In the early 1960’s, the blue-eyed boy of Roman Catholic theology was a man called Hans Küng. In 1968, he wrote a book called The Church which he sincerely hoped would serve as a theological basis for a reconciliation between the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches; in fact, he actually dedicated the book to the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey. As you might expect given the purpose of the book, Küng had quite a lot to say in it about Church unity, or rather the lack of it. But my favourite quote in the book about the disunity of the Church is this:
‘We should not try to justify these divisions, any more than we should try to justify sin, but suffer them…However great the misunderstandings, however understandable the historical genesis of the separation and the circumstances of the break, it should never, never among Christians, have come to a division in the Church. A division in the Church is a scandal and a disgrace. Anyone who did not actively try to prevent it, anyone who furthered it in any way at all must bear part of the blame – how much it is not our place to judge.’
And Küng is quite right, a division in the Church is a scandal and a disgrace. Christians, all Christians, should always actively try to prevent it, they should never, ever encourage it, or do anything to perpetuate it or deepen it. Whatever the reasons, it should never, ever come to a division in the Church because a division in the Church is a clear and unmistakable sign that Christians have failed to do the one thing we’re called to do above all other things; it’s a sign that we’ve failed to love one another as we should.
I think too that one of the worst, and saddest things about divisions in the Church is that it’s often the things that should unite us that cause our petty squabbling. For example, in the Eucharistic Prayer, which we use every time we come together to break bread in remembrance of Jesus, as he commanded us to do, do we not pray that God will “gather together into one in (his) kingdom, all who share this one bread and one cup”? And yet isn’t this thing we do at Christ’s command, one of the main causes of disagreements between Christians? We argue and fall out about what we’re actually doing when we eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Christ; what is the bread and wine, what does it mean to speak of it as the body and blood of Christ? We argue and fall out about what to do when we do this in remembrance of Christ, what form should the worship take, how should we act when we take part in this service. We’re even so ridiculously petty as to argue and fall out about such a pathetically trivial matter as what we call the service. And these things do cause division in the Church because, of course, ‘we’ are always right, and ‘they’ are always wrong. But if you think about that attitude isn’t it tantamount to saying God is our side but not on theirs? An attitude that Hans Küng referred to in The Church as a sign of ‘pharisaical self-conceit, self-righteousness and impenitence.’
In this morning’s Gospel, we have another of those things that could, and should unite us because it’s something that comes from the lips of Jesus himself, but that, in reality, has and still does, cause Christians to argue and fall out. What does Jesus mean when, in response to Simon’s confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, he says,
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ?
Does this mean that the Church is built on Peter personally? That he holds the keys to the kingdom and that what he binds or lets loose on earth will be bound and let loose in heaven? Does it mean that the rock on which the Church will be built is Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ? Or does it mean that the Church is built on faith in Jesus and that all those who have faith, that is the Church as the Body of Christ, holds the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind or let loose on earth?
When we link the first understanding of Jesus’ words with the very ancient tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, in other words the first pope, it’s not surprising that the Roman Catholic Church has veered towards the first understanding of these words; that Peter is the rock and he holds the keys of the kingdom, and that this status and authority has been passed on to his successors as pope. But, as the Church has divided, it’s not surprising either that other denominations of the Church have preferred one of the other interpretations of Jesus’ words. So who is right?
We have to say that the most obvious way to interpret Jesus’ words is that Peter himself is the rock on which the Church is built. Peter is the obvious focus of Jesus’ words here. Peter’s real name was Simon and it’s at this point that Jesus gives him the name ‘Peter’, or Petros, in Greek. In the Greek there’s perhaps a play on words here between the name Petros and the word petra, or rock, and we could also argue about translation because Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. But in Aramaic, the connection is more exact. Elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus calls Simon ‘Cephas’, as does St Paul in his letters, and Cephas isn’t a translation from Aramaic into Greek, it’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word for rock, kepha. So I think we have to conclude that the rock on which Jesus said the Church would be built, was Peter.
And this makes sense in light of what we read later in the New Testament. After his Resurrection, it was Peter whom Jesus charged with tending and feeding his lambs and sheep. On the Day of Pentecost, it was Peter who took the lead and publicly proclaimed Jesus as ‘Lord and Christ’. And the first half of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, shows Peter playing a central role in establishing the Church. So does that mean then that Peter himself held the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind or loose things on earth, and that these things have been passed on to his successors as bishop of Rome, the popes? In other words, ought we all to be Roman Catholics?
Well, in a word, ‘No’. Despite Peter’s role as the rock on which the Church was built, and his prominence in the early Church, the Church wasn’t then and never has been since, a one-man band. Peter may have taken a lead, but the early Church was governed by council. We know from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter was ‘sent’ to Samaria by other Apostles, and that he had to give an account of what he did to the Church in Jerusalem. In fact, Peter wasn’t even the leader of that Church. The Church in Jerusalem was led by Jesus’ brother, James. Peter often got things wrong. We know that he had to be corrected and even rebuked at times by Jesus, but we find the same thing happening later. In St Paul’s Letter to the Galatian’s we read about St Paul publicly taking Peter to task for his hypocrisy and correcting him. And if Peter, the rock on which Jesus built his Church was subject to council and could get things wrong and was at times in need of rebuke and correction, how can we or anybody else in the Church claim that we are always right and that anyone who disagrees with us or who does things differently than we do, is wrong? How can we, or anyone in the Church show such pharisaical self-conceit, self-righteousness and impenitence? And yet we do, and so the Church has been divided, and continues to be divided, and those divisions show no sign of healing but continue to grow and deepen.
And whose fault is that but our own? It’s the fault of every single Christian who’s ever called or criticised or argued or fallen out with another Christian on account of our differences of understanding, interpretation, tradition or denomination, and that’s a word that should have never, ever had to be spoken in connection with the Church. We are all to blame.
The Roman Catholic Church regards itself as the one, true Church that is in direct continuity with the Church of the Apostles, at least in part through its understanding that the pope is the direct successor of St Peter. The Orthodox Church regards the Roman Catholic Church as at least schismatic, that is as a Church that’s broken with the true Christian faith in some way, or even as downright heretical. Many Reformed Churches would tend to view the Roman Catholic Church in similar ways. The Church of England tries to steer a middle path between these extremes but in doing so doesn’t it at least imply that they’ve all got it wrong in some way whereas the Anglican Church has got things right? But given the arguments and divisions within the Church of England itself, we can hardly hold ourselves up as examples of unity and of Christian love to anyone can we? And these are just the main branches of the Church, it’s to say nothing of the thousands of independent Churches and congregations who’ve all come into existence and gone their own way because they think they’re right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to being a Christian.
There is only one in the Church who is always and infallibly right, and that is the head of the Church, Jesus Christ himself. If the Church is divided, if we argue and fall out with other Christians because we think that we’re right and they’re wrong, it’s us who are wrong, all of us. And the Church will always be divided as long as we differentiate between ourselves by calling ourselves Catholics or Protestants, Anglicans or Methodists, High Church or Low Church and such like. The Church will be divided until we can simply call ourselves Christians and treat one another with the love that befits that name. Because if we truly are Christians and do as we’re called to do, love one another as we love ourselves following Jesus’ teaching and example, we wouldn’t argue and fall out as we do, and then the Church wouldn’t be so divided. As Hans Küng said, we must all bear part of the blame – how much is not for us to judge. So let’s be more Christian with and to one another so that, when we have to stand before the one whose place it is to judge, he won’t judge us too harshly for the part we may have played in dividing his Church.
Amen.
Propers for the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time (Trinity 12) 27th August 2023
Entrance Antiphon
Listen, Lord, and answer me.
Save your servant who trusts in you.
I call to you all day long, have mercy on me, O Lord.
The Collect
Almighty and everlasting God,
you are always more ready to hear than we to pray,
and to give more than either we desire or deserve:
pour down upon us the abundance of your mercy,
forgiving us those things of which our conscience is afraid,
and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask,
but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Amen.
The Readings
Missal (St Mark’s)
Isaiah 22:19-23
Psalm 138:1-3, 6, 8
Romans 11:33-36
Matthew 16:13-20
RCL (St Gabriel’s)
Isaiah 51:1-6
Psalm 138
Romans 12:1-8
Matthew 16:13-20
Parish Church of St Mark Chadderton 