On Church Discipline
or an inquiry into the values and questions surrounding ecclesiology within the Anglican communion in its foundational documents, &c.
Our Present Age
Volume 1, No. 3
On church discipline, or an inquiry into the values and questions surrounding ecclesiology within the Anglican communion in its foundational documents, particularly the thirty-nine articles of religion, with a brief exploration of representative early church fathers, with a view to explore the relevance and practice of church discipline through the life and ministry of Bishop James Pike
By Jacob Patrick Collins
23 September 2022
How and when to discipline errant members are the greatest unanswered questions of modern church life. Though people like Bill Hybels or Ravi Zacharias have been censored for adultery or something like it, what can be done with cases that are less prominent, like a preacher promoting homosexuality or a Sunday school teacher explaining why it’s okay for people to sleep around—-how can people like that be corrected? What formal mechanisms exist for explaining to them that they are wrong, and, if they persist in their errors, remove them from their positions?
Worse than that, what if you are the pastor and you know your biggest donor who pays over half the bills is cheating on his wife and neglecting his children? What can you do about it? How, in other words, can you discipline a Christian who refuses to behave himself, whose life is unmarked by the character of the Spirit of God?
In an era when individuals are afraid to make definitive claims regarding truth, and more people say that they would never become Christian because of the “Church’s hypocrisy,” we must have an ecclesiology defined by an historic understanding of our church and its faith, especially in what ways and when errant members are to be disciplined.
In this essay I intend to demonstrate three things:
The ecclesiastical doctrines of a representative sample of the early church fathers;
The ecclesiastical doctrines of Anglicanism, specifically in its foundational documents;
The consequences of a weak ecclesiology, particularly through the example of the Episcopal Church’s failure to discipline James Pike, the fifth bishop of California.
The hope is to define an ecclesiology robust enough to explain why church discipline is important and what happens when a weak ecclesiology pervades an institutional church.
The Ecclesiastical Doctrines of a Representative Sample of the Early Church Fathers
In one of the earliest examples of a defined ecclesiology, Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210–258) suggests that the Church functions as the guardians of the deposit of faith given to them through the Scriptures. This rule of faith (regula fidei) must be believed by all who profess God as their Father and intend to inherit those blessings of eternal life.[1] Faith, and by extension salvation, is coherent makes sense only in the context of the church. Lactantius (c. 250–c. 325) writes,
Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which is any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation…the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable.[2]
The regula fidei contains, for Lactantius, “true worship” as well as right doctrine; thus anyone who wishes to think about God rightly or worship him properly must maintain, as far as he is able, a good relationship with the Church, both in its liturgical practices as well as in its formal theological statements.
For the early Church fathers, the Church was central as God’s intended agent of salvation; that is, God intended to work through the Church to save his people. The idea of a personal faith in God was significant but salvific only if it is mediated through the Church. This is not the Church today situated in Rome, for nothing resembling the modern hierarchy had been so well developed at that point in history. Rather, the church fathers recognized that the Church was the people of God. Preaching, baptizing, and communicating were necessary parts of Church life but were not its defining characteristics. Instead, they understood that only those whom God has called to live by faith are his children and thus part of the Church.
Ecclesial abuses in the Middle Ages ran rampant, and the Reformation was in part a response to a church structure which no longer provided for the needs of the people. As the perceived primary instrument of God’s intended salvation, both by laymen and clerics, the Roman institution had abrogated its responsibility to proclaim the gospel by accumulating wealth and power, often at the expense of the vulnerable.[3] A robust ecclesiology would largely take care of this, but despite a rigidly-defined hierarchy, the Medieval Church had difficulty defining itself and what its responsibilities were.
The Medieval period saw the growth of the institutional church, a corporate being which viewed itself as the means of salvation. The Reformers developed fresh ecclesiologies based on the earliest ecclesial and theological statement of the church fathers. They knew well the failings of the Roman church and therefore intended to unite true Christians under the authority of Scripture through an ecclesiological structure based on the Bible itself. The four Nicene marks (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) were correct, but had two deficits: first, there was no defining statement on liturgical forms; and second, there was no criteria for judging whether or not a so-called “church” had fallen away and was therefore part of the church no more. The Reformers established an ecclesiology which therefore could fill the gaps.
The Ecclesiastical Doctrines of Anglicanism, Specifically in its Foundational Documents
In the Anglican world, Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer (r. 1533–1555) affirmed the old Augustinian distinction of the invisible and visible Church: the “congregation of all the saints and true believers, who really believe in Christ the Head and are sanctified by his Spirit” is the Body of Christ, but it is known only to God; that is, God alone is capable of determining who belongs to the invisible Church (those who have genuine faith). The visible church contains all those who have been baptized but contain a mixture of good and evil people “discerned by the proclamation of the Gospel and the fellowship of the sacraments.” Cranmer then affirms the four Nicene marks of the Church, suggesting that its doctrine and practice, not its allegiance to a particular see, constitutes a true church.[4] For Cranmer and the English reformers, the traditional ecclesiological statements were central to a proper understanding of the church, but they sought a way of judging which churches could be considered united, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Their method was not in strict identification with and allegiance to the Pope in Rome, as the Medieval era saw it. Instead, they believed that right doctrine and right practice were the primary means by which a church could rightly so be called. The principles were later codified into the now-familiar Articles of Religion, especially Articles 19, 20, 21, and 34, which present a fuller ecclesiology and the defining statement of the Anglican church
First, Article 19 provides a definition of the Church closely aligned with the Lutheran view while also including a condemnation of both the faith and liturgy of the Catholic and Orthodox churches:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living (and manner of ceremonies), but also in matters of faith.
In this article, Cranmer defines the national church. Though he uses terms such as “congregation” which do actions that can only be done in a particular time and space (i.e., preach the gospel and administer the sacraments), this is reserved to the bishops who then delegate the responsibilities to parish priests.[5] There are two reasons to suggest this. First, Cranmer compares the “visible Church of Christ” with the various churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all central cities and the seats of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs at that time, along with the Western seat of the Church in Rome. Thus in this context, “congregation” must refer to a broader body than merely a local parish. Second, the “visible Church of Christ” consists of “faithful men.” As he observed previously in drafts of the Articles, Cranmer understood that not everyone who calls themselves “Christian” or regularly participates in the life of the parish church can rightly be called faithful or even a believer more generally. There is thus a mixture of faithful and faithless men in every parish. However, the true Church is a “congregation of faithful men.” If evil men taint a parish congregation, then it cannot be a church if we say that this article refers only to churches on a single parish level.[6] In other words, Article 19 cannot refer exclusively to a single parish church because it consists exclusively of those who have faith. Therefore we must interpret Article 19 more broadly, saying that the Church consists of believers who have professed faith.
In a stunning move, Article 19 also implicitly blurs the distinctions between the visible and invisible church. Cranmer suggests that a national church is the visible church, whose validity to be so called is determined by signs which are easily perceived (rather than the ephemeral definitions from the patristic era), consists of faithful people. This sounds also like the traditional understanding of the invisible church, which consists exclusively of the faithful. Therefore the antithesis between visible and invisible churches is not so clearly defined as originally articulated, for both consist of the faithful.[7] In this sense, Article 19 can freely condemn a broader church for abandoning the “deposit of faith” since it does not consist of faithful men. Therefore churches which are identified with the church of a particular time and place, such as Rome, can be condemned as not truly belonging to the invisible church. The participation of members of a visible church in an invisible church can be judged based on their allegiance to a particular parish church. Though only God can judge the hearts of individuals, it is possible to say that a church body is not part of the larger universal and invisible church because it does not properly guard the faith by preaching the gospel and correctly administering the sacraments. This is a radical development in Reformation ecclesiology.
Second, Article 20 grants the church significant authority by allowing for it to establish rites and ceremonies, which is the theological justification for the imposition of common prayer, but acknowledges that the authority of the church lies in Scripture itself:
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
In 1563, Queen Elizabeth insisted upon buttressing up the authority of the English Church by the addition of the phrase, “The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,” to the beginning of Article 20. This permitted a more centralized rule of law governing the Church and provided theological justification, however tenuous, to the imposition of a single prayer book across the realm of England.[8] The Church, though it is the guardian of Scripture, is also subject to Scripture. Thus any interpretation which exaggerates the authority of the Church to arbitrarily add to the rule of faith contained in God’s Word is condemned.[9] The English reformers bound themselves to the authority of God’s word, understanding saw that their project could be successful only by his grace. Thus they were careful to establish that the Church was an institution which was careful in what it claimed. Unlike the Roman Church, the Anglican Church provides very few positive statements of faith beyond affirming the centrality of Scripture in rightly preaching and administering the sacraments.
Subsequent prayer books and editions of the 39 Articles retain the previous two as they are here presented, but Articles 21 and 37 have not passed through history unscathed. Article 21 assumes a particularly close relationship between the church and the state:
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be as assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.
Article 37 closely accompanies this one, at least in principle, because it affirms the authority of the civil magistrate to rule over whatever God has ordained unto him, even if that includes spiritual estates.
Neither of these articles have survived intact in the American prayer book tradition. In printings of the 1789 (after 1808, since the Articles were not ratified in the United States until 1801) and 1892 prayer books, the text of Article 21 is appended by a footnote which reads, “The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.” In the 1928 BCP, the article was omitted altogether and replaced by the text of the footnote itself. In every American prayer book until 2019, Article 37 is replaced by a general principle that Christians are subject to the rule of law of the state, which has authority in affairs of state but not over spiritual affairs. In the United States, this article revision seems appropriate since amendments to the canons or ecclesial policies of the Episcopal Church does not require approval from a government body as it does in what is now the United Kingdom.
Yet what is particularly valuable in this article is the broader acknowledgement that the judgments of men can err, even within the context of a general (or ecumenical) council. Thus this article builds upon the principles established in the previous: though the Church is the guardian of the regula fidei, it must also submit to the rule itself. If a council has declared something “repugnant to the Word of God,” even if it is ecumenical (such as Nicaea II’s condemnation of the iconoclasts in 787), then the council itself has “neither strength nor authority.”
Article 34 provides that the “Traditions and Ceremonies” are not required to be the same in every place since they have been instituted by men, unless they are contrary to God’s word: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” It is less clear, however, how this article can fit in with Article 20. Though the central Church has the authority to declare which “Rites and Ceremonies” should be commonly practiced, this article allows that liturgies are not required to be the same everywhere.[10] The latitudes of Article 34 have allowed national churches in the broader Anglican Communion to adopt their own prayer books which have been adapted to local traditions. This also contradicts the Roman policy, to this day requires liturgical uniformity, even if not linguistic uniformity, across the world. While it is unlikely that this pattern has ever been perfectly followed, the Roman idea was that the unity of the Church was maintained by similarity in both doctrine and worship. The 39 Articles thus permit union of the Church apart from the similarities of structures of worship insofar as they are under the authority of Scripture. Unity of the visible/invisible church derives not from conformity to a single liturgical pattern but from a shared object of liturgical worship.
The objections to the definition of the Church provided in the Articles of Religion are therefore tenuous at best. Though the Articles present largely a more aspirational picture of the Church than we would perhaps like to admit, the episcopal structure of the Church is helpful in maintaining discipline and order but is not in itself necessary for the Church’s self-understanding. Instead, the Church is united by its commitment to the Word of God and its faithfulness to do what has been commanded. Anglicans ought to have a robust ecclesiology, for even in the most basic of their foundational documents we can see strong evidence of claims about a church which is constituted of faithful Christians diligently striving, by God’s grace and for his kingdom in response to his acts of mercy, for the welfare of the world: “For the whole state of Christ’s Church and the world, let us pray: κύριε ελέησον, χρίστε ελέησον, κύριε ελέησον.”
The Consequences of a Weak Ecclesiology
Even when churches have submitted themselves to God’s Word and maintain a certain level of faithfulness to the requirements for membership, there are still examples of individuals who abuse the faith or present a theological system which contradicts the regula fidei. In such cases, the traditional practice of the church has been to discipline the member or the dissenting view, usually through a series of anathemas pronounced at a church council. Thus Nicaea I (A.D. 325) condemned and deposed Arius and all his followers, but the effectiveness of the deposition of all Arians was a political issue. Arianism continued to propagate, especially in Northern Europe, for centuries after Arius’ death because of the favor of certain political rulers. Even though a council or church body may condemn an individual and his teachings, the anathemas are not always enforced on the ground.
The issue of church discipline is therefore not a new one, but it is a difficult one. What is to be done with individuals who live or present a doctrine which contradicts the teaching of the church? What should be done when they refuse to give it up, or find themselves in positions of influence which makes it impossible to enforce a decision against them even if one is made? Whatever else may be said about the Puritans, it is evident that they were concerned with imposing stricter disciplinary measures in English churches, notably by trying to make faith a matter of both the mind and the heart. From their perspective, the fundamental failure of the English reformation was its failure to actually change people’s lives by applying the virtues of daily prayer and Scripture reading to every person’s life.[11] Though Cranmer attempted to establish some sense of order in the English church through his reformation of canon law, the measures failed to gain any support in Parliament, and he was killed before serious work could be done to establish disciplinary procedures in Anglican churches.
There are plentiful examples of church leaders failing to exercise discipline upon members, but none is so notable in the Anglican world as the twice-divorced James Pike (1913–1969), the fifth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California.[12] As he aged, Pike became more progressive in his views, ordaining a woman to the transitional diaconate (which was not permitted at the time), accepting homosexual members into his churches, frequenting clairvoyants to communicate with his dead son, and rejecting certain central tenets of the orthodox Christian faith such as the virgin birth, the doctrine of hell, and the Trinity. Though he was informally accused of heresy on various occasions by other Episcopal bishops, the Episcopal Convention was afraid what a public heresy trial would do for its image in the broader American conscience. Since Pike had established himself as a prominent religious figure in popular America through regular spots on broadcast networks (as popular in some circles as Fulton Sheen or Billy Graham), a heresy trial could damage the perceived legitimacy of the Episcopal Church. As a result, the bishops agreed that heresy charges could no longer be brought against Pike, and formal ecclesial censures could only be made for certain irresponsible actions as immoral living and not for doctrines. In so doing, the Episcopal Church castrated itself, taking on a voluntary impotence to actually require its most prominent figures to believe anything. Church discipline which cannot censure for false teaching is no discipline at all. Since the canons of the Episcopal Church now only provide discipline for immoral living and not for false beliefs, Episcopalians now have no mechanism whereby they can actually guard the deposit of faith with which they were entrusted.
If the modern Anglican world is to take seriously the requirements of the Articles of Religion, which say that the Church is identified by the pure preaching of God’s Word and proper administration of the sacraments, then there must be some way of ensuring that individuals, especially those in positions of power such as James Pike, are in fact teaching what the faith truly is and not what they wish it to be. If their lifestyle and doctrine run contrary to the rule of faith, then Anglicans must be able and willing to affirm that those individuals are not properly part of the Church at all and so must be avoided (Article 33; cf 1 Cor 5:9–13). The purity of the Church as the Bride of Christ cannot be tainted by those who claim the name Christ but never knew him.
Conclusion
In this essay, I offered an ecclesiology based on the writings of a representative sample of the early church fathers and the foundational documents of the Church of England. In short, the church consists of those who have faith in God, wheresoever they may be, identified most easily in this life by allegiance to a particular parish church, a public profession of faith, and a daily “attempt to lead a new life.” Though Christians confess they are saved by grace and can do nothing to earn their salvation, their overflowing love for God results in a turn toward righteous living.
When institutions are not concerned with stamping out error, either in doctrine or in lifestyle, then their foundations begin to erode. The evidence for this is in the Episcopal Church epitomized in James Pike and continuing on through people like John Shelby Spong or Gene Robinson. Because the Episcopal Church lacked a self-understanding of itself as an institution responsible for the care of souls, for crafting a people devoted to the love of God, then it had no moorings.
Priests, bishops, and anyone else in holy orders must be tried in ecclesiastical courts for heresy under the canons of the church (thus the importance of canon law programs!); and, if found guilty, defrocked until they are willing to repent of their sin. This is straightforward and should not cause any serious issues. The question remains, however, how laymen can be disciplined when they need to be censured. Beyond withholding the eucharist, which the general rubrics instruct us to do, there is extraordinarily little beyond asking a person not to come back. This is the question which we have to answer: how can a person claim to be part of the church but continue to be a “notorious and evil liver”? Or a related question: What must we do to the heretics?
[1] Cyprian of Carthage, Letter No. 33 (ML 4.298; ANF V, 305); in John R. Willis, ed., The Teachings of the Church Fathers (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 50. For the regula fidei, see Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching 1.1.3; 2.4.98, trans. John Behr (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 42, 100.
[2] Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 4.30 (ML 4.30; ANF VII, 133); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 60. See also Augustine, “Sermon to the People of the Church of Caesarea” 6 (ML 43.695); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 60. See also Tertullian, The Prescription of Heretics 37 (ML 2.50; ANF III, 261); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 56–57; Fulgentius, On Faith, to Peter 3 (ML 65.692; also ibid., 37–38 [ML 65.703–704]); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 61; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 18.23 (MG 33.1044; NPNF VII, 139); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 62; Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians 8 (ML 23.163; NPNF VI, 324); in Willis, ed., Teachings, 94.
[3] See discussions in Robert Louis Benson and Robert Charles Figueira, Plenitude of Power (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006), esp. 40ff.; Ian Stuart Robinson, The Papacy, 1073–1198 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), and especially Florian Wöller, “Corpus and Communio. Two Key Themes of Late Medieval Ecclesiology,” eds. Anna Vind and Herman J. Selderhuis (Refo500 Academic Studies 72; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021), 91–122.
[4] Gerald Bray, ed., Documents of the English Reformation (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2004), 189–191. The ideas contained in this early article (13) are later dispersed throughout several of the different 39 Articles. They are reaffirmed in the 11 Articles of 1559 (Article 3; idem, 350), the Irish Articles of 1615 (Article 13.68–74; idem), and the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (Article 25.1–6; idem, 506–507, 519). There are close parallels also with the Savoy Declaration of 1658 (idem, 521–543, esp. Articles 3–10, pp. 539, 540), and the Second London (Baptist) Confession of 1689 (idem, 578–583, esp. 26.1–7, pp. 580, 581).
[5] Martin Thornton, Pastoral Theology: A Reorientation (London: SPCK, 1961), 19, n. 3.
[6] See arguments in Gerald Bray, The Faith We Confess (London: The Latimer Trust, 2009), 107.
[7] See similar arguments in Oliver O’Donovan, On the 39 Articles (Oxford: Latimer House, 1986), 88–90.
[8] Charles Neil and J. M. Willoughby, The Tutorial Prayer Book (London: The Harrison Trust, 1913), 543–544, 558–559, citing Acts 25:28–29.
[9] O’Donovan, Articles, 113–114; Bray, Faith, 110.
[10] Neil and Willoughby, Tutorial, 569.
[11] See Gerald Bray, The History of Christianity in Britain and Ireland (London: Apollos, 2021), 243–257, esp. 244–248, on the issues surrounding the rise of Puritanism.
[12] See various articles in Christianity Today: Edward H. Pitts, “Pike Demands a Trial” (11 Oct 1966); Edward E. Plowman, “The Pike Side Show” (13 Oct 1967); and Michael G. Maudlin, “Be Careful What You Pray For” (Aug 2004).