When Lambeth 1948 sought the place where this dispersed authority distributed in diverse places finds its focus, it pointed to the episcopate, “by virtue of”¦ divine commission, and in synodical association with”¦ clergy and laity”, and to the Book of Common Prayer. So again, we come back to agreement together: something different from centralized authority or universal jurisdiction, yet still substantial, and morally and spiritually authoritative.
I think it not too far a leap, at this point in the life of the Communion, to see the Instruments of Unity within the Anglican Communion as the means by which authority, multiple and dispersed, finds focus so that there can be agreement together. The agreement expresses a common mind, and a commitment to a life together that is substantial, even if not agreeing in every detail. Charity requires patience, and of course patience involves suffering. To walk away from agreement together as our means and end to the living of the Christian life in community is to attempt the re-founding of our doctrine of the Church on something else (indeed, what?); to walk away from the possibility of “mutual support” “mutual checking”, and the “redressing of errors and exaggerations” within the Communion. It is to take the ecclesiology of Cyprian, a committed builder of bridges between Churches, and to turn it into the ecclesiology of the Donatists, who defined their Church by separation. The ecclesiology of the Donatists, in some aspects his legitimate heir, represents in fact the metastasis of Cyprian’s ecclesiology.
Now I want to say something in parallel about theological method, already adumbrated in the 1948 Lambeth Report. In the same way that the Church seeks agreement in the midst of multiplicity, so too do the sources of Christian theological authority seek to come together and offer a coherent witness. They may be distributed in diverse places, according to the Lambeth Report, but they too agree. The Church has a regula, a rule of faith, which is akin to saying that the Holy Scripture needs to be reasonably interpreted in light of the Church’s tradition of understanding the Scripture. The Scripture has its own hermeneutical tool, a way of being interpreted, and it is rooted in the Scripture itself. As Lancelot Andrews put it “one canon…two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period…determine the boundary of our faith.”
Bishop Bauerschmidt’s commencement address at Sewanee last May is also worth perusing. In particular, his comments about history, orthodoxy and the interpretation of scripture. I’m not going to risk misrepresenting him by pasting my favorite snippets here. But, please [url=http://episcopaldiocese-tn.org/bishops-forum/news-item-2]have a look[/url] yourself… I think you’ll be encouraged by it. Also, on the Diocese of Tennessee website there are several “essays” by the Rev Dr. George Sumner at the diocesan convention earlier this year that are well worth reading and thinking about.
This is a thoughtful piece by my bishop, John Bauerschmidt, pulling together as it does several themes that I have heard in his thinking. It is encouraging to see such careful thinking going on and I pray that the tenor and substance of the Bishop of Tennessee’s thinking will bear the fruit of patience and careful pondering that his approach epitomizes.
I found this a very engaging piece that has given me much to ponder. IT certainly appears to be the work of a first-rate mind and a deeply thoughtful and learned bishop.
I agree with your assessment Richard and also agree that bishop Bauerschmidt is one of the better, more catholic thinking ones. We’ve seen however what patience and careful thinking has gotten us with TEC and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m not encouraged.
I found much to ponder in the essay; thanks John. I miss your clear thinking. But, in the matter of diverse practice (to re-baptize or not) it seems to me that the diversity was in how to deal with a situation that was recognized by the churches as sin. Today, the diversity is more often about what sin is or is not. It was worth reading NT Wright recently who reminded us that the Windsor process and all that has followed in since presumes the Lambeth resolution on sexuality is the teaching of the Church. This is precisely the point that eludes TEC. Instead of a offering a response to the teaching that may be different from that of other provinces, TEC rejects the teaching. In the ancient situation’s terms, TEC would be the subject of discipline from the various churches; the diversity of practice would be how to receive the penitent church back into communion. Except, there appears to be no penitent church.