Who Do You Say I Am? An Orthodox Anglican View

Commentary by Robin G. Jordan

In writing his article, Who do you say I am? (Wednesday Journal 4/10/07) Tom Holmes appears to have turned its writing over to the “liberal” Episcopal clergy that he quotes in the article and let them write the article for him. The article is one-sided and is filled with inaccuracies.

Mr. Holmes' article leads the reader to believe that Archbishop Orombi and the other primates did not sit down with the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church at the Dar es Salaam Primates' Meeting. While they threatened not to sit down with her before the meeting, they did not carry out this threat. The primary reason Archbishop Orombi and the other primates talked about refusing to sit down with Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori was because their provinces had declared a state of broken or impaired communion exist between their provinces and the Episcopal Church, resulting from the Episcopal Church’s unilateral decision to break with the teaching of the Bible and the Church and to consecrate as bishop a man involved in a same sex relationship. The African provinces’ objection to the consecration had more to do with Gene Robinson’s way of life than with his sexual orientation. It fell short of the New Testament standards for bishop which these provinces, unlike the Episcopal Church, believe are binding upon the Church as much in our time as in times past. Orombi and the other primates, however, did sit down with Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori at the Dar es Salaam Primates' Meeting but subsequently refused to receive Holy Communion with the Presiding Bishop because both the New Testament and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, widely used in the African provinces, teach that one must be reconciled and at peace with one’s neighbor in order to receive the sacrament. To have done so, they would not only have violated their consciences but also would have risked eating and drinking the sacrament to their own condemnation. These beliefs are a part of the Anglican tradition from which the Episcopal Church has to a large degree departed.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori herself had been involved in the confirmation and consecration of Gene Robinson, had publicly expressed support for the blessing of same sex couples, a position that also conflicts with Lambeth Resolution 1.10, the Anglican Communion’s official position on human sexuality, and had also rejected the essential Anglican and Christian doctrine of salvation in Christ alone. For those who are unfamiliar with Lambeth Resolution 1.10, it states that Anglicans understand “homosexual practice,” that is sexual activity between members of the same sex to be contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Consequently, the bishops of the Anglican Communion stated that they could not sanction the ordination of individuals involved in same sex relationships or the blessing of same sex couples. Lambeth Resolution 1.10 was adopted by the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which has normative authority in most Anglican provinces, condemns as false teachers those who reject the doctrine of salvation in Christ alone. Indeed it is the only group of individuals that the Articles declare anathema, or accursed by God.

None of these details were mentioned in Holmes’ articles.

Paris Coffey, Shawn Schreiner, and Richard Emrich all present themselves as the “real” Anglicans and the global South primates and orthodox Episcopalians as innovators who are seeking to change the Anglican tradition. However, in actuality Mss. Coffey and Schreiner, and Mr. Emrich represent the innovators and the global South primates and orthodox Episcopalians are the genuine Anglicans. What they present is a “liberal” Episcopal interpretation of the Anglican tradition, an interpretation that they would like to see predominate in the Anglican Communion, as it does in the Episcopal Church. It would make room for theological views that orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans reject such as Presiding Bishop Jeffert-Schori’s position on salvation outside of Christ.

Schreiner claims that Anglicanism has always embraced a wide latitude of theological perspectives. She suggested that the global South primates were seeking to make the Anglican Church more confessional. However, does Schreiner’s view tally with the history of the Church? The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion were adopted by the Church of England in 1562. They are, with the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal of 1662, recognized to this day by the canons (Canon A2 and Canon A5) of the Church of England as an official statement of its doctrine – what the Church believes. The Preamble and Declaration of the Church of Ireland of 1870 likewise recognizes the Thirty-Nine Articles in their 1634 version and the Anglican Prayer Book and Ordinal of 1662 as an official statement of that Church’s beliefs. Most Anglican provinces have similar provisions. In the 1880s in “The Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith” in Knots Untied Bishop John Charles Ryle documents that since their adoption in the 16th century the Thirty-Nine Articles have, for Anglicans, been their confession of faith, showing that the position the global South primates are taking is not new. Indeed it is a much more widely held position in the Anglican Church than Schreiner would have us believe and has been since the adoption of the Articles. In his opus The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles W. H. Griffith Thomas, former Professor of Systematic Theology, Wycliffe College, Toronto, and former Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, first published in 1930, shows the similarities between the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Lutheran Confessions. Both Ryle and Thomas represent a long tradition in the Anglican Church that the Thirty-Nine Articles are the Anglican confession of faith. Indeed, the full title of the Articles supports this position: Articles agreed upon for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinion, and for the stablishing of Consent touching true Religion. Schreiner, on the other hand, is a priest of a church that jettisoned the Thirty-Nine Articles. Orthodox Anglicans are not seeking make the Anglican Church more confessional; they are endeavoring to protect the Church from those who would make the Church less confessional, those who would stretch the limits of Anglican comprehensiveness to include beliefs that are not even Christian, much less Anglican!

Anglican comprehensiveness has historically extended to things that are not essential to salvation - things that we can believe or do that do not affect our relationship with God and about which Christians can differ. “Liberal” theologians in the Episcopal Church would stretch that comprehensiveness to include things essential to salvation, things that we believe or do that can affect our relationship with God. This is a significant point of departure from what has been the policy in recognizing divergent opinions in the Anglican tradition.

The more resolute have the global South primates shown themselves in opposing the theological and moral innovations of the Episcopal Church, the more hostile has the “liberal” segment of the denomination who initiated these innovations has grown toward the primates and orthodox leaders in the Episcopal Church. Indeed the denomination’s “liberal” wing has sought to blame the latter for the opposition of the global South primates. It has evidenced a strong tendency to ascribe all kinds of evil motives to the global South primates and orthodox Episcopal leaders, as does Emrich to Archbishop Akinola in the article, and to demonize them. Emrich fails to note how the Episcopal Church’s “liberal” leaders have themselves sought to influence the direction of the Anglican Communion through its various bodies and promoted their own particular theological perspective. Indeed, the Episcopal Church’s consecration of a non-celibate gay man as a bishop and its election of woman primate are seen outside the United States as an attempt on the part of the Episcopal Church not just to push the envelope in these areas but to promote its particular agenda in other provinces. Several Anglican provinces have not accepted the ordination of women. The number of Anglican provinces that ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians is even much smaller.

It is axiomatic in politics that if one wants to win an election, one must define one’s opponent before he can define himself. It is also axiomatic that if one throws enough mud, some will stick, or at least give the appearance of sticking, which is all that matters since it helps to discredit one’s opponent and to shape the electorate’s perceptions of him. A lot of that is going on in “liberal” circles in the Episcopal Church. One just has to visit the “liberal” web logs and web sites. Mr. Emrich’s views reflects the views current in those circles.

Coffey seeks to perpetuate the myths that what has united Anglicans is the Book of Common Prayer; if outsiders want to know what Anglicans believe, they should pray with Anglicans. Whatever Anglican church into which one goes, wherever in the world, whatever language is spoken, one would recognize the liturgy. What she fails to point out is that the Episcopal Church has been worshiping with a different prayer book from other Anglican churches since the 1970s. Even before the 1970s the American Prayer Book represented a different Prayer Book worship tradition from the English Prayer Book. Some provinces now use more than one service book, for example, the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Australia. The newer service books differ in their theology from the Prayer Books authorized for use in these provinces. Some of the newer service books are deliberately ambiguous to permit more than one interpretation of the texts in the service book. In the Episcopal Church and the other Anglican provinces where only one official Prayer Book is authorized, different ecclesiastical traditions had different interpretations of that Prayer Book. For example, “liberal” Episcopalians have a significantly different view of the Baptismal Covenant than do orthodox Episcopalians, overemphasizing the commitment to social justice and downplaying or ignoring the renunciation of sin. In their view this commitment trumps everything else. It is highly debatable that the revisers of the Prayer Book had intended that this highly unbalanced interpretation should be given to the Baptismal Covenant.

The idea that using the same Prayer Book unites Anglicans is certainly untenable nowadays if it ever was. So is the idea that you can learn what Anglicans believe from praying with them. An Episcopalian visiting some Church of England or Diocese of Sydney parishes has a good chance of not recognizing the liturgy even though he may understand the language. What Coffey says about recognizing the liturgy may have been true to a limited extent in the 19th century but it is not in the 21st.

The origin of the claim that the Book of Common Prayer is the fullest expression of what Anglicans believe can be traced to an attempt by 19th century high churchmen to replace the Thirty-Nine Articles with the Prayer Book as the test of an Anglican’s soundness in the faith. These high churchmen leaned toward Roman Catholicism and they disliked the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles. They interpreted the Prayer Book to “jar and contradict” the Articles and to support their theological views. Bishop Ryle, who was involved in this controversy over the Prayer Book and the Articles, wrote:

“I pass over the unreasonableness of setting up a book of devotion, like the Liturgy, as a better test of churchmanship than a confession of faith like the Articles. Prayers, in the very nature of things, are compositions which are not so precisely framed and worded as cold, dry, dogmatic statements of doctrine. They are what rhetorical speech of the advocate is, compared to the cautiously-balanced decision of the judge.”

All three Episcopal clergy misrepresent the place of Scripture, reason, and tradition in Anglicanism. They use the image of the three-legged stool which distorts the teaching of benchmark Elizabethan Anglican divine Richard Hooker who is usually credited with its origin. In Book V of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (Chapter 8, Section II) Hooker in actuality states that Scripture is the primary authority, then next reason, and finally tradition: "What Scripture doth plainly deliver it is that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason. After these the voice of the Church succeedeth". Hooker did not assert and neither does classical Anglicanism that Scripture, reason, and tradition have equal authority as do Coffey and Schreiner, and Emrich. For classical Anglicanism, as for Hooker, Scripture is the supreme authority. Hooker is also talking about how we should go about interpreting Scripture, first by Scripture, then by reason, and last of all by tradition. This is how classical Anglicanism interprets Scripture. By reason both Hooker and classical Anglicanism mean “sanctified common sense, the facility to grasp what Scripture speaks.” It is drawn out of the plain principles of Scripture themselves. Neither Hooker nor classical Anglicanism make a place for human experience in the interpretation of Scripture. They do not see “the modern experience of (sinful) life” as “a major source of revelation from God superseding or correcting that which Scripture interpreted by right reason has delivered to us.” Coffey, Schreiner and Emrich suggest that Archbishop Akinola and orthodox Anglicans are giving too much weight to Scripture but classical Anglicanism has always given more weight to Scripture than to reason or tradition. The problem is not that Archbishop Akinola and orthodox Anglicans give too much weight to Scripture but that “liberal” Episcopalians do not give enough weight. They give too much weight to human experience.

In the classical Anglican understanding of Scripture, a text can have only one meaning, the meaning that the author and ultimately the Holy Spirit intended for that passage. This meaning and only this meaning is authoritative. Any other interpretation of the text is not.

Coffey repeats a “liberal” talking point that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori herself has used, asserting that orthodox Anglicans’ focus upon the issue of human sexuality is diverting the Anglican Communion from more pressing problems. What is not acknowledged is that the Episcopal Church created the present situation. It took unilateral action on a very sensitive issue without consulting the other Anglican provinces. It put the focus upon this issue with the actions of the 2003 General Convention. To refuse to take notice of the issue as “liberal” Episcopalians would like orthodox Anglicans to do would from an orthodox Anglican perspective give tacit acceptance to those actions. However, orthodox Anglicans cannot in good conscience accept what the General Convention has done. They believe that with its actions the General Convention has jeopardized the salvation of millions. “Liberal” Episcopalians who have embraced an explicit or implicit universalism may not believe that but orthodox Anglicans do. The actions of the General Convention have also harmed the witness of their churches in their own countries. “Liberal” Episcopalians naturally would like these actions to be treated as a fait accompli. To ignore the General Convention’s actions, orthodox Anglicans realize, however, would encourage the Episcopal Church’s “liberal” leaders to take more radical steps and do even more harm.

The Episcopal Church is one of the most “liberal” provinces in the Anglican Communion, if not the most “liberal”. Beginning in the 19th century the church embarked on a course that has taken it away from the mainstream of Anglicanism. As Dr. Paul Zahl, the Dean of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, points out in The Crisis of the American Episcopal Church, “with the rise of the Oxford Movement and also the rise of theological ‘liberalism,’” the Episcopal Church has been unable to “sustain a strong Christianity identity alternative to the world.” Based upon its particular synthesis of Catholic and modernist elements, Dr. Les Fairfield, former Professor of Church History at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, now retired, classifies the main ideological force in American Episcopalianism as “Catholic Modernism”. While the three Episcopal clergy in the article would like to see themselves as Anglicans and their beliefs as Anglican, neither they nor their beliefs are. While Coffey and Schreiner believe that orthodox Anglicans want to set the parameters of what it means to be Anglican, they are themselves seeking to change the parameters of what has historically distinguished Anglicans from non-Anglicans and to impose their own criteria.

Coffey offers no explanation for why she believes that God “invited” the consecration of Gene Robinson. How does she really know that God was behind his consecration? All she has is her opinion. The benchmark Elizabethan Anglican divine John Jewel and classical Anglicanism endorse the Reformation idea that the Holy Spirit always speaks in harmony with the Scriptures. John Jewel, with Richard Hooker, was a leading theologian of the 16th century English Reformation and Tudor Settlement that has shaped the essential character of the Anglicanism of subsequent centuries. Jewel wrote that to ignore what the Scripture plainly teaches and to make a direct appeal to “God himself in the Church and in Councils” is to follow one’s own opinions. He rejected as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s leading any departure from the plain teaching of Scripture. Classical Anglicanism takes the same position: whatever goes beyond the plain teaching of Scripture or against it is devoid of the Holy Spirit. For this reason orthodox Anglicans do not accept the claims of “liberal” Episcopalians that in confirming the election of Gene Robinson, the 2003 General Convention was led by the Holy Spirit and was exercising a “prophetic ministry”. While Coffey maintains that she is Anglican, she takes from an orthodox Anglican perspective a decidedly un-Anglican view of the consecration.