Debates on the Nature of the Anglican Communion

IMHO, instead of the Articles, a better starting place would be the Affirmation of St. Louis, with or without the reference to “the male character of Holy Orders”.

Ummmm… Matt? In matter such as these the process is essentially political. It is important to keep in mind that politics is the art of the possible.

Though I would dearly love a confessional basis for the Communion, any confessional basis would be divisive ab initio.

What confessional basis would I be able to accept? Only one which affirmed the doctrine held by the ancient Universal Church of the 7 Councils alone. How to get there? We could start by applying a principle of orthodoxy enunciated most clearly by the prophet Muhammed, “Every innovation leads to deviation, every deviation leads to error, every error leads to sin, every sin leads to hellfire.” Of course, we could better use a Christian source, but that’s what first comes to mind. In other words, reverse the Protestant and Roman trend in Anglicanism entirely, and reboot Anglicanism to the doctrine held by the Universal Church. Only then would I find a “confessional” basis even remotely acceptable (since a plain reading reveals the 39 Articles in any of their forms to be flat heretical).

Of course, lots of people would not agree with that, and would want their own pet principles adopted. That would make any kind of covenant agreement impossible. So, we are left only with the structural alternative. Christianity has always been a conciliar body. Let’s keep it that way.

Senior Priest,

First, the 39 articles are in no way “heretical”

second, all churches are, in some ways, confessional. A Roman Catholic must hold to all those doctrines taught as infallible by the Roman Church or else he/she ceases to be Catholic in any real sense of the word. Even the Orthodox are “confessional” in the sense that there are essentials that must be believed. The question is not whether we will be a confessional church, but rather what sort of confession we embrace.

I think it best to return to the historic confession at the core of Anglicanism, the 39 articles.

Matt’s making a point that a lot of our worthy opponents don’t seem to get.  Even the Nicene Creed is a confession - it’s just a short one.

I’m not putting Senior Priest in the worthy opponent category, just to be clear.

I wasn’t a big fan of the Affirmation of St. Louis. While there are plenty of wonderful things within the Affirmation, I feel it deals too much with local issues that could be better dealt with on local levels. For example, the creating of the position of Deaconess. I understand some of the historic and biblical nature of the position, but I feel that it being recognized as a lay order, as a lay order, it is better to have it recognized on a local level. Plus, conservatives had difficulty in signing onto the Affirmation in America; I doubt it would have a much better reception abroad. Just a few thoughts though.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Senior Priest,
I like your computer metaphor suggesting we “reboot Anglicanism to the doctrine held by the Universal Church.”  I’d argue (and the Anglican Reformers did, too) that the Articles represent largely what is the doctrine held by the Universal (i.e. catholic) Church.  In them, they identified a set of “software” conventions (i.e. a body of universal catholic doctrine) which we call the Anglican “system.”

But the “hardware” on which this doctrinal “software” runs has always been the problem, hasn’t it:  “we are left only with the structural alternative. Christianity has always been a conciliar body.”  By default, since, though it has a long history among Christians, military or political conquest has been universally acknowledged as illegitimate, conciliarism is all we have left.  However, the “software” is critical, and the Articles are a great application to run on our existing hardware, locally adapted, of course.  I agree with Matt.

William Tighe has an excellent article on whether the 39 Articles can function as a confessional standard for Anglicans today. His answer, unsurprisngly but rightly IMO, is ‘No’.

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2177

Driver—
Yes, I’ve read Dr. Tighe’s exhaustive account of the twists and turns and “negotiated settlements” through which the framers arrived at the Articles in their present form.  Though illuminating, I don’t believe, as he does, that the abundance of compromise involved in their genesis conclusively proves that the Articles are inappropriate or unsuitable as a basis for covenant.  Rather, I agree with Matt’s agreement with Dr. Noll’s statement:

I believe the Articles can accommodate much of the theological diversity that has emerged during four centuries of our history. Evangelicals may find themselves most at home with the Articles, but sacramentalists of an Anglo-Catholic or Lutheran mind can find comfort in Article XXV ‘Of the Sacraments’. Article XVII ‘Of Predestination and Election’ can accommodate, in my opinion, a Wesleyan-charismatic understanding of the operation of grace and free will. Even classic liberals; and here I would name C.S. Lewis and Oliver O’Donovan; can find shelter in the shade of the Articles. The reason they can is that there is a liberality to the Articles and to the Anglican tradition which does not push doctrine beyond what can be “proved” by Holy scripture and which acknowledges the critical distinction between essentials and adiaphora.

In a side note, it should be noticed that the Episcopal Church “established” (BCP p. 867) the Articles in 1801, and that several subsequent General Conventions reaffirmed their authority.  These actions, though now forgotten, have never been rescinded.

Matt,
I thought you might find it interesting to consider a confession which I put together for Uganda Christian University. It was approved by the House of Bishops as the University’s Statement of Faith:

Uganda Christian University is an established institution of the Church of the Province of Uganda. As such it is committed to the catholic and apostolic faith, practice and piety. It is religious and explicitly Christian in its name, in its mission statement and in its motto: “Alpha and Omega: God the Beginning and End.” Its public worship is conducted according to the Prayer Book tradition of the Anglican Communion.

RULE OF FAITH
Seeking to love God with all our heart, as He has revealed Himself,
•We believe in one God in Three Persons, the Holy Trinity. God is known partially in various times and cultures but is fully revealed in Scripture as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
•God the Father is the Source and Head of the Holy Trinity and possesses all authority in heaven and earth. He created the world, all things visible and invisible, and He is the ground of all truth.
•God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly Man, born of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary, risen bodily from the dead, and seated at the right hand of the Father.
•Jesus Christ is the unique Savior, the Sinless One and Sin-Bearer, who died on the Cross in our place so that all who believe in Him might have eternal life. By God’s grace, we are saved through faith alone, being reckoned righteous for His sake.
•Believers are sanctified by the Holy Spirit the Counselor, Who distributes gifts, produces the fruit of good works, and unites His Church in love.
•Holy Scripture, the Old and New Testaments, is God’s Word written, and its authors, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation and is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
•Jesus Christ is Lord and has received all authority in heaven and earth. In obedience to His Great Commission, we are committed to personal evangelism, discipleship, social responsibility, and world evangelization.
•We believe Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, some to eternal life and some to eternal death.

We expect all full-time staff members to affirm this rule without reservation. We encourage other staff and students to agree with this rule and expect them to refrain from denying it.

RULE OF LIFE
Seeking to love our neighbors as ourselves,
•We shall worship the one true God and avoid polytheistic worship and the invoking of ancestral spirits or other powers.
•We shall avoid swearing and disparaging talk about God, or gossip about our neighbor.
•We shall respect public times of worship and rest.
•We shall respect the legitimate authority of the state, the family, the Church, and the University. We shall observe University rules and not participate in any public riot. Conviction of criminal, civil, or professional offenses will be ground for discipline by the University.
•We uphold the human and civil rights of persons regardless of race, class, ethnic group, or gender, including the unborn, and we renounce any physical or verbal abuse of another person.
•We shall shun all sexual immorality, polygamy, adultery, fornication and homosexual practice.
•We shall not steal or engage in financial dishonesty of any kind.
•We shall tell the truth and renounce all forms of plagiarism and false testimony.
•Men and women will dress decently and will treat each other with decency and purity.
•We shall exercise moderation in all things, avoiding abuse of tobacco, drugs, pornography, or gambling. Use of alcohol is prohibited on campus, and drunkenness is an offence against the community.
We expect all staff members and students to conform to this rule and to refrain from denying it.

RULE OF PRAYER
Seeking to love God with all our soul and spirit,
•We shall worship and participate regularly in a congregation and/or in the University Chapel.
•We shall maintain a discipline of Bible reading and prayer.
•We shall give generously to the work of the Lord and to the poor and needy.

We expect all full-time staff to conform to this rule, and we encourage all other staff and students to do likewise. All students may be required to attend worship on assigned days. Ordinands will be expected to attend Morning and Evening worship each weekday.

ENFORCEMENT
In the spirit of liberty and love, we urge all members of the community to be reconciled to one another. Breaches of discipline will be handled at the appropriate level of University authority according to University and Guild regulations.

You might note that this Statement is modeled on the catechetical essentials: the Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer/Sermon on the Mount.

How about starting (and I do mean starting here:

THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT OF THE COMMON CAUSE PARTNERS

We believe and confess Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no one comes to the Father but by Him. Therefore, the Common Cause Partnership identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:

  1. We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.
  2. We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and thus to be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
  3. We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
  4. We confess as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture the historic faith of the undivided church as declared in the three Catholic Creeds: the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian.
  5. Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
  6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
  7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

I too would prefer a more ringing endorsement of all seven councils, but this makes at least a beginning, and is closer, for example, to a formal acceptance of the seventh council than any official statement of Anglican doctrine before.

Further, of course the Articles will form part of any covenant.  However, unless we are to regard all past ecumenical endeavour as for naught, I would also employ (and I do mean employ, not uncritically accept) those agreed statements produced in the past by ARCIC and the Anglican-Orthodox theological commissions.

Formulating a confessional statement (such as the 39 articles) within a conciliar body is somewhat like making sausage. If you’ve lived through (or go back to re-live) how it comes about, it can stink to high heaven. But if you consider only the end product, with its wonderful studied ambiguity brought about by an astounding mix of ingredients, it can have a truly heavenly aroma.

Both the 39 articles and the Nicene creed are arguably examples of this principle in action.

I have been working on a readers version of the homilies, which are available online through the University of Toronto. While much of the language and the examples are dated to Cranmer’s era, the essentials of the doctrine shine through to today. While I would love to see the homilies updated with modern vignettes, the underlying doctrines should not be changed.

As examples, the homilies on Marriage and on the Excess of Apparel are really well crafted. The theology of marriage is really well explained and is well summarized by the part of Lambeth 1.10 that deals with marriage. When I read the homily on Excess of Apparel, I kept getting flashes of Fashion TV in my head, along with the GQ ads for Caddys and Beemers. The net effect, for me, of reading the homilies is that while our toys and methods of communication have changed in the past 458 years, the basic sins and motivations to sin have not.

A question for Dr. Nolls.  I was reading the 2005 the Petition to the Third Global South to South Leadership Team and Primates Advisory Group from the Society of the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine. On page 18, in referring to Lambeth 1.10 and the commitment to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons” it states:“Although the clear purpose of the bishops’ commitment to listen to such experience was to pastoally counsel persons from continuing to engage in same gender sexual relations and it uses “Lambeth Speaks Plainly in Mixed Blessings as its warrant.  If the authors are accurately using your work, can you tell how you came to this understanding?  I don’t have a copy of Mixed Blessings.  Do you know if it is downloadable.  The writings I have read clearly don’t have this interpretation of the second part of Lambeth 1.10 and if yours is a valid one and is being overlooked, I would like to at least consider your approach and your sources.  Thankyou

If the answer is the 39 Articles—in other words, sixteenth-century Calvinism tilting at medieval Catholicism—then I guess it’s off to Rome with me. It seems to me that the challenges facing us today are not medieval Catholic abuses, but an intellectual culture which denies that there is any objective truth, moral relativism, materialism, secularism and a host of other things which would be better subjects for “Articles of Religion” today. The Catholics are now our best allies in the resistance to secularism, and the Calvinists are our traditional enemies, who beheaded their rightful king and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have no interest whatsoever in the latter.

I take Tighe’s point to be not simply the studied and purposeful ambiguity of the 39 Articles but that Anglican history shows them incapable of being authoritatively interpreted.

The question Dr. Radner is asking is seperate and more fundamental than the question of whether confessional standards are necessary.  The question is: who has the authority to uphold ANY standard at the Communion level?  LAmbeth?  I hate to say it, but ECUSA is correct that Lambeth resolutions are, in fact, non-binding.

The question of authority must be answered before any kind of confession can be *authoritatively* promulgated at the Communion level.  Perhaps the 39 Articles SHOULD be a standard.  But who has the authority to say so now?  Noll says that the Articles are “included in many Provincial constitutions, and are the only globally accepted statement of Anglican doctrine.”  How does acceptance by “many” (but not all) Provinces become in the next breath “global acceptance”?

Radner is right: let the Primates and bishops, in council, decide.  That’s what they’ve been given the Holy Spirit to do.  Check the ordinal.

“I take Tighe’s point to be not simply the studied and purposeful ambiguity of the 39 Articles but that Anglican history shows them incapable of being authoritatively interpreted.”

You are correct, sir.  (My focus tilted more to the former point, but the latter is much more “relevant” today.  I was very pleased to see that Bishop David Chislett, whom I respect and admire, supported my analysis so strongly on the comment thread.)

Thank you, Driver8, for that point, and I appreciate the difficulty it raises in discerning the underlying principles in the Articles. But does not this same issue arise when examining other articles, such as the Constitution of the United States and perhaps even the Creed? Any conciliar document—that is, one that has been hammered out in common from among differing views—will have a history with its roots in those differing and sometimes opposing views.

It is only the final product that can speak with authority, the rest is just process.

Well, there’s Bill Tighe’s take on the Articles, and then there’s mine,  Actually, we probably agree more than we disagree; however, I would disagree with Chazzy:

If the answer is the 39 Articles—in other words, sixteenth-century Calvinism tilting at medieval Catholicism—then I guess it’s off to Rome with me.

The Articles may not lend themselves to any simple reading; but summing up thusly is, I believe, simply not accurate.  It isn’t only Anglo-Catholics who have bent the Articles to fit their predilections; read Article XXVII and the 1662 BCP baptismal service, for example, and then ask yourself who has spent the most time arguing that these texts do not really mean what their “plain sense” would suggest?

For the error of the common view that the Articles are necessarily, or even probably, “Calvinist”, see

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=160

I agree with Matt and the others who have said we need to establish a confessional standard for Anglicanism.  If there is no confessional foundation of belief (the Bible only isn’t going to work ask all the different Baptist groups out there), we will have no ability to form the conciliar authority needed to govern the Communion.

We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief

That said, someone above offered this quote from Common Cause, look at it again, isn’t anyone hung up on the phrase “literal and grammatical”?

Who gets to define that?  I’m currently watching another North American protestant denomination tear itself up internally over defining “literal and grammatical” in not just its statement of faith but in its hermeneutical methodology approaching Scripture as well.

It is a nice catchy phrase, but more work needs to be done beneath the edifice.  This requires some comprehensive agreements on where the real issues of common ground or divisions actually lie.

It also requires some significant discipline in selecting and keeping seminary instructors and clergy.  Unless the seminaries and clergy come to a consensus agreement on what Anglicanism means by the 39 Articles, this phrase is a saleman’s trick that can mean anything once its driven off the lot.

This is where careful scholarship and an eyeball fixed on 2000 years of church teaching and 500 years of Anglican instruction would help.

My fear is too much damage has been done to all sides in the past 100 years with one innovation after another so this will prove extremely difficult.

The phrase “literal and grammatical sense” comes from the preface to the Articles by King Charles II, enshrined in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and beginning on page 682 of my edition.

Sorry; that should be Charles I.

IRNS,

Yes I’ve read it there too, but what does or will it mean to people in the 21st century?  People play games with words these days, especially in the wonderful world of Anglican theology.

I continue to contend that something more will be needed than a turn of the phrase that is open to interpretations that have nothing to do with original intent of the authors.  Which is what I’m certain was intended in the first place, but we don’t go there much these days.  Just witness how fast the DeS Communique was twisted and maimed (if not killed) by the HoB.

Authorial intent is what is missing in everything from reading Scripture to understanding the 39 Articles, even to reading each others comments fairly at times here at Stand Firm.  Yet, it is the ingredient no one wants, as it curbs their appetites and desires for seeing things their own way as well as confirming any preconceived ideas.

“This is where careful scholarship and an eyeball fixed on 2000 years of church teaching and 500 years of Anglican instruction would help.”

What about when “2000 (or 1500) years of church teaching” and “500 years of Anglican instruction” disagree—as, e.g., on the OT Canon?  What then?  But at least on such a criterion one could say “good-bye WO.”

“I continue to contend that something more will be needed than a turn of the phrase that is open to interpretations that have nothing to do with original intent of the authors ... Authorial intent is what is missing in everything from reading Scripture to understanding the 39 Articles, even to reading each others comments fairly at times here at Stand Firm. “

This is no doubt true, but as regards the Articles I continue to maintain that this “bracketing” of authorial intent is a feature, not a flaw—a feature joined with them thanks to the 1571 Canon about which I wrote as follows: “At the same time, however, this same Convocation passed a canon asserting that the Articles were in agreement with the “Catholic bishops and fathers” of the Early Church and insisted that they be interpreted accordingly. This was a remarkable canon, for despite the fact that advocates of all sides to the 16th-Century religious conflict, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed alike, were given to claiming that their particular doctrinal stances and, in some cases, distinctive practices, were in accord with those of the Early Church Fathers, or at least with those of high standing (such as St. Augustine), none were willing to require, or even permit, their confessional stances to be judged by, or subordinated to, a hypothetical “Patristic consensus” of the first four or five centuries of Christianity.”  Unless one assumes that the Articles, interpreted by the criterion of “authorial intent,” would pass such a test (to me a doubtful proposition indeed), then the effect of that Canon—an effect which the “Royal Declaration” prefixed to the Articles in 1630 could only underscore—was to render irrelevant, or at least non-authoritative, any “original intent” hermeneutic of the Articles.

Btw, it may interest at least IRNS to know that after I published my piece on the Articles there ensued a private correspondence about my statement concerning the deliberate ambiguity of the 39 Articles in contrast with other Reformation Confessions of Faith, and a Lutheran friend of mine raised the possibility that the only other deliberate ambiguity of that sort was the one raised by Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession about the necessity for ministers to be “rite vocatus” (rightly called): this might suggest to Catholics that they must be properly ordained by established Church criteria (i.e., by bishops as traditionally understood) but it might also support the Lutheran practice from ca. 1525 onwards as regarding the call to (or by) a particular congregation as conveying the individual so “called” authority to minister the Word and Sacrament in it, with “ordination” (by whomever preformed) merely a public testimonial to the suitability of the individual so “called.”

Or, as my Lutheran friend himself wrote:

“The phrase ‘rite vocatus’ in article XIV of the Augustana is certainly ambiguous; its most likely meaning in its historical context is simply canonical ordination, but it has often been taken by Lutherans as referring to the local congregation’s choice of its pastor.  It is arguable that that ambiguity was intentional on Melanchthon’s part. 

His elaboration on this point in the Apology does little to disambiguate it.  He notes that the Catholics are agreeable to Augustana XIV so long as it is made clear that *rite vocatus* does in fact refer to canonical ordination; but instead of candidly stating whether or not *rite vocatus* is to be so understood, he offers only excuses (valid or not, depending on your point of view) as to why the Lutherans have deviated from the canonical order.

The way I read this is that Melanchthon’s ambiguity in Augustana XIV was indeed deliberate, the Catholics (Eck, presumably) called him on it, and Melanchthon in the Apology tried (rather unsuccessfully) to weasel out of it rather than forthrightly clear up the ambiguity.  Lutherans have never cleared it up, even to our own satisfaction.  That’s why you still get fights like the one that is going on on the ‘Right to exist’ thread.  It’s at the heart, too, of the divide between LCMS and WELS.”

The LCMS (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) maintains that the NT witnesses to a “pastoral office” that exists by divine right in the Church, which is conferred on men by ordination, while the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) denies the existence of any such office, believing that all pastoral ministry is purely the creation of the Church, and so not in any sense by divine right; and thus that all laymen (and women?) possess an intrinsic right to exercise all aspects of ministry, while particular church bodies can limit or arrange the exercise of such ministries (as, e.g., by requiring “ordination”) in any ways that seem to itself most suitable and convenient.

On the other hand, despite this distinction in belief between the LCMS and the WELS the LCMS does allow for “lay celebration of the Eucharist” in certain circumstances.  Go figure.

If one views, as I do, the restriction on celebrating the Eucharist to certain ecclesial officers as coming about by a desire to avoid improper behavior at the Lord’s Supper—(a view arising out of the witness of Corinthians, Jude, and Ignatius to the Smyrnaens)—then it seems this would be a rule of the Church for proper order, not a divine appointment for certains ‘called’ persons.

On the other hand, despite this distinction in belief between the LCMS and the WELS the LCMS does allow for “lay celebration of the Eucharist” in certain circumstances.  Go figure.

But Prof. Tighe, they’re all lay people, including the so-called clergy, including Anglican so-called clergy. The correct words, I believe, are “absolutely null and utterly void.”

Fr. Greg,  the male character of Holy Order is a key feature of the Affirmation of St. Louis.  Without this understanding, you would have a completely different document.  Please don’t try to “revise” it to say something that was not the intent of the authors.

William—

The purport of this thread has been the contrast between “conciliar” and “confessional” bases for unity.  The conflicting understandings of ordination and ministry you describe above, rooted in conflicting interpretations of a confession, you adduce as evidence of the weakness of the confessional approach.  However, could it not also be argued that the dispute between LCMS and WELS over Augustana XIV (whether or not intended by its author) really highlight the need for both?

That is, on one hand, a confession to clearly (or as clearly as possible) articulate doctrine; on the other conciliar engagement to hammer out details of approach and interpretation? 

Or further, that confessions themselves, studied ambiguity and all, being more or less products of committees and the need in some degree to satisfy more than one viewpoint, are really in themselves conciliar documents? 

Therefore we have a false dichotomy.
Just wondering.

Mario

1 - One of the reasons that I said the William Tighe and I actually agree more than disagree about the Articles is the question “original intent,” if by that is meant an effort to recover, attribute, and enforce some meaning to the Articles extraneous to their “literal and grammatical sense” based on a supposed reading of the mind of their authors.  Such an “original intent” hermeneutic is impossible for all sorts of reasons, and anyway it will quickly devolve into an argument over specifics of theology, perhaps disguised as as argument over the “true meaning” or “original intent” of the Articles, but in fact carried out in at least a spirit contrary to the Articles themselves.

2 - The contrast between “confessional” and “conciliar” models takes us right back to the original horns of the Anglican dilemma: in what sense is the Anglican Communion “protestant” and in what sense “catholic”?  The more “confessional” we are—-i.e., a church apart from others with documents written in stone, the betrayal of which means a sacrifice of identity (as with Lutherans and the Lutheran confessions) or with unique institutions and doctrines unknown to the catholic consensus (as with WO)—-the more sectarian we are.  The more “catholic” we are—-i.e., a church which bases its authority to decide doctrine on claims to be part of a wider, visible catholic church in continuity with the church of the apostles (see Articles XIX and XX)—-the less it is up to the Anglican Communion to determine anything doctrinal except on a provisional basis, and the more we must defer to the common consent of antiquity and the wider catholic community (i.e., Rome and Orthodoxy).

You cannot claim to be only a part and yet act as if you represent the whole.  This keeps coming up again and again and again, and people keep avoiding it again and again and again, from the Thirty-Nine Articles to the Windsor Report, both products of committees that dance around this problem without ever settling it, that use the word “Church” ambiguously (local? provincial? universal?), according to whichever outcome they desire in advance. 

WO is only one feature of this problem.  I do not intend to send this thread off in the direction of discussing this specific topic, but it does serve to illustrate the problem.  People such as Radner continue to evoke a conciliar model, but refuse to accept the implications of that model, i.e., that we (Anglicans) can have all the Communion-wide councils we want, and that may be better than having everything doctrinal decided at a provincial level, but such councils do not amount to a hill of beans unless we recognize that either they are local councils that must be submitted to the wisdom of antiquity and the wider church (bye bye WO), or we don’t give a fig for antiquity and the wider church (hello sectarianism).

Which is it?

If TEC could actually affirm the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral or actually admit the binding nature of its own constitutional preamble without crossing its fingers, it’d be a step in the right direction.

You cannot claim to be only a part and yet act as if you represent the whole.  This keeps coming up again and again and again, and people keep avoiding it again and again and again, from the Thirty-Nine Articles to the Windsor Report, both products of committees that dance around this problem without ever settling it, that use the word “Church” ambiguously (local? provincial? universal?), according to whichever outcome they desire in advance.

Speaking as a lay peon educated in a different field: even I have noticed this and agree wholeheartedly with the comment.

I have several comments to make.  First, where I wrote, in my penultimate comment above, “The LCMS (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) maintains that the NT witnesses to a “pastoral office” that exists by divine right in the Church, which is conferred on men by ordination, while the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) denies the existence of any such office, believing that all pastoral ministry is purely the creation of the Church, and so not in any sense by divine right; and thus that all laymen (and women?) possess an intrinsic right to exercise all aspects of ministry, while particular church bodies can limit or arrange the exercise of such ministries (as, e.g., by requiring “ordination”) in any ways that seem to itself most suitable and convenient,” the friend whom I was quoting in that comment has responded to me as follows:

“In the last paragraph of your comment (i.e. the paragraph after the quote from me ends), you contrast the LCMS and WELS doctrines of the holy ministry in stark terms that I do not think a WELS person would agree with.  It is not true to say that WELS teaches that “all pastoral ministry is purely the creation of the Church, and so not in any sense by divine right”.  WELS does believe that the ministry is of divine institution; but (as I understand it) they teach that this divinely-instituted ministry is conferred on the local congregation rather than on particular individuals.  The local congregation then delegates the exercise of this ministry (not the office itself) to particular individuals.  So it is not true to say that it is “not *in any sense* by divine right”—only that individual pastors exercise that divinely-instituted ministry as delegates of the congregation.”

I accept his correction with gratitude.  Then, Br’er Rabbit wrote:

“If one views, as I do, the restriction on celebrating the Eucharist to certain ecclesial officers as coming about by a desire to avoid improper behavior at the Lord’s Supper—(a view arising out of the witness of Corinthians, Jude, and Ignatius to the Smyrnaens)—then it seems this would be a rule of the Church for proper order, not a divine appointment for certains ‘called’ persons.”

I suppose that if I viewed things in that way, I might accept the same conclusion.  But as a Catholic, of course, I don’t, and as a historian I can think of none of the English Reformers who viewed things in that way or none of the Caroline Divines; and I find no basis for it in the 39 Articles—and it goes without saying none in the Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils or liturgical evidence from the Early Church.  It seems, rather, a view indigenous to some Lutherans (who in this respect seem to follow the personal views of Luther rather than the in this matter contrary statements of the Lutheran Confessions) and to the sectarian fringes of the Reformation.  But if “Anglican Comprehensiveness” can comprehend WO and SS I can see no reasons for it not “comprehending” such a view as well (cf. Sydney and “lay celebration”).  But in that case you really should follow the good example set by the Baptists and not try to claim for yourselves the term “Catholic.”

Then Wiliam Witt wrote:

“But Prof. Tighe, they’re all lay people, including the so-called clergy, including Anglican so-called clergy. The correct words, I believe, are ‘absolutely null and utterly void.’”

So I believe (unless the “Dutch Touch” can whisk away four centuries); and your point is?  Mine is that if a cat decides to act like a dog, or a goat like a sheep, then one should be rigid in holding it to act in all respects like that which it claims to be, and if it acts like what in truth it is, then one can view the initial claim with a proper scepticism.  And if then it claims to be (as in the cartoon character) “a Catdog” one can tiptoe away with a smile and a “let the reader understand” as having proved one’s point.

Then GB wrote:

“Fr. Greg, the male character of Holy Order is a key feature of the Affirmation of St. Louis.  Without this understanding, you would have a completely different document.  Please don’t try to “revise” it to say something that was not the intent of the authors.”

At first I didn’t see how this fit in with the thread, and I still don’t really.  However, if the “Fr. Greg” is the individual of that name who posts on occasion on Pontifications, and claims to be a priest in an Oriental Orthodox church (i.e., one of that church family—the Armenians, the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Indo-Syrians and the Syriacs—that rejects the Council of Chalcedon but accewpts the first three ecumenical councils only), but in reality is a priest in an outfit that is in communion with none of the genuine Oriental Orthodox Churches, that allows its priests to celebrate all sorts of liturgies, Eastern, Western, Byzantine, Catholic and Anglican alike, and that affects to “ordain” women—and thus shows itself to be in rerum natura an episcopi vangantes body—then he makes a good point indeed, and I thank him for it.

Mario wrote (a the end of his interesting comment):

“Or further, that confessions themselves, studied ambiguity and all, being more or less products of committees and the need in some degree to satisfy more than one viewpoint, are really in themselves conciliar documents?”

Well, perhaps; but if that is the case, then such “conciliar documents” appear more like a snare and a delusion than of any Christian use whatsoever.

And as to what my fellow-historian IRNC wrote, I have nothing else to say than “de longinquo te saluto” and that I agree (from the other side of the Tiberian Bosphorus) with everything that you have written in your comment.

My complements to IRNS for his comment above.  In the long run it really does not matter if Anglicanism decides to restructure itself along conciliar or confessional lines.  As long as it believes it can alter catholic doctrine (i.e., act as if it represents the whole, independently of Catholicism and Orthodoxy), it will never be a catholic body.

I am by no means a scholar on the 39 Articles. Others will know far more than I do, but I’d like to point out the preambles (or what passes as preambles) to the various revisions of what came to be the 39A:

1536, 10 Articles: “Articles devised by the King’s Highness Majesty to Establish Christian Quietness and Unity among Us, and to Avoid Contentious Opinions…” (1)
1539, 6 Articles: “An Act Abolishing Diversity on Opinions.” (2)
1553: 42 Articles: “... for the avoiding of controversy in opinions, and the establishment of a Godly concord in certain matters of religion.” (3)
1571, 39 Articles: “... for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion…” (4)

It seems quite clear the Articles, in any revision, were not a confessional standard but were intended to set outer boundaries of scriptural interpretation. Given the on-again, off-again debates with the Puritans, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans and the Romans, given Armenian vs. Calvinist thought, given the still-unsettled details has to how the finer details are supposed to work (e.g., is open Communion justifiable) my understanding of the Articles has always been they were intended to permit some room, but held the line on taking things so far that a new sect was clearly defined.

Taking the Articles as a statement of confession is too much of a stretch, IMHO. That said, find me a confession, any confession, which does not itself cause more questions to be raised and more debate to ensue than if the confession hadn’t ever been penned. If you need a secular straw-man, I’ll point you to US criminal code, which for almost 2 centuries operated mostly on the basis of “spirit of the law.” In attempts to put into writing every little detail, when something would be illegal but allow circumstances when it would be OK, etc., we now have the largest, most bloated and incomprehensible “letter of the law” criminal code in the history of the world.

In all of this, I ask, “Where do the Holy Scriptures fit in? Wherein the creeds?” I agree we need something to be able to say, “Look, there is a Godly parish with Godly teachings. Look, there is an heretical parish with a fallen priest.” Can this not be done with the tools we have? Can this not be done with ancient teachings, the Holy Scriptures and the 39A as a framework in which to exclude secular desires antithetical to the scriptures?

In brief, does it really have to boil down to either/or? Why only conciliar or only confessional? I suspect if it’s merely either, this “Anglican experiment” will only fail. It must be both. If we put our written documents (unabridged scripture, the creeds and the 39A) back into their rightful places, how then will a new “confession” be better? Unless, of course, we want a confession of similar length and complexity to the US criminal code. But without something “confession-like” we leave it up to my parish’s view against yours, and we are both neither righteous nor heretical.

(1) London: Thomas Berthelet, 1536. Microfilm. Ann Arbor Mich.: UMI, 1938 (Early English books, 1475-1640; 07:08)
(2) Tudor Place, 24FEB2006.
(3) London: Richard Cratonus, 1553. Microfilm. Ann Arbor Mich.: UMI, 1944, 1984 (Early English books, 1475-1640; 222:11 and 1795:20)
(4) London: Poules Churchyard, 1571. Microfilm. Ann Arbor Mich.: UMI, 1950 (Early English books, 1475-1640; 422:6a and 422:6e)

I completely agree with IRNS and Fr. Kimel.  The specific issues of the last four years have only been a pointer to this larger issue that, for me, is doing the most damage to my comfort with Anglicanism and its long-term prospects.

Mr. Tighe,  I can tell you that the writer’s of the Affirmation of St. Louis had no doubt that they were (and are) Anglicans.  The same thing is true of the authors of the 39 Articles.  The two documents are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary.  Neither of them is local in nature, but both are Universal in nature.  Neither of them is based on the notion that doctrine is a theological cafeteria where you select what you want and ignore everything else.  Why do we suddenly have all this 21st century rewriting and restating what we think it means to be an Anglican?  We should learn to accept what has already been accomplished and stop trying to invent an improved version of the wheel.

GB wrote:

“Mr. Tighe, I can tell you that the writer’s of the Affirmation of St. Louis had no doubt that they were (and are) Anglicans.  The same thing is true of the authors of the 39 Articles.  The two documents are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary.”

To which I reply, so you assert—but I can see no reason why I should believe you, as opposed to the FIF/OZ-ACA bishop, David Chislett, who, judging by his posting on the thread below (#47), agrees with me rather than with you:

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2177#comments

The dilemma is not that there is a stable Anglican core which is being betrayed in the 21 century. The Anglican church is Cranmer and Andrewes, Keble and Cartwright, Pusey and Parker, Prynne and Laud. Core elements about what it meant to be Anglican were being wrtitten and rewritten in the 1590s and 1630s and 1680s and 1700s and 1830s etc. The BCP become the focus of unity because there is no stable theological core except a demand for conformity and a pledge of obedience to the Crown. 

For those who like such things, inclusivity, breadth, diversity, ambiguity are the key Anglican words.

For those of us who ponder the question of truth and are tempted to think that it might actually matter, evasion, contradiction and confusion are the watchwords of our history.

I am sorry that you feel that way, driver8.  That is the problem faced by liberals and revisionists.  Ultimate truth, total inclusivity, etc. are not to be found in an imperfect world.  Those are the attributes of the hereafter and are to be found only in the beatific vision of God.

I know, it does seem only in an ideal world will the Anglican Communion, for example, have a clear teaching on whether baptism is regenerative or not. In the real world, of sin and salvation, I’m not sure. Tragically, it’s in the real world that the truth of it actually seems to matter.

I see I kicked over a hornet’s nest with that authorial intent comment.  My apologies to all who got stung or chased away.

I did not intend to suggest that authorial intent is a means to enforce or recover the meaning of the original authors.  Rather, it is the starting point for discovering meaning for our own day.

If we do not understand what the original authors intended in the Articles (or Scripture, or the Constitution or any other document produced in council) then how can we proceed to what we say it should be for today?

Is this not the problem many of us are having with TEC and its leadership?  Words mean nothing except what they decide they mean, the rest of the world is simply ignorant of their advanced understanding.

We can discover original intent of conciliar documents in manner that is relatively easy.  Such documents (even ancient ones) rarely pop into existence without evidence of the ground from which they sprung or a desire to explain the document to readers who were not present at the creation.  Thus the church is not bereft of guidance from 2000 or even 500 years ago.

We might find that most of those points of guidance would align and maybe even agree with each other.  Where those points of guidance differ is where good scholarship and study of the various issues would help.  This is not merely individual, or even provincial reading, but engagement in sober dialogue with others who have different viewpoints across Communion or theological boundaries.

Which is what I think ACI is trying to accomplish.  Yet it is having a wretched time of it, because at least one side in this discussion inside the Anglican Communion doesn’t appear to be capable of sober dialogue, except when they are looking in the mirror.

This is a fascinating and informative thread.  I have a deep-seated suspicion, though, that whatever the ecclesiological or theological value of a confessional document—the Articles, the BCP of 1662 or 1928, St. Louis, a Catechism, ...—its political value in the current conflict will be small, and its long-term value nil.

Quite straightforwardly, if the EpiscoLeft controlling 815 and the seminaries is able to “reinterpret” its way through the Creeds, the unanimous Scriptural witness, and three millennia of moral philosophy, what grounds are there to believe that a mere confessional document will make a dent, or have any long-term corrective effect?  Note that the Presbyterians and the Lutherans are on the verge of the same sort of struggle we’re dealing with, and they are both confessional to a fault.

The discussion now continues here:

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2287#comments