Blue Cord

Chris Brady at Targum has been posting a series of notes about the current troubles in the Anglican Communion. I had been meaning to respond to a couple of them, and I finally did so yesterday on a post entitled “NPR Report – ‘Anglican Conservatives Step Back from Split Threat’.” Chris responded to my comment, I commented on his comment, and he responded to that. It has been a fruitful conversation, so I thought I would move it to the level of actual posts instead of it being buried deep in the comments. I will post my responses here and I encourage Chris to continue posting on his blog. I would also like to see other Anglican bloggers (such as Steve Cook) jump into the mix as well. Perhaps we can get this whole problem solved in the next few days and the schism will be averted.

My comments will jump around a bit, since I am responding in turn to points that Chris made in his last comment. Readers may want to read the series of comments on the original post before reading further in this post.

In Chris’s latest comment, he notes that the Elizabethan Settlement was itself a power play. He is right, of course, I certainly would not defend the many excesses that occurred in the enforcement of the Settlement. But be that as it may, it doesn’t change the fact that the Settlement was established and has been the basis of our Anglican polity ever since. I think it has to be taken into account in any discussion of how we are to live our common lives as Anglicans.

Chris asserts that one of the problems is that we have no real way of asserting what the teachings of the Anglican Church are. I would disagree. I think they are formulated quite nicely in the creeds of the church as presented in the Book of Common Prayer. These have been the creeds that have held Anglican churches together for almost 600 years. We have been able to come together for common worship based only on those fundamentals. Certainly, there are many other Anglican traditions that have been held in various places and times, and I would not want to reduce Christianity to merely the creeds. But I will say that I am willing to be in fellowship with anyone who shares the creeds with me, regardless of their standing on other issues.

That is what via media means. It is not merely the lowest common denominator. No one has to give up their own beliefs, as long as they are willing to grant others the same freedom. And it certainly does not mean that we stop theological debate on issues where we disagree. But within those disagreements we have to have the charity to admit that others may be Christian even when they disagree (something that is severely lacking on both sides of the current debate).

I would disagree that there is no Evangelical polity. I think there is a fairly clear one, although it is certainly not the polity of the Presbyterian Church. I think the best examples are found within modern Baptist circles and non-denominational churches. It is a polity that bases fellowship and communion on theological agreement. Although most say that you only have to agree on essentials, they usually end up with a list that defines some pretty marginal issues as essential. I think that polity has been evident in a number of conservatives in the Anglican Communion who say they cannot have fellowship with those who disagree with them on homosexuality. You would be hard pressed to define a particular stance on homosexuality as central to what it means to be Christian, yet it is a make-or-break issue for some people. That indicates that their polity is more Evangelical than Anglican.¹

Chris laments the fact that the mechanisms of discipline are weak in the Episcopal church and often do not function well. I would certainly agree. I think, for example, that Bishop Spong should have been removed as a bishop for his unorthodox views (i.e., there were major sections of the creeds that he did not believe). But I don’t see that as a reason to abandon Anglican polity and put a more Evangelical or Catholic version in its place. We should fix the structures so that they function according to our canons and traditions. We need to make the church more Anglican, not less. There is no reason to throw the Anglican baby out with the revisionist bathwater.

I think the most insightful question Chris asks is, “Is polity more important than the view of Scripture?” I would answer that Scripture is more important to how we function as Christians, but polity defines how we live together as Anglicans. If our view of Scripture is the basis for our fellowship, than I doubt that we will survive as a denomination.

Chris finishes with this:

Anglicanism must be something more than structure and procedure if it is to survive. What do we believe? How do we worship? These are the issues at hand and we seem ill equipped to deal with them in any means other than shouting and that means that the loudest (or longest) voice wins.

I certainly agree, and I think it always will be more than that. But the question is whether we have to define what that “something more” is in more detail than the creeds do. What do we believe? The creeds, plus whatever your local congregation and diocese decide, even if that is something different than the congregation down the street. How do we worship? By using the Book of Common Prayer. To paraphrase an old Evangelical saying, “If it was good enough for Cranmer, its good enough for me.” The Anglican church has survived for almost 600 years on that basis, and I see no reason to change it now.

1. I agree with Chris that there are a number of “home grown” Evangelicals within the Anglican church, but many of them have a more Evangelical than Anglican polity as well. [back]