"Corpus Mixtum: The Church as a "Mixed Body" and Why That is Okay
“Corpus Mixtum: The Church as a “Mixed Body” and Why That is Okay
The Rev. Canon Dr. Christopher Brown
Should a person arrive early for the liturgy at any given Episcopal church, one way to pass the time – following one’s opening devotions – is to thumb through the prayer book sitting in the pew rack. Moving beyond the worn pages of the Holy Eucharist to those in more pristine condition, one finds various pastoral offices, prayers, lectionary charts - and a classic outline of Anglican doctrine entitled the “Articles of Religion.” Popularly known as the “Thirty-Nine Articles,” this statement of faith codified the theological position of the Church of England on variety of topics, including “the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments” in Article XXVI. (A parish priest can always elicit a chuckle from her or his congregation by invoking the “unworthiness of the minister,” and the assurance that the sacrament will still “work” despite the deficiencies of the clergy.)
The article begins by stating that “in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good.” Moreover, as much as we strive to ordain those of the highest moral character, this “mingling” applies, as much as anyone else, to the clergy who “have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments.” This tells us something important about the efficacy of the sacraments and their “objectivity.” They have a spiritual power that is all their own, dependent not the minister, but on Jesus Christ, acting in the power of the Holy Spirit. For the communicant at the altar rail, this “objectivity” is the source of considerable assurance and spiritual comfort. But perhaps even more far reaching is the importance of Article XXVI for our understanding of the nature of the Church.
A Pure Church
In the Fourth Century, the vibrant Christian movement in North Africa was torn by schism between the Catholic Church and a competing perfectionist sect known as Donatism. Both groups shared the same basic doctrine, and even an identical liturgy. But the Donatists believed that the Catholic Church was lax and impure, and that they alone were God’s chosen.
The controversy stemmed from Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of the Church in the early 4rth century. Roman authorities demanded that the bishops of the church hand over the scriptures to be burned by pagan magistrates. Those that did so were called “traditors,” because of this act of “traditio,” or “handing over. The church regarded the “traditors” who buckled under persecution to have forfeited their office as bishops. The question became, what then? Was there a way back through a process of penitence, or were they rendered forever impure, and their ordination irrevocably invalid.
In 311, the bishops of Numidia in North Africa, declared the ordination of the bishop of Carthage, Caecilian, to be invalid because he had been a traditor. So they intervened and replaced him with a rival bishop, Donatus. This quickly led to the formation of a parallel church that presented itself as a fervent, spiritually pure alternative to a supposedly lax and compromised Catholic Church. This had considerable appeak in the North African population, especially in the rural countryside. In fact, the Donatist movement exceeded the Catholic population of North Africa – until the arrival of the great opponent of Donatism, Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine of Hippo
For Augustine, the Donatist schism presented a practical pastoral problem. The Donatist congregation in the town of Hippo outnumbered his own and threatened to lure away his flock.
Augustine marshalled a variety of arguments and strategies in response to this challenge. He pointed out that in reality the clergy of the Donatist sect were no more virtuous than the Catholic clergy. But most significant was his argument that the Church was a “corpus mixtum” or “mixed body” of good and evil, and that this is an expression of the mercy of God. Indeed, it was Augustine who first stressed the notion expressed in Article XXVI that “in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good.”
Augustine’s argument was based on Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30), in which both wheat and tares – or weeds that resemble stalks of wheat – grow up in a farmer’s field. Yet the farmer is unwilling to weed out the tares, lest good wheat be uprooted in the process. Rather, he commands his servants to let them grow alongside one another until the harvest and then sort out which is which, at which point the weeds would be burned and the wheat gathered into his barn.
Augustine interprets the farmer’s field as the church, in which, like the weeds and the tares, good and evil people, the converted and nominal, fervent and lax, co-exist side by side. In a pointed rebuke of the Donatists, Augustine has God saying,
“Why are you so hasty, you servants full of zeal? You see tares among the wheat, you see evil Christians among the good; and you wish to root up the evil ones; be quiet, it is not the time of harvest. That time will come, may it only find you wheat! Why do you vex yourselves? Why bear impatiently the mixture of the evil with the good? In the field they may be with you, but they will not be so in the barn.”
The implication here is that it is not for us to stand in judgment on one another; the Risen Lord will do that himself on his return. There is a further point as well, which reflects the tolerance and patience of the farmer in the parable: it is not always clear who is truly converted – or when that conversion takes place. “Many are at first tares but then become good grain,” says Augustine, “if these, when they are wicked, are not endured with patience they would not attain their praiseworthy transformation.”
A Mixed Body
Augustine’s insight that the church is a “corpus mixtum” or “mixed body” is helpful for us as 21st Century Christians. Like other churches, The Episcopal Church has faced its share of conflict in recent decades. There has been considerable disagreement about the interpretation and application of scripture as we seek to live as faithful Christians in modern society. While the underlying disagreements are far reaching, the flash point, of course, has been in regard to same sex relationships.
There are some – on one side or another - who have simply withdrawn in frustration. There are also some, who, quite publicly, have left the messiness of the Episcopal Church for what they take to be a doctrinally and morally pure church that has splinted off the Episcopal Church. While I wouldn’t want to overstate the comparison, this move bears a resemblance to the Donatist schism of the Fourth Century. To the extent that this is the case, Augustine’s doctrine of the Church as a “mixed body” offers us a compelling to reason to remain in the Episcopal Church.
The theological disagreements in the Episcopal Church are not likely to be resolved anytime soon. We may view some in the church as profoundly mistaken – we may even be inclined to see them like the Tares in the parable, only superficially resembling the real thing. But it remains God’s field – at best we are God’s servants. It is not our call who gets weeded out and who does not. It is not even obvious, as Augustine points out, who is a tare and who is not – that information will only emerge at a later point. This is a call for forbearance, tolerance, and mutual love – for “communion across difference.” The reason is not because of some secular notion of a “big tent,” or the scaling back of theological clarity or the importance of honest doctrinal debate – but because of our recognition of God’s sovereignty over the Church, and a certain modesty about our level of discernment and our capacity to stand in judgement over one another. For now, we remain part of a mixed body, and we bear with one another – because such is the mercy of God.