This essay focuses on theological reasons for being suspicious of recent proposals within the Anglican Communion for resolving the conflict over homosexuality, including the suggestion that the Communion introduce novel doctrinal specificity, or more rigid forms of Communion authority. The substantial weaknesses of these initiatives are explored particularly through an analysis of the recently introduced concept of “core doctrine.” The paper argues that Anglicanism’s approach to the authority of Scripture, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of doctrinal confession serve as important speed bumps to place in the path of the present momentum toward ecclesial innovation. Although there are considerable practical and ethical questions to raise about the present crisis within the Anglican tradition, this essay focuses on theological reasons for caution, as many of the current proposed solutions to the crisis represent substantial and problematic modifications to Anglican theology and ecclesiology.
The uproar within the Anglican Communion over the question of sexual orientation is threatening to alter the very nature of Anglicanism. Many theologians and church leaders have responded to the contemporary crisis by calling for a novel emphasis on doctrinal confession within the churches of the Communion. One symptom of this concern is the emergence of the concept of core doctrine, which some recent church authorities have resorted to in order to respond to the current dispute. Since the “heresy” trial of Bishop Righter in 1996, the term “core doctrine” has been invoked by the Windsor Report issued by the Lambeth Commission in October of 2004, and subsequently by the St. Michael Report of the Anglican Church of Canada in 2005. Although this desire for greater doctrinal clarity is understandable, such recent innovations are plagued by considerable theological problems. Careful analysis of the limitations of the concept of core doctrine and consideration of proposals for more centralized ecclesial authority within the Communion demonstrate that further theological reflection is required before such proposals are adopted formally by churches of the Communion.
Although there are considerable practical and ethical questions to raise about the present crisis within the Anglican tradition, this essay focuses on theological reasons for being cautious about the introduction of core doctrine and Communion-wide forms of canon law. Throughout this discussion, I question whether the current obsession with securing more rigid forms of church authority is consistent with the Anglican tradition, particularly its emphases on the authority of Scripture, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of doctrinal confession.
What an idiotic premise. The attempt to return to sanity by the Global Anglican Futures Conference and its Jerusalem declaration does not constitute “traditional Anglicanism.”
In case the author didn’t realize it, the Anglican communion reeling and complete disintegration looms. This has not been the case before. Thus, one might expect that “non-traditional” forms of redress are needed. After an earthquake, calling out civil engineers and shoring up the integrity of the foundation would be considered by most to be meet and right so to do.
But the author apparently wants us to continue on, not veering from “Anglican tradition.”
There is a subtlety to this writing that is commendable, Anglican, and largely missing these days. Yet the question of “core doctrine” in Anglicanism can be answered rather clearly: Would Thomas Cranmer have recognized this or that as the Faith for which he was being burned alive?
It only takes a modicum of honesty to answer that question in any instance.
[blockquote] Theologically, a confession can only properly be the result of a response to God’s ongoing revelation. The church’s confession of faith cannot, therefore, be finalized or absolutized, but only renewed repeatedly in response to new encounters with God’s mystery. [/blockquote]
I agree with this assertion, but only conditionally, and not in any final or absolute way that precludes a new encounter with God’s mystery.
[blockquote]
“Confessions cannot be made: they can only be received as a gift.” It is important to maintain an awareness of this reality within the Anglican Communion in the present moment, but not as a surrender to relativism, nor in deference to individualism or cultural diversity. Rather, the church’s skepticism toward formulas and ecclesia] structures is properly due to an acute respect for the divine transcendence of culture and society, an awareness of the limits of human knowing, and the result of determined safeguarding of the authority of Scripture from ecclesial control. [/blockquote]
I am inclined to agree with this assertion, however, I don’t know what he means about the “transcendence” of culture and society. There are interpretations of “transcendence” of culture and society with which I would agree, particularly culture and society as as our Lord describes when He describes the Kingdom of Heaven, both when He speaks in the Gospels and when He speaks in His revelation to John. That, and the fundamental truth that society and culture are expressions of human nature, which God created in His image.
Absent the Eschaton, however, it is only in a highly abstracted and carefully delimited sense that we can truthfully describe a fallen world as “transcendent”. It is, rather, dying. Indeed– it is, rather, death.
It is very sad to say that this essay, like much that has come out of ACI recently, appears to implicitly argue most intensely for the continuing prominence of academic theologian/theoreticians in the life of our churches. However, Mr. Brittain takes it to a new level. Consider how Mr. Brittain is skeptical of every proposed option for dealing with our 50 year-old crisis except for those already being practiced by the academic community – “more rigorous theology is certainly required”; “Its unity can only be nurtured through good will and faithful searching, not by coercive conformity”; “Kathryn Tanner has argued that Christian identity is “constituted most fundamentally by a community of argument concerning the meaning of true discipleship””; “the achievement of a respectful, but also theologically vigorous, debate over the nature of Christian faith and mission would represent an inspiring and faithful witness…” He references a handful of Anglican doctrinal authorities, but essentially dismisses them as having no real actual authority except as part of an ongoing debate and search for truth. He provides absolutely no single reference whatsoever regarding how a great Anglican divine or saint or church leader has interpreted or applied one or more of these authorities in the past (the quote from Richard Hooker is more about Hooker’s frustrations as a theologian than it is about what he actually believed). His use of the work of Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck is strictly as a “straw man by analogy” that he can tear to pieces.
Even contemporary Anglican theologians Radner and Turner in their extremely moderate proposal to establish the liturgy as authoritative come in for serious criticism. It appears that their betrayal of the theological academy (they show an apparently untheological respect for the common sense of the majority of the universal Anglican family) means that they need to get slammed on topics unrelated to the subject of this essay. They have forgotten, according to Brittain, that even though the Anglican masses agree on some things, they really have always had theological opinions all over the map and thus need the professional theologians/theoreticians to guide them into all truth.
What we are left with is the left-liberal/progressive public policy panacea transferred to the church world – more and better theological education will do the trick, of course. But since no church should really speak authoritatively on what core doctrine should be, and there should be no church leaders trying to establish anything approaching a confession of faith or an official catechism, who then will be primarily responsible for the content of the new theological curriculum? Hmm, I wonder.
What we are also left with is a view of the work of the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with how He has guided the Church in the past, but one that gives complete license to the current TEC theory of “the Spirit is doing a new thing in us because we say so”. Here is the foundation of his principle – “Granting ecclesial authority the novel function of safeguarding doctrinal conformity implies a conviction on the part of the church that the Spirit is unable to unify God’s people”. Now I ask Mr. Brittain, if the Church has ever taught anything approaching this notion, could there have ever been a Canon of Scripture or a Nicene Creed? Could there have ever been a reformed Church of England and an Anglican Communion? The problem is simply that for Mr. Brittain, like so many theological academics today, many ecclesial authorities actually have a great deal of God-given charism and authority that he does not have, and one of them may one day say “In the name of Christ, forbear!”.
Not long ago we were a Communion that had many doctrinal divisions, but one that was faithful to God in our common work of carrying the Gospel and the Kingdom of God deeper into the dark places in all layers of human existence. However, since the rise of a basically independent church intelligentsia that operates within a kind of pseudo-ecumenical bubble where theological novelty is commonplace, we have been decimated by the advance of radical intellectual individualism across the theological spectrum, self-styled spiritualities, “local option”, and a cacophony of teachers who are principally committed to having their new ideas widely read and heard. To get past this current crisis, the theological academy must begin to accept the wisdom that has been passed down through the generations of the faithful of the Church. They must begin to accept that they have a specific role and function within the Church that requires them to conform all of their thinking to the will of Christ, and that this often means being silent on some issues as they deal with their own spiritual needs and shortcomings. They will have to accept that their minds must constantly be trained to do spiritual battle and resist intellectual temptations, and that this training must take place under discipline and the Spirit-anointed authorities of the churches.
It is amazing how this essay dwells strictly in a theoretical and philosophical realm and does not in any way seek to legitimize an actual path by which the Communion’s legitimate orthodox leaders might together, through the Holy Spirit and according to our founding principles and our orthodox Anglican traditions, actually fix the problem(s) and find a way forward (those founding principles would include submission to the revelation of Scripture, the consensus teaching of the Church Fathers, and the direction of the ancient ecumenical canons). I think that it is time for a moratorium on this kind of speculative and critical writing that makes no reference to any authority but one’s own logic. This essay demonstrates the deep need we have for a season of silence before the one true God.
I note, on first reading, the complete absence of the word “truth”. I take doctrine to be truthful speech concerning God and his actions. The church’s claim, I take it, is that we speak truthfully about the mystery. In other words God reveal himself in a way that is capable of being understood by human beings. Or to put it another way, Christ speaks not in some ineffable language but in human words.
(I note that with interest that the essay itself seems to make some transhistorical truth claims – without acknowledging them as such).
While I generally agree with driver8 about the author’s failure to demonstrate how we can find ways to arrive at a real knowledge of and agreement upon the truth of Christ and His Church, I have to commend Mr. Brittain on a couple of points –
1) This is a very good and fairly comprehensive treatment of how Anglicanism has reached an impasse in our ability to authoritatively establish actual constructive meaning behind our general doctrinal parameters and the content of our formularies. Not every school deserves an equal place or even a place at the table, but the ethos of Anglicanism for the last 80 years almost requires that we operate in that way. To move some to the outermost circle of the Communion for a time because THEY ARE WRONG on foundational Christian doctrine is going to be a huge mountain to climb (sorry for the mixed metaphors), but it must be done. Because Mr. Brittain attempts to carefully examine the dynamics of (albeit in a far too speculative manner) a range of traditional and liberal approaches, he does illuminate certain bridges that will have to be crossed before faithful orthodox and traditionalist church leaders will be able to stand together.
2) Mr. Brittain does not specifically criticize anyone except theologians, and in that criticism, he is generally directing his critiques at ideas and not persons. This is the kind of tone that we all should strive for. In fact, I have to confess that he displays a much more generous and gracious tone than I do in my posting above. Unfortunately, because I firmly believe that the Communion is running out of time to get on the road of catholic orthodoxy and real spiritual and doctrinal discipline before everything falls apart for the foreseeable future, I am compelled to get tough on those who use their platform to offer more non-answers and theory than direction and wisdom.
Christopher Brittain’s essay is based on some questionable assumptions. (1) In most of his essay he attributes the crisis to the single issue of “homosexuality.” In his first footnote he wonders why it has been targeted as “the central issue” rather than HIV/AIDS, child poverty, etc. His use of the term blurs the distinction between orientation/preference and behavior. More importantly he shows no understanding of how this proximate cause is linked to the ultimate issues of scriptural authority and responsible behavior within the Anglican Communion.
(2) His thesis of “confession obsession” rests on a mistaken psychological approach that suggests the proponents of a Covenant are breaking with Anglican tradition rather than merely seeking to formalize it.
(3) His allegedly reasonable effort to combine theologizing and witnessing disregards the fact that the Communion’s current difficulties do not spring primarily from exploratory talk on the part of some theologians but rather from ecclesial conduct that contradicts Scripture, 2000 years of church tradition, the advice provided by Lambeth 1998, and the later warnings of the primates. He appears to be more interested in endless theological conversation than in a practical resolution of the Anglican Communion’s difficulties.
(4) I agree that the term “core doctrine” is not the best to use, but Brittain’s concern is that any Anglican effort to identify essential doctrine(s) is foolhardy. In his view, only continuing theological conversation seems to matter. It is true that the 2004 Windsor report did use the term “core doctrine,” but only once, and in the context of its treatment of “adiaphora (literally, ‘things that do not make a difference’): “Anglicans have always recognized a key distinction between core doctrines of the church (remembering that ethics, liturgy and pastoral practice, if authentically Christian, are all rooted in theology and doctrine) and those upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity.†[“WR,†par. 36]
Even if Brittain were fond of striving to identify such “core doctrine(s),” I wonder whether the core he would find would be the center of an proverbial onion (or the empty shell of a pseudo-gospel) because of his failure to submit himself to scriptural authority.
In short, I suggest he ponder his basic position carefully lest he end up emulating the apostate bishop described so vividly and tragically by C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce.
#6 I agree that graceful and charitable engagement about ideas is needed. Indeed one might decry its lack prior to TEC’s actions. It’s surely true that the new ideas were being discussed in seminaries and in many more progressive dioceses but, for example, in my part of TEC, there was not and still has not been an open discussion. Nor will there be.
But TECs actions on a diocesan and national level move us beyond discussing ideas into the norm governed accountability of human communities. Likewise, the actions taken in response by others. Here is it persons and not ideas that are to be held accountable. How the Communion will hold such actions accountable is, to say the least, rather unclear.
And this is supposed to be a “catholic church?” I must say that I prefer Cardinal Newman’s rule of thumb, already formulated (I believe) whan he wa san Anglican, that a characteristic of a “catholic church” is that it condemns errors and anathematizes and excommunicates those who profess them. Fat chance of that today in any church of the “Canterbury Communion” today!
There is no core doctrine worth condemnation, anathema, or excommunication – that is the message of the US HOB in the matters of Pike, Righter, Spong et alia. It has spread to Canterbury. It threatens the entire Anglican Communion if the gangrene is not excised. We have heard this. Whether the luv for the institution is actually love that cares is being ever more demonstrated by the NorteoAmericanos and their fellow travelers; they would rather the whole be destroyed than that their diseased member be cut off. The proof is in the deeds of the last 5.4 years.
Alas that the chief medical officer should practice psychiatry when surgery has long been demonstrated necessary!
Greetings everyone. I find it both interesting and humbling to read your remarks on my essay. I hope you will not consider my remarks an intrusion. The comments here certainly suggest that some of you who have taken the time to look at my article do not find it helpful at all. In the spirit of appreciation, I wonder if I might say a few things in response to what has been said in this discussion.
Clearly some have understood my paper as suggesting either that: i) the Anglican Communion should do nothing in the face of the present crisis, or else ii) I am seeking to defend some notion of “traditional Anglicanism.†This is not my intention, as I recognize that we are on the verge of a significant schism, and I also do not believe there is such a thing as a single and unified “Anglican tradition.†I did hope to demonstrate, however, that the concept of “core doctrine,†as well as the idea of a Covenant or a single standardized liturgy are quite novel proposals, and thus involve substantial changes to how many in the Communion (not just within TEC) are accustomed to operating. I also suggest that it is not clear to me that these proposals have clear theological support. And so my worry is that the Communion is desperately running around trying to fix the crisis, without carefully examining what these different options actually imply. The tone of some of the posts here is that something new must indeed be done if the Communion is to be saved. This may be so. I simply would add that I hope the Church will be led in this process by prayerful reflection rather than anxiety and political manoeuvring.
I hear very clearly the frustration expressed in the comments that my essay does not offer a solution to the crisis. This I can only acknowledge. Whether this makes my remarks an example of mere academic jargon and empty theory I leave to you. In my own defence, however, when I suggest that what the Communion really needs (and what I see lacking) is “more rigorous theology,†what I hope to suggest is that Anglicans are not speaking theologically together very much at present. I don’t mean that I want to establish academic seminars throughout the church; nor that I think that the Communion should turn to “academics†and wait for them to tell them what to do. My hope is to encourage all Anglicans to wrestle theologically with each other about the present crisis. In the congregations I worship in, and at Synods I attend and in church newsletters I read , I hear and read a great deal of anxiety, a lot of accusations, and considerable political strategizing; I often fail to encounter much talk about what God might be doing at present, or any sustained wrestling with Scripture. It does seem that many of us are simply tired of speaking with each other, and have retreated to our corners out of frustration. Although I can understand why it is tempting to do so, it is not, dare I say, faithful to our calling as members of Christ’s Church.
As one astute reader observes, I do not use the word “truth†very often in my essay. This is true, but I think there is some reason for this. Our church is currently in serious dispute over the truthfulness of some practices and commitments. I could write a paper offering my precise opinion on this truth, but that is not what I am seeking to do in this paper. Instead, I am hoping to encourage a step back from the present rhetoric and to look at how the present disagreement over truth is progressing, and what might be a useful way to engage with the process, given that we cannot agree at present over the truth of some issues. We can start excommunicating each other if this is our only option, but is it indeed accurate to assume this is where we have arrived, and, more importantly, where the Spirit is urging us to go?
I don’t see my paper as arguing that “any Anglican effort to identify essential doctrine(s) is foolhardy.†I thought I had demonstrated that many other Anglicans throughout history have observed that a full and complete doctrinal confession of what must be believed has eluded Anglicanism. This is not simply my opinion; my comments are more by way of observing what is in fact the case. Clearly many different Anglicans have a specific sense themselves of what is essential, and, as a few of you here have noted, some have given their lives for their convictions. But my point is that, collectively, the Church has not saw fit to establish a complete definition of these essentials. The closest we have come is the 39 Articles, but even then many bishops thought it necessary to write up their own pamphlets to tell their clergy what the Articles mean, and these different interpretations often contradicted each other. Furthermore, in a number of Provinces, these are no longer binding.
In a similar manner, I find it puzzling to be faulted for failing to “submit himself to scriptural authority.†My paper actually suggests that the Communion at present is not attending sufficiently to the authority of scripture. Perhaps the person who criticizes how I deal with Scripture thinks my view is erroneous, which, of course, is possible. But my basic point is that our Church finds itself at present faced with a group of people who cannot agree about some aspects of the Bible. And it appears that accusing each other of not submitting to “the authority of Scripture†is not really a helpful solution to the impasse. This is why I sought to begin to explore what it means to invoke the authority of Scripture. Still, I will happily go re-read Lewis’ “The Great Divorce†as encouraged.
Clearly comments here suggest a need to do something, and quickly, in order to prevent schism. How much time we have will depend on how long Anglicans are willing to disagree with each other and bear the pains of living with the “weaker†members of the community (in the Pauline sense). I, like some of you, fear that, for many Anglicans, this patience is largely exhausted. Well, if that is indeed so, then I would also suggest that no new liturgy, Covenant document, or doctrinal statement will make all the pain go away, or resolve all our disagreements. Only Christ can cure the pain that God’s Church is presently suffering. May we all, at least, be looking towards this source of hope and healing, whatever may be the outcome of the present dispute.
With appreciation,
Christopher Brittain