Christian makes it - in spite of himself - to the Beautiful Palace, but the reception is more cautious than we might anticipate! The Porter doesn’t simply welcome him in with open arms, but introduces a new character, Discretion. On the basis of her judgement, Christian will be received into the Palace, or not…

This may prove to be the part of Pilgrim’s Progress that feels most alien to us in the 21st Century British Church. We might feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea that before the Church ‘invests’ in Christian, encouraging him, equipping him, and preparing him for the trial ahead, there is a process of discernment to verify the authenticity of Christian’s faith. The need for such is apparent - we’ve already met a number of folk on the road with Pilgrim whose ‘faith’ it turns out was far from genuine.

We tend to be so grateful that anyone turns up to Church at all, that the idea of ‘testing’ the genuineness of their faith, or even their interest, seems counter-intuitive. We might even feel threatened at the prospect… There is of course a place for judgements of charity, and space for people to turn up for whatever reason and from whatever motive, good or ill. We see this in the ministry of Jesus and the experience of the Apostolic Church. But Discretion (the power to discern, and to make one’s own judgments) is required to ascertain those whose interest in Christ has spiritual integrity. She asks ‘whither he was going… what he had seen and met with in the way… and his name’. Christian’s testimony of his conversion and his pilgrimage to date bear the hall marks of sincerity, legitimacy and credibility. Only now is he welcomed in to meet others in the family, and to enjoy the privileges of the Palace.

This is in line with the historic practise of the Church, which has often included a more formal process of discernment. Indeed, in the early centuries of the Church, you wouldn’t even be considered for baptism until you had completed a three-year discipleship training programme (called the Catechumenate); and had been subjected to an examination by the Bishop. You would have needed a Sponsor who could corroborate your claim to conversion and growth in discipleship. Egeria, who visited Jerusalem around 400 AD and who kept a diary of her trip, records what she witnessed during such an examination:

“Then one by one those seeking baptism are brought up, men coming with their fathers [sponsors] and women with their mothers. As they come in one by one, the bishop asks their neighbours questions about them: ‘Is this person leading a good life? Does he respect his parents? Is he a drunkard or a boaster?’ He asks about all the serious human vices. And if his inquiries show him that someone has not committed any of these misdeeds, he himself puts down his name; but if someone is guilty he is told to go away, and the bishop tells him that he is to amend his ways before he may come to the font. He asks the men and the women the same questions. But it is not too easy for a visitor to come to baptism if he has no witnesses who are acquainted with him…’.

In some parts of the Church today such a formal process is still followed. In the Anglican Church it tends to be less formal, more relational; and we consider the genuineness of someone’s faith or otherwise to be generally self-evidencing in their involvement in Church worship and mission. In other words, people who are genuine tend to stick around and get involved in the opportunities we have for worship, discipleship, mission, and growth. People who aren’t tend not to.

There is a structured element of discretion built into Anglicanism as well - though it is more ‘negative’ in the sense that it precludes those who show clear evidence of not being genuine, rather than interrogating someone to validate their claims to follow Christ. We see a good example of this in the BCP’s Introduction to the ‘Administration of the Lord’s Supper’:

If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the [Bishop], and therein obey his order and direction…

Questions to Ponder:

Do you think the Church should ‘test’ the authenticity of people’s faith before accepting their claims to follow Christ? What might such a test look like?

What might be the benefits of having such a structure in place?  How might it be abused?

Should we relate differently in Church life to those who we think are Christians, as opposed to those we think are not?