What Shall We Do with Heretical Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Laity in the Church of England, and with Baptism?

 

The question of what to do with heretical bishops, priests, deacons, and laity in the Church of England is now front and centre.  This past week, the General Synod met and backed blessings for same-sex couples.  The vote showed a strong majority for bishops and slim majorities for priests and laity.[1]  Three issues that come immediately to mind for orthodox Christians should be: ‘Should the ordinations of heretical clergy be received?’ and ‘Should baptism performed by heretical clergy in a now apostate Church of England be received by the orthodox, true believers?’  While many think the pressing question is whether there might be an orthodox diocese within the Church of England for orthodox clergy and churches, matters like ordination and baptism show that there can be no such arrangement.  The third issue is, 'What do we do with repentant heretics in the Church in regard to ordination and baptism?'

Let’s explore the issue some on the matter of baptism.  Ask yourself which of the following groups you would affirm as Christian and offering true baptism?

·       Orthodox Church

·       Roman Catholic

·       Anglican

·       Presbyterian

·       Baptist

·       Assemblies of God

All of these denominations affirm an orthodox statement of faith.  The Baptists and Assemblies of God would not, however, accept infant baptism.  Anyone coming to those denominations who had been baptised as an infant would be given believer’s baptism.  The Roman Church accepts baptism from many non-Catholic denominations to avoid rebaptism (cf. canon 845.1).  [This statement is a correction from an earlier version of the post--see the comment someone made at the end.]  An enquiry is made into each case.

In the discussion of accepting another group's baptism, the problem is greatly increased when some group holds to a view or views that are outside orthodox Christianity.  Recall, for instance, that Jews practiced proselyte baptism.  But what Christian Church would say, 'Oh, great, baptism!  We can go with that.  We won't rebaptise you if you join us.'  Hardly.  We are talking about Christian baptism.  Frankly, we are talking about Trinitarian baptism (Matthew 28.19).  (I recently attended a baptism in a Baptist Church in which several ministers baptised people.  Some baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and some simply in the name of Jesus.  The theological confusion was painful to bear, even though this was a Trinitarian, orthodox church.)

Or what about unorthodox groups claiming to be Christian?  What about the Mormons, for example?  How about the Jehovah's Witness?  Christians have seen such groups as outside the Christian faith even though they claim to be Christian.  Converts from such groups would be given Christian baptism: they would not simply be joining another denomination but converting to Christianity.

How about the baptism, though given in a Christian denomination, when it is given by a minister duly ordained but actually an unbeliever?  Or perhaps he was a believer but later became apostate.  Actually, this question did arise early on in the Church, when some Christian ministers denied Christ during the Decian persecution.  The decision of the orthodox Church at the time was that the faith of the minister did not nullify one's baptism, as long as the baptism was offered within a truly Christian church.  Over time, the orthodox position came to be that baptism or Communion was valid if:

·       Provided by a duly ordained person

·       Performed with the right words

·       Given with the right intent

That is, if a drunken monk, with the right intent, stumbled out of the monastery and consecrated a bread truck for Communion, the bread was indeed consecrated and had to be consumed by the monastery as Communion bread![2]  

However, the purity of a minister within an orthodox Church is different from the matter of baptism in what the orthodox consider to be an apostate Church.  In antiquity, Gnostics, Nestorians, and Arians were considered to be outside the Christian Church.  Faltering priests in the time of persecution was one issue; priests in ‘Churches’ claiming to be Christian but were rejected by the orthodox was another.

But that decision is not one that applies in our day when we see mainline denominations give up the orthodox faith on a variety of issues, most notably on homosexuality and marriage.  What we have is a 'fake Church', one that claims to be Christian, continues to cite the creed, affirms in 'form' Trinitarian doctrine, but is not Christian in fact.  Which is worse, a heretical Church that openly teaches its heresies or a heretical Church that claims to be orthodox?

Consider decisions made earlier in Christian history regarding heretics and both ordination and baptism.[3]  (The matter is much larger than the discussion given here.)

1.     At the 1^st Ecumenical Council, the matter of what to do with bishops and priests who had been involved in the Iconoclastic Controversy was addressed.  Canon 8 states that they could remain in office after providing a written statement that they would conform to the Church's practices they had rejected and after a time of penance.  Then they would have hands laid upon them again, and they would, of course, further adhere to the dogmas of the Church.

2.     At the 7^th Ecumenical Council at Concord, the 68^th canon stated: 'If any bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon accepts a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.'  The canon equates ordination and baptism in consideration of heretics.  As a heretical priest's or presbyter's baptism of someone is not considered baptism, an orthodox priest baptising someone the former person had 'baptised' is not wrong.

With this background, we can see what requirements were placed upon repentant heretics seeking entrance into the Russian Orthodox Church.  (No, I’m not thinking of becoming Russian Orthodox.  The issue is, ‘What considerations have been given in Church history to such matters?’)  In the Striaton in 1606, at the time of Metropolitan Peter Moghila, services to receive such persons in the Church set out the following:[4]

1.     For non-Christians, as well as Socinian Anabaptists: a five day catechumens rite, a profession of faith; this was different for Jews, Saracens, and Socinians, whom he calls "Arians": baptism, chrismation, communion.

2.     For Protestants: a profession of faith, as well as an exorcism and insufflation, absolution, confirmation, and communion.

3.     For Roman Catholics, Uniates and apostates: a confession of faith, confession, communion.

Explanation of two things may be helpful.  'Chrismation' refers to anointing with consecrated oil, and sufflation is an ancient practice of the Church.  Insufflation is an act of blowing to receive the Spirit, and exsufflation is an act of blowing or hissing to chase away the devil.  Thus, chrismation is a sealing with the Spirit and sufflation is a spiritual purification regarding spiritual powers.  Both anointing with oil and renouncing the devil and all his ways are part of the baptismal service itself.

Returning, then, to our question, we might lay out several theses for consideration in light of the current crisis of the Church of England's approval of prayers asking God to bless same-sex relations.

1.     Baptism by these heretical bishops and priests, even though they claim to be part of a Trinitarian, orthodox Church, should not be received by the Church.  This is not only because of the state of their own souls but because the Church of England itself has taken steps to heresy.  To receive such baptism would be similar to the Church receiving baptism from an Arian or Mormon Church.  The issue is no longer heretical clergy but now a heretical Church.

2.     This issue makes it impossible for an orthodox diocese to exist within the Church of England.  The orthodox could not function as necessary in such an arrangement.  They would be expected to receive persons from the heretical wing of the Church without baptism or ordination.  Other matters would be difficult or impossible as well, such as evangelism, pastoral care, purity, and providing a singular witness in the world.

3.     Repentant deacons, priests, and bishops from the Church of England should be expected to go through some sort of process of acceptance, as in the Orthodox Church.  What that would be needs to be determined by an orthodox body.  For persons baptised or ordained prior to a certain date (such as 15 November, 2023), when the Church's orthodoxy was more established, possibilities to consider would be: a time of repentance (no automatic transfer of credentials), a written statement of what they believe and will do in regard to the issues dividing the Church, affirmation of an orthodox statement of Church teaching (more than the 39 Articles would be necessary, given the dividing issues of today), a renunciation of the devil, a sealing with consecrated oil and reception of the Holy Spirit, and a laying on of hands.  This would be the possible process, for example, to receive the Archbishop of Canterbury into the orthodox Church of Uganda.  After the date, and with further assessment in individual cases, there may also be a need for Christian baptism and no recognition of prior ordination.

4.     Urgent consideration should be given regarding the acceptance of ordination and baptism from other denominations.  This is important for orthodox Anglicans in the affirm their communion with other orthodox denominations.  And what goes for Anglicans in these suggestions goes also for all the other mainline denominations facing the same crisis.

These suggestions do not cover everything, but they are the sort of considerations that orthodox Anglicans ought to be discussing as the Communion is irreparably torn by heretical bishops, priests, and laity.

---

[1] See the press release on Anglican Ink: ‘Synod backs trial of special services for blessing for same-sex couples’ (15 November, 2023); https://anglican.ink/2023/11/15/synod-backs-trial-of-special-services-asking-for-blessing-for-same-sex-couples/ (accessed 16 November, 2023).

[2] This example was given in class by Professor David Steinmetz at Duke Divinity, where I precepted as a doctoral student.

[3] This information was taken from: The Reception of Heretic Laity and Clergy Into the Orthodox Church: A Reply to Bishop Tikhon's Letter of Instruction #10 (orthodoxinfo.com) (accessed 16 November, 2023).

[4] Ibid.