In his Viewpoint article, "Whatever Happened to Article XXVI?" [TLC, Oct. 31] the Rev. Kenneth Aldrich makes a sincere and serious attempt to address the issue of a potential division within the Episcopal Church on the basis of one of the Anglican "title deeds." It is unfortunate that his effort does very little to clarify the genuine issues involved.

Fr. Aldrich misrepresents the position of those of us who advocate breaking sacramental communion with the teachers of false doctrine within the Episcopal Church as Donatism. He clearly assumes that we believe that the sacraments which such ministers dispense are invalidated by their errors. We believe no such thing. The technical validity of the sacramental ministrations of such ministers, provided they are lawfully ordained, can safely be conceded, and no one I know denies it.

But validity isn't a sufficient condition for sharing sacramental communion, as our own historic practice demonstrates: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sacraments are valid, but that does not equate to our being in communion with those churches. Just ask them! Sacramental communion depends not just on validity, but on a mutual recognition that the persons and institutions sharing communion also share the same faith.

What is really at issue for us is the extent to which we, by availing ourselves of the ministrations of heterodox bishops, give a legitimacy or tolerability to their errors. For the parish clergy among us, we must consider our charge to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word" - a charge which carries no exceptions for those clothed with the purple. When the episcopal shepherd has become a wolf, when he has gone from feeding to feeding upon the flock, when the crook on his crozier has become not a reference to his office but a description of his character, then what real choice has the parish pastor but to openly resist his incursion into the life of his congregation?

Fr. Aldrich's assertion that "conservatives have little or no ground to oppose diocesan bishops with dubious theology from officiating in their parishes" is simply not true. The second paragraph of Article XXVI states that, "it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed."

As Fr. Aldrich himself admits, there is no reasonable probability that the House of Bishops will exercise its responsibility to administer discipline upon its erring members. In such a disciplinary vacuum, the responsibility for doing so devolves upon the faithful clergy and laity, who usually can exercise discipline only by refusing sacramental fellowship to purveyors of falsehood and by refusing to fund ministries which are destructive both of faith and of the faithful. (I am aware of no moral requirement that we must pay for the rope from which we are to be hung.)

The effect of Fr. Aldrich's argument is to set institutional unity over biblical truth in the hierarchy of Christian values. This is a dangerous argument for an Anglican to make, given the history of our church. But beyond that, it is an argument which has no support in the tradition and practice of the catholic church during its first centuries of life: Fr. Aldrich correctly points out that "in the middle of the 4th century ... the majority of important sees were occupied by Arians ... The church survived by God's grace." However, he fails to point out that the grace of God which sustained the church through the Arian crisis was habitually manifested in the willingness of the orthodox faithful (exemplified by the likes of Athanasius) to break communion with the heretics and to sustain sacramental separation until they were reconciled to the catholic and apostolic faith.

"Are we facing a greater crisis now than then?" asks Fr. Aldrich.

Probably not, but in all too many cases we are not dealing with it with nearly the degree of theological, practical, and yes, pastoral integrity that it was dealt with then. The parish priest who assumes that it does no great harm to let his erring bishop come to celebrate and preach every now and again (since he himself has the ear of the congregation for most of the time) is not considering that his doing so speaks far more effectively than any words he might utter about the bishop's doctrinal errors in a class or a sermon or in a coffee-hour conversation. What his action says, in the end, is that revealed truth is not of ultimate significance - what is really important is just getting along and maintaining the tranquility of the parish. After all, it's only a pinch of incense ... The fact is that, until romantic sentimentality began to take the place of theological thought, the consistent practice of the church's faithful was to break communion with those who taught false doctrine and promoted ungodly life. If we are not willing to follow this pattern, how can we hope to convince the heterodox of the seriousness both of our commitment to orthodoxy and of their departure from it? How can we credibly claim to be traditional Christians if we will not act in accordance with the tradition? How, indeed, can we claim to stand for the renewal of orthodox Christianity within the Episcopal Church if we will not ourselves act like orthodox Christians, standing for the truth without regard to the institutional consequences? How willing are we to dig a pit for the cross when we know that we are likely to be nailed to it ourselves?

How willing are we to defy the institution when its orders are to surrender the faith and to desert the Lord, or at least to stay quiet and keep our purses open while it causes others to do so?

As any parent knows, merely pointing out to errant children that they are doing wrong rarely does any good unless it is backed up by the certainty that there will be clear sanctions for not ceasing to misbehave. The absence of willingness to impose such sanctions merely enables their continued misbehavior and instills in them a contempt for their parents.

If we really want the restoration of genuinely traditional Christian faith and life, then we have to be willing to do the genuinely traditional Christian thing: That means breaking communion with the doctrinally and morally heterodox and not restoring it until they have repented of their errors. o

The Rev. Samuel L. Edwards is executive director of Forward in Faith, North America.