Anglicanism as Western Orthodoxy: Shall We Gather at The
Richard M. Wright
(Note: I am not happy with this article. Please consider it a first rough draft that needs plenty of work.)
Whither Anglicanism? And how might (Eastern) Orthodoxy provide some guidance for its survival?
Two years ago I had lunch with a friend of mine who serves as an Episcopal priest here in
Those who promote and defend the changes and innovations within the Episcopal Church often argue that they are not departing from Christianity in general or Anglicanism in particular. That in fact the course they chart is faithful to the quintessence of the Anglican tradition. And they resent and protest strongly efforts by other Anglican provinces – especially in the Global South – to correct the Episcopal Church.
Which gets back to the questions I asked my friend. On what basis can more “traditional” Anglicans critique the “liberal” direction of the Episcopal Church? On what basis can the more “liberal” Episcopal Church work toward reconciliation with the rest of the Anglican Communion?
There are some – especially among the more “traditional” – who would say what is important is whether one is “in communion with” the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Which I think is profoundly weak – although there are precedents.) Or the quintessence of Anglicanism is the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. (Which I think is much better – although even this has a problem or two.) Some more traditional Anglicans have crossed the
I suggested at the time that the early church model of conciliar Christianity might be the way forward – the consensus of the church (here, the Anglican Communion) as discerned (through the leading of the Holy Spirit) and expressed by a council of bishops. Surely episcopacy (bishops) is one of the essential and distinguishing features of Anglican Christianity – whether one understands “apostolic succession” in terms of succession of true teaching (the more Protestant/Reformed understanding of episcopacy) or of sacramental (comm)unity (the more Anglo-Catholic understanding of episcopacy; see Eric Mascall, Corpus Christi Essays on the Church and the Eucharist
If from 2004 to 2006 I studied closely Anglicanism, this year I have focused on (Eastern) Orthodoxy. And it is within Orthodoxy that I believe I have found much that can speak to the Anglican tradition and its current turmoil.
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I had lunch with a(nother) group of Episcopal clergy friends in which I shared this idea, and their reaction was, “Yes! Of course!” They agreed emphatically that Anglicanism needs to take a few pages from the Orthodox playbook. In the car on the way back one of these friends shared his conviction that Anglicanism can best be understood as “Western Orthodoxy”. Just as one can speak of Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion is more essentially a (the?) Western Orthodox church. (Which raises some questions which I will return to later.)
(Do note that the above paragraph articulates two implicit propositions in tension with each other. That Anglicanism is Western Orthodoxy. And that Anglicanism should learn from – and thereby understand itself more in terms of – Orthodoxy. One proposition assumes what Anglicanism already is. The other proposes what Anglicanism should be. Perhaps one can say, Anglicanism must understand itself even more in terms of [as Western] Orthodoxy.)
It is primarily Orthodoxy’s epistemology that I believe offers much to Anglican Christianity – not to mention all Christian traditions including the Baptist. What is Christian truth? And how we do know what it is?
One element of the Anglican crisis (pardon the term) is what do we do with Scripture? Anglicanism also depends upon Christian tradition. What were the teachings and practices of the early church? What about the (seven) ecumenical councils? What about the beginnings of the Anglican tradition – Cranmer, Hooker, and so on? Tradition – however one understands that – guides how we interpret Scripture. Not to mention how we understand the nature and authority of Scripture. Tradition provides a crucial framework for both what is the Bible? And what does the Bible teach (or mean)?
John Meyendorff in his essay “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” (in Daniel Clendenin, ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology,: A Contemporary Reader
Hence a series of false problems, like that of the primacy of Scripture or of tradition, of their respective authority, of the total or partial difference of their content. How is the necessity of knowing Scripture through the tradition to be proved? How is their unity, which was ignored in separating them, to be found again? If the two of “fullness”, there can be no question of two pleromas opposed to one another, but of two modalities of one and the same fullness of revelation communicated to the church. (“Tradition and Traditions”, in Daniel Clendenin, ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology, 127)
I am not convinced that Anglicanism must agree with Lossky. But it is important, if one wishes to learn from Orthodoxy, to understand that Orthodoxy does not teach “we understand Scripture through the lens of tradition” but rather “Scripture and tradition are simply two ‘modalities’ of the one reality we call revelation”.
There is some room for debate concerning how Anglicanism can borrow from Orthodox ideas about “sources of theology”.
There will also be some room for debate concerning how Anglicanism can learn from Orthodox ideas about how we discern Christian truth. Because Orthodoxy would warn us that neither tradition nor Scripture must be understood as external authorities: “The Orthodox view theology as internal vision, which requires personal, ascetic effort. It does not require an individual effort only, however, but a communal effort, an effort made within the communion of saints” (Meyendorff, 87). Lossky also states concerning tradition, “It does not impose on human consciousness formal guarantees of the truths of faith, but gives access to the discovery of their inner evidence. Tradition is not the content of revelation, but the light that reveals it” (133).
One can immediately imagine liberals in the Episcopal Church responding, “Of course! That is exactly what we have been doing. That is what we mean when we say we are just following the movement of the Spirit”. Although it is possible – indeed probable – that liberals use the language of orthodoxy – and of Orthodoxy – without truly grasping the substance thereof.
For this reason (among others). Meyendorff offers this excellent summary of how one does theology within Orthodox Christianity:
[Orthodox theology] presupposes the existence of a catholic church that receives the fullness of divine revelation for the sake of the salvation of all people. This church has existed since Pentecost, preserving the apostolic message and interpreting it in all languages for the sake of all human societies. Therefore the theologian who belongs to it must make sure that his theology is consistent with that of the apostles and the Fathers. (95)
Two critical differences between this and what one finds in the Episcopal Church are (1) that the Episcopal Church tends to say, “This is what the Spirit is doing” and ignores or openly rejects what the rest of the Anglican Communion has to say. And (2) that the Episcopal Church runs roughshod over both Christian tradition and the plain sense of Scripture. Meyendorff continues:
… of the apostles and the Father, but also – precisely because the church is catholic – he is called to rejoice in everything that is true, beautiful, and holy, even beyond the visible limits of the church, because all true and beautiful realities belong to the one church of Christ… Only that which is false and sinful must be rejected. (op cit.)
Again – reappraisers (a recent and broadly accepted term for liberals within the Anglican tradition) might claim that innovations in the Episcopal Church represent rejoicing in what is true, beautiful, and holy outside what is identifiably or explicitly Christian. “We know better than those ancient people who wrote the Bible”. But at what point would they reject what is false and sinful?
In short – and I have done a poor job of exploring this above – Orthodoxy may offer (or illuminate) how one can do theology and maintain (broad) unity of faith and practice without resorting either to unity-enforced-by-a-powerful-leader or to a rigid-and-rationalistic-propositionalism. One has order – but one that is more organic and arises out of consensus and the leading of the Holy Spirit. One has a balance of Scripture and tradition. Inner vision and external discussion. Dogmatic boundaries with plenty of freedom for new understanding of revelation. It is precisely this balanced character of Anglicanism that may represent its unique genius. Dare we say its quintessence.
One final caution. I am excited by this understanding of Anglicanism as Western Orthodoxy. (To understand Anglicanism one must understand Orthodoxy. Anglicanism is Orthodoxy in the West.) I am convinced this is a powerful and helpful way for the Anglican tradition to understand itself and to work through some of its current confusion and conflict(edness). My only concern is so what happens to Anglicanism as Protestant(ism)? To put it crassly – how would Anglicanism-as-Western-Orthodoxy play with evangelicals? at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry? What would Paul Zahl say? Do not Anglicans of a more evangelical stripe more typically argue that Anglicanism is Reformed Catholicism with the emphasis on Reformed? That the quintessence of Anglicanism is (or includes primarily) the distinctive principles of the Reformation? Grace alone. Faith alone. Scripture alone. (Although I do not know if evangelical Anglicans can assent to sola scriptura.)
Frankly I resonate with both flavors of the Anglican tradition – the more evangelical and the more Anglo-Catholic. Is it possible to bring both together? Can Anglicanism understand itself (even more) and function as both Western Orthodoxy and Protestantism?
Pingback: Metropolitan Jonah and Anglicanism as Western Orthodoxy redux at Live the Trinity