Donatism and Those Damn ECUSA heretics!

Below is a dialog with Brad Boydston, who is helping me understand the heresy of Donatism better. At 11:30 AM 6/3/2004, you wrote: The Ultra Rev: Dear Brad, Could you help me in understanding the Donatist heresy a little better? I have read a couple of articles get the basic gist: the efficacy of the sacraments is not dependent upon the moral character of the one who administers them. The 4th century issue was the consecration of a bishop by another bishop who was considered a "traditor" (or a traitor: one who turns over sacred books & relics to civil authorities during a period of persecution). The part I need help with is this: is there a difference between the moral character and theology of a bishop/priest/pastor? Brad: No, there is no fundamental difference in the response that Augustine developed (If memory serves me right). Augustine argued that the efficaciousness of the sacraments resided with the catholic church itself rather than with any particular individual bishop. The Donatists argued that the efficaciousness had something to do with the character of the individual bishop. But what happens when the whole church pretty much abandons catholicity? For example, Augustine would have not recognized the sacraments of the Donatist churches because they had abandoned their catholic connections (regardless of how orthodox they may have been). The individual bishop (Cacillian) was okay because the catholic connection was still in place -- even though he had a moral failure. He was still connected to the broader church. The Donatists may have been purer but they had abandoned the catholic connection. This is really about catholic connection. Again, though, what happens when the whole structure abandons catholicty? In other words, the current situation in the Episcopal Church is the complete opposite of the Donatist controversy. The Donatist controversy, as framed by Augustine, involved an individual and his followers who had abandoned the catholic connection. But now we have a whole church which is acting like separatistic Donatists (but for different reasons). So, the orthodox remnant is the only part of the church that maintains catholicity. The Ultra Rev: Would heretical theology make the sacraments or the consecration/ordination of a priest any less efficacious? When I say heretical, I am thinking about ministers who might deny the deity of Christ, or the existence of the Trinity, or the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Brad: I don't know. It seems to me that it is hard to know where to draw the line. In typical Covenant manner I can tell you where the center is (and that's where I want to be) but that it is often difficult to discern the edges. The problem in the Episcopal Church is that they don't know where the center is anymore. The real issue is when does the church cease being the church? And I would answer that it does so when it denies the center -- the core -- then it is no longer really a church anyway. It may have a church structure and it may function with some degree of effectiveness. But they are no longer the church because they have no catholic connection. Portions of the Episcopal Church are still Church but a good portion is nothing more than an empty shell. Are the sacraments they produce efficacious? Who knows? But why do we deny the gospel by pretending that we are united in sacrament when there is no real unity? And there can be no unity because Christ is no longer the center. That's more of the issue. The sacraments become a false statement. This is where the Eastern Orthodox are helpful. They understand that it's not apostolic succession in and of itself that makes the difference. It is the connectedness to the church catholic that it represents. That is, there is no magic that is transmitted through apostolic succession so that someone can function apart from the whole. And the Episcopal Church is operating apart from the whole. The Ultra Rev: Many orthodox priests in the Episcopal Church are being accused of being Donatists if they do not receive the Eucharist from their Bishop whose theology appears to be heretical. Brad: So they, the organizational Episcopalians, are admitting that they have betrayed the gospel and sold out like Felix (He was the one who had surrendered the gospel)? If the orthodox are puritan separatists then they are traitors (using their argument). The other problem with this argument is that Donatus was seen as a heretic. In the ECUSA system nothing is considered heretical. By definition you can't be a heretic in that environment. And that is un-catholic. The Ultra Rev: While these Bishops may be fine moral people, clearly some of their public statements no doubt make them out of step with the faith handed down to us by the Apostles — outright heretics if you ask me. Brad: Yup. How can heretics rightly accuse people of orthodox faith of heresy? Go figure. This morning Richard Kew sent email to his list (see below) in which he talks about Thomas Oden's thesis ("The Rebirth of Orthodoxy") that orthodoxy always wins out given enough time. Kew says, therefore orthodox episcopalians should hang in there. But as I see it there have been plenty of places where heterodoxy has prevailed for centuries -- where the Arian church almost eradicated the catholic church. Yes, over centuries orthodoxy bobbed to the surface time and time again. But I think that the problem with Kew and friends is that they too closely associate traditional Anglicanism with the totality of orthodoxy. I would argue that orthodoxy will bob to the surface but it may or may not be Anglican. I like Paul Larsen's metaphor of water running down a hillside. It may encounter a barrier -- a rock or a tree truck -- but it will just move around it and cut a new channel. The kingdom of God is unstoppable. Eventually it will do an end-run around the barriers. At this point the Episcopal Church is acting just like another barrier -- rather than a channel. The Ultra Rev: Do you have any wisdom on this subject? I'm not sure I'd call it wisdom -- more rambling and frustration than anything. And maybe the thing that I find even more disconcerting than the heresy of the Episcopal Church is that the orthodox people seem to be at such odds with each other. They don't support each other. The people who have chosen to stay in the Episcopal church bash the AMiA people and the AMiA people aren't talking with those who have remained within the ECUSA. The small continuing Anglican groups have all set-up their own mini-dynasties. The grass is definitely not greener on the other side of the fence. Fortunately, there are still people committed to preaching the gospel in the midst of the crisis. Blessings! Brad My admiration and appreciation of Brad Boydston grows everytime my inbox is graced with his email. Thanks Brad.