Roland Burris, Saint Augustine, and Stanley Fish
In his occasional New York Times blog, Stanley Fish makes the brilliant analogy between Roland Burris’ appointment to the Senate and Saint Augustine’s role in the Donatist controversy. Fish’s central question is critical, not only for the case of Roland Burris but for the many acts that constitute our public life: Does “the lawfulness of an official action…depend on the purity of the person who performs it”?
On first thought, it might be very tempting to answer “yes.” But as Fish (and St. Augustine before him) quickly point out, that would undermine nearly every facet of public life and action. Just one example: “Is your marriage invalidated because the clerk or cleric who performed it cheated on his wife or stole from the poor box?”
Which takes us back to St. Augustine. In Fish’s words:
This last question is not new. It was debated in the 4th and 5th centuries in the context of what is known as the Donatist controversy. This debate was about the status of churchmen who had cooperated with the emperor Diocletian during the period when he was actively persecuting Christians. The Donatists argued that those who had betrayed their faith under pressure and then returned to the fold when the persecutions were over had lost the authority to perform their priestly offices, including the offices of administering the sacraments and making ecclesiastical appointments. In their view, priestly authority was a function of personal virtue, and when a new bishop was consecrated by someone they considered tainted, they rejected him and consecrated another.
In opposition, St. Augustine (rejecting the position that the church should be made up only of saints) contended that priestly authority derived from the institution of the Church and ultimately from its head, Jesus Christ. Whatever infirmities a man may have (and as fallen creatures, Augustine observes, we all have them) are submerged in the office he holds. It is the office that speaks, appoints and consecrates. Its legitimacy does not vary with personal qualities of the imperfect human being who is the temporary custodian of a power that at once exceeds and transforms him.
What Fish doesn’t mention is that for Augustine, and for the church, these questions were centrally important for sacramental practice, particularly the sacrament of Communion. Hence, Augustine originated the principle of ex opere operato, literally “from the work done.” Regardless of his personal virtue (or lack thereof), if a priest performs the full Eucharistic rite in the way he’s supposed to (”the work done”), the church can trust that God will act in the sacrament.
The 16th century Reformation took Augustine a step further. As Martin Luther faced excommunication, and excommunicated priests continued to preside over Communion even as Rome forbid them, Luther contended that even ex opere operato was superfluous. For Luther, all that was needed was faith in the divine word. We need only trust Christ at his word (in the “words of institution”) that “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” and God will keep his promise of grace. This is true not only of Communion but of all God’s promises and gifts.
Augustine’s view won the day, then and ever since. Matter of fact, our democracy wholly depends on our government functioning well even when despicable people are running it.
Which takes us back to Roland Burris. A despicable man has appointed an honorable man to public office, following the accepted legal and political procedure for doing so. Ex opere operato. It would seem certain that Augustine would conclude, “Let the man be seated.”
Since, by all accounts, Augustine was a much smarter man than I, I cannot disagree.
Travis Scholl, 35, is managing editor of theological publications at Concordia Seminary. A graduate of Yale Divinity School (MDiv), he is an ordained Lutheran minister. Despite some time away, he and his wife are native St. Louisans, as is the child they are now raising. 
I like the muse of the post. Thank you.
God maintains God’s covenants. It is for each of us to maintain our own.
“if a priest performs the full Eucharistic rite in the way he’s supposed to (”the work done”), the church can trust that God will act in the sacrament.”
“If” a person does something, then we can “trust” God? Hmm….
I agree that Burris may be seated. He fulfills the commitment between himself, the senate, the people of the United States, and Illinois regardless of another’s fall from grace.
Who are we if we are not for each other?
An unusual aspect, regarding only the actions around the senate seat, is it appears a crime was prevented from occurring. The investigators chose to stop it before it happened. Very commendable, and not usual.
Without looking into the Governor’s heart, he may have commited and acceptable deed after being saved from commiting an unacceptable one. A bright spot in all of this owed to those there to protect us all including the Governor.
If it is possible that a certain transition team acted in this way we may have hope for a new direction and a healing of America.
Thank you for sharing this prospective. I must admit that I have had to reexamine my own heart concerning this situation after reading this article and must also admit that it does appear that a despicable man has indeed appointed an honorable man from all accounts that we know of to public office. Not surprising that such a man as the governor would do such a thing that would cause a honorable man and others so much conflict and confusion because we Christians know whose power the governor is under.
Many including myself felt that just because the appointment was legal, it doesn’t make it right. But, really, who are we to judge Burris for accepting this appointment? Why wouldn’t he accept it, especially if he is the honorable man people say that he is? I am guilty myself of judging this man Burris, and now have a change of heart and feel that he should be seated. Again, thank you much because I was pretty fixed in my judgment based on who the governor was only and not the man Burris. It is not at all surprising the confusion and uproar the Illinois governor appears to be so pleased with himself for creating, but the sad thing is to see how so many of us has played right into his hands allowing his acts to cause such a uproar.
So, under whose authority did God sacrifice his only son - the lamb of God - to save dispicable men? God will do what he wants, regardless of organized religion.
Burris’ appointment should hold because it is perfrectly legal in every sense. As far as we know Burris is an honorable man, but I submit that none of us really know that for sure.
St Augustine’s thoughts are valid but only up to a certain point. An excommunicated priest can still perform the duties of the cloth, like communion, and as long as it is done as it is supposed to be. But these actions are predescribed without personal embellishment. A politician does not fit in this mold. Blago’s appointment, or any appointment, is only as good as the person who receives it.
Fish’s example of various monarchs actually hurts his thesis in my opinion. Just because a king can doesn’t mean he should. History is littered with the past failings of politicians or kings who had too much control or power over one nation. Venezuela alone represents an example of continued repeated ruination via this path.
Travis, I would disagree with: “Matter of fact, our democracy wholly depends on our government functioning well even when despicable people are running it.” Our democracy wholly depends on the system of checks and balances from keeping those despicable people from getting the chance to ruin the function of goverment. With all due respect to St. Augustine, I’ll take the Constitution of the United States any day.