Richard Hooker and the Archbishop's Address

Introduction

In July of 2003, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, addressed the General Synod of the Church of England. This address was a defining address for the Archbishop, not only for England, but for worldwide Anglican Communion. David Virtue, the author of Virtuosity, asked me to write a commentary which is given below.

Among other things, this essay shows that, although the Church does not have the authority to make ultimate judgments of truth or error, the Church does have a penultimate authority and responsibility to direct its inner life. I have been in so many clergy meetings in which those present, claiming that only God has complete knowledge of absolute Truth, abdicated their responsibility to make decisions on matters that affect the Church. It is true that God is the ultimate authority, but that does not exempt the Church, and individual members thereof, from exercising a relative and penultimate authority. In his address the Archbishop failed to call the Church to be the Church in this regard. As a result, he failed defend the Church against false teaching and practice. Hooker, however, can show us how to let God be God, and yet take corporate responsibility for matters of faith and morals. My essay follows.

Richard Hooker and the Archbishop's Address

Reflections on Statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the General Synod

In this essay I will analyze the address made by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Church of England Synod. That address is posted in VIRTUOSITY's digest today.

Does Scripture, theology, doctrine, the great tradition of biblical interpretation matter? If it does, if we are bound to it, then we must uphold it. Secondly, if we are going to communicate, we must do so forthrightly. Nothing is more insidious than language that gains its effect by glossing over logical steps and concealing significant alternatives. I shall now show that the Archbishop's address undermines the role of doctrine in the Church, and secondly, it contains hidden logical steps of critical significance, leading to conclusions we must not and cannot embrace.

What problem does the Archbishop address? He addresses the problem of division in the Church. How does he solve that problem? He does so in three steps. First he paints a picture of the present divisions in the church, including the various parties to that division. This problem is so severe that it could almost be said that we are really several churches, not one. "Which means trying to find out what it is that makes these diverse 'churches' one; if we can't answer this, we are in trouble."

Having described the problem, the Archbishop now offers an understanding of Church that can help the diverse "churches" to be seen as one. This is the critical insight, for without it, "we are in trouble." Here is his understanding of the Church.

What makes a Church is the call of Jesus Christ, and our freedom and ability, helped by grace, to recognise that call in each other. ... To announce all this is to announce God's invitation. To accept the invitation, with all it carries of acknowledging what Jesus has done, is to be taken into Christ's living Body, finding there a company of unlikely people who have received and answered the same invitation. The Church's life develops as we slowly and clumsily start working on the ways we recognise each other as called by the same God and Saviour. Let me repeat that: working on the ways we recognise each other as called by the same God and Saviour.

This, for the Archbishop, is what makes the Church. Those who hear God's call and recognize that call in others belong to the same Church. Upon that basis, we can begin to build our life together. In passing, the Archbishop also notes that Scripture provides a way of testing the unity of the Church, a unity derived from the prior call. He briefly references sacraments, and returns to his main theme, "That's the Church. It is what happens when the call of Jesus is definitively heard."

Let's think about this for a minute. Is there really anyone in the Church who would claim that other Church members have not heard the call of Christ and responded? Would that not be a form of spiritual arrogance? Can we really assert that certain church members have failed to respond to the call of Christ? Most of us would be reluctant to do this and the Archbishop knows it. Given that reluctance, his audience was open to receive his final section -- a description of what happens as we "slowly and clumsily start working on the ways we recognise each other as called by the same God and Saviour." It is a picture of the Church on the march -- diverse, inclusive, vibrant, developing new styles of ministry, interpreting itself across deep divisions, filled with energy, and held together by the common recognition that God calls all. From what I have heard, his address was greeted by a standing ovation.

There is some muddy logical and theological thinking here, and it leads us to the wrong place. Before I examine it, however, I would like to invite the reader to hear how Richard Hooker (1554-1600), one of the fathers of Anglicanism, understood the Church.

Hooker makes a distinction between the invisible (or mystical) and the visible Church. The mystical Church is the great society of the Saved, those who truly hear the call of God and respond in faith. They will be with God forever in heaven. Only God knows who they are.

That Church of Christ, which we properly term his body mystical, can be but one; neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any man, inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven already with Christ, and the rest that are on earth (albeit their natural persons be visible) we do not discern under this property, whereby they are truly and infallibly of that body. (III,i,2)

The visible Church, on the other hand, is simply the Church as we know it today, composed of all sorts of persons with all sorts of beliefs and behaviors. For Hooker, the visible Church is distinguished from other social bodies by three marks -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The marks of one Lord and one baptism are essentially those offered by the Archbishop. Those who confess that Jesus Christ as Lord and respond in baptism are Christians. For Hooker, we are not competent to judge whether claiming Jesus as Lord and being baptized reflects a true response to the Lord Jesus. If such a response were genuine, that would make a person a member of the invisible Church and that membership is only known by God. As a result, Hooker tends to accept at face value that Church members have heard God and have responded to him in baptism.

The second mark of the visible Church is faith. By that Hooker does not mean faith as trust and commitment to God's call in Christ. That is given by the marks of one Lord and one baptism. Faith in this context means doctrine, the articles of belief found in such documents as the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The articles of faith are prior to baptism, for only as we know God as guided by doctrine can we truly respond in belief and action. Hooker describes faith as follows,

But our naming of Jesus Christ the Lord is not enough to prove us Christians, unless we also embrace that faith, which Christ hath published unto the world. ... Concerning which faith, "the rule thereof" saith Tertullian, "is one alone, immovable, and no way possible to be better framed anew." Which rule that is he sheweth by rehearsing those few articles of Christian belief. (III,i,5)

Since true doctrine is a mark of the visible Church, those who depart from sound doctrine undermine the visible Church. These are the heretics, and one responsibility of the Church is to identify the heresies promoted by heretics. Further, and this has always been the teaching of the church, unrepentant heretics are to be excommunicated. As much in Hooker's time, as now, the effort to maintain the purity of the church never ends, for heresy sprouts anew from age to age. For that reason, the Church always needs the pure doctrine of the Creeds.

Against which poison likewise if we think that the Church at this day needeth not those ancient preservatives [the Creeds] which ages before us were so glad to use, we deceive ourselves greatly. The weeds of heresy being grown unto such ripeness as that was, do even in the very cutting down scatter oftentimes those seeds which for a while lie unseen and buried in the earth, but afterward freshly spring up again no less pernicious than at the first. (V,xlii,13)

Even though heretics seduce the Church, Hooker is unwilling to assert that heretics are cut off from the mystical body of Christ. Only God knows the heart. Heretics, in spite of their heresies, may be responding to God's call in Christ Jesus to the best of their abilities. Even so, even though heretics may be believers, their teaching distorts the Christian faith and it is the responsibility of the Church to defend the body of Christ against their teaching by excommunication and teaching of the sound doctrine. Hooker promoted what he took to be sound doctrine, and further, he approved of the decision of the Church of England to separate herself from Rome.

I, for may part, believe heresy to be rampart in the Episcopal Church. I have identified these false teachers and their doctrines on my web page, showing how they violate the doctrine of the Creeds and the ancient beliefs of the Church. But this does not mean that such persons are bereft of salvation, though all of us are called to understand, live, and defend orthodox doctrine as best we may. For Hooker, only those who know their teaching to be heresy, and persist in it, will fail in salvation. The visible Church, however, does not make judgments concerning salvation. It cannot discern the heart. It deals with externals, not internals. Since it deals with externals, it is composed of those who belong to the mystical Church of the saved, as well as those who secretly deny Christ while outwardly professing him. In that respect, heretics can belong to the visible Church since the visible Church is composed of faithful and unfaithful alike. Unrepentant heresy, however, does cut off from the saved or mystical portion of the visible Church, what Hooker calls the "the visible sound Church of Christ."

Further, for Hooker, excommunication does not of necessity exclude a person from salvation. The Church may err in its judgments against heretics. Nor does excommunication fully remove anyone from the visible Church since those judged to be heretical usually claim to be part of the visible Church as much as the orthodox. Only God knows whether the divided brethren, and to what degree, are one with the mystical Church. But the fact that God alone knows perfect Truth does not excuse the Church from making fallible judgments and excommunicating or separating from those judged heretical. The Church is responsible for the Truth given to it, even though that Truth be held in faith and not by perfect sight. For that reason, Hooker and the Reformers were willing to separate from Rome because of her heresies. This needs to be kept firmly in mind because the heresies imputed to Rome at the time of the Reformation were rather mild compared to the heresies that now afflict ECUSA.

When separation occurs, and at times it must, the visible Church is divided in regard to what Hooker calls "holy duties," above all, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Hooker sums up these matters with these words.

Albeit not every error and fault, yet heresies and crimes which are not actually repented of and forsaken, exclude quite and clean from that salvation which belongeth unto the mystical body of Christ; yea, they also make a separation from the visible sound Church of Christ; altogether from the visible Church neither the one nor the other doth sever. As for the act of excommunication, it neither shutteth out from the mystical, nor clean from the visible, but only from fellowship with the visible in holy duties. (III,i,13)

One further note on Hooker: In our pluralistic (pagan) and inclusive age, the word "heresy" has negative connotations. For Hooker, however, it was a deadly serious matter. In his view, heresies were a "deluge of misery," "monstrous" "impieties" (V,iii,3). He believed that false reason bolsters heresy and "spoileth the simple who are not able to withstand such cunning" (III,vii,7). He further believed that heretics will "soonest adventure to instill their poison into men's minds" (V,xii,2), that "heresy did by sinister interpretations did go about to pervert in the first and most ancient Apostolic Creed" (V,xlii,6), that heresy is a "poison" and "pernicious" (V,xlii,13), and that "throughout all ages heretics have justly been hated as branches cut off from the body of the true Vine (V,lxvii,6)." Finally, he knew full well that clergy were those who "by heresy or want of constancy in professing the Christian faith hath been once a disgrace to their calling" (V,lxxvii,4). Why did Hooker abhor heresy? He hated heresy because he believed in Truth, in God's Truth, in doctrine, in right and wrong. He believed that God had concretely and objectively revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and apart from saving knowledge, which directs the will toward God, the soul is in danger of sinking into error and death. For that reason Hooker fought against heresy and for Christian Truth, exhausting himself with his interminable studies and spiritual deprivations.

In light of the foregoing, the Archbishop's muddy logical and theological thinking can now be described. First, the Archbishop has asked the Church to do what only God can do -- to discern that our fellow members of the Church have truly heard the call of God and responded in true faith. We cannot do that. Only God can do that.

Secondly, and rather logically, if we can presume to "recognise each other as called by the same God," we can also come to "recognise each other as" not "called by the same God." The Archbishop does not examine that alternative, and it is an alternative that we should avoid as well. Unity built on spiritual discernment may sound attractive, but it is a two-edged sword, setting the stage for a Church of subjective insights and invidious spiritual comparisons. Hooker was more modest. He dealt with externals, not internals. If a person openly confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and was baptized, that person belonged to the visible Church. If such persons publicly proclaimed heresies, then after due procedures, they were to be excommunicated. As to salvation, he left that to God.

Finally, and this point is critical, if we do not presume to do what only God can do, that is, judge that others have nor responded to God's call, this does not imply that we can make no judgments about other people whatsoever. In his third and final section, a description of the Church in all its glowing diversity, the Archbishop capitalized on people's reluctance to judge others, and led his listeners to accept whoever happens to be in the Church without criteria by which to judge their beliefs and actions. According to the Archbishop, life in such a church will be difficult. Church members will find themselves "deeply bewildered" by those they find in the Church, but even so, these others are also "living in the space God has cleared." Given that God has cleared the space, do we really have any grounds for judging other people's faith and morals by means of doctrine, Scripture, or anything else for that matter? Apparently, according to the Archbishop, we do not. But a Church without adequate criteria for right and wrong, a Church without grounds for truth or error, a Church that never severs from "holy duties," is a Church open to any number of strange and contrary beliefs, passing fancies and immoral acts. Such a church may appear tolerant and loving on the outside, but within, it will be "full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27).

Even though he is a doctor of the Church, a successor to the apostles, and specially charged with holding fast to sound doctrine and discipline, the Archbishop has, at least in this address, abdicated that responsibility altogether. In fact, he actually discourages his listeners from doing what Hooker did, measuring the beliefs and morals of the Church by sound doctrine and refusing to enter into eucharistic fellowship with heretics. Within the speech itself, the evidence for this is overwhelming.

First, in his initial opening paragraphs, he does not adequately define the Church's problem. He defines the problem as a conflict between groups who don't understand each other, who think in terms of their agenda and their pain. That isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem includes a failure to measure present teaching against the Canon of Truth. I have, in essays on Virtuosity and on my web site documented the failure of significant sectors of ECUSA to do just that.

With regard to doctrine, the Archbishop's only reference suggests that doctrine seeks to be an effective assurance "that we are stepping to the same dance." I don't believe this. Some of us actually think we understand the other side, and because of doctrine, have decided that we are not "stepping to the same dance."

In regard to leadership, he calls for leaders who are "skilled in listening and in interpreting what may seem very different language groups to each other." We need far more than that. We need leaders who not only listen, but also can distinguish between right and wrong, between heresy and Christian Truth, and who are willing to impose discipline.

The Archbishop also claims we need a "mixed economy." I'm in favor of variety, and in fact, one of the beauties of Anglicanism is that we are loathe to divide over trivial matters. As a result, we possess a rich heritage of diverse practices and theological emphases. We are not, however, at the present moment, addressing trivial matters, but rather, an direct assault on the substance of the faith.

He notes that "living in the space that God has cleared" will entail our being "deeply bewildered" by those we find there, a space so mysterious that we are "sometimes unclear about what exactly should be said about this." I'm willing to accept that all sorts of people may be living in that space. For all I know, people like William Countryman, Jack Spong, the Presiding Bishop, Carter Heyward, and others I consider to be corrupting the Church, may be living to the fullness of light and faith they have received. Even so, that doesn't exempt me or anyone else from measuring their teaching, and mine as well, against sound doctrine.

Why should we be bewildered? We are only bewildered if we believe that God never says anything clearly, that he leaves us always in the dark, that his ways are forever opaque. Of course what we know is only known in hope and trust. But the fact that we lack absolute certainty cannot mean that we surrender all Truth whatsoever. No, what we need is doctrine, orthodox doctrine followed by discipline, doctrine that came from God in Christ and leads to him. And if that does not happen, our Church will continue to be as it has become, "springs without water and mists driven by a storm." (2 Pet 2:17)