Inclusion & Exclusion
“Whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9.50
So the man rushes to stop this forlorn figure from throwing himself off Chelsea Bridge.
‘Why are you killing yourself?’
‘I’ve nothing to live for!’
‘Don’t you believe in God?’
‘Yes I do.’
‘What a coincidence - so do I! Are you a Jew or a Christian?’
‘A Christian.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?’
‘A Protestant.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Anglican or Baptist?’
‘Baptist.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Strict & Particular or General?’
‘Strict & Particular.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Premillennial or Amillennial?’
‘Premillennial.’
‘What a coincidence - so am I! Partial Rapture or full Rapture?’
‘Partial Rapture.’
‘Die heretic!’
Christians disagree and fall out about nearly anything and everything. Although to be fair, this could be said about any group of people who hold strong religious, political or philosophical views.
It is part of the process by which fallible human beings come to hold some common group identity. A key part of this process is the way in which we handle the differences, and the degree to which we demand conformity. Like cliffs, the real dangers come at the edges.
The history of Christianity over 2000 years, running parallel to the development of the modern democracy, has demonstrated a growing degree of inclusiveness in handling differences, and a lessening concentration on exclusiveness.
Fundamentalists regard this as the rottenness at the heart of liberal Christianity. They think that General Synod will soon be including the Devil in the Holy Trinity so as not to make the Satanists feel excluded.
Thoroughgoing liberals interpret any demand for conformity as an affront to the great god of individual freedom.
In today’s Gospel, Our Lord unwittingly set a controversy going within Christendom that flared into major schism in the 11th century and is still rumbling on today.
In John 15.26 Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father’. In a few minutes, we shall sing in the Nicene Creed of the Holy Ghost ‘who proceedeth from the Father and the Son’ - now where did that ‘and the Son’ come from?
The Latin word ‘filioque’ (‘and the Son’) was not in the Nicene Creed formulated at Nicaea in 325, nor in the expanded version of Constantinople in 381 - more or less what we sing today.
But in Spain in the 6th century there was a particular heresy which accepted that the Holy Spirit was fully God, but denied the full deity of Christ. In order to counter this heresy, the Spanish church started using what is called the Double Procession in the creed - ‘proceedeth from the Father and the Son’.
It was probably the Synod of Toledo in 589 which promulgated this and it soon spread to Gaul and then the rest of the Western church.
Time does not permit on a humid summer Sunday to trace the politics of the ‘filioque’ clause over the next two centuries: the battles, and intrigue the plotting and murder.
Here is Charles Williams summing up the final terrible stages in his book The Descent of the Dove; a history of the Holy Spirit in the Church. (The irony of the ‘dove’!)
An uneasy peace settled down for two centuries; then suddenly Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, provoked the storm. He accused the West of heresy; he closed the churches of the Latin rite. The Popes asserted the orthodoxy of the West and the primacy of Rome; they maintained open in Italy the churches of the Byzantine rite. The Patriarch removed the name of the Pope from the prayers. The Papal legates, entering the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Byzantium, just before the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, ascended through the crowd to the altar, and laid on it the solemn excommunication of the Patriarch and all his followers from the co-inherence of their Christendom. The frontier of a thousand years was drawn on 16th July, 1054.Of course, there were other issues underlying the Great Schism, but in reality, from the ninth century, the Eastern and Western Churches have gone along different paths.
The appellations which they appropriated for themselves speak of the aims they pursued: the Eastern Church began to call herself Orthodox, underscoring by this that her main aim is to preserve the Christian faith unharmed. The Western Church began to call herself Catholic (universal), underscoring by this that her main aim is the unification of the whole Christian world under the authority of the Roman pope.
The present Pope would like to be the first Pope ever to visit Russia, but the Russian Orthodox Church has so far prevented any such symbolic gesture, and I imagine he will be seeing St Peter before he sees St Petersburg.
This is all a long way from the prayer of Jesus ‘that they may be one’. Our Lord himself points the way forward in all our disagreements.
In the teaching of Jesus there seems to be a breadth of inclusion for all imperfect disciples (and we all are) who nonetheless do good. So in Luke 9.46-50: An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and made him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all--he is the greatest." "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."
On the other hand, there is a renunciation of all who do evil however doctrinally correct they see themselves. Luke 11.23 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”
When we see exclusion in Our Lord’s teaching, it is based on ethical issues. Thus in the sermon on the mount, Our Lord is looking for Kingdom living among his followers, for "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' (Matthew 7.21-23)
Even then, the ethical issues are broadly-based, and come under Our Lord’s summary of all ethics: ‘Love God and love your neighbour.’
For you and me this means that in our relationships with other Christians, other political persuasions, other religions, and so on; we should be generous and inclusive wherever possible. At St Barnabas School, where the majority of children are from Muslim homes, I teach and pray the Gospel in a way that will make as many as possible feel included. But as a priest of a Christian School I also want to make sure that at appropriate times they hear the unique message of the Christian Gospel.
It is a scandal that the church becomes preoccupied with, and hostile towards other Christians because of, the filioque clause, or styles of English prose, or gay relationships, or women bishops.
The world has every right to become bored with us for acting like petulant children.
The Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus urges us to be preoccupied with poverty, oppression, injustice, abuse; and to exclude from society those who foster these scourges.
The General Synod took the inclusive way forward when it authorised the new Common Worship. The creed still has the filioque clause, but there is in the appendix, an alternative Nicene Creed, for use ‘on suitable ecumenical occasions’, which omits the filioque.
Sadly, there are not usually such simple solutions to complex issues. But in all our debating, and airing of opinions and differences, there must be a desire to include rather than to exclude; to welcome with the generosity of Our Lord, rather than to turn away with self-righteous bigotry; indeed, to remember the words of Jesus that:
“Whoever is not against you is for you.” Luke 9.50
