Ecclesiastical Extradition

 There is a generally easy way to figure out whether two countries are in ecumenical  fellowship. When a man commits a crime in one country, and the authorities of said country either convict him, or issue a warrant for his arrest, then when he flies to the other country he will be swiftly turned out to face justice.


This is hardly a new pattern. Pompey the Great's head was sent back to Julius Caesar by Ptolemy XIII; though Caesar mourned it. Death was not theirs to deal; it was Caesars. He was mad that Pompey was not extradited, for it was even then absolutely the norm for friendly polities to recognize the discipline that is meted out by the other, and to be of aid in upholding the discipline, and to return criminals seeking sanctuary back to the polity where the sentence was rendered. This custom continues to this very day...in some places.


I watched the AALC video, and was deeply unimpressed. So I understand it, the train of thought was roughly:


"I sent an email asking why this pastor was defrocked, and they did not get back to me, so we went ahead and just rostered him after our own investigation ten years after the fact, with no plaintiff testimony. Also, we just need to say that we believe the same things, not act according to it."


What?


There is no 8th command gymnastics that makes it okay to roster a defrocked pastor who is under permanent discipline from the other party, even if they did not tell you exactly why.


Part of being allies in this fallen world is an acceptance of the internal judicial processes of the sister nation. If you reject the authority of the judiciary of the other nation for crimes that are in their purview, you are not in fellowship allies.


I don't care if you are mad that you got left on read. People mess up, and the right answer is not to make Richard Reed a member of parliament. It is to follow back up, and take no step to circumvent the discipline until an unambiguous all clear is received from the alternate party. Anything else is bad diplomacy, a slap to the face of the other polity, and likely a miscarriage of justice.


And that is what is happening here; a gross miscarriage of justice. A public recognition of an ecclesiastical convict and inference that he is innocent, the plaintiff a liar, and that the adjudication of the LCMS is not to be upheld.


Most fugitives are not a Pompey, targeted for political or venal reasons. Or even a Ryan Turnipseed, turned out to pasture--some would argue unjustly--for causing offense in his home congregation for being a public friends to crypto-pagan 'race realists.' I'm sure there are such abuses, but if such arise, and it pricks your conscience, then break off ties and call the party who has wronged the innocent to account.


But no, most often they are more like Tarquinius--real creepers.


I do not care why the Samnites of the AALC felt they were justified in taking in little Tarquinius. It was grossly inappropriate, no matter how eloquent, fruitful, or decent your celebrity pastor is. This is not how friends behave. If a child at church comes to me to avoid a parent's discipline they are in for a sad surprise.


There is no need for hostilities, or even the breaking of fellowship, but little Tarquinius must be exiled to return to his discipline. 


If you feel you have the authority to overturn his conviction, then you are not fellows, just casual acquaintances. I cannot go to that altar, under that stewardship, and while that is the case, I could go to none of them, because your standards are suspect. No house is perfectly in order, but this act has disordered the house of the AALC, and it must be undone.


I am in favor of unity. Real unity.


To say we are united and then act in ways that demonstrate we are clearly not is gross hypocrisy, and I'm not on board for that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Patrick's Pub

Tired, not Sleepy.

Eleven and One Half