Latitude, Canons, and Prayer Book: what the 'First Things' statement gets wrong
So begins a statement from 'First Things', a coalition of conservative evangelical and charismatic organisations in the Church of Ireland. It is, to say the least, a rather odd statement.
To begin with, as the statement notes, the service in question is annual. What has caused it to be a matter of such controversy this year? Is it because the preacher is a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States? No. It is because the preacher has solemnised same-sex marriages? No. It is because the preacher is gay? No. We are told that the cause of the controversy is quite specific:
Although the cathedral has hosted similar services in previous years with invited speakers, this marks the first occasion where a serving bishop in a same-sex marriage has been invited to preach.
What makes this an odd issue of controversy is that a considerable variety of bishops and clergy of other traditions are routinely invited to preach in Church of Ireland cathedrals. For example, Roman Catholic bishops and clergy who profess faith in transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, and papal infallibility. It is quite rightly understood that despite the doctrinal differences between the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church, these are no obstacle to bishops and clergy of that communion preaching in Church of Ireland cathedrals: our shared creedal faith is greater than our doctrinal differences.
Likewise, Presbyterian ministers - belonging to a tradition which regards government by presbytery as divinely instituted, whose Confession of Faith declares the Bishop of Rome to be "Antichrist", and whose Directory describes the Book of Common Prayer (a doctrinal standard in the Church of Ireland) as an "offence" valued by "ignorant and superstitious people" - can preach in Church of Ireland cathedrals. Again, it is rightly understood that these doctrinal differences between the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland are no obstacle to ministers of that communion preaching in Church of Ireland cathedrals: our shared creedal faith is greater than our doctrinal differences.
But now we know what is truly unacceptable, what cannot be tolerated, what constitutes - in the words of the First Things statement - "a deeply concerning departure from the historic faith and established discipline of the Church of Ireland": a duly appointed Anglican bishop in a same-sex marriage being a guest preacher in a Church of Ireland cathedral. Here we have found the boundaries of what is acceptable for a guest preacher in the Church of Ireland. Papal infallibility? No problem. Presbytery by divine right? Totally fine. But being in a same-sex marriage - this, we are told, is what constitutes a "departure" from the Church of Ireland's historic faith.
According to the statement, "the Dean and Chapter are, in effect, promoting the teaching or publishing of a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Ireland, an offence under the Constitution (VIII.25)". This is a frankly ridiculous, entirely unserious view: inviting a Roman Catholic or Presbyterian to preach in a Church of Ireland cathedral does not equate to "teaching or publishing of a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Ireland"; but, when the guest preacher happens to be an Anglican bishop in a same-sex marriage, we are told that it strangely is the case that this equates to such "teaching or publishing".
The statement also quotes the Church of Ireland's marriage Canon:
The Holy Scriptures and the Church of Ireland are unequivocal that marriage is, "according to our Lord's teachings...a union...of one man with one woman" (Canon 31).
I happen to think that Canon 31 - while it is unwieldy, clumsily worded, and should be simplified - reflects a broad theological consensus in the Church of Ireland and that there is no persuasive case for change. The purpose of canon law in the Anglican tradition, however, is to determine practice; in this case, which marriages can be solemnised according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of Ireland. Canon 31 regulates our practice. It does not prohibit theological debate and inquiry on the matter. If it were the case that a Canon prevented theological debate and inquiry, the ordination of women would not have happened: the theological debate and inquiry which led to the change in the Canons would not have been permitted.
Likewise, there are those who belong to the First Things coalition who openly support 'lay presidency' at the Holy Communion. While such a practice would be an explicit rejection of Catholic and Reformed order, and while those who support 'lay presidency' are not free in their practice to disregard the canonical and liturgical discipline of the Church of Ireland, they are free to engage in theological debate and inquiry which makes the case for change.
We can also reflect on another example from the Canons, Canon 22:
Men and women alike may be ordained to the holy order of deacons, of priests, or of bishops, without any distinction or discrimination on grounds of sex, and men and women so ordained shall alike be referred to and known as deacons, priests or bishops.
Again, there are those within First Things who oppose the ordination of women as bishops and presbyters. They are free to make a legitimate theological case against the ordination of women. If, however, they are free to do so, and if this does not threaten - to again quote the statement - "doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity within the Church of Ireland", why is it the case that Canon 31 has a different status? Why is it acceptable to theologically dissent from the teaching of the Church of Ireland in Canon 22 but not Canon 31?
By exalting Canon 31 to a status that permits no theological debate and inquiry on the matter, First Things is rejecting the wise historic latitude the Church of Ireland has given to its ministers, what the Preface of 1878 terms "the liberty of expounding these Formularies hitherto allowed by the general practice of the Church". The Preface was specifically referring to Holy Baptism and the intense debates in 19th century Anglicanism regarding baptismal regeneration. If latitude is granted regarding such a significant matter of sacramental theology, is it really to be suggested that no latitude can possibly be permitted when it comes to an ordinance that is not a Sacrament (Article 25) and thus not "generally necessary for salvation" (the Catechism)?
There are also other significant questions of "doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity" for those within First Things. It is not unusual to encounter some clergy in the respective organisations who are quite open about discouraging infant baptism (contrary to Article 27). This is an egregious example of "promoting the teaching or publishing of a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Ireland, an offence under the Constitution".
There are clergy aligned with First Things who consecrate the Sacrament of the Holy Communion without using any of the prescribed forms (Canon 13.2), merely repeating the Words of Institution. This is contrary to the Declaration required of all clergy in the Church of Ireland, committing them "in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments" to "use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be allowed by the lawful authority of the Church". It is "a deeply concerning departure from the historic faith and established discipline of the Church of Ireland" that clergy administer the Holy Sacraments apart from the authorised liturgy which, with the Ordinal and the Articles of Religion, is our doctrinal standard.
If First Things is in any way serious about "the breakdown of doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity within the Church of Ireland" it would begin by looking much closer to home, challenging those within its own ranks who have abandoned classical Reformed Anglicanism for the contemporary equivalent of Anabaptism.
Aside from those aligned with First Things who disregard the sacramental order "as this Church hath received the same" (the Ordering of Priests, Order One), many faithful ministers and laity within the Church of Ireland would have other significant theological disagreements with faithful ministers and laity aligned to First Things. In the same way, I have no doubt that - with my preference for Order One liturgy, support for Canon 31, views on Bishop Budde's infamous sermon, and critiques of The Episcopal Church - I would have very significant disagreements with Bishop Perry. Such is life within the Church catholic in general and Anglicanism in particular. We are not and cannot be (and never have been) a monolith. There will be (and there always has been) differences, debates, and disagreements. A purpose of canonical, episcopal, and liturgical order in a church of the Anglican Communion is to ensure that these differences, debates, and disagreements are conducted in a manner which does not wound a common creedal confession of Christ and a common life in Christ.
There is a thoughtful, measured, serious case for retaining Canon 31 and the teaching of the marriage liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer 2004, that marriage is between one man and one woman. This, however, is not to be found in the First Things statement. It is more akin to a culture war pronouncement, pursuing a political victory rather than contributing a thoughtful, measured, serious case for Canon 31. Those of us who accept that Canon 31 represents the broad swathe of settled opinion in the Church of Ireland, and who recognise that there is little appetite in our parishes for a divisive, wounding debate on the matter, should have no hesitation in rejecting the divisive content and hysterical tone of the First Things statement.
In the mean time, we await a statement from First Things addressing the "deeply concerning departure from the historic faith and established discipline of the Church of Ireland" in the administration of the Sacraments by some clergy associated with First Things.
Isn't the obvious point not that preachers may sometimes differ in the doctrine they hold (say an RC or Presbyterian preacher) from the Church of Ireland but that if they preach contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Is the point not that the American bishop did just that? That she preached against that doctrine and that the Chapter sanctioned this?
ReplyDeleteThe criticism of the Chapter - even in this statement - seems just to be that it is unacceptable for Cathedral Chapter to do that. The canonical order of the Church is precisely that preaching contrary to the doctrine of the Church should not be permitted and that Incumbents should not chose preachers who will do that (see, inter alia, Canon 7).
Many thanks for your comment. A number of points in response.
Delete1. I recognise that you are not necessarily defending the First Things statement, but I think it is important to note that it was issued before the bishop delivered her sermon. A measured statement after the sermon may have been in order, but not beforehand. To put it a different way: I am quite happy to hear an ACNA bishop or cleric preach. I certainly would not protest against them before a sermon. If, however, they use a sermon to urge a rejection of the CofI's canonical order, it would be appropriate to state concern afterwards.
2. The publicly available text of the bishop's sermon (I have not checked it against delivery) at the Pride Evensong does not refer to marriage. It does refer to same-sex love but does not (from what I can see) define this. I think it may be an uncharitable reading to regard this as contrary to the doctrine stated in Canon 31.
3. The bishop's Trinity Sunday sermon was pretty appalling and, to be frank, very much more concerning than the Pride Evensong sermon. Preaching almost entirely about yourself and your own experiences on Trinity Sunday is certainly not a good thing, particularly for a bishop charged with teaching and defending the Faith. Likewise for snide comments about Saint Paul, author of a considerable proportion of the New Testament. That said, I am sure we could both point to quite a few places where nonsense was preached on Trinity Sunday.
4. The CofI has not been serious for quite some time about upholding the canonical and constitutional requirements regarding preachers conforming to the doctrine of the CofI. If we are to begin - as I hope we might - I would have thought that the Nicene Creed and Christological orthodoxy would be the place to start. I cannot see any point in starting with doctrine concerning a non-sacramental ordinance.
5. A point about the pragmatic case for latitude. You and I know that a minority of CofI clergy would support the repeal of Canon 31. Giving occasional voice to this view in their sermons is not a first order issue. It is, to say the least, highly unlikely to change majority support for Canon 31. (Indeed, hearing such views from the pulpit tends to increase my support for the Canon.) Tolerating such private views occasionally expressed is, I think, a much better approach than the First Things statement. Unrepresentative private opinions do not alter the canonical order and discipline of the CofI. What is more, I cannot see any practical alternative in the contemporary CofI. Expecting the House of Bishops to issue a statement requiring CofI clergy to never mention support for same-sex marriage from the pulpit is as unrealistic as expecting a statement requiring CofI clergy to wear the surplice in obedience to the Canon (while fully recognising that these two matters are not at all doctrinally equivalent): it's not going to happen.
One final thought. Having a progressive American bishop tell us what we should do and how we should order our affairs is not a strategy likely to win the necessary hearts and minds in the CofI. Of all the candidates likely to make supporters of Canon 31 rethink their views, an ideologically progressive bishop from an American church in catastrophic decline is not it.
Brian.