Stand Firm

Stand Firm: Corresponding Group Also Appointed to Support Covenant Design Group

To support the Covenant Design Group, the Archbishop of Canterbury has also appointed a Corresponding Group.

Corresponding Group
Bill Atwood, USA /Southern Cone
Paul Avis, England
Terry Brown, Melanesia
Tom Brown, New Zealand
Sathi Clarke, South India
Michael Doe, USPG
Norman Doe, Wales
John Gladstone, South India
Bruce Kaye, Australia
Paul McPartlan, PCPCU
Zac Niringiye, Uganda
Stephen Noll, Uganda
Martyn Percy, England
John Rees, Legal Adviser, ACC
Kathy Ross, NZ ( Oxford )
Eileen Scully, Canada
Stephen Sykes, Doctrinal Commission

This alone, to us, says our brothers and sisters who have turned to Africa, South America, etc., are being recognized.

OK, on the hypothesis that the only Stupid Questions are the ones unasked, What are the purposes and functions of the “Corresponding Group”?

It’s worth looking into what can be found out from Google. I noticed this by Kathy Ross: <http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060119ross.cfm?doc=80>,
in which she declares that “Context is everything.” It’s just not possible for me to continue reading something that sloganizes like that. I rather believe that ‘context’ has been an illusion ever since Heraclitus remarked ‘panta rei’.

A couple of points about the (future) Covenant seem to be implied by these two lists:

a) There was some question as to whether the Covenant would be a confessional-type document (“We believe that Scripture is the revealed will of God ...”) or an agreement to consult (“We commit ourselves to the doctrinal decisions reached in council at Lambeth ...” or the like); the list of participants makes the latter more probable.

b) If there was any thought that the Covenant could be ready to go in time for it to have some effect on invitations to Lambeth ‘08, forget it! This many participants suggests a long, drawn-out process (which most of us have taken for granted anyway).

The major open question about the Covenant remains, however: What is the ecclesial granularity of the signatories? If an entire Province must either sign on or reject it, what of its individual dioceses? This is an important question not just for the US and Canada, but also for e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Scotland, and the C of E itself. It would seem that what is required is diocese-by-diocese approval—but this amounts to a radical change in Anglican ecclesiology, essentially doing away with the notion of “province” from the point of view of the Communion. (But without provinces, what is the status of the Primates?) And given the polity of many provinces and the impossibility of disciplining individual bishops at the Communion level, how will rogue “prophets” be dealt with if/when the province proves itself incapable of keeping its bishops in line?

So whatever temporary arrangement Tanzania may specify, it’ll have to last through at least Lambeth ‘08 and GC09, and probably longer.

My understanding from Dr. Radner and others is that the mission of the group is to complete a recommended covenant for consideration by the three instruments of unity and the focus of unity (ABC) in time for Lambeth. Ideally, a covenant would be “approved” for consideration by each of the provinces at Lambeth, thus triggering the process of votes by province after 2008. So ECUSA, given this scheme, would vote on the covenant at GenCon 09.

The Windsor Report has a sample covenant as an appendix that we can review now, and I think another sample was drafted in February by a task force led by Dr. Gomez. Right now I read it not as a new creed but, as an affirmation of (1) the way God expresses authority through Scripture and (2) the necessity of committing ourselves to synodality and mutual subjection to one another as we seek to understand the Word Scripture speaks to us in our life together. So, though it seems to be an “agreement to consult” more than a creed, implicit in that way of living together is a hermeneutical presumption that we find truth only by “discerning in communion.”

I believe it will have a profound impact on how we think of ourselves as Anglicans, and many of us Americans may struggle with the idea of truth being something that is not as “plain sense” and readily accessible to the individual as American evangelicals began to believe in the 19th century. In other words, the sample Covenant and the Windsor Report seem to be informed by the postmodern recognition that our individual sinfulness causes us as individuals to appropriate God’s Word only fragmentarily and imperfectly, so that only by discerning in communion can we come close to the mark. I have raised this issue several times here before (so this may be “crazed obsession”), but I have not yet tempted anyone successfully to engage this issue. Our discussions have yet to consider the implications for evangelicals of the implicit hermeneutic in the sample covenant or in the Windsor Report itself.

The idea of the perpiscuity of the scriptures is far from a “19th century” invention. It was implicit and explicitly taught by the Reformers. The doctrine of sola scriptura depends in some measure on it, as do a number of the articles of religion, specifically those which indicate that counsels can and do err and that no one is bound to obey church dogma or teaching that contradict the plain reading of the text.

“So, though it seems to be an “agreement to consult” more than a creed, implicit in that way of living together is a hermeneutical presumption that we find truth only by “discerning in communion.”

would be a reversal of the reformation. Take out the “only” and then perhaps it might be workable.

I’d agree with you on your assessment. That’s precisely the understanding of communion laid out in Radner and Turner’s excellent book, “The Fate of Communion.” You’re right that it’s at least an implicit criticism of the “plain sense of Scripture” hermeneutic of many Evangelicals. The position goes like this: It’s too simplistic to say that the plain sense of Scripture leads us in an unproblematic way to doctrinal statements like the Augsburg or Westminster Confessions. The current situation of worldwide Protestantism would be the demonstration of this fact: Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and so on all hold to what they see to be the plain truths of Scripture. But obviously, they hold different things. Is that to be explained by saying (for instance) that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is simply correct in its interpretation of Scripture, while the Southern Baptists are incorrect? I don’t think so. The heart of why we are incorrect (for we all surely are to some extent) is our sin. Being led into the truth has everything to do with the sanctifying work of the Spirit, as we come together as Christ’s body in repentance, fellowship, Scripture-reading, Eucharistic worship, and prayer.

That’s what I love about Radner and Turner! They explicitly identify the problem of epistemology with the problem of human sin. What are our hearts darkened by? Sin! Of course.

All churches have to deal with the problem of interpretation. The fundamental realization of postmodernism (which they get right) is that nothing interprets itself. Not even the Bible! All interpretation is a human action, and therefore is marred by the sin and self-interestedness of human nature. So, if to read the Bible is to interpret, how do we ever get to the meaning of the Scriptures? How do we find truth? The Roman Catholics have their answer: the bishop of Rome and the bureaucracy surrounding him. He is the Vicar of Christ, and that takes care of that. The Eastern Orthodox have their answer: the Fathers of antiquity, and an escape from history to the mists of the sanctified past. And the confessional Protestants and Evangelicals have their answer: confessional doctrinal bulwarks that (they suppose) are simply the distilled truths of Scripture.

But none of them work! They are all artificial bulwarks set up to get around the fundamental problem of interpretation, which is due to human sin. What is the answer? The Spirit is the answer. Only the Spirit, who as Christ promised has come to lead us into all the truth. We are led by the Spirit as the body of the Church (whom He was sent to guide) comes together in repentance, prayer, Scripture reading, and Eucharistic worship. No part of the Body can say “I have no need of you”: hence, synodality and mutual subjection, as per Radner and Turner.

As you can tell, I’ve signed up for this full-stop.

It’s a very big part of why I became an Anglican.

I should also add, for fear of appearing to be a hooey-gooey Kumbaya liberal, that the upshot of all this postmodernism and togetherness is… conservatism. It places a very high value on the witness of the entire Church catholic, spread throughout the world and throughout time. Which means that traditional orthodox Christianity, both in doctrine and morals, is the received norm.

It also doesn’t devalue the authority of the Scriptures. Lord knows, that’s the furthest thing from Radner’s mind. But it does devalue our ability to interpret them ourselves in an unproblematic way. For that, we need the Church catholic, through which we are led by the Spirit into the truth.

Jordan, with great respect, as I enjoy your writing, you are simplifying nearly to the point of caricature. Both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Church believe the Holy Spirit works through their respective churches to safeguard the Church from all error. In the Eastern Orthodox case, that hardly implies “an escape from history” (at least on this question). In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say the Orthodox Churches believe in conciliarity as a means of discernment - exactly what you propose for the Anglican Communion.

What’s more, I disagree with both you and Craig that, “The fundamental realization of postmodernism . . . is that nothing interprets itself.” That is the fundamental realization of the first five or six centuries of the Church. That it would be described as something we’ve discovered is a modern conceit.

With due respect, I think your first paragraph represents a vast oversimplification of the doctrine of perpiscuity. The fact that Methodists, Presbyterians, etc disagree about non-essentials says nothing about “the plain sense of scripture” as it is classically understood.

The position of the Reformers was not that every jot and tittle of the Scriptures would be manifest to fallen human beings.

Rather it was that essential doctrinal matters were those truths that are plainly understood by the believer. This is why while there are denominational differences between baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc, each would understand the other as a “church”, part of the catholic body. Each, in her doctrinal statements, holds to the main and plain things.

One problem with the position you articulate is that it sends us into an infinite regress. If human beings are unable to understand the scriptures without the interpretive aid of the synod. Then who will interpret the teachings of the synod and then who will interpret these…In other words it ultimately deconstructs human communication in general.

Second it undermines the Articles which clearly indicate that the teachings of the church are subject to testing in light of God’s Word. Who do you think is envisioned as the tester and what does that say about the capacity of believers to understand the Word of God?

Good point about the word “only” I put in there. I think the Windsor Report does a much better job of nuancing it than I did, so that your valid concern is met. I think. I don’t believe undoing the Reformation is on the agenda.

This may be a discussion that we need to take offline because it is not the topic of the thread. I’ll trust you to decide. To be clear, I was not in any way meaning to imply that the “idea of the perpiscuity of the scriptures” is a 19th century invention. Calvin spoke of it often, always emphasizing the role the Holy Spirit. So too did the Pietists and their descendants.

But the American biblicism is not the doctrine of perpiscuity of the Scriptures that Luther knew. I’ll refer you to the good Presbyterian Dr. Nathan Hatch’s “The Democratization of American Christianity” for a discussion on how the understanding of “perpiscuity” evolved from the way the Reformers understood it as a result of the epistemology of the Enlightenent particularly after the American Revolution. NT Wright traces it, as well, in his “The Last Word,” and Geoffrery Wainwright does too in his lectures and somewhere in his writings. Wainwright traces the idea to Henri de Lubac and his four senses of scripture. The literal sense - “The letter teaches what happens” - is what evolved as American Christianity was recast and remade in an image amenable to Anti-Federalist Jeffersonian populism.

The Reformers understood “literal” as “the sense of the letter,” by which they meant, quoting NT Wright (p. 73) “the sense the first writers intended.” If that sense was metaphorical, so be it. The modernist understanding of the “literal” usually is the “plain sense” of the letter without regard to what the writer intended. In other words, it usually speaks of “literal” and figurative (or metaphorical) as though they were opposed to one another. So the modern sense of perpiscuity is usually not the same as the Reformers.

By modernist, I don’t refer to scholars like Kevin Vanhoozer, who clearly read Scripture more like the Reformers in considering genre, etc. (I follow Vanhoozer, myself, in embracing his description of the inerrancy of Scripture). Rather, I am referring to the bulk of American protestants who are descended from the populist movement of the 19th century.

The point is not that educated Reformed theologians like you changed in their understanding, as much as it is that the understanding of the dominant groups changed. 19th century evangelicalism was a populist movement that eschewed Calvinism, educated clergy, post-Apostolic tradition, and the Reformers themselves. It was anti-elite and anti-intellectual. Remember - the evangelical sects that became dominant (Methodists, Baptists, Campbellites, Millerites, etc.) left the Congregational and Anglican churches. It’s their understanding of what was meant by the “literal sense” of Scripture that was different from that of the Reformers and their predecessors. It’s their understanding of “perpiscuity” that, I believe, will be sorely challenged by the Windsor ecclesiology. Why?

Because if the goal is to undertand the literal sense in terms of what the author originally intended, then most scholars today acknowledge the difficulty we often have in discerning that. That’s the postmodern insight into our ability to know history. Humility is demanded. I don’t see that scholar having as much difficulty with the notion of discernment in communion. But if the literal sense is simply however an individual reads it in plain English today as though it dropped out of the sky, that emphasis on independent conscience and self-reliant private judgment is rejected by the Windsor Report. At least that’s how I read the Windsor Report. Do you read the Windsor Report differently?

Certainly I mean no disrepect to our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. And yes, I know that they of course would place the Spirit first and foremost. But I am contending that, functionally, they have wrongly objectified the Spirit in the form of specific ecclesial structures. I can’t deny that the Spirit may well have chosen to lead us into the truth specifically through the office of the Bishop of Rome, or through ecumenical councils which are no longer possible. But I don’t think that either option makes sense of how the Spirit actually operates in the Church.

You’re right that the Eastern churches are closest to us. But they think that conciliarity is, in effect, no longer possible. It’s possible to say that, as a result, the development of doctrine and further discernment of truth is no longer possible. But if the Reformation carries any weight with us, then we can’t accept that. And I don’t think it’s entirely unfair to say that there is a certain artificial canonization and sanctification of the past, in the persons of the “Holy Fathers.”

Part of why I don’t think that the Spirit specifically guides us into the truth through the office of the Bishop of Rome is that that makes no sense of the Reformation. I am a Reformation Christian, as are we all in the Anglican Communion (apologies to some of our Anglo-Catholic friends). So, if the Spirit was somehow operative in the Reformation understanding of the Gospel and has been since in the Reformation churches, then the specifically Roman Catholic model doesn’t work.

I’ll also agree that postmodernists weren’t the first to come up with the problem of interpretation. It’s probably better to say that they re-discovered it. Nevertheless, it cuts in the same way against “plain sense of Scripture” Evangelicalism.

I should also say that I’m a complete amateur in this. My thoughts may be blog-ready, but I’m not even confident enough to write them up for classwork or an article. I’ll be more than happy to stand corrected by the crack theological minds here at Stand Firm.

Phil,
Good point. I would suggest that a better way to make Jordan’s point would be to say “re-discovery.” The conceit is more properly located, I suggest, in the late Enlightenment, in which we came to believe that through our own reason we can progress towards Truth. And then, WWI, the Depression, WWII, the atom bomb, etc. proved just how wrong we are about that. So postmodernism is a re-discovery of that which we forgot.

Philosophy, theology and ecclesiology are wonderful disciplines; I study them as much as I can and, indeed, used to teach one of them at a certain university that shall remain nameless in light of last night’s humiliation. But if the covenant does not put an end to the current fighting over the presenting issue, it is a pointless exercise. If everyone from Susan Russell to David Virtue says “we’ve been vindicated,” the communion is doomed no matter how lofty the ecclesiology.

I for one think the draft appended to the WR is very good in this regard, but even it needs to be strengthened somewhat. But generalizations about hermeneutics and conciliar decision-making without an enforcement mechanism (i.e., expulsion mechanism) are a waste of everyone’s time.

I’m still trying to get past the question of why a decision made in communion with other believers is less tainted with sin than a decision made by an individual believer.

Yes, Proverbs 11:14 teaches that safety is found in many counselors and Proverbs 18:1 says that the person who isolates himself breaks out against sound judgment, but neither of those teaches that groups of sinful people make better decisions than individuals do. It’s the old despair.com poster about meetings: “None of us is as dumb as all of us.”

I think there is an advantage of conciliarity in minimizing the damage one sinful person can do when unchecked. But history and current events don’t provide me any evidence that councils can overcome the effects of the Fall.

Thus councils must still fall under Scriptural authority in its “plain sense” as you describe it because only the word of God is useful for teaching, reproof, corection and training in righteousness.

What is to say that in 50-100 years the Anglican Council will not decide that the hermeneutic of inclusion means that the plain sense of passages which speak against homosexuality (or drunkenness, theft, etc.; pick your poison) don’t mean what they have been understood to mean for almost 2000 years?

As a matter of fact, could not the same argument of agreement to consult first be made that General Conventions have come together and made decisions about the hermeneutic by which we read Scripture and who is to say that they are wrong. The council of the ECUSA has spoken.

That they didn’t consult with other Anglicans around the world is meaningless if they are using the post-modern understanding that context determines truth. Their decisions were conciliar and made with their own ministry context fully in mind. That they scrubbed the rest of the Anglican Church and clear Scriptural teachings is immaterial. They followed the process of post-modern inclusive conciliar decison-making.

I think perhaps the reformers would disagree here. The push to get bibles translated and into the hands of common fold was based on the idea that using the basic rules of grammar a person, a believer that is, with a very basic level of reading skills would be understand the essentials of the faith.

The bible was no longer to be the exclusive property of the elite. It is God’s Word to his people and can be read and understood by his people so long as they read it as they would read any other book, applying the very same rules.

I understand your arguments. But you keep arguing against me, and ignoring the key point. The point is, “what does the Windsor Report say in response to your questions.” Remember, my point was not about my own beliefs, but rather about the Windsor Report. I said I believe evangelicals with a particular hermeneutic ought to have some concern with it. Your response seems to prove my point. But do you agree or disagree with my reading of the Windsor Report (which matters, and not my way of reading Scripture, which is still under construction)?

This thread is a very interesting read with many well articulated perspectives. It highlights very important issues as we Anglicans work through this crisis.
Craig, if I could trouble you, I would appreciate your elaboration on the point that the Roman Catholic answer does not work.
Also, you wrote:
“So, though it seems to be an “agreement to consult” more than a creed, implicit in that way of living together is a hermeneutical presumption that we find truth only by “discerning in communion.”
How do we discern truth in communion when Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will not participate in the Covenant discussion?
Thank you in advance for your answers to these questions. Hopefully, it will advance the discussion. If not, just ignore.

I used to think precisely that way about perspicacity. It’s what I was taught growing up, and I think the main argument for it is this: the various Reformation churches, by and large, historically DO agree on the “fundamentals” of the faith, like the Atonement. Which would seem to point to the “plain sense of Scripture.”

But I’d contend (as I learned to do in rhetoric class) that your argument is actually contained within my argument, and hence is explained by it. Why do the historic churches of the Reformation agree on the so-called “essentials”? Why do Evangelicals have so much in common? Because initially, they were all part of the same ecclesial community; and since then, have by and large all been part of the same Euro-American Christian (sub)culture. The truths that they regard as essential do in fact come from and through their mutual communion.

Of course, you can say that Scripture really DOES teach the Atonement, the virgin birth, and so on. I agree with you. But I don’t think that these truths are “plain,” in the sense of readily interpretable as such by anyone. Rather, they are only given to us by the Spirit, which operates principally through the Church. Remember Augustine, who said that Scripture is a “deaf and dumb book,” and that he only believed its doctrines because the “Catholic Church taught them.” (That is slightly overblown rhetoric, but there is no mistaking the direction of his point.)

We are Christians because we were brought to the faith through other Christians, i.e., the Spirit working in and through the Church. I insist that one cannot cut the Church out of this process. It is absolutely essential.

Matt, you also have to make sense of the very many Christians who interpret the “plain sense” of Scriptures to go against what we understand to be the essentials. E.g., the Unitarians, Creflo Dollar type “prosperity Gospelers,” Nestorians, Arians, and so on. Arius and Nestorius thought they were simply standing on Scripture. But they were wrong. How? This is a big part of what drove Cardinal Newman to the Roman Catholic Church, and I don’t think we can ignore the question.

To sum up: The “plain sense of Scripture” answer to the problem of interpretion is, in effect, to say that in the essentials there is no problem of interpretation. But:
a) There is in fact a problem of interpretation concerning essential doctrines like the nature of Christ and the Trinity, etc.
b) The “plain sense of Scripture” gives us no satisfactory way of dealing with disputed matters. Either we have Bible wars and split off into new “orthodox” denominations (which has been the history of Protestantism), or we declare the disputed matters adiaphora, give up on finding resolution, and live with our differences (positively, this has been the source of increased cooperation and fellowship within Evangelicalism; negatively, we all know what this did to Anglicanism).

We might be talking past each other here. What if the Windsor Report had come to opposite conclusions concerning the presenting issues of sexuality, ordination and Scripture? By what right would we have to criticize it?

These are genuine questions that run to the depths of my faith. Where is my authority located? In council or in Scripture?

You may be right about the ecclesiology of the Windsor Report. That may be why you referred to it as radical in your paper. But any ecclesiology that leaves open the door to wandering back to the days where we needed ecclesial authority to interpret Scripture for us is doomed to replay history with a new Reformation.

That doesn’t mean we won’t disagree about non-essentials. We have, we do, we will. But neither does it mean we will miss the “plain meaning” of Scripture faithfully translated into our receptor language.

Jordan - not being a crack theological mind by any stretch, I do think there’s something to what you and Craig are saying as to the way forward being at odds with modern evangelicalism.

Even as an Anglo-Catholic, though, I’m uncomfortable defining our perspective as only the Anglican Communion.

The Windsor Report is, in itself, a good example. On the underlying issues of sexuality dividing us today, TWR explicitly avoided coming to a conclusion, relegating that conclusion to the discernment of the whole Communion - even though both evangelicals and catholics can agree that, for the former, the scriptural sense is clear, and, for the latter, both the Scripture and the testimony of Tradition are also clear. Yet, TWR is happy to accept the possibility that Anglicanism will break decisively with the Church Catholic, as long as all the Provinces do it together.

That is not something I can accept, and I don’t think that reflects my private judgment. I think, again, Scripture and Tradition are clear, and a change of teaching would mean the Holy Spirit is contradicting itself.

By yoking ourselves to Windsor – and, in fairness, it was probably our least bad course – conservatives have tied ourselves to the real potential that the Communion will jointly agree to throw itself off the cliff. Having accepted the premise, we’ll have no arguments left to stop it.

It is critically important for us to recognize that, at whatever time a new covenant or new conciliarity comes into being in Anglicanism, the Church Catholic has already done 90% of the work for us. We do not start with a blank slate. That’s why, in this case only, I’ve tended to view arguments such as Radner’s as something along the lines of waiting five years to have a committee determine that 1+1=2. I think one can argue that discipline for ECUSA is overdue and still respect the principle of synodality.

Rhetoric aside, You offer an explanantion that begs the question. It could be the various denominations come to the same place with regard to essentials because they share the same heritage (something I would not be so quick to affirm when it comes to say a Southern Baptist, AG, and Presbyterian for example who all come basically to the same essentials and regard one another as “brothers”). It could also (and also far more likely) be that they do so because, in fact, the bible teaches these essentials (as you rightly acknowledge).

As for the question of prolific interpretations, I’ll refer to my article posted above:

the myriad of interpretations that do in fact exist does not mean that the bible is “open” to a myriad of interpretations any more than any other book. The bible was written by human beings who were divinely inspired and equipped to communicate with other human beings. The bible is thus no more difficult (and no less) to understand than any other work of literature.

It is intended to communicate content and it does. The same principles or rules of reading and interpreting that you apply to secular literature apply also to the scriptures. If it is possible for someone with a high-school education or less to read and understand the essentials of “Great Expectations” without an English Lit professor sitting by, it is certainly possible to read and understand the essentials of the “Gospel of Matthew” without a priest or a bishop.

Of course a professor (like a priest, bishop, or commentary) will help bring out the true depth and richness of the text and correct any misunderstandings, but so long as the high-school reader applies basic literary principles to the text, he or she should be able to come out with a basic and essentially accurate reading of the text.

No book is a “wax nose”. There is a meaning to all literature and that meaning is discernable to the average reader who applies the proper literary principles.

This does not in any way negate the need for the Church or tradition as the primary referent in understanding the bible but it does mean that individuals are able to read and understand the bible in an accurate way.

Why then do we see the myriad of sometimes whacked out interpretations? This problem stems from a basic failure to apply basic literary principles to the biblical text. For some reason, and this is unfortunately widespread in the evangelical world, when people read their bibles they read them in ways that they would never read any other book. They pull passages out of context and give them meanings that the text simply cannot support and apply them to situations that have no similarity to the situation they originally addressed. The book, “The Prayer of Jabez,” and the ensuing evangelical craze, is one recent and widespread example of this sort of decontextualized misapplication of God’s Word.

The second meaning of the assertion almost always comes from revisionists who embrace a radically pessimistic epistemology (the word “epistemology” refers to the question of the capacity, or lack thereof, of human perception to recognize and understand reality as it is in itself). Christian revisionism, which winds its way back to Schleiermacher and, ultimately, to Immanuel Kant, is thoroughly skeptical with regard to our ability to “know”, in an absolute sense, much of anything beyond the self and the experiences of the self.

Thus, the revisionist who appeals to the variety of individual interpretations is generally arguing for the subjective or contingent nature of the text. The bible means what the reader wants the bible to mean so there is no real point in arguing doctrinal matters by appeal to the scriptural text. If you tell me that homosexual behavior is wrong and then appeal to Romans 1:18-32 as a proof text, I can simply say: well, that’s your interpretation, that’s your understanding of the text utterly contingent upon your perception and your cultural/historical prejudices. And not only that, the text itself is utterly contingent upon the ever varied cultural/historical prejudices of the writer. It is simply a production arising from the personal perceptions and experiences of an ancient follower of God.

This is not to say everything is utterly relative. While perception beyond the self is suspect, the revisionist would say that personal experience does provide a somewhat tangible, albeit unstable, grounding for faith. Shared experience of a collective body can create an even more certain ground. If you wonder at the revisionist pairing of love for liturgical togetherness and table-fellowship with theological heterodoxy, wonder no more.

Truth, to the extent that we can know it, can only be found in the shared experiences of the risen Christ within the community of faith. That experience will always be changing because the body always changes. Thus, to the revisionist mind, to apply ancient texts in a prescriptive or proscriptive way to contemporary circumstances is absurd.

Ironically both the revisionist use of the phrase “there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are interpreters” and the orthodox use outlined above tend to erode any confidence an individual may have in his or her own reading of the biblical text.

How far both of these arguments are from the sentiments of St. Augustine who praised the scriptures, writing that the biblical text is like the ocean: shallow enough for a small child to enjoy the waves lapping up on the seashore and yet so deep that even the strongest swimmer cannot plumb its depths. In other words, even the simple or uneducated reader can understand the basic or plain sense of the scriptures and yet the most learned scholar cannot grasp the fullness of their meaning.

The core problem with any assertion that the bible is unknowable to the individual, whether it is made by a revisionist or an orthodox believer, is that the assertion itself is ultimately self-defeating.

As I argued above, though inspired and superintended by God, the bible, like every other book, was written by human writers and those writers intended to communicate specific content. There is then no reason to set the bible aside in some special category. If the bible is indecipherable, unknowable, and/or meaningless, then all literature, all speech, is equally indecipherable, unknowable and/or meaningless.

In fact to say, “The bible is open to as many interpretations as there are interpreters” would itself be indecipherable, unknowable and/or meaningless.

The argument that the bible is open to as many interpretations as there are interpreters is ultimately a deconstructionist argument.

The one who makes it consciously or unconsciously undermines the process of communication itself.

Before my anglo-catholic readers object to strenuously to what I have written above, let me say that I know the argument from the catholic perspective is not that the bible is indecipherable to the individual reader. Rather, the argument from the anglo-catholic/Catholic perspective is that while the individual may come close to a valid or true reading, only the Church can provide the true reading in its fullness and authority. And, of course, this is a valid argument.

The (first) problem however, is that it necessarily wrests the meaning of the text away from its primary location, the intent of the author, and places it with the Church. To do this you must trust implicitly in the infallibility of the Church (as Rome does) and deny, despite appearances, that there has ever been a time when the official interpretation/teaching of the Church has ever been at odds with the teaching of the scriptures. Anglicans confess that the Church has erred and will continue to fall into error and for that reason we must continue to return to the text itself as individuals, as parishes, and as a Communion and test all things, even classic interpretations, in light of the truth revealed there.

The second problem is epistemological. If only the Church, through her teaching office, can provide an authoritative reading of the biblical text because all individual readings are at least to some extent unreliable, then there is no reason to expect the individual to be any better at understanding the teaching of the Church than he or she is at understanding the bible.

Phil-excellent point. That is one dividing line between the parishes that have left TEC and some of those that stayed in. I believe those in the former catagory generally view Windsor itself as too much of a political compromise. Moreover, it is hard to see Archbishop Orombi or others endorsing the ordination of non-celibate gay Priests even if a numeric majority of Anglican Primates voted to do so.

I think Jordan may have said that. I did not. I’ll leave it to him to answer. BTW, I well recall your dialogue on the elf joke thread yesterday and I am glad to see you raising the questions. I always view your perspective.

But Rome and Eastern Orthodox are participating in ecumenical discussions with mainstream Protestant churches and have already made much progress in agreeing on the issues that split us, all since Vatican II. There has been marvelous progress on the doctrine of justification, liturgy, and many other areas. But it seems we are not yet close enough to say that no substantive differences exist that warrant calling each other “separated brethren.” Yet Rowan, as the official responsible for unity, is clearly trying to close that gap, as well.

You raise a good point about the whole idea of discernment in communion. I believe Rom 1:16 implied it, as well. To what do we refer when we speak of communion? What are its bounds? Are they national? Do they include all who call themselves Christian, which incorporates Rome and the East?

My answer is that a national boundary can no longer be the right answer, and that agrees with the answer of the 1963 Anglican Congress. And I believe the broader answer that incorporates Rome and the East is not yet a realistic answer, but that we ought to be striving for that.

Thanks again for the discussion. Unfortunately I do have some work to get done this afternoon, so this will have to be my last post for the day.

I do affirm that the Scripture has content, just as all books have content. The rather extreme and absurd place that postmodernism winds up in is saying, along with Stanley Fish, that “there are no texts, only interpreters.” I am not sure if he actually means that, but at least he comes out and says it. The problem with many postmodernists is that they mean it without saying it, and hence (very ironically) are able to establish hegemony over the text by denying that it exists. But this is absurd on its face.

a) Texts that are clear, but which we rebel against, since they are the Law. Paul does indeed speak very clearly about homosexuality, and Jesus speaks very clearly about divorce. But we do not like what they say, and hence as sinners, we twist the text to suit our desires. This goes all the way back to the serpent in Eden: “Did God really say… ?”

b) Texts that are not in fact clear, which hence are difficult to interpret since we fallible human beings “see through a glass darkly” due to our sin. As per doctrinal essentials, this creates very real problems regarding issues such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and other (perhaps, but only perhaps) less important issues like sacraments, predestination, and ecclesiology.

Why are there many faulty interpretations? Matt, you contend it stems from “a basic failure to apply basic literary principles to the biblical text.” E.g., if we would only interpret correctly, then we would interpret correctly. But I have problems with this.

First, because of the twofold problem of interpretation I have outlined. I think that this is not solved by better interpretive literary tools, because it is just not that SORT of problem. Rather, it is a problem that lies within the ambiguity of the text (to us, at least) about essential matters, and within the darkness of our hearts.

Second, because this in effect takes the authoritative interpretation of Scripture away from the Church, and gives it to the guild of scholars. George Marsden shows how this lies behind the great weight Protestants placed on education. They NEEDED to have a “learned ministry,” since that is how they understood texts to be correctly interpreted. I am very uncomfortable with this, for obvious reasons (witness the current state of theological education in the West).

I wish I could write more! But sadly, not enough time at present. I’ll admit that all of this is, as more than one person has pointed out, oversimplified. But it’s really all I’m capable of for the time being. I have a ton of learning still ahead of me once I get to seminary. In the meantime, this helps me think through these issues quite a lot—thanks much, Matt, for your good criticisms.

I am in bed hyped up on flu medicine today, which makes me the perfect theologian.

In any case, I agree with your phrasing of the first problem of interpretation. I disagree somewhat with your second.

“b) Texts that are not in fact clear, which hence are difficult to interpret since we fallible human beings “see through a glass darkly” due to our sin. As per doctrinal essentials, this creates very real problems regarding issues such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and other (perhaps, but only perhaps) less important issues like sacraments, predestination, and ecclesiology.”

I think you confuse two very distinct categories. The first sentence refers to texts that are not in fact clear. I agree that there are a number of them (as did the Reformers). I disagree that they include each of the myriad of texts underlying essential doctrine.

You bring up the Trinity and the nature of Christ as two examples of biblical ambiguity. In fact, these two truths have been articulated since the apostolic era. Against teh Arians and docetists etc…and I agree we are oversimplifying, the Church defended the orthodox faith against distortions. In other words, these things were already understood (though admittedly without all of the subtle nuance) from scripture. They were articulated with absolute clarity at Nicea and Chalcedon to defeat challenges to the already established orthodox understanding.

A basic understanding of Greek will necessarily reveal the dual natures in John 1, Col 1, and Hebrews 1, without ambiguity. The Word is both God and with God.

It will get you part way to the Trinity, John 13-17 will get you the rest of the way…not to mention Matt 28.

Your response will likely be that I am able to see these things so easily because I sit on the shoulders of 2000 years of tradition. And I agree, but again point to the apostolic, early anti-nicene church for whom these truths were readily apparent.

You said: “These are genuine questions that run to the depths of my faith. Where is my authority located? In council or in scripture?”

From what I know of you, your authority is located in God, and that authority is expressed to us through Scripture.

You also said: “... any ecclesiology that leaves open the door to wandering back to the days where we needed ecclesial authority to interpret scripture for us is doomed to replay history with a new Reformation.”

I have to call you on this. It is a dramatic statement, and no doubt many would nod their heads in agreement. But, in fact, the Reformation never denied the necessity of ecclesial authority. Luther appointed the princes to replace Rome’s bishops, and the Lutherans quickly entered into a project of systematizing their readings of scripture in creedal formulations so that ecclesial authority could be expressed more simply in catechism memorable by the laity. From a practical perspective, the Lutherans relied upon church doctors (theologians) to systematize doctrine, so much authority was simply relocated from a Pope to the university.

Similarly, Calvin and Zwingli did not do away with ecclesial authority. In the long tradition from Calvin to Jonathon Edwards, there is an explicit reliance upon educated clergy ordained for Word and Sacrament who were responsible for interpretation of Scripture and doctrine. And they were governed in their exegesis by the Rule of Faith.

Henry’s Reformation (the theological part) was based on the presumption that a college of bishops, and not just one bishop, was the arbiter of truth and doctrine (based on the famous Defensor Pacis (1324) of Marsilius of Padua).

I could go and on, but the point is that the Reformation did not refute the idea of ecclesial authority. It relocated that authority from Pope to Scripture. That was Luther’s contribution. Jakob Spener, a Lutheran who is normally called the Father of Pietism, is the one most often credited with insisting on the accessibility of Scripture to the individual in the way you are using now. But even he never suggested that Scripture would be validly interpreted in a way that denied the Creeds or the Rule of Faith. Nor did Calvin and his closest descendants. It took almost 500 years for us to get from Luther to the private judgment hermeneutic that pervades American Christianity.

Thus, your statement, that going back to the days where ecclesial authority is necessary to interpret Scripture will bring about a new Reformation, seems to me a mis-reading of both the past and the present. Moreover, the Windsor Report is much more sophisticated than either Jordan or I have been able to represent here. It certainly is not a return to a pre-Reformation world.

“Thus, your statement, that going back to the days where ecclesial authority is necessary to interpret Scripture will bring about a new Reformation, seems to me a mis-reading of both the past and the present.”

I think the word “necessary” makes it correct depending on how he meant that word.

Of course you are right that the magisterial reformers considered the teaching office of the Church vital to the health and growth of believers and the church as a whole.

At the same time, I believe that a proper understanding of perpescuity holds that the teaching office is vital but not “necessary” to understanding the text… in the sense that it is possible to come to a correct understanding of essential matters without it.

Please note the reason Windsor did not “make a decision’ on the presenting issue of sexuality is because it was not within its mandate to do so. The charge of the Lambeth Commission was strictly to recommend a way of being Anglican that would prevent us from have the bonds of affection torn the next time we have a similarly divisive presenting issue. So, it was to find a way forward, for example, when we get past this and run straight into the issue of eugenics or something similar.

They were not to try to decide the sexuality issue for us. That was not their mandate; indeed it was excluded from their purview.

I agree: a dramatic statement, but it wasn’t against ecclesial authority so much as it was against needing ecclesial authority to understand Scripture. Scripture is clear enough.

As you note, my authority is God, God speaks, I try to listen. Some days are better than others. I think it was Luther who said Scripture should be like a mother talking to her children. The kids may not understand everything, but they do understand authority and the love behind that authority.

Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and earth is given to me…go baptize…teach everyone to obey my commands.” What is Scripture if not the commands of Jesus recorded for us who have not touched Him, walked with Him or seen Him personally?

This is why my fear is the councils will only be good to the extent they heed the plain sense of Scripture and not work to innovate/create new understandings “led by the Holy Spirit.”

I’m re-reading the Windsor Report as a result of this conversation. I agree it is more sophisticated than a pre-Reformation document. The report clearly addresses the authority of Scripture and the difficult issues of autonomy and communion much more comprehensively than I will ever be able to do.

Yet they appear to leave the door open to new understandings of Scripture, if the communion accepts them, even if they move away from 2000 years of teaching. My understanding of the Reformation was that Luther, Calvin, et al were trying to recover what had been lost under the layers of medieval religion and superstition, not innovate or create new understandings.

Further, I happen to agree that American Christianity is permeated with a “rush to private interpretation.” And it’s not just American Christians, this is everywhere. So I don’t want to argue for that, except to say that what the Church teaches should be plain as day to anyone who reads Scripture. The Bereans in Acts 17 are my model. Trust, but verify.

Side note: We also have to remember that Luther and the other Reformers were accused of private interpretation and and rebellion against papal authority to interpret Scripture.

I’m also flat on my back after cracking a disc, so I apologize if my response is a bit slow and full of typos.

Tom Brown from New Zealand is Bishop of Wellington. He is regarded as a sensible moderate guy by my mother (who is the Anglican of the family) but one unlikely to stand firm in a fight (rather more likely to look for a peaceful compromise). This is all second hand gossip - rather than first hand knowledge though.

PS Tom Brown is definitely in a different category from Jenny Te Paa. She, of course, is now retired which may explain the change.

Rom and Matt: I hope it is not my arguments that are making you sick and injured. I am sure all here join me in praying for you a speedy recovery.

It seems both of you point to the qualification “necessity” in talking of the interpretation of Scripture. So it seems to me we are agreed, because I certainly acknowledge that point.

I do not agree that we need be concerned that “the Communion will move to new understandings of Scripture, if the communion accepts them, [even] if they move away from 2000 years of teaching.” My reasoning follows.

But first I want to confirm that you are not suggesting that the meaning of Scripture is a static thing. That is, you are not asserting that the inspiration of Scripture is only in their creation, and not in their reception. I know some do assert that, and that the German Orthodox movement suggested that as the rationalization for their intense creedal work. As Jakob Spener, and many after him, responded, I believe that we must affirm that the Holy Spirit was/is present in the inspiration, transmission, and also in our reception of the Scriptures. We can’t relegate the Spirit just to the past.

And so I assert that Scripture is alive, that we are entrusted with a Living Word, and that it is indeed possible that we may reach understandings that depart from understandings of the last 2000 years. However, what mitigates against that possibility is the simultaneous insistence on the Rule of Faith. As Goeffrery Wainwright says, “We can’t separate Scripture from Tradition or Tradition from Scripture.” We read Scripture alongside the communion of saints both synchronically (those in our time) and diachronically (across the ages). That fundamental conserving principle give me peace about the possibility you raise.

I think the meaning of the text is static and eternal. But I also think it is important to make a distinction between interpretation and application. The text means what the author intended the text to mean that and that is where the normative authority lies.

The Holy Spirit certainly takes the Word he inspired in the past and applies it in new ways in every generation. But these applications cannot and must not contradict the meaning of the text itself as determined by the intent of the author.

This has been an on-going injury that I have been blessed with for a couple of years now. It flairs up every now and then and forces me to chill out. My physical therapist has told me to “hurry up and grow old” because it will go away with time and age.

My understanding of Scripture I would hope does not land in the static category. This is the word of the living God and is living and active, cutting between even soul and spirit as Hebrews 4:12 says.

That said, I affirm that the meaning of Scripture is found in authorial intent, not reader-centric interpretations. This is where I think the post-modern exercise in hermeneutics and communication miserably fails. Words are not what I think they mean, but what the speaker/writer intended for their meaning.

If God is the author of Scripture, we should be looking for His intentions in what He has revealed about Himself and our relationship to Him. Application may land in our personal context, but the interpretation of the text falls under what did He intend to communicate to me, my family, my friends, my church and my community. The two, interpretation and application, are separate, though people tend to conflate them.

Thanks, Matt. Your point was quite clear. I appreciate the language that allows me to make the distinction. I had not heard it put that way before. Static original meaning, interpretation, and application. I think they explain the dynamic nature of Scripture well.

What a great thread! Speaking as a habitual lurker, can I encourage you to keep it going - although perhaps relocate it so that others can see the direction it has taken with a clearer heading. On the other hand, as someone who has a heap of other work to attend to, this is proving seriously diverting

This is a topic I’ve longed to see explored openly. Much that I have come across by way of evangelical statements more locally (in Aust.) has been dissatisfying in this regard. My background is in New Testament, especially Pauline studies, and whenever I come across comments about how basically starightforward translation and ‘plain sense’ reading is, I groan. I quite agree with Matt, evangelicals have a tendency to set aside the skills and disciplines used in reading other documents and approach Scripture as though the task of interpretation is self-evident. My own belief is that in God’s grace Scripture is an effective and sufficient means of communication, but is subject to the limitations of human language and capacities to comprehend.

The comments above have been helpful from the historical theology perspective - especially the reformers. There is an inevitable tension between the individual and communal, even in committed ecclesial context. I’m quite prepared to submit in regard to matters indifferent out of deference to due ecclesial order, but not on matters I regard as of primary importance to faith. This in itself begs the question who discerns what is primary or essential to salvation. There is a helpful distinction made by DWB Bobinson (former Abp of Sydney) between the church catholic, and the church of Article 20, which he argues is just the church as any other human association or institution. The church catholic has an authority and place within Gods purposes which is different from the organisational authority of a human institution (and no more than that…)

There is a real element of personal and subjective plausibility here. I have read umpteen proposals for alternative understandings of key texts. In the case of womens place and ministry within the church (and wider world), I have been persuaded by the revisionist line of re-interpretation that has been on offer over the past 40 years. Alternative views have been put out there in the forum of public debate (especially academic), and the viability of such views is reflected in their integration in mainstream commentaries (ie. not written to folow a particular agenda).

In the area of sexuality, and especially homosexual behaviour, I have also read carefully and followed revisionist proposals, and remain quite unpersuaded (and incidently such views are not being picked up in ANY of the major mainstream commentaries that I can see). When asked what I believe scripture has to say (as I am often asked pastorally) , I cannot in conscience answer other than my belief that scripture is essentially clear and consistent on these matters. As it happens, I quite agree with Lambeth 1.10 in that regard.

My point is that my answer would not have changed even if Lambeth had come to another conclusion. At some point, personal perceptions held in good conscience have priority over conciliar conclusions. Personal perceptions are of course imperfect and will be flawed at points (certainly limited in understanding), but my reading of church history is sufficient to recognised that the church catholic is also capable of getting things wrong, and in need of constant reforming (ecclesia semper reformanda and all that). I obviously need to read Turner and Radner at this point (add it to my ever growing pile of must reads!)

I wonder how Paul approached such things. In the case of the ‘Antioch Incident’, he had no doubts that he was right over against Peter’s hypocrisy (and assumes Peter would recognise the truth of that as well). Paul is very careful in his wording is noting how the Jerusalem leadership recognised and affirmed the gospel as Paul presented it, but did not need their bestowing any authority to Paul in this regard (Gal. 2:1-10). Now we are not in the same place as Paul (called to be an apostle), and need to exercise discernment whether we believe Paul’s apostleship was a genuine one (I do so believe). Yet it seems to me that there is a very real element of personal conscience that we must accept, alongside respectful consideration and submission to the church corporate - a la 1 Cor. 4:1-5, that applies to our interpretation of Scripture as well.

BTW, the choice of Bruce Kaye from Australia is encourarging. He is an Anglican version of evangelical (that’s the best way I can put it), formerly General Secretary of General Synod and well respected. His outlook is very similar to Stephen Sykes. Certainly not another Peter Carnley… More importantly, he understands the more independant nature of the Anglican Church of Australia - much weaker national leadership, and needs to operate through mutual respect/agreement. In my opinion, I believe the Aust. church has moved significantly towards a more moderate and orthodox position in the past two years (as reflected in +Adelaide and +Melbourne elections).

Tim, Thanks for your post. I can’t tell you how much it I appreciate the Anglican Communion whenever I see myself linked via the Communion to others on distant Continents. One of the reasons I became an Anglican is its global impulse. It reminds me of a huge debate I had with a theologican buddy of mine about whether or not you could have a “virtual Eucharist” with the president and communicants visible to all over video link. Does the Holy Spirit work over the Internet? I dunno. But I do know I feel especially “in Christ” when I hear another echo so beautifully the same Word I affirm from such a distant place. It reminds me of our mandate to be “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church.” Thanks!

I don’t know about the entire province, but in Greater Auckland, the Anglican Sunday attendance is 0.6% of the population and declining. I know every province cannot be represented, but two representatives from New Zealand and none from some very populous provinces doesn’t strike me as equitable.

Matt - sorry to hear about your flu. I’ll keep you in my prayers. and you too, Rm 1.16.

Do you mind sharing where you found this support list? I don’t know all of the names, but for the names I do know, it seems almost too good to be true.

Actually, I shouldn’t have singled out one province. Sorry. Just seems, given their large numbers, there would be more Africans. Perhaps they recommended some of the names on the list.

Thank you. I’m sorry but I cannot reveal the identity of sources. I can say, as I said above, that: 1. The reputation and trustworthiness is impeccable and there is no doubt in my mind that this list is accurate. 2. The document came to me in one piece with the covenant design team and the correspondant team listed together on the same doc. I was told to watch ACNS for official release before publishing.

When ACNS posted the design group, I noticed they did not publish the corresponding group. I contacted the source and asked whether we might also publish the corresponding group. I was given the green light. So here it is.

Is the objective to reach a unanimous decision among the group regarding the covenant? If so, how is that possible if the group contains a few members sympathetic to the revisionist position?

There will have to be votes on everything decided. Will a simple majority decide, 2/3, or as Timothy asks, will it have to be unanimous? If I have missed this information, forgive me and please educate me.
I think we can all agree a unanimous vote will be impossible, given the members of the group. As someone has already said, if the idea is to produce another batch of fudge, the Covenant will not succeed in closing the existing moral and theological chasms in the Anglican Communion.

©2007 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.