There is an interesting post at The Anglican Scotist which while I confess I’ve not finished reading it, and it is (obviously) related to a point of Anglican thought; and not being an Anglican I feel it would be rude to intrude; but it started me thinking . . . .

The basic question is related to a consequence of the Iraq war: “. . . if the Iraq war is not a just war, should participants in its violent acts be barred from the Eucharist under the rubric banning notorious sinners from the Altar?”

The post – talking about the ban of notorius sinners is well worth the read. But I’m interested in looking at this from an OC/IC context – so I’m slightly re-framing the question.

According to tradition, and indeed the Apostolic canons (can. 27) if an ordained person commits and act of violence he is to be stripped of his orders (but interestingly enough – not excommunicated because it is not right that someone be punished twice for the same offence). The logic here is that when struck Jesus did not strike back, when reviled he did not respond in kind, and when made to suffer he did not threaten his oppressors.

I mention this particular tradition for two reasons: first the logic behind the canon, that is the example of Jesus; and second, the clergy are indiviuals in authority and so their committing of an act of violence is an abuse of their authority.

Hmmmmm . . . . so here are a few things to consider:

1) In baptism we become the living image of Christ in the World (St. Cyril of Jerusalem Myst. Catech.)

2) We are a priestly people of God (1 Pt. 2.9)

Both of these images point out that we embody a calling to proclaim the goodness of the One who brought us out of the Darkness; to show mercy; to end the suffering of others (among other things).

Jesus’ message is one of persuasion – and not compulsion. This, I think is an oft overlooked element not only of our Faith, but also of our OC/IC heritage. The founders of our movement three centures ago stood fast in the face of powerful forces making the point that the power of the Gospel is in persuasion, and not in force.

If, through baptism, we are the living icon of Christ in the world, we ought to conduct our affairs striving to exemplify the message of the Gospel. Thus, we ought to seek to persuade and not compell, to relieve suffering, and not to cause it, to bring an end to violence and not to be the violent one.

Is it then right that one who has willingly committed acts of violence be admitted to communion?