TIES THAT BIND

Binding the Community

?A major characteristic of the evolution of human beings has been the communal nature of life. The capacity for the individual to thrive is born out of the ability to live and work in cooperation with other people. From this comes a means to defend the community from threats, produce food, care for one another, and provide shelter.

Strong communities grow out of a robust sense of common purpose which is seen in their capacities to provide for the needs of the whole group physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. To achieve this, however, an individual needs to give up an amount of their autonomy to a structure of power and authority that can order the society for the common good.

We have recently participated in such a process with the federal election. In this instance electors have given authority to a group of people to form a government that can both make laws and regulate the life of the community. Of course, not everyone voted for the government and there are some who remain convinced that another group of elected representatives should be in charge. Yet we will live with the result.

Our society allows for this dissent, yet in many parts of the world there is effectively only one party for which you can vote, and disagreement is crushed – such as seen in China and Russia. Fortunately, in Australia it is usual that citizens can disagree with the Government and not be locked up, or persecuted, or deported. Here citizenship is indelible for those who belong.

So, what binds it all together? In response, we may consider things such as ‘the rule of law’ that provides for due process, or the ‘separation of powers’ as a brake against the insolence of office, or ‘equal opportunity’ so that all people might flourish, and of course ‘freedom of speech’ to allow for open participation in the life of the community ….well, that is the way it is meant to work. Yet whatever the situation, we remain bound together through a common life, a shared culture, and a national polity.

Tying Up the Faithful

The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin word religare, which means ‘to bind’ and carries with it the idea of obligation or commitment. It came into English as a description of those who lived in monastic communities who were bound to each other through vows to God and the common life.

This aspect of communal life continues to be present in the use of the word ‘religion’ today, to which is added adherence to beliefs in a spiritual being or God, ritual practices, and an ordered life. In the case of Christianity, however, what commenced as a small Jewish sect has since grown into a cumbersome array of institutions that have a complex set of beliefs, practices, and structures - overlaid with a strong level of self-interest.

The Christian religion appears to be only tangentially bound together by shared beliefs and practices. For the past 1,000 years Christian religious institutions appear to have been more often in conflict with each other rather than unified. It is not so much a binding experience as one that creates schism and division. Indeed, Australian Anglicans recently witnessed it in a meeting of the General Synod precipitated by the growing power base of the GAFCON faction.

In the light of this, what should the church be? Is it unrealistic to expect it to be unified, and does unity imply conformity? Moreover, when we think of church in this context is it as an institution or is it the followers of Christ without the institutional constructs? So many questions and each may be answered in diverse ways according to differing theological perspectives.

As mentioned in my previous article on belief, truth and faith, the church often ends up in a situation of special pleading to legitimise the holding of positions that run counter to logic and coherence. Theology can play a large part in this process.

Models of Church

It is helpful to understand what the church should be. In theological terms it is described as being ‘the body of Christ’, which means that it is the embodiment of Christ present in the world today. In other words, the followers of Jesus continue his ministry and become, in the words of St Theresa of Avila, the ‘eyes, hands, and feet of Christ’ in the world. But is this the institutional church or the mystical body of believers without the institution, or both?

It is said that where two or three are present there is an institution, which simply affirms the human desire for order and secure relationships. Yet, a dilemma can arise when part of?the institution is exposed as corrupt, as happened with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

As one of my agnostic friends once said to me, “Jesus seems to me to have been a perfectly decent person with a good message, but his followers don’t seem to have taken him all that seriously!” Perhaps we need a better understanding of who we are and what we are trying to do?

Back in the 1970s, the French Cardinal Avery Dulles authored several books and articles on the nature of the church that became standard texts for theological students – including me. He developed six models of the church, being:

• Institution – governing and administering the church
• Community – gathering, worshipping, and doing God’s work,
• Sacrament – manifesting the grace of God,
• Herald – proclaiming the presence of Christ,
• Servant – seeking peace, justice, and reconciliation, and
• School – nurturing followers of Jesus to become disciples.

This is principally a functional list of what the church does and how it engages with the wider community, but it gives us an insight into what the church can be in practice. No doubt, more models can be entertained such as ‘hospital’, ‘shop’, ‘club’, or ‘entertainment venue’!

Church as Political Party

More recently, and perhaps because of the combination of a drawn-out election campaign, a conflicted General Synod, and a desire by some parts of the church to have control over others, I have noted a new model emerge of church as ‘political party’. Perhaps it has arisen because of the influence of the US ‘religious right’, or even because of our home-grown equivalent, the Australian Christian Lobby?

In recent years I have read several public comments from church leaders arguing that the Anglican Church is like a political party in which members are expected to keep to the party line or else, “please leave us”. Focussed on the issue of same-sex marriage, it has recently been proposed that this expectation of party solidarity be extended from clergy to include employees of church institutions, especially schools – a case of requiring a religious test for the holding of an office of public trust and funded by the Commonwealth.

It is a position that puts the needs of the institution above the needs of the people and certainly does not reflect the reality of the church as the body of Christ in all its diversity and brokenness. ‘Church as political party’ is an indicator of how realpolitik has infiltrated the church and handed power to loud voices and number-crunchers. It is un-biblical and a world away from the unity that is to be found in the mystical body of Christ. Moreover, it is unlikely to do the mission of the church any good.

For example, the Diocese of Sydney keeps its own figures on average annual church attendance. A notable change occurred in the 2018 figures that showed a drop in attendance of over 12% in one year. Furthermore, average attendance has not risen since then, suggesting it was a permanent drop. What happened to cause this?

2017 was the year of the debate and plebiscite on same-sex marriage, which included the then Anglican Archbishop of Sydney making a $1,000,000 donation to the NO campaign from the Diocese’s charitable trust funds. It was a highly controversial action both in the church and the wider society. It now seems that many people disconnected from the Anglican Church in Sydney over this issue, both because of the Diocesan stance and the contentious donation. Currently, the average weekly attendance level of Anglicans in Sydney is under 0.8% of the population.

The political party model of church has consequences. It is a comfortable one for those who remain inside the organisation and who share in its prevailing ideology, but it alienates those who disagree and provides little opportunity for dissent. To be sure, less than 1% of the Australian population is a member of a political party, it is surprising that anyone would be keen to fashion itself on such a dysfunctional model! Can we look at this differently?

St Paul describes the church using the metaphor of ‘citizenship’, which is something that cannot be taken away from an individual. Like the model of ‘family’, citizenship is more inclusive than exclusive and less likely to be manipulated by vested interests.

That They May All be One

I am mindful that at the time of writing this article that we are amid the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The reading for Seventh Sunday of Easter from the Gospel of John provides a contrast to the church in division. It describes Jesus praying for the unity of his disciples before his betrayal and crucifixion. This is not a unity based on belief and practice, but rather one based on relationship. Jesus prayed:

?As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.????(John 17: 21-23)

The witness of the disciples in John’s Gospel is one encountered through example rather than ideas or practices. John argues that the followers of Jesus are to reflect his nature to the world. In other words, the disciples are called to continue Jesus’ ministry to the world by fully participating in him, thereby being Christ to others. It anticipates the idea of ‘church as the body of Christ’.

Unity for the followers of Jesus is therefore to be discovered through participation in the life of Christ by love. On the other hand, unity is NOT to be found through conformity to statements of belief or adherence to religious practices. The mystery of unity is found in relationships, not in institutional hubris or control.

This is a unity that we seek to make present in the celebration of the Eucharist. We offer bread and wine and seek God’s blessing upon them, so that we can receive them back transformed by the presence of Christ and as a reminder that we participate in him and he in us.

It is a metaphor of the spiritual life by which we offer ourselves to God, seeking to be blessed and transformed, so that we can go out and be Christ to the world. Unity is therefore found through both our relationship with Christ as well as being Christ to the world.

In all our brokenness, inadequacy, fear, and failure God still receives us, blesses us, and works through us by grace. This is salvation; that God loves and accepts us as we are, and not because we measure up by doing good works by believing the right things or doing the right things.

It is also in this way that we come to understand that conversion and salvation is a process and not an event. It is about the transformation that comes to our lives once we are released from being bound to things that draw us away from God and are instead bound to God through our commitment to Christ.

Jesus prayed for the unity of his disciples, NOT in terms of ideology or rules but rather through relationships. This is an inclusive unity based on God’s love that we are called to demonstrate through our own lives, institutions notwithstanding. It is not an expression of power politics or partisanship, it is not based on perfectionism or law, ?but rather it is grace directed to all people freely and without distinction.

The Reverend Andrew Sempell

Rector of St James’ Church, King Street, Sydney

This article is adapted from a sermon delivered on Sunday 29 May 2022.