![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on the Current Anglican Debates
Jun. 25th, 2007 01:28 pmI said I'd defer making comments about the theology and ecclesiology of SSB's.
Here are a few inconclusive ones.
First, the difference between Protestant and Catholic hermeneutics looms very large here. Most Evangelicals and low churchmen tend to assume (1) that scripture is largely self-interpreting and (2) has a unique place of authority over even the Church. Anglo-Catholics and high churchmen treat scripture as a creation of the Church, and centres authority in scripture only as interpreted by the Church, which provides the definitive interpretative community. In an Anglican context, this is complicated by the fact that not only are there no more General Councils of the Church to rule on matters, there is no pretence of the Anglican Communion to "be" the universal Church. (Rome may not constitute all the Church, but it claims to be it, regardless of the views of, say, the Eastern Orthodox). As long as doctrine is taken to be something essentially static and fixed, a closed set (as tends to be the view of the Orthodox, -- but don't probe too deeply about Palamite theology) this raises no problem, but if one accepts the more Western / Newmannian approach to doctrine as developing over time, it raises problems.
Does a local (i.e. national) synod have the authority to make determinations involving doctrine at all, from any sort of Catholic point of view? During the conciliar period the pattern was (typically) that different positions were taken by different local synods, which escalated to General Councils, which made final determinations. Those determinations might be received or not (if not, the Council would not be considered a valid General Council). It took centuries for Arian Christianity to disappear, and technically Monophysite Churches not only still exist but are recognized as orthodox in the West despite their use of language which differs from the standard language of the Eastern Orthodox -- so if they have not received the conciliar teachings, but are still "orthodox", then should the council's status be reevaluated?
It may be generations before any question is settled, on this model, especially given the other social pressures in differing societies affecting many open questions.
Secondly, I'm inclined to be antsy when we start to go against the teaching and practice of both Rome and the Eastern Churches. (Of course, on that basis, women's orders are an even bigger question). However, it's also true that if an apparently valid and convincing theological argument for something is put forward, it deserves consideration, especially if the novelty of the argument is called forth by genuinely novel conditions to which it is a response; and if other bodies are by their institutional nature going to be less flexible, we can't simply take the lack of reception by those bodies as proof that the arguments are wrong. However, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that we should take that lack of reception as a signal to move very slowly indeed.
Thirdly, views on matters related to this have changed in the past. The entire Church used to consider usury to be just as much against nature as sodomy[1].
Similarly, in the Anglican Church, contraception has been not only allowed -- since the Lambeth Conference in 1930 -- but encouraged in a number of contexts for most of my lifetime. The underlying theology supporting contraception was basically part of that rejecting homosexual sex: the idea that sex had a principal telos of the generation of children, that every sexual act should be open to the possibility of conception, and that deliberately sterile sex violated the end to which it was created. (Even the Roman position as elucidated in Humanae Vitae, allowing one form of non-barrier contraception runs into this problem.) So from an Anglican perspective one needs to accept that differences in theology with reference to contraception are not serious enough to force one to leave the Church in protest. (One needn't agree with the position: it's quite possible to be an Anglican and reject contraception, just as long as you can get along with those who support it, just as I may believe in transubstantiation but as an Anglican have to get along with Low Churchmen who don't.) The shifts in theology necessary to allow for contraception also affect the theology of marriage, willy-nilly.
So we need to take seriously the question of at least considering the challenge of redefining the doctrines surrounding these matters, because it has already been raised as an issue by prior received changes, to take account not only of changing social context but also of other matters. For example, discussion of the telos of particular characteristics of humanity becomes more complex if one accepts the current state of scientific thought regarding the evolution of animal life, and the ways in which environmental pressures rather than immediate divine design play a role in the form that sex takes in the human species.
One of the worrisome things, of course, is that working through a consistent theology from first principles might lead to conclusions we generally don't want. (Here's a thought experiment. Assume that within the next twenty years a combination of anti-aging therapy aimed at telomere reduction and effective anti-cancer and other general therapies extend the normal healthy human life expectancy to 200 years. What would you expect society's response to be with regard to marriage as a lifetime state? What should the Church's response be? When does a changed context mean that general rules have to be re-examined?)
However, this isn't happening at an official level. The studies undertaken or proposed are narrowly fixated on the single issue of same-sex unions, not on the more general underlying theological underpinnings. The questions referred to the Primate's Theological Commission for 2010, in particular, are too narrowly focussed. (Individuals have done more. I haven't read Rowan Williams -- in his academic persona before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury -- but he seems to have done work along these lines.)
And attempts to redefine the overall theological field are not predetermined to produce the results that social pressure wants, either. The project can't be ends-driven, even though it may take as input changed circumstances and more detailed understanding of things. One of the depressing things about the current debate is the degree to which both sides have dug in with fixed conclusions which then leave them to fiddle their premises.[2]
Even once a strong, consistent theological case is made, we still have that problem of how much authority we can take as appropriate at a local rather than a general level. But without the underlying reworking, any new positions are taking a leap in the dark.
[1] Patristic, Mediaeval, and early modern Christian thought doesn't have a concept of "homosexuality", but simply condemned actual sexual activity between members of the same sex. This tends to mean that about 90% of the discussion of things like "same-sex couples" is very difficult to ground in classical Christian theology, since at least that much of a couple's interactions have nothing to do at all directly with sex.
[2] To be fair, the conservative Evangelical view doesn't make a purely ends-driven argument; but since it is also grounded in a hermeneutic which is to my mind both naive and overly simplistic (and doesn't match the way the Church has actually functioned over the ages) I find it almost as depressing as the back-end first approaches of the other sides.
Here are a few inconclusive ones.
First, the difference between Protestant and Catholic hermeneutics looms very large here. Most Evangelicals and low churchmen tend to assume (1) that scripture is largely self-interpreting and (2) has a unique place of authority over even the Church. Anglo-Catholics and high churchmen treat scripture as a creation of the Church, and centres authority in scripture only as interpreted by the Church, which provides the definitive interpretative community. In an Anglican context, this is complicated by the fact that not only are there no more General Councils of the Church to rule on matters, there is no pretence of the Anglican Communion to "be" the universal Church. (Rome may not constitute all the Church, but it claims to be it, regardless of the views of, say, the Eastern Orthodox). As long as doctrine is taken to be something essentially static and fixed, a closed set (as tends to be the view of the Orthodox, -- but don't probe too deeply about Palamite theology) this raises no problem, but if one accepts the more Western / Newmannian approach to doctrine as developing over time, it raises problems.
Does a local (i.e. national) synod have the authority to make determinations involving doctrine at all, from any sort of Catholic point of view? During the conciliar period the pattern was (typically) that different positions were taken by different local synods, which escalated to General Councils, which made final determinations. Those determinations might be received or not (if not, the Council would not be considered a valid General Council). It took centuries for Arian Christianity to disappear, and technically Monophysite Churches not only still exist but are recognized as orthodox in the West despite their use of language which differs from the standard language of the Eastern Orthodox -- so if they have not received the conciliar teachings, but are still "orthodox", then should the council's status be reevaluated?
It may be generations before any question is settled, on this model, especially given the other social pressures in differing societies affecting many open questions.
Secondly, I'm inclined to be antsy when we start to go against the teaching and practice of both Rome and the Eastern Churches. (Of course, on that basis, women's orders are an even bigger question). However, it's also true that if an apparently valid and convincing theological argument for something is put forward, it deserves consideration, especially if the novelty of the argument is called forth by genuinely novel conditions to which it is a response; and if other bodies are by their institutional nature going to be less flexible, we can't simply take the lack of reception by those bodies as proof that the arguments are wrong. However, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that we should take that lack of reception as a signal to move very slowly indeed.
Thirdly, views on matters related to this have changed in the past. The entire Church used to consider usury to be just as much against nature as sodomy[1].
With usura hath no man a house of good stoneAt least in the West, this has been abandoned, or so radically changed by redefining usury from the charging of any interest to the charging of excessive interest that the underlying theology has also been dropped -- it is no longer condemned because increase in money on its own is considered unnatural, but because unduly high interest rates are a serious hardship in a social justice context.
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that delight might cover their face,with usura
hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luthes
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision...
Similarly, in the Anglican Church, contraception has been not only allowed -- since the Lambeth Conference in 1930 -- but encouraged in a number of contexts for most of my lifetime. The underlying theology supporting contraception was basically part of that rejecting homosexual sex: the idea that sex had a principal telos of the generation of children, that every sexual act should be open to the possibility of conception, and that deliberately sterile sex violated the end to which it was created. (Even the Roman position as elucidated in Humanae Vitae, allowing one form of non-barrier contraception runs into this problem.) So from an Anglican perspective one needs to accept that differences in theology with reference to contraception are not serious enough to force one to leave the Church in protest. (One needn't agree with the position: it's quite possible to be an Anglican and reject contraception, just as long as you can get along with those who support it, just as I may believe in transubstantiation but as an Anglican have to get along with Low Churchmen who don't.) The shifts in theology necessary to allow for contraception also affect the theology of marriage, willy-nilly.
So we need to take seriously the question of at least considering the challenge of redefining the doctrines surrounding these matters, because it has already been raised as an issue by prior received changes, to take account not only of changing social context but also of other matters. For example, discussion of the telos of particular characteristics of humanity becomes more complex if one accepts the current state of scientific thought regarding the evolution of animal life, and the ways in which environmental pressures rather than immediate divine design play a role in the form that sex takes in the human species.
One of the worrisome things, of course, is that working through a consistent theology from first principles might lead to conclusions we generally don't want. (Here's a thought experiment. Assume that within the next twenty years a combination of anti-aging therapy aimed at telomere reduction and effective anti-cancer and other general therapies extend the normal healthy human life expectancy to 200 years. What would you expect society's response to be with regard to marriage as a lifetime state? What should the Church's response be? When does a changed context mean that general rules have to be re-examined?)
However, this isn't happening at an official level. The studies undertaken or proposed are narrowly fixated on the single issue of same-sex unions, not on the more general underlying theological underpinnings. The questions referred to the Primate's Theological Commission for 2010, in particular, are too narrowly focussed. (Individuals have done more. I haven't read Rowan Williams -- in his academic persona before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury -- but he seems to have done work along these lines.)
And attempts to redefine the overall theological field are not predetermined to produce the results that social pressure wants, either. The project can't be ends-driven, even though it may take as input changed circumstances and more detailed understanding of things. One of the depressing things about the current debate is the degree to which both sides have dug in with fixed conclusions which then leave them to fiddle their premises.[2]
Even once a strong, consistent theological case is made, we still have that problem of how much authority we can take as appropriate at a local rather than a general level. But without the underlying reworking, any new positions are taking a leap in the dark.
[1] Patristic, Mediaeval, and early modern Christian thought doesn't have a concept of "homosexuality", but simply condemned actual sexual activity between members of the same sex. This tends to mean that about 90% of the discussion of things like "same-sex couples" is very difficult to ground in classical Christian theology, since at least that much of a couple's interactions have nothing to do at all directly with sex.
[2] To be fair, the conservative Evangelical view doesn't make a purely ends-driven argument; but since it is also grounded in a hermeneutic which is to my mind both naive and overly simplistic (and doesn't match the way the Church has actually functioned over the ages) I find it almost as depressing as the back-end first approaches of the other sides.
