rather than when it is out of control and ingrained.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Ministry of Reconciliation

After a year of being an ordained priest I have already had my share of conflict and need for reconciliation. This aspect of priestly ministry has been important in my personal understanding of vocation. The ordinal states,

Formed by the word, they [priests] are to call their hearers to repentance and to declare in Christ’s name the absolution and forgiveness of their sins. (The Ordination of Priests, Common Worship: Ordination Services, The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England: The Prayer Book as Proposed in 1928; The Alternative Service Book 1980; both of which are copyright © The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England)

To reconcile warring parties is to stand between them and hold them together in peace. This position means that you can become enemy to all sides as you try to mediate between them. Reconciliation is painful but it is to follow Christ in His ultimate work on the cross. Paul writes in Colossians,

For in him [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19-20)

Over the next six weeks we will be reflecting on judgement, punishment and forgiveness but I want to begin by saying that the severity of punishment of excommunication must be understood and exercised within the complete mercy and grace of God who has reconciled all things in Christ. What that means is that all things are held in their correct place and relationship by Christ. Without this acceptance that God is working out that reconciliation, that bringing together of all things into harmony and right relationship with one another, then excommunication is a further severing of relationship.

Reflection

Conflict is hard and gut-wrenchingly painful. I have sat through break downs of relationship in churches, in marriages, in families and in businesses. I have been divided within myself as I see two friends or groups that I care for turn their backs on one another and vow never to speak again. I have tried to sit between people and encourage dialogue and peace and I have failed on many occasions. For me, peace and reconciliation can only occur when relationships are deep; deeper than the superficial exchanges we now label ‘relationship’. We, as a society, now settle for second rate relationships and miss out on sustaining and life-giving intimacy because we are afraid of the risk that it takes to enter such a commitment.

Loving Father, Prince of Peace, thank you for being the source of peace. Thank you for the blessed Trinity, community of love and commitment, our epitome of relationship. We are sorry for the times we cut ourselves off from others by our attitude, actions and words. Forgive us and bring us back to your love where we are held and transformed.

Come, Lord Jesus.