https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/11/the-new-divide-in-global-anglicanism
This article interested me because it's connected to some of the recent issues I've touched on respecting Anglicanism and how the High Church tradition approaches doctrine and the question of authority.
I was not daunted by the 'thirty thousand denominations' charge against Protestantism - as if Anglicanism is an answer to this. The problem is a distraction as it focuses on the schismatic aspect of such denominations and their sundering of unity. If one removes denominations in their entirety - the problem disappears. The problem is not churches functioning separately, but denominations which create false blocs and promote division. This is also true of hierarchical factions like the Anglicans who are in the end just another denomination.
A unified form does not guarantee catholicity nor does catholicity require some kind of formalised hierarchy or institutionalisation. It's wrought by the Holy Spirit and based on fellowship and communion centering on the Word. In reality these forms and trappings (which are so heavily leaned upon by those labouring to build ecumenicity and catholicity) are actually a hindrance - because they rest on the authority of tradition, a foundation of sand.
And
so to the issue at hand - the role of tradition in the realm of
authority. A strong case can be made that the Church of the Nicene
and the other Ecumenical Councils viewed itself as a vessel and voice
of the Holy Spirit. The decrees of the Council were to function in
canonical fashion - akin to the apostolic declarations in Acts 15. If
this is so, then the Sola Scriptura view of the Reformation tradition
becomes a problem, all the more if it wants to claim something of the
Church of this period and the decrees of the councils. We will for
the sake of argument leave aside the question of whether or not the
main branches of the Magisterial Reformation tradition actually
followed through on this teaching of Sola Scriptura.
If the
claims of the Council(s) are not canonical, then we need to be
prepared to view the totality of their work in a very different, and
certainly in a non-binding light. To just adopt their Christological
and Trinitarian canons and ignore the rest is to deny the very
claims, theology, and ecclesiology undergirding these councils.
In which case the Anglican approach to doctrine through the lens of tradition and continuity should be dispensed with as their narrative insists the process stopped - at some point. At best the 'reforms' of Canterbury prove to be a return to the Church of Late Antiquity at best - already in a state of corruption and serious departure from Scripture and the Church of the New Testament. But they embrace just enough of the tradition-based authority argument to make the (what is effectively) cessation argument seem arbitrary - at least Rome and Constantinople would say so.
But if the idea of a living, organic, and evolving doctrinal tradition is embraced - then the Church has the authority - not the Bible as read by individuals. The hybrid view advocated by the Magisterial Reformation tradition strikes one as self-serving and somewhat disingenuous.
So, for the sake of argument we'll say the Living Doctrinal Tradition view is the correct understanding of authority.
Then the great conundrum is - how does the individual determine which camp is right? How does one determine whether to follow Canterbury, Rome, or Constantinople? The traditionalist Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics have an argument that is usually related to the Great Schism of 1054 - a watershed which marks the end of the Holy Spirit speaking through one united ecclesiastical body. Therefore they view themselves as returning to that pre-1054 epoch and representing the theology of that time - the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. All subsequent developments such as transubstantiation or the Hesychast practices of Orthodoxy are to be rejected. The living doctrinal traditional guided by the Holy Spirit ceased at that time - or so it is assumed.
It's a very neat and tidy package - but how to evaluate it? By what standard? There isn't one. Why not include the Fourth Council of Constantinople (or Eighth Ecumenical Council as per Rome)? Its 870 date is almost two hundred years before the final schism. At some point it all seems rather arbitrary.
The Anglicans would argue for Prima Scriptura, a variant on the idea of Sola Scriptura. Scripture is the authority but it must be read through the lens of the canonical tradition. In some respects this is similar (at least in practice) to what Lutheranism produced. It's an interesting argument but it rests on a narrative and like the narratives of Rome and Constantinople - or even that of Westminster, there must be a way to evaluate it. If not - if orthodoxy and catholicity are merely found in institutional continuity, then the only real and honest alternatives are Rome and Constantinople. Take your pick.
McDermott rightly points out that Athanasius did not oppose Arius on the basis of Scriptural authority in the way or manner of a Sola Scriptura Protestant but as one who read Scripture in light of the authoritative tradition. The same is true of Hilary of Poitiers.
It is noteworthy that those Protestants who dive deep into post-Nicene patristics often venture toward a Canterbury-type position. The question is - does the Scripture support this? The historical case is easy enough to be made, but what saith the Scriptures? And, does the ante-Nicene Church support this approach?
McDermott is right to call out the notion that the 'Bible interprets itself' - at least as many would understand that. There are cultural biases and he helpfully points out a couple of examples.
Maybe in some cases we need to worry less about synthesizing the texts into a theology and a great deal more about simply taking them at face value, preaching the text before us, and not worrying about trying to fit it all together into some kind of coherent let alone comprehensive theology. The writings of John come to mind more than any other apostle as both his gospel and his epistles provide numerous examples of such unresolved dialectic and unelaborated mystery. Many who appeal to the 'plain sense' of Scripture in fact do not do so. The prioritize and subordinate passages by using the so-called Analogy of Scripture or by means of 'common sense' or some other rational deduction.
Biblical interpretation can in fact be tricky - a point I think everyone will acknowledge. McDermott cites the struggle over women's ordination and the need for the passages to be read in light of the tradition - which forbids the practice.
I would argue the Scripture is sufficient. Those who argue for women's ordination and female leadership act in direct defiance of Scripture. They have no support. The truths of intrinsic equality in Christ revealed in a passage like Galatians 3.28 do not counter the apostle's clear statements in the pastoral epistles and 1 Corinthians. The prophetess daughters of Philip and the female prophesying mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 are extraordinary and thus related to the charismata signs of the Church's establishment - an argument that also challenges the Spirit-authority claims of the Ecumenical Councils. Paul's words in 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 are normative as are the more specific teachings in 1 Timothy 2.11-12, all of chapter 3 and 5.9ff, as well as Titus 2 regarding the woman's role and realm - which excludes them from Church leadership and public teaching. The example of Priscilla privately involved in the instruction of Apollos does not negate this and certainly demonstrates that women can be capable and wise and yet in the economy of God's Church their role is not one of public teaching or leadership. Those that take this verse and say Priscilla was a 'leader' are mistaken and reading something into the text that isn't there.
The 21st century world does not like this teaching and I think such people need to be pressed hard. Doing so will reveal that in many cases they have other problems with Scriptures as well - the real issue at stake.
The tradition supports this view of women being excluded from leadership, but the tradition also has other teachings which cannot be supported in Scripture. What then? How are we to judge such matters and the secondary questions and dilemmas they produce?
I appreciate the discussion of Justification as dealt with by McGrath and the focus on the larger question of Salvation - of which Justification is a part. It is true that the almost exclusive focus on Justification among some Protestants and Evangelicals has produced a rotten harvest in the context of individualist post-Enlightenment Western society. That said, the corporate aspects of the gospel when applied to an unwarranted concept such as Christendom, or the unscriptural idea of renewing the world this side of glory, can prove not merely distracting but harmful and even destructive.
McDermott errs when he suggests liberal theology has also relied on Sola Scriptura. On the contrary liberal theology reads Scripture through a new epistemological tradition - that of Enlightenment humanism in which man is the measure of all things. Textual criticism and pseudo-scientific methods coupled with philosophical inference drove the Church to deny the very narratives and declarations of Scripture and undermined its authority to make such declarations.
In the end McDermott suggests Prima Scriptura is the correct way to understand and apply the concept of Sola Scriptura. He helpfully points out some of the difficulties with Sola Scriptura but doesn't pursue the fact that this doctrine has several different ways of being understood. Nor does he touch on the notion of sufficiency and how without it - Sola Scriptura becomes a misnomer as reason (so called) and tradition flesh out a theological system and eventually undermines the authority of Scripture.
The article is helpful in understanding an alternative angle and its easy to see why this would appeal to some. I have and continue to wrestle with these issues and while I find the Fundamentalist take as well as the Confessionalist approaches wanting, I remain unconvinced of the Anglican argument.