One wants to hear more from Harding about "imperial pluralism," as it seems his piece criticizing Chane succeeds in engaging the Episcopal Church's current leading theology. Sure, the article is a bit polemical, but that is to be expected given the state of our community.
Chane's Move
Bishop Chane was quoted as saying:
I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way. It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.
Perhaps a poor choice of words; I suppose Chane should have done more to parse "demonic"--certainly an incendiary choice of words for a bishop at Lambeth. But maybe the article omits whatever nuances he managed to add. Regardless, Chane's basic point is not idiosyncratic, but expresses what--for around thirty years by my fallible reckoning--the Episcopal Church has adopted as its theology of choice. The category of the demonic applies to a created person's attempts to "seal" him- or herself off from God, as if effort could achieve the aseity proper to divinity. Chane could be picking the category up from Kierkegaard, or perhaps Tillich; who knows?
The Episcopal Church's leading theology, expressed in Holmes, Westerhoff, Griffiss, et al, extols the virtue of epistemic humility as the necessary mark of a finite person in relation to God. God, being radically free and unconstrained in his absolute power, is beyond finite comprehension--even in the event of beatification. In our relationship with God the Father, we must ever stand ready to respond in obedience to God's will for us, and never presume we comprehend the whole of what he has ordained. Thus, take a passage of Holy Scripture S and a period of time, t. Suppose God wills from eternity that the church understand S at t to mean XYZ; that is consistent with God willing from eternity that the church understand S at t' (later than t) as ABC--where "ABC" is contrary to "XYZ." For the church to complain How will we be able to tell? is understandable, but God--being omnipotent--is able to communicate with the church. The church's role is to listen and obey, listen and obey.
OK--so there is a sketch of the leading Episcopalian theology. Chane seems to be worried that someone claiming to know with certainty that S simply means XYZ not only infringes on the absolute power of God to ordain that S mean whatever he pleases it to mean (and only that can be Scripture's literal meaning), but also attempts to seal him- or herself off from God's commands. That attempt would count as demonic.
Harding's Counter
He writes,
John Chane charges the traditionalists with the crime of certainty. This is a commonplace. It is a corollary of the reigning intellectual culture among the intellectual elites of the West....
and that sounds right though a touch polemical; he then goes on to add:
[i]t is a consequence of the dogmas of post-modernism.
That is debatable--unless one wishes to date Postmodernism to the Early Modern period and include people like Bayle--the trope of uncertainty, and in particular uncertainty as applied to revelation, predates the likes of Lyotard and Derrida. Worse: one could follow the likes of Quine and other assorted analytic philosophers, and come away with a cogent general skepticism about ontology and moral value--but this would not be at all postmodern. He goes on:
It is based on the conviction that there is very little that can be known with certainty, perhaps just a very few “facts” of science, perhaps not even them. The dogma at work here is the ironic post-modern dogma of the certainty of uncertainty. Consequently according to this post-modern dogma, to claim certainty in the area of beliefs and values is immoral and especially so given the huge variety of religious and philosophical options....
The only part to take issue with is the formulation "the ironic post-modern dogma of the certainty of uncertainty." One might well pin this on, say, middle & late period Derrida, but I do not think it fits the Episcopal Church's position well. It's leading theology may look defensive: a modest core set of beliefs that are held with certainty are surrounded by beliefs and positions held without absolute certainty--but the core is there. Recall the Righter trial's verdict: Righter didn't violate the core, not that there was no core at all. A conservative might say in response:
(A) the core is absurdly thin, and missing necessary elements,
or maybe even
(B) the distinction between core and periphery is not defensible;
and the conservative may well contend
(C) the days of positivism are over--there is no need to be so defensive;
but the complaint
(D) there is no core--all is up for grabs,
seems mistaken as applied to TEC.
When Harding goes on to say "[t]his protest against certainty claims the moral high ground and sounds on the surface as though it is based on a generous tolerance" I strain to recall any theological defense of tolerance by any near-current, leading Episocopalian theologian.
The notion of tolerance--running from Locke up to today--presumes inter alia one side is convinced it knows the truth and the other side is thought to be mistaken in an especially morally troubling way, but that the side thinking it has the truth restrains itself from suppressing the others by whom they are troubled. Thus, tolerance is a virtue for those without a case of epistemic wobblies. For instance, if Nigeria's Akinola--certain in his interpretation of Scripture on homosexuality--were to decide nevertheless to rub shoulders with TEC's pro-GC2003 bishops at the Altar, that would exhibit tolerance in the relevant sense.
"Tolerance" seems to be the wrong word for what Harding is getting at; he might have spoken of the ancient skeptic's virtue instead: epoche, a la Pyrrho, or suspension of judgement. For it seems that Harding thinks of TEC, in my view misreading TEC's leading theology, along postmodern lines as skeptical about the ancient faith once delivered.
It would be wrong in my view to speak of "Episcopalian epoche" as if TEC's leading theology were a form of dressed-up Pyrrhonianism. Epistemic humility of the sort defended by TEC is consistent with having to take sides, make judgements, formulate definite interpretations with definite content, etc all stepping away from mere nomos, as TEC has done of late, whereas for an exponent of epoche, these things would be inconsistent--and there would be no core doctrine at all, however slim, for the skeptic.
The essential point about the Episcopal Church seems to be that when it takes those stands, it does not take them thinking itself to be infallible, to be closed off from correction by God's will. The actions TEC takes in disciplining a bishop, passing a resolution or condoning a type of action are ever taken to be defeasible. That is to say, the choice between absolute certainty and postmodern skepticism sets up a false dichotomy; pace Harding, there is terrain between the extremes.
But Harding has an ace:
It [TEC's leading position] is saying, in effect, "before we talk you must agree that your beliefs and values are the sort of thing that I say they are and I say they can never be more than one opinion among others. If we are to talk, you must give up all your truth claims before you come to the table. With regard to the rules of the table, I will be the final referee.”
That's mistaken, Harding thinks; he quotes Newbigin:
“In a pluralist society such as ours. . .any claim to announce the truth about God and his purpose for the world, is liable to be dismissed as ignorant, arrogant, dogmatic. We have no reason to be frightened of this accusation. It itself rests on assumptions which are open to radical criticisms, but which are not criticized because they are part of the reigning plausibility structure.”
That might work against a postmodernist or a theological pluralist. But TEC's position is--not yet at least--pluralist or postmodernist. Notice Newbigin's "any" in the quote. That word covers alot of ground--too much ground for TEC. The Episcopal Church has core doctrine, though maybe not enough for Harding; that is not to say it has no core at all.
Thus, it is not clear that TEC's leading theology demands all comers to the table first give up their unqualified truth claims, claims made with certainty. TEC might be better portaryed as saying something like "Your position is substantive and goes beyond our core doctrine; you better have a really good argument." And in a sense we have come face to face with our chief problem: a paucity of good theology. In our disputes, neither side seems capable of making a case with really good arguments--indeed, the structure of the arguments given is scarcely discernible. However, that does not mean there is no good argument to be made, or that with practice we would remain unable to speak for ourselves.
The polemical bit from Harding I spoke of above is here:
Bishop Chane’s protest sounds high minded and tolerant but it is in reality the rhetoric of the despot who is beyond rebuke.
Oh dear--this comes perilously close to calling Chane a despot outright, though Harding is merely accusing Chane of talking like a despot. I suppose it will entertain at least a few readers who need some good news in this Lambeth season: a utilitarian justification, alas.
The Rot in the 39 Articles
It is well that Article XXI, present in 1571 and 1662, is omitted in the 1801 version (my brackets):
Of the Authority of General Councils. [A] General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. [B] And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
Recall the Jerusalem Declaration's points (4) and (6):
(4)We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing
with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
(6) We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
If I were a gambling man, I would bet point [A] in Art. XXI will be selectively "read out" of the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles. But how far will GAFCON engage in selective reading? Should the whole of Art. XXI be omitted? If it were excised, that would seem sufficient to establish the legitimacy of critical reading in confronting formularies: formularies need not simply be taken as authoritative on their face. That is, we would agree excision in principle is permitted, and then we might argue about what is to be cut and what kept. However, the Jerusalem Declaration is silent about any such practice, giving the impression that all will be kept intact--I suspect a thoroughly misleading impression.
On the One Hand
Anyhow, the serious trouble in Art. XXI surfaces in part [B]--it is this bit which leads me to speak of the Articles qua part of the Anglican formularies as rotten. Presumably, the Articles were not found ready-made on golden tablets, and were not dictated by angels; they were produced by an assembly of men. It follows that Article XXI is self-referential in a certain sense. That is, in speaking of assemblies of men, it speaks of the assembly that produced the 39 Articles, and in particular Article XXI. Thus, Article XXI implies that it may be wrong--in effect, that the assembly of men that produced Art. XXI might be wrong about Art. XXI. That is roughly equivalent to admitting that there may in fact be an infallible magesterium or assembly. I am not sure such an admission was intended when the Articles were produced, or is intended now when the Articles are cited as authoritative. Nevertheless, it is logically implied. That is quite a remarkable implication, in my opinion, inasmuch as it had seemed to me at least that the 39 Articles expressed a moderate Calvinist take on the faith. For the admission of the possibility of an infallible magisterium would seem to commit anyone accepting the Articles to a view of ecclesial authority consistent with that of the Roman Catholic Church.
In fact, there is more. As Art. XXI implies the assembly producing the Articles may be mistaken, logically, given Art. XXI, the Articles as a whole may be read so as to be mistaken on all points. It follows, so far as the Articles are concerned, there may be an infallible magisterium, and such a magisterium would not be bound--ceteris paribus--to any point of doctrine expressed elsewhere in the Articles. That would mean strict adherence to the Articles is consistent with--indeed logically requires--accepting the possibility that other interpretations of the faith inconsistent with the Articles are true. That is, the Articles provide a foundation for epistemic humility--but is that the intention of GAFCON in taking them as authoritative? I think not. Of course, if one rejects epistemic humility, it may seem instead that as the Articles stand in the BCP 1662, they are radically self-defeating.
On the Other Hand
Most likely the assembly that produced the Articles did not intend to undermine itself and make a super-subtle endorsement of the Roman See--or of epistemic humility. Far from it.
I take it they simply did not notice the self-reference in XXI and the trouble it causes. Nevertheless, that instance of blindness to scope is not innocent, inasmuch as they probably intended the article to have a wide scope, enveloping assemblies of men in general, and at least those beyond the early ecumenical councils. To try and limit the scope to some assemblies but not others would be troublesome: what criterion could be accepted as plausible and cogent--and yield a non-empty set that excluded what probably were seen as tendentious Roman Catholic assemblies to whose authority the authors of the Articles did not want to be tied?
I do not know, but as a consequence of the incoherence in the Articles, it follows the problem of authority in Anglicanism remained open: i.e. mandating allegiance to an inconsistent set of propositions is not a solution. It probably also may be said in consequence that whatever authority was--and is--exercised in Anglicanism cannot have the Articles as a proper and sufficient foundation. That is, when someone quotes the Articles as an authority carrying some definite content, there is prima facie reason to think that there is a confusion: anything at all follows from a contradiction, e.g. the Law of Duns Scotus: from Q, it follows that if not Q then R--where R can be any proposition at all. Normally, it might be thought that citing Q and not Q--i.e. the Articles--as authority for accepting R--any proposition in contention--is suspect.
Of the Authority of General Councils. [A] General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. [B] And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
Recall the Jerusalem Declaration's points (4) and (6):
(4)We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing
with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
(6) We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
If I were a gambling man, I would bet point [A] in Art. XXI will be selectively "read out" of the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles. But how far will GAFCON engage in selective reading? Should the whole of Art. XXI be omitted? If it were excised, that would seem sufficient to establish the legitimacy of critical reading in confronting formularies: formularies need not simply be taken as authoritative on their face. That is, we would agree excision in principle is permitted, and then we might argue about what is to be cut and what kept. However, the Jerusalem Declaration is silent about any such practice, giving the impression that all will be kept intact--I suspect a thoroughly misleading impression.
On the One Hand
Anyhow, the serious trouble in Art. XXI surfaces in part [B]--it is this bit which leads me to speak of the Articles qua part of the Anglican formularies as rotten. Presumably, the Articles were not found ready-made on golden tablets, and were not dictated by angels; they were produced by an assembly of men. It follows that Article XXI is self-referential in a certain sense. That is, in speaking of assemblies of men, it speaks of the assembly that produced the 39 Articles, and in particular Article XXI. Thus, Article XXI implies that it may be wrong--in effect, that the assembly of men that produced Art. XXI might be wrong about Art. XXI. That is roughly equivalent to admitting that there may in fact be an infallible magesterium or assembly. I am not sure such an admission was intended when the Articles were produced, or is intended now when the Articles are cited as authoritative. Nevertheless, it is logically implied. That is quite a remarkable implication, in my opinion, inasmuch as it had seemed to me at least that the 39 Articles expressed a moderate Calvinist take on the faith. For the admission of the possibility of an infallible magisterium would seem to commit anyone accepting the Articles to a view of ecclesial authority consistent with that of the Roman Catholic Church.
In fact, there is more. As Art. XXI implies the assembly producing the Articles may be mistaken, logically, given Art. XXI, the Articles as a whole may be read so as to be mistaken on all points. It follows, so far as the Articles are concerned, there may be an infallible magisterium, and such a magisterium would not be bound--ceteris paribus--to any point of doctrine expressed elsewhere in the Articles. That would mean strict adherence to the Articles is consistent with--indeed logically requires--accepting the possibility that other interpretations of the faith inconsistent with the Articles are true. That is, the Articles provide a foundation for epistemic humility--but is that the intention of GAFCON in taking them as authoritative? I think not. Of course, if one rejects epistemic humility, it may seem instead that as the Articles stand in the BCP 1662, they are radically self-defeating.
On the Other Hand
Most likely the assembly that produced the Articles did not intend to undermine itself and make a super-subtle endorsement of the Roman See--or of epistemic humility. Far from it.
I take it they simply did not notice the self-reference in XXI and the trouble it causes. Nevertheless, that instance of blindness to scope is not innocent, inasmuch as they probably intended the article to have a wide scope, enveloping assemblies of men in general, and at least those beyond the early ecumenical councils. To try and limit the scope to some assemblies but not others would be troublesome: what criterion could be accepted as plausible and cogent--and yield a non-empty set that excluded what probably were seen as tendentious Roman Catholic assemblies to whose authority the authors of the Articles did not want to be tied?
I do not know, but as a consequence of the incoherence in the Articles, it follows the problem of authority in Anglicanism remained open: i.e. mandating allegiance to an inconsistent set of propositions is not a solution. It probably also may be said in consequence that whatever authority was--and is--exercised in Anglicanism cannot have the Articles as a proper and sufficient foundation. That is, when someone quotes the Articles as an authority carrying some definite content, there is prima facie reason to think that there is a confusion: anything at all follows from a contradiction, e.g. the Law of Duns Scotus: from Q, it follows that if not Q then R--where R can be any proposition at all. Normally, it might be thought that citing Q and not Q--i.e. the Articles--as authority for accepting R--any proposition in contention--is suspect.
Bishop Robinson at St. Mary's, Putney
It seems Robinson delivered the goods at St. Mary's; I had not heard much from him in the past in terms of preaching or theology, but it seems he does them well:
We should not be fearful for the church, for the church is not ours to win or lose. It is God's gift to us.
My homosexuality is not my sin - but I am just as frail and self-absorbed as the next person. I am not unworthy - I am made good by Jesus Christ.
Right here, in St Mary's church, Putney, I am going to divulge the homosexual agenda. It is Jesus!
Hints of a theology of the Cross, an evangelical sensibility, no? With a hint of eschatological inclusivism:
Peter Akinola and I are brothers in Christ, and one day we will be in heaven together. And we will get along, because God wouldn't have it any other way."
Here's +Fraser's take, which seems right to me:
What makes this person so interesting is that he has lost any sense that he is able to support himself spiritually through his own effort alone. His recognition of his "failure" to cope is precisely his strength. The theology is pure Luther: only when you recognise that you are unable to make yourself acceptable to God under your own steam can you collapse back upon God as the sole source of salvation. Later in the sermon, he described going from a meeting of the US House of Bishops to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and being relieved that, at this second meeting, he could at last speak about God.
One thing: if Robinson can keep doing this, with God's help, the opposition to his ordination will seem incredible. It makes sense that in spite of everything the Episcopal Church would want him out front; the very fact of his presence--where he does things like this--does terminal damage to the efforts of GAFCON and the sour machinations of Radner. Indeed: Robinson doing this creates an audience for a critical reading of Scripture.
We should not be fearful for the church, for the church is not ours to win or lose. It is God's gift to us.
My homosexuality is not my sin - but I am just as frail and self-absorbed as the next person. I am not unworthy - I am made good by Jesus Christ.
Right here, in St Mary's church, Putney, I am going to divulge the homosexual agenda. It is Jesus!
Hints of a theology of the Cross, an evangelical sensibility, no? With a hint of eschatological inclusivism:
Peter Akinola and I are brothers in Christ, and one day we will be in heaven together. And we will get along, because God wouldn't have it any other way."
Here's +Fraser's take, which seems right to me:
What makes this person so interesting is that he has lost any sense that he is able to support himself spiritually through his own effort alone. His recognition of his "failure" to cope is precisely his strength. The theology is pure Luther: only when you recognise that you are unable to make yourself acceptable to God under your own steam can you collapse back upon God as the sole source of salvation. Later in the sermon, he described going from a meeting of the US House of Bishops to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and being relieved that, at this second meeting, he could at last speak about God.
One thing: if Robinson can keep doing this, with God's help, the opposition to his ordination will seem incredible. It makes sense that in spite of everything the Episcopal Church would want him out front; the very fact of his presence--where he does things like this--does terminal damage to the efforts of GAFCON and the sour machinations of Radner. Indeed: Robinson doing this creates an audience for a critical reading of Scripture.
Anarchy in the UK?
OK, not quite anarchy in the UK, but at least an eruption of sorts.That simmering pot of ecclesial stew--uncomfortably spicy but dependably stable--has simmered over its edges and spilled over its bounds. Or: the contents Williams managed to repress for so long have been emphatically expressed.
First, Father Dudley blessed a SSU between two ostensibly active gay priests; he was duly reprimanded by the relevant authorities, but to some conservatives it seemed Dudley had been merely slapped on the wrist. Moreover, it seems Dudley had not been the first (last paragraph in the linked article): blessing SSUs a covert practice already established in the Church of England? Then, following GAFCON, foreign bishops Venables, Orombi and Jensen crossed the Church of England's borders in an effort to woo parishes, clergy, laity, etc away from the Sees of Canterbury and York, prompting condemnation from Williams and Sentamu--and even several lashings from Wright. Finally, the CoE has committed itself to ordaining women as bishops, prompting worries that traditionalists will split to Rome or effect schism.
First, Father Dudley blessed a SSU between two ostensibly active gay priests; he was duly reprimanded by the relevant authorities, but to some conservatives it seemed Dudley had been merely slapped on the wrist. Moreover, it seems Dudley had not been the first (last paragraph in the linked article): blessing SSUs a covert practice already established in the Church of England? Then, following GAFCON, foreign bishops Venables, Orombi and Jensen crossed the Church of England's borders in an effort to woo parishes, clergy, laity, etc away from the Sees of Canterbury and York, prompting condemnation from Williams and Sentamu--and even several lashings from Wright. Finally, the CoE has committed itself to ordaining women as bishops, prompting worries that traditionalists will split to Rome or effect schism.
From the Anglican Communion Institute
It seems events have overtaken the old TEC (and Canada!) vs the rest of the Anglican Communion drama. Consider the latest emission (thanks, Katherine) from the ACI, here: the thing is dead on arrival. E.g.:
A second issue that requires immediate attention is the vulnerable state of those Anglo Catholic dioceses and parishes in TEC that do not believe that the ordination of women is in accord with catholic tradition.
Oh dear. And those within the Church of England? It gets better, believe me:
Though the issue is a disputed one, it is nonetheless the case that the Communion has judged this practice a matter of “reception” rather than "right". Within TEC, however, the ordination of women is no longer treated as a matter of reception.
Now that's rich. Shall we say "Within the CoE, however, the ordination of women is no longer treated as a matter of reception"? I think we shall. Finally:
If no remedy is provided them, two results will follow—the splintering of TEC and the Communion will continue unabated and the counsel of the Communion to treat the ordination of women as a matter of reception will have been rebuffed in a way that further weakens the claim of Anglicans to belong to a communion rather than a federation of churches.
Shall we say the same counsel applies to the Church of England? I think we shall; the CoE apparently has rebuffed the counsel of the Communion. Hey, by the way, did "the counsel of the Communion" come up during the debates at Synod, and if so, did the notion "have legs"? Or shall we say the notion is significant primarily in the minds of Seitz, Radner and Turner, who seemed to need it as a cudgel with which to bludgeon the Episcopal Church and Canada--will they now turn their rhetorical weapons against the Church of England? Will the Church of England have to join the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada among the banned in covenant proceedings? My, what would that look like?
After all, one could make a case that the ACI's initial item,
First and foremost among these is the already announced intention of a significant number of bishops within TEC to allow clergy within their dioceses to bless unions between members of the same gender,
is so broad that it snags or at least soon shall snag the Church of England. The key weasel word is "allow": if Dudley is not disciplined, then he should count as having been allowed by the bishops of the CoE to bless a SSU in their jurisdiction--just what TEC is accused of tolerating. Moreover, given the rather radical motions passed by Synod over ordaining women, is ACI still confident the CoE can be counted on to hold the line on blessing gay SSUs or ordaining actively gay bishops? Has not the CoE's position already demonstrably eroded with its toleration of gay civil unions?
Finally, notice how in their zeal to isolate the Episcopal Church, the authors conveniently leave out the Anglican Church of Canada--an innocent oversight? They also make no mention of other bishops in the Communion who seem willing to move in the Episcopal Church and Canada's direction on homosexuality: the Church of Ireland is ready to move our way, and is considering whether to allow gay unions. Scotland has long been close to TEC on the question of ordaining active gays--their Primate has an interesting theology--and recent comments from Primus Jones--as well as from the Archbishop of Mexico--call for tolerance on homosexuality. We can count on New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa, and much of Australia to be at least sympathetic. The ACI sweeps this support for the Episcopal Church "under the rug" without mention--why? It could be intellectual laziness or dishonesty, but it seems more likely that the covenant process under Gomez and the ACI's leadership needs the fiction of the Episcopal Church as a radical loner in its Communion narrative in order to get the covenant it wants in the end, namely--in their words--
a covenant that “is in line with our common classical Anglican heritage of biblical, historical and reformed formularies of faith and ecclesiology,”
presumably one that institutionalizes opposition to ordaining actively gay bishops, blessing SSUs, and that provides special arrangements for those opposed to ordaining women.
That strategy of isolating TEC, long pursued by ACI and other critics of the Episcopal Church, seems to have come undone with GAFCON expanding its efforts to target the Church of England: much of what animates GAFCON to deny TEC's authority will animate it to deny the CoE's authority--but why stop there? The ACI's latest missive would tolerate the formation of factions like GAFCON in the Communion commited to crossing boundaries to poach people, prelates and property: this is sublimated in their rhetoric:
as the recent GAFCON conference has shown, the sort of face-to-face conversation for which the upcoming conference is designed can, despite internal divisions, produce real results
"Real results" indeed; we may well see GAFCON "deny the authority" of Ireland, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and on and on without end, as GAFCON's super-special Primates see fit: GAFCON as a machine geared up to destroy the remnants of catholic authority in the Anglican Communion.
The ACI means to resist schism, one supposes, by working the covenant into an instrument to appease conservative tastes: communion, maybe even more particularly communion with the Sees of Canterbury and York, means something or other to them: just what, in the wake of GAFCON's ecclesiology? Whatever: this missive, by catching the Church of England, Canada--and who knows how many other provinces in the short term--in a net designed to entangle the Episcopal Church alone aids GAFCON's efforts to sow division at the very same time it seems to weaken the covenant process by all but openly inviting factions to make it an instrument to their particular struggles. GAFCON has no monopoly on inept theology. Aren't there any adults left in the Communion interested in brushing these ninnies aside so that serious, cogent work on the covenant might get done?
Why the Sudden Rout of the Anglican Right?
Not long ago it seemed the fortunes of the Anglican right were waxing, and that TEC would indeed be isolated or expelled from the AC while being quartered by foreign efforts to poach parishes and dioceses. That seems like a long time ago, though of course Anglicanism's right wing will continue poaching because, having defined itself negatively, it only knows how to keep doing the unsuccessful things it has already done: failure sublimated again and again as "Renewal" will not rouse evangelical suspicion. The right overreached in its border crossing in the US, pace Wright's dismaying equivocations--but the right failed to learn from that, and now Canada and England are victims of right-wing aggression, an aggression that cannot see itself as it is, that cannot limit its lusts, an aggression incapable of moderation.
I have already noted the incoherence in GAFCON's program. At root the incoherence comes from another absurdity, so far as I can tell: wanting biblical authority to stand while wanting biblical authority to fall. Let me explain. GAFCON and its sympathizers make a point of the need to obey biblical authority: let the Scripture's plain sense reign on the issue of homosexuality. In this sense they wish biblical authority to stand, and will claim this authority is at stake. But, as duly noted on the Anglican Continuum, GAFCON et al obstinately refuse to acknowledge plain-sense Scriptural condemnations of divorce and ordaining women--and maybe even of abortion. In that sense they want bibllical authority--as they conceived it in treating homosexuality--to fall. And that is no accident--their integrity depends on holding together groups whose self-serving, selective reading of Scripture gives them their identity. In short, GAFCON makes the main issue to be Scriptural authority, on which it does not have a coherent and principled position. Logically speaking, anything follows from a contradiction. What would you like to "infer" from an incoherent stand on Scripture? Whatever you really, really want to infer: like a power to deny the authority of the catholic church (Jerusalem Declaration, #6 & #13).
Maybe--finally--parties throughout the Communion outside the Episcopal Church are waking up to what the Anglican right has unleashed. Even if they do not see it in quite the way I do, they may nevertheless sense that with GAFCON, the limits that should be there are not there, that something has gone off the rails, something is missing. That recognition is late, but welcome.
Criticizing GAFCON's Theology from the Right
Logical consistency on theological issues is always difficult to achieve, especially if first principles are not in view. Thus, it came as no surprise to see Continuum published a piece by the Archbishop of the Anglican Catholic Church on GAFCON pointing out the Jerusalem Declaration's inconsistency from another angle. There is no doubt that Archbishop Haverland would find TEC's current positions in an even greater and more dangerous state of error--but that is not my point. Rather, with Haverland's writing in view, it seems clear even GAFCON's touted conservatism is merely an ersatz conservatism--going not quite far enough to achieve internal coherence from a staunchly conservative/traditionalist point of view.
That is to say, what kind of genuine Christian traditionalism could GAFCON actually intend to promulgate when
(1) it maintains "its silence concerning the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate"--for "all three Holy Orders are male in character,"
(2) contrary to the Jerusalem Declaration, "there are Seven Ecumenical Councils, not merely Four,"
(3) the document continues tolerance of divorce among its supporters when "valid Christian marriage establishes an indissoluble sacramental bond which cannot be broken save by death,"
(4) it declined to comment at all on abortion depite the fact "human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death, and directly willed abortion always is gravely sinful" ?
Moreover, the Declaration's reference to uniquely authoritative formularies is erroneous as well. He writes:
...all Anglican formularies, practices, and beliefs properly are subject to evaluation and interpretation in the light of the central Tradition. If both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches reject something that some Anglicans believe, then that something probably is false, particularly if it concerns a matter of importance. Our security lies in the authority of Scripture as interpreted by the universal Tradition and by the living consensus of the great Churches, not in peculiarly Anglican notions.
Not bad stuff. There is more:
...while the 1662 Prayer Book has many strengths, it also has some notable weaknesses, including a truncated Eucharistic Canon, which the 1928 American, 1954 South African, and other later Prayer Books have corrected.
Which is not to say he supports use of the BCP 1979:
the 1979 Episcopalian Prayer Book, and many other contemporary language books at use in the official Anglican Communion, are radically flawed and are often subject to grave theological objection...
What is at stake here? How we should read Scripture and respond to Christian tradition: without clarity on Scripture and tradition, we are unlikely to be able to reason well on theological issues. GAFCON seems to read Scripture and tradition with an expedient,
selective conservatism:
actively gay bishops are a problem, but not female clergy,
blessing SSUs is a problem, but not divorce and apparently not abortion,
inventing a new gospel is a problem, but not gerrymandering authoritative councils and formularies.
That is, the reading of Scripture and tradition that enables dismissal of prohibitions on female ordination, divorce and perhaps abortion, and that engenders a "shop as you go" mentality toward authority in the church--namely GAFCON's reading--also enables dismissal of prohibitions on ordaining actively gay bishops and blessing SSUs. It's the same style of reading, the same type of treatment of tradition. In effect, GAFCON exhibits another inconsistency: if it were truly principled--that is, if it applied its way of handling Scripture and tradition consistently--it would tolerate the Episcopal Church and Canada; but of course it does not.
Of course, one might turn this around on Haverland: what about his reading of Scripture and tradition on slavery and usury? Note, the Roman See has never come out--to my very fallible knowledge, ready here to be utterly refuted--and said slavery was an absolute moral wrong. Would Haverland agree, given his criterion for sound doctrine--agreement with the Roman and Orthodox Sees--quoted above? I do not know; that is perhaps an argument for another time. Regardless of how he would respond personally, it seems GAFCON still has a problem.
That is to say, what kind of genuine Christian traditionalism could GAFCON actually intend to promulgate when
(1) it maintains "its silence concerning the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate"--for "all three Holy Orders are male in character,"
(2) contrary to the Jerusalem Declaration, "there are Seven Ecumenical Councils, not merely Four,"
(3) the document continues tolerance of divorce among its supporters when "valid Christian marriage establishes an indissoluble sacramental bond which cannot be broken save by death,"
(4) it declined to comment at all on abortion depite the fact "human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death, and directly willed abortion always is gravely sinful" ?
Moreover, the Declaration's reference to uniquely authoritative formularies is erroneous as well. He writes:
...all Anglican formularies, practices, and beliefs properly are subject to evaluation and interpretation in the light of the central Tradition. If both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches reject something that some Anglicans believe, then that something probably is false, particularly if it concerns a matter of importance. Our security lies in the authority of Scripture as interpreted by the universal Tradition and by the living consensus of the great Churches, not in peculiarly Anglican notions.
Not bad stuff. There is more:
...while the 1662 Prayer Book has many strengths, it also has some notable weaknesses, including a truncated Eucharistic Canon, which the 1928 American, 1954 South African, and other later Prayer Books have corrected.
Which is not to say he supports use of the BCP 1979:
the 1979 Episcopalian Prayer Book, and many other contemporary language books at use in the official Anglican Communion, are radically flawed and are often subject to grave theological objection...
What is at stake here? How we should read Scripture and respond to Christian tradition: without clarity on Scripture and tradition, we are unlikely to be able to reason well on theological issues. GAFCON seems to read Scripture and tradition with an expedient,
selective conservatism:
actively gay bishops are a problem, but not female clergy,
blessing SSUs is a problem, but not divorce and apparently not abortion,
inventing a new gospel is a problem, but not gerrymandering authoritative councils and formularies.
That is, the reading of Scripture and tradition that enables dismissal of prohibitions on female ordination, divorce and perhaps abortion, and that engenders a "shop as you go" mentality toward authority in the church--namely GAFCON's reading--also enables dismissal of prohibitions on ordaining actively gay bishops and blessing SSUs. It's the same style of reading, the same type of treatment of tradition. In effect, GAFCON exhibits another inconsistency: if it were truly principled--that is, if it applied its way of handling Scripture and tradition consistently--it would tolerate the Episcopal Church and Canada; but of course it does not.
Of course, one might turn this around on Haverland: what about his reading of Scripture and tradition on slavery and usury? Note, the Roman See has never come out--to my very fallible knowledge, ready here to be utterly refuted--and said slavery was an absolute moral wrong. Would Haverland agree, given his criterion for sound doctrine--agreement with the Roman and Orthodox Sees--quoted above? I do not know; that is perhaps an argument for another time. Regardless of how he would respond personally, it seems GAFCON still has a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)