The Future of Anglicanism

Introduction

The following is a paper I gave January 8, 2006, in Birmingham, Alabama. At that time the Anglican Mission in America asked a number of people to present papers to its students, that is, to those who were preparing for ordination to holy orders. These lectures were part of their academic training.

The theme of a number of the papers was the future of Anglicanism and I was asked to write on the same theme. I do not believe that I possess a deep knowledge of Anglicanism as a world-wide phenomena, but I have studied its orgins, and further, believed I could make a contribution. As a result, I wrote the following paper.

The Future of Anglicanism

Whether Anglicanism has a future depends upon God. God, however, is not capricious. He honors the revelation given in Jesus Christ as known in Scripture. As Anglicans, we are also called to be faithful to our Anglican heritage leaving the results to God. In light of that heritage, I would like to focus on three matters: theology, the work of the Spirit, and the Church in society. Other aspects pertinent to the future of Anglicanism are equally important, especially Scripture as the foundation of Anglican faith, but I chose these three because I think I have something to contribute in these areas.

In regard to theology, it has been said that Anglicans are not united by a confession but by a Book of Common Prayer. I will not address that claim in detail. It seems utterly obvious that early Anglicanism was committed to orthodox theology, clearly seen in the Articles of Religion, the ordination vows, and the Anglican affirmations of the Creeds and the theological writings of the Church Fathers. The fact that early Anglican writers did not produce a complete theological system does not imply that they were not theologians. They were theologians, and they thought and argued theologically. Let me take but one example, Richard Hooker.
Hooker wrote to affirm the Anglican position over against two alternatives -- Puritanism and Roman Catholicism. Of these, as seen in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the Puritans were his principal opponents. They began with the claim that Scripture should be the only norm of human action. Then, on the basis of Scripture, they assailed the Anglicans for having a non-Scriptural form of church government, for incorporating papist superstitions and unscriptural customs into worship and common life, and for allowing the civil power to have authority in the Church.

Hooker responded to these charges in detail, but prior to doing so, he set forth a theological perspective. He did this in Book I of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. This perspective incorporated the whole of reality, from inorganic matter (natural agents), to humans, to angels, and upward to God, and all this from creation to eschaton. In Hooker's view, all created things are moved to their appointed end according to law. "That which doth assign unto each thing the kind, that which doth moderate the force and power, that which doth appoint the form and measure, of working, the same we term a Law" (I,ii,1). Law has its origin in the triune God, and further, God's grace assists all things toward their appropriate perfection. Natural agents are moved unwittingly by God, but human beings, made in the image of God, are moved by the desire for goodness as assisted by grace.

Essentially, there are two kinds of law, natural laws known by reason and supernatural laws given by revelation. Natural laws pertain to everyday life, matters such as how to treat others, when and where to build a house, what to eat and so forth. These laws are also given by custom, common sense, and tradition. Due to the fall that corrupted reason, God placed a number of natural laws in Scripture. Supernatural laws pertain to salvation, matters such as faith in Christ, sacraments, and the second coming. These laws are not known by reason; they are only given by revelation in Scripture. Reason, custom, and tradition can, however, contribute to the religious life if these contributions enhance supernatural laws and do not contradict Scripture. For Hooker, Scripture is the ultimate norm, both for the natural law found in Scripture and for all supernatural law. All this is established in Book I of Hooker's Laws.

Beginning in Book II, and continuing through the final Book VIII, Hooker addresses specific Puritan claims. By and large, his arguments are Scriptural, but Scripture understood in a certain way and in a certain context. In Hooker's view, the Puritans assumed that Scripture directly applied to all of life, including matters where reason, tradition, and common sense were competent to decide. In his view, this was to extend the role of Scripture beyond its appointed purpose. The purpose of Scripture was salvation, and though relevant for other matters, it does not decide many matters left to other forms of law. I now quote Hooker,

The rather, for that it hath grown from no other root, than only a desire to enlarge the necessary use of the Word of God; which desire hath begotten an error enlarging it further than (as we are persuaded) soundness of truth will bear. For whereas God hath left sundry kinds of laws unto men, and by all those laws the actions of men are in some sort directed; they hold that one only law, the Scripture, must be the rule to direct in all things, even so far as to the "taking up of a rush or straw." (II,i,2)

Once Hooker had established salvation as the purpose of Scripture, and its relevance for biblical interpretation, he then outlined its context. Specifically, Scripture was best interpreted by the Church as a whole, especially by those learned in such matters. Above all, Hooker appealed to the Church Fathers in his interpretations of Scripture. This context flowed directly out of the theological perspective established in Book I, namely, Hooker's organic understanding of created life with each part according to its nature contributing to the whole, his belief that reason guides the will in pursuit of the good, and the notion that the Spirit illumines the mind according to the revelation given in the Son as reflecting the eternal laws of God. Normally quite subdued in his criticism of his opponents, Hooker could rise to the level of invective when impugning the Puritan belief that all one needed to rightly interpret Scripture was a special Puritan holiness and the Spirit of God. In his view, this neglected the role of reason in interpreting Scripture, as well as the fact that those naturally learned are called by God to learned matters. Here is Hooker,

When they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them. (Preface,viii,7)

Once Hooker had set forth his theological perspective and determined the scope, context, and way of interpreting Scripture, he was ready to respond to Puritan claims in detail. His arguments were primarily biblical, in part due to the biblical arguments of his opponents, but he also relied on reason, the witness of the Church Fathers, and the tradition of the Church. Several conclusions follow from the foregoing.

To begin with, it is true that Hooker did not provide a complete theological system in which he orderly addressed the primary doctrines of Christian faith. Rather, he addressed specific issues. But in doing so, he addressed them theologically. That is, he worked with a definite theological perspective as outlined in Book I. He did not, nor could he, address the controversial issues of the time apart from theology. Theology was necessary, inevitable. Let me expand a bit on this, particularly in light of the present conflict within Anglicanism.

As is well known, both sides of the present debate often talked past each other. One side would quote Scripture, the other science, and neither side seemed convinced. It became apparent that each side thought and acted out of two very different viewpoints. Language, evidence, Scripture, argumentation, all occur in the context of perspectives, and until those perspectives are delineated, the real issues have not been addressed. Theology is the discipline that illumines differing perspectives and measures them against the classical doctrines of the Church. Apart from theology, it is difficult to see the forest for the trees. For example, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church frequently quoted Scripture and various mystics in ways that sounded rather pious and Christian. At the same time, however, he supported a revisionist agenda that was the ruin of the Church. In confronting his false teaching, it was not enough to simply say that he violated the literal language of Scripture. He already knew that. More needed to be said. His theological perspective needed to be delineated. I once analyzed his public statements and showed that his working theology was a type of modalism. He was not proclaiming the God of Trinity and Incarnation. Rather, he was promoting a mystical One who progressively revealed himself in on-going experience. Theology made this evident. Without theology, this was not at all evident. Theology was necessary, the decisive way of distinguishing the true God from human idols.

Theology not only helps to distinguish the true God from counterfeits, it also plays a vital role in the interpretation of Scripture. Hooker and his opponents interpreted Scripture differently. Among other things, Hooker did not think Scripture could be applied to everything, even to the "taking up of a rush or straw." His thinking flowed naturally out of his theology, his understanding of creation and incarnation. By creation, God endowed human beings with the capacity to make wise decisions in the daily affairs of life, and by incarnation, he revealed the laws of supernatural life. Scripture was especially concerned with the latter, and to extend it to the former was to violate its intent. In other words, Hooker recognized a positive relationship between hermeneutics and theology. Each affected the other. In my view, every theological perspective leads to a range of possible hermeneutics, and every biblical hermeneutic is only compatible with a subset of possible theological perspectives. Let me expand a bit on this.

From the beginning, the Church faced the problem of false interpretations of Scripture. One of the first threats to right interpretation of Scripture was the Gnostics. To counter them, Irenaeus claimed that they did not maintain apostolic doctrine in their interpretations of Scripture. According to Irenaeus, this doctrine provided the hermeneutical key to right interpretation. At several points, Irenaeus summarized this doctrine, a summary quite close to the Apostles' Creed.(1) With time, these summaries of apostolic doctrine developed into full blown creeds. The creeds came from Scripture, and at the same time, led to the right interpretation of Scripture. Francis Young, in her Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, describes these early developments as follows,

What has not been explicitly noted before is that all along creed-like statements and confessions must in practice have provided the hermeneutical key to public reading of scripture before Irenaeus articulated this.(2)

Neither the Rule of Faith nor the creed was in fact a summary of the whole biblical narrative, as demonstrated earlier in The Art of Performance. They provided, rather, the proper reading of the beginning and the ending, the focus of the plot and the relations of the principal characters, so enabling the "middle" to be heard in bits as meaningful. They provided the "closure" which contemporary theory prefers to leave open. They articulated the essential hermeneutical key without which texts and community would disintegrate in incoherence.(3)

Not long ago, the Episcopal Diocese of New York released an essay entitled "Let the Reader Understand." In this document they professed their "profound respect for the Holy Scripture as the Word of God." They also recognized that it "is possible to maintain a high respect for the authority of Scripture while coming to different interpretations or understandings as to its meaning and application." They then described a hermeneutic which they considered "in keeping with sound principles of scriptural interpretation." This hermeneutic promoted a revisionist agenda. When examined, however, the hermeneutic presupposed a docetic and modalistic deity who progressively revealed himself in a cumulative on-going revelation that transcended the concrete, objective revelation in Jesus Christ. It might have been possible, on the basis of Scripture alone, to debate their interpretations of various texts. Once their theological presuppositions were in place, however, their interpretations were unassailable. If, however, the hermeneutic was approached theologically, it was easy to see that their hermeneutic presupposed a heterodox image of God which distorted their understanding of Scripture.

One other example might be instructive. I was raised in a church that considered the Bible inerrant and infallible. Its members read Scripture according to the plain meaning of the text. Even so, their operant theology was not really Trinitarian or Incarnational. In actual practice, they were as much deist as anything, reading Scripture as religious facts to which they gave assent. Their religious beliefs were biblical and conservative, but in actual practice, they did not believe in a living God who could personally address them or act miraculously in their lives. They had no creed, nor were they aware of the reality of God as proclaimed in the Creed. As a result, their interpretations of Scripture were impoverished and sterile.

The two previous examples are symptomatic of the fact that our pluralistic, post-Christian culture no longer, if it ever did, possesses sufficient theological unity to make sense of Scripture. In the minds of many people, the Bible can be used to say most anything. In a period of similar cultural diversity, Irenaeus advocated apostolic doctrine as the key to right interpretation. This needs to be emphasized. I agree with the principles of biblical interpretation given in the AMiA's Solemn Declaration, but would want to add that Scripture be interpreted in light of the Creeds. This is Anglican.(4)

I have spent a significant portion of this paper discussing theology, and do so because in my life as an Anglican, I have seen so little theology actually practiced by the Church. The results have been catastrophic. If Anglicanism is to have a future, it must be thoroughly theological. Those in leadership, especially teachers and preachers, must be educated in the great doctrines of the faith, committed to them, and versed in how to apply them to concrete matters before the Church. Further, in the realignment of the Anglican Communion, I hope that the AMiA remains true to its guiding principles, only entering into fellowship with Anglicans who affirm Anglican theological norms. The recent actions by the Diocese of Nigeria, no longer defining itself institutionally through Canterbury, but in terms of doctrine and Scripture, are the way forward. If what has happened in the Episcopal Church means anything, it means that doctrine and discipline belong to the essence of the Church. Finally, in spite of the attention given in recent decades to hermeneutics, I have not seen the sufficient attention paid to the relation between theology and biblical interpretation. I think that this relationship points the way forward for regaining a vital sense of Scripture in our time as the living Word of God written.

The Work of the Spirit

Philip Jenkins, the author of The Next Christendom, makes the claim that the center of Christianity is shifting from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere. This is happening because Southern Churches proclaim a dynamic gospel of a living Jesus who does today what Scripture proclaims he did in the flesh. What, according to Jenkins, is the fundamental difference between North and South? He states the matter simply, "If there is a single key area of faith and practice that divides Northern and Southern Christians, it is this matter of spiritual forces and their effects on the everyday human world. The issue goes to the heart of cultural definition and world views."(5)

What are these forces that have effects on the "everyday human world?" These forces are the spiritual powers found on every page of the New Testament--God, the risen Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the devil and his angels, principalities and powers. For many Christians in the North, however, the world is devoid of such forces. As a result, the statements of theology and the biblical language itself do not ultimately refer to supernatural realities, but to ordinary life seen "in depth," to use a phrase of Anglican theologian John Macquarrie. From this point of view, the supernatural world of the New Testament, as well as the "primitive" worldview of our southern neighbors, is a cultural artifact no longer credible in the world of the internet, space travel, and genetic engineering.

I believe the Southern Churches are right and the so-called "first world" is wrong. They are right because they follow Jesus in this respect and the North does not. A great many of clergy, theologians, and laity of the North have not entered into the supernatural reality of the risen Jesus. Too few have received the power of the Spirit, followed Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil, overcome evil in Jesus' Name, and sorted out Truth from error through temptation, hard study, and personal crucifixion. Since so many have not entered this supernatural realm, they do not preach the gospel with power, nor do they heal the sick and cast out demons, nor do they teach the way to a living God, nor do they crucify the flesh with its lusts to walk in newness of life. That is what is missing in many churches of the North America.

Should we, as Anglicans, proclaim this supernatural reality? I do not believe that it lies at the center of the Anglicanism as formulated in the 16th century. That, however, is not the primary norm. The primary norm for Anglicanism is Scripture, and on this matter, Scripture is clear. Further, Anglicanism was a reform movement returning to the teaching of the Church Fathers. There, however, the issue is equally clear. The Church of the first few centuries, including its theologians, proclaimed the vital supernatural life of the New Testament as a living reality in their time. I think, for example, of Augustine who, in his City of God, related numerous healing miracles; or of Gregory the Great who, in commenting on Mark 5:1-20, the story of the Gadarene demoniac, stated that a "legion of demons has been, as I believe, cast out of me;"(6) or of Athanasius who, speaking of the resurrection, claimed that Jesus was risen because he was alive and doing today what the Bible proclaimed he did in the flesh. Here is Athanasius.

But they who disbelieve in the resurrection afford a strong proof against themselves, if instead of all the spirits and the gods worshipped by them casting out Christ, who, they say, is dead, Christ on the contrary proves them all to be dead. For if it be true that one dead can exert no power, while the Saviour does daily so many works, drawing men to religion, persuading to virtue, teaching of immortality, leading on to a desire for heavenly things, revealing the knowledge of the Father, inspiring strength to meet death, showing himself to each one, and displacing the godlessness of idolatry, and the gods and spirits of the unbelievers can do none of these things, but rather show themselves dead at the presence of Christ, their pomp being reduced to impotence and vanity--whereas by the sign of the cross all magic is stopped, and all witchcraft brought to nought, and all the idols are being deserted and left, and every unruly pleasure is checked, and everyone is looking up from earth to heaven--whom is one to pronounce dead? Christ, that is doing so many works? but to work is not proper to one dead.(7)

The Anglican Reformers addressed the critical theological issues of the 16th century. A critical issue of our time is the explosive growth of those churches that proclaim a supernatural, living God. Anglicanism must address this matter, and do so in light of the New Testament and the patristic witness. What is needed is a theology of the Spirit that places the gifts of the Spirit in their proper context, grounded in Word, Sacrament, church order, and authority, so that the gifts of the Spirit will not become ends in themselves, but make their proper contribution to an ordered life in Christ. Anglicanism can make a vital contribution to Christendom at this point because we possess the requisite biblical, theological, and liturgical resources. If Anglicanism is to be a vital presence in the world today, it must minister in the power of the Spirit, believing as Athanasius believed, that Jesus is alive, doing the works of God as only he can do. This needs to be the norm, not the exception.

There may be some, however, who would think that we, as Anglicans, are not obligated to adopt Pentecostal or charismatic practices. Let me turn again to Hooker. In Book IV he discusses the Puritan claims that the English Church must abolish all papist ceremonies simply because they are papist. Hooker replies that what makes something right or wrong is not whether it is practiced by someone else, but whether it is enjoined or denied by Scripture, or if not addressed by Scripture, whether it is helpful or not in the practice of faith. But the works of Jesus, the gifts of the Spirit, are proclaimed in Scripture as the saving acts of God manifested in and by his church, as much now as then.

Church and Society

Since the 16th century, the West has experienced profound social, economic, and cultural changes. I think of the Discoveries, the breakup of Christendom, the formation of nation states, the scientific revolution, Darwin, Freud, the rise of capitalism and the formation of a global economy. We no longer live in a Christian culture. The world, at least as I have known it, is pagan. Its pagan values of status, wealth, and power are manifested in the global economic system, in the media, in the disregard to human life, born or unborn, and in government reliance on war as the solution to complex problems. People are killing themselves and others by adherence to these values, and subjecting millions to abject poverty through a global economic system that does not justly distribute wealth. The Church, at least in the early period of Anglicanism, was a major player in the formation of society and almost no one believed that social life should be separated from Christian faith. That is no longer the case. What then, should the Church do, and what should Anglicans do in this new world? I can only give a few suggestions.

First, Anglicans have always believed that the Church must play a significant role in social affairs. I don't know of a single Anglican thinker, from Hooker, to F.D. Maurice, to William Temple, who thought otherwise. A great deal of Anglican social thought, however, was worked out in a nation with a state Church, namely England. What is needed is a theology of Church, state, and economic matters that sees the church in the context of a pagan environment. To that end, I would begin with the work of Karl Barth, especially the theology developed in opposition to Nazism.

In addition to a theological perspective, which I think is vital, what else must be done? The gospel must be preached and that gospel concerns repentance, turning away from idols to worship the living God. In my view, two idols are particularly prominent in the United States, nationalism and the pursuit of wealth. These must be addressed, and my experience has been that when these idols are confronted, there is resistance. Further, the Church in its inner life is heir to a great social tradition, the biblical teaching on justice, mercy, and concern for the poor. Until last year, I was an Episcopalian and had been for thirty-five years. Essentially, the structure of the church was corporate with bishops acting as corporate executives and paid accordingly. Few churches actually bridged racial and social barriers. The radical society of Jesus who associated with the poor and outcast scarcely existed. Church members rarely tithed. What a difference it would make if church members, at least in their inner life, manifested that great social tradition found in Scripture. How wonderful it would be if this relationship that the AMiA has with Rwanda and Southeast Asia were one of reciprocal blessing in which we actually helped one another, not only in preaching the gospel, but in the gospel, addressed the terrible social and economic needs faced by our respective countries. What a blessing that would be. What a witness. Further, and finally, there is a place for prophetic ministry. The prophets not only spoke against and for Israel, but against and for the nations. In the name of a biblical faith injustice must be exposed, and not by liberals who rarely get to the root of things, sin and the cross, but by believers, by those who know the Lord Jesus as the only savior, who are willing to call the nation to repentance, repentance for corporate evils as well as individual sins, and do so for the honor of God and the sake of the lost. If Anglicanism, or Christendom for that matter, is to have a vital future, it must address, biblically, theologically, and pastorally, the terrible social problems that now afflict our world.

Endnotes

1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,4,2.
2. Francis M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 18.
3. Ibid., p. 21.
4. See The Study of Anglicanism, edited by Stephen Sykes and John Booty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), pp. 91, 96.
5. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 123.
6. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament II: Mark, edited by Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 71.
7. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, The Library of Christian Classics. Volume III, Christology of the Later Fathers, edited by Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 85.