I recently had a nice long chat with an Anglo-Catholic priest and we discussed the issue of authority and how their understanding differs from Rome and its Magisterium, from the models that seek to place Scripture, Reason, and Tradition on par, and Protestant understandings of Sola Scriptura.
I have long argued that most claims of Sola Scriptura are in fact bogus and very few even come close to holding that doctrine. Usually it is buried under Confessions, denominational traditions, all manner of syncretism, and at best is watered down by a weak understanding or sometimes outright rejection of the idea of Sufficiency.
In other cases the Sufficiency of Scripture is invoked but used as a launchpad for a philosophical-theological project to build civilisation. The Scriptures are appealed to while economic, social, and political systems are developed along with aesthetics and much else, but even a quick study reveals these systems quickly leave the Scriptures behind and in fact have little to do with them. And why? Because the Scriptures (and in particular the New Testament) aren't interested in such questions. At best these models appeal in ad hoc and often arbitrary fashion to Old Testament forms which are stripped of their typology and (whether deliberate or not) secularised. It's the great irony of this project - often associate with Abraham Kuyper. It literally saws off the branch upon which it sits. It seeks to sacralize society to counter secularism but in fact simply secularizes the Church and Christian epistemology.
The priest took issue with the approach to theology exhibited in some of the Point/Counterpoint series or the books that present 'Four Views' on this or 'Five Views' on that, books that some readers will be familiar with. The editors will group together various academics from say a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and perhaps Catholic background. Each writes an essay which is then critiqued by the other scholars. It's kind of a wooden debate but the exchanges are interesting. It of course depends also on how sharp and perceptive the participants are. I possess many of these books and have found them both interesting and helpful at times.
The priest in question doesn't like them. For him it smacks of this notion that you just put all the options on the table and then you choose which one you like best, which one you think is right. It's a kind of a 'choose your own theology' as it were.
That's not how theology should be done. That's not how a consensus is reached.
For him, the doctrine is to be presented and submitted to. It's not to be bandied about or debated.
I've heard Lutherans like Jordan Cooper argue this way and express comfort in the Lutheran tradition and its rigid subscriptional demands. You're either on board with the Book of Concord or you're not. The latitude in the Reformed Confessional tradition is to him a great weakness and source of disunity. Other such as myself find the supposed latitude within Reformed Confessionalism to by stifling and though more generous than its Lutheran cousin - no less a departure from Scripture.
And so I am unconvinced by this line of thought. For the priest in question comes from an Evangelical background. He questioned and challenged his system and it led him someplace else.
It often seems that the idea is that once you arrive at their system - lock the doors and turn off the light switch. There are no more questions and no more options. I've even had Reformed pastors express this to me - if not in those exact words.
And yet why should I pick the Anglo-Catholic system? Or the Lutheran? Or the Reformed? How do I judge who is right? Why wouldn't I then just go down the street to the Roman Church? Why should I reject their claims? Rome can certainly make a rigorous historical argument - not on Scripture but on other bases, and they can use Scripture (or at least attempt to do so) in order to make their case.
Once again there must be a standard. There must be an authority. Ironically for the Anglo-Catholic priest it was a dissatisfied restlessness and intuition that drove him toward the Church Fathers - though he admits there is no consensus patrum. And yet why Anglo-Catholicism and not simply Rome or Constantinople? The arguments while compelling for him are far from convincing for me.
The Scriptures must be studied and meditated upon. The nature of theology and hermeneutics must be determined. These things take time and will always be evolving to some extent. The claims of Church History must be considered. It's not easy. I find that those who simply 'sign on' with a group have found an 'easy out' - almost akin to cheating or jumping the line. They find their groove and then rest there and condemn those who won't join with them.
And in the case of Confessionalists or Arch-Traditionalists, there is no modification, no questioning permitted - certainly not from 'lay' folk. These models always result in hierarchical or oligarchic rule, which it must be admitted has some advantages. You might enter a generic Protestant church with a hope for change - less so with a Confessionalist body, but it's simply out of the question when it comes to the High Church and a succession-based hierarchy.
This thinking doesn't even conform with what the New Testament itself teaches where we are repeatedly warned about false teachers and their subtle ways of deception. The way is narrow and the image of a False Church looms large even at the close of the Apostolic Age. This is not to say the aforementioned men in question are part of this False Church or lost. That's not at all what I am implying but rather I find their criteria wanting and guilty of begging the question.
They would say the same about me.
So once again, we have to ask, how is this resolved?
Open the Scriptures and make your case but that might mean that the Confessions have no real bearing or that you might have to come down from your throne. Your robes are impressive in terms of craftsmanship and cost - but they convey no authority not granted from Scripture.
All that said, I found aspects of the meeting to be refreshing and while I cannot embrace their model, I find many aspects of their doctrine laudable - while others far less so. They have their errors and in other cases they are guilty of playing theological games as they are desperately trying to incorporate Medieval liturgical language and concepts from Late Antiquity into a non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox theological framework. For them, the 'Golden Age' is from Nicaea (325) to the Great Schism of 1054. After this, the Papacy became the Imperial Papacy and its claims led to Crusades, Inquisitions, and the many outrageous claims made by the popes. Scholasticism would emerge from this period and much else they rightly reject.
The advocate Old Catholicism emerging from a loosely Protestant context. Eastern Orthodoxy is always on the periphery in terms of the liturgy and doctrinal understanding. I prefer their worship to the New Calvinist Evangelical congregation I currently attend but it's not a line I can easily cross and at best I would be opting for it out of mere pragmatic concerns - the reverence above all with some affinity for doctrine. I am certainly more 'high' than most Reformed and find little to resonate within the sphere of Baptist doctrine.
But I cannot embrace the premise of what they're doing. That said, the sheer irreverence, doctrinal minimalism, and bankrupt ecclesiology that marks the New Calvinist congregation is perhaps just as problematic.
I found it refreshing to discover the priest in question has a clear understanding of Dominionism and rejects it. In his opinion the fall of Christendom is probably a healthy development for the Church. Needless to say I did not argue. And yet his circles which include the Reformed Episcopalians are replete with such Dominionists and not a few Theonomists. Ray Sutton holds the top position in the Reformed Episcopal Church (now affiliated with the ACNA) and he is an old disciple of Rushdoony and Gary North.
And how should I evaluate their claims? Would not a Point/Counterpoint book help people to understand their differences and the nature of the debate?
I appreciate many of his points but I cannot accept his arguments.