Firstly, the term became popular within a TEC constituency in the early 2000s and came to be also found in other parts of the Protestant Mainline in the United States. This locates its origins in the cultural and ecclesial concerns of the Mainline in the early 21st century United States. It is, then, a response to a very specific cultural and ecclesial context. Its application to other, quite different, cultural and ecclesial contexts is, at the very least, a matter for some debate. Seeking to apply the term on this side of the Atlantic strikes me as unconvincing as British political parties following the trends of US politics: this tends to be embarrassingly awkward at best and usually out of step with the actual concerns and experience of British society. Put bluntly, Inclusive Orthodoxy is a micro-trend specific to US Christianity that has as little relevance on this side of the Atlantic as the cultural and ecclesial concerns of the much larger Southern Baptist Conference.
Secondly, part of the theological claim of Inclusive Orthodoxy seems to be that women's ordination and LGBTQ+ inclusion are necessary consequences of the Christological creedal confession. This is reflected in the incessant use of the words of Gregory of Nazianzus: 'For that which He has not assumed He has not healed'. The use of this phrase seems to imply, if not claim, that the issues championed by Inclusive Orthodoxy are Christological imperatives. This is where I firmly part company with Inclusive Orthodoxy: not because I believe that women's ordination is wrong or because I do not support the place of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church's life, but because I believe that it is entirely possible to be an orthodox, creedal Christian who opposes women's ordination and, for example, equal marriage. Inclusive Orthodoxy appears to me to be a mirror reflection of those who insist that the catholic Creeds necessarily prohibit these practices. I, on the other hand, believe that the catholic Creeds do not determine what the response of churches to these matters should be.
Thirdly, rather than declaring women's ordination and LGBTQ+ inclusion to be determined by the catholic Creeds and orthodox Christology, I regard these issues as being, to use Hooker's phrase, "things accessory, not thing necessary". There is a "difference between things of external regiment in the Church, and things necessary unto salvation" (LEP III.3.4), and I consider these issues to belong to the former. Now, I fully realise that friends - who I fully respect - profoundly disagree with me on this, both those who support and those who oppose the agenda of Inclusive Orthodoxy. My purpose in this post is not to engage in those arguments but (as much for my own benefit as anything else) to articulate why I have instinctively rejected for myself the term 'Inclusive Orthodox'. I view women's ordination (which I support) and same-sex marriage (to which I have no primary theological objection) as amongst those "other things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church" (III.4.1).
Fourthly, I was baptised and confirmed in the Church of Ireland when women were not admitted to any of the three orders and when, of course, same-sex marriage was not considered. If these issues are a creedal, Christological imperative, the orthodoxy of the church in which I was baptised and confirmed was in some way lacking. This is not at all how I consider the church of my baptism and confirmation. It was, in the words of the Declaration of 1870, "the Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church of Ireland". Neither the absence nor presence of the ordination of women and same-sex marriage determine catholicity and apostolicity.
I am a member of and minister in a Church whose canons now permit the ordination of women to all three orders and whose canons do not permit the solemnisation of matrimony between those of the same sex. This is the canonical order to which I have promised to submit at ordination. This canonical order, of course, can be revised and it does not prohibit theological debate and inquiry - but it does determine current practice. If I thought that the ordination of women was incompatible with teaching of the catholic Creeds and Christological orthodoxy, I could not freely submit to this canonical order. Likewise, if I thought that equal marriage was a necessary consequence of the catholic Creeds and Christological orthodoxy, I could not freely submit to this canonical order. It is precisely because I believe that these matters are - contrary to what I understand Inclusive Orthodoxy to state - amongst those "other things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church", that I freely and happily submit to the canonical order of the Church in which I minister.
Likewise, because they are amongst those "other things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church", I happily receive Holy Communion in Episcopal churches when in the United States. Similarly, if an Episcopal church was not close, I would willingly receive the Sacrament in a Reformed Episcopal church.
Fifthly, because Inclusive Orthodoxy is the product of a very recent specific cultural context, it is necessarily vague and somewhat shallow. It is as yet very unclear as to whether it will have any significant or meaningful presence in Anglicanism over the longer term. By contrast, Anglicanism has, over centuries, produced a significant range of enduring traditions, with deep roots in its historic life. Much of Laudable Practice has been given over to exploring the riches of the Old High tradition. I have also been drawn to explore the wisdom of the Tillotsonian tradition of latitude. I have a deepened respect for those who have inherited the Conforming Puritan and Reformed Conformist traditions. The various 'native high church' (some ritualist, some not) and regional 'low church' (evangelical and non-evangelical) traditions are part of the richness of historic Anglican experience. For all my criticism of Tractarianism, it is another tradition that has become part of the Anglican landscape. Likewise with the Broad Church tradition, also emerging in the 19th century. From within these traditions, and drawing upon them, contemporary ecclesial and cultural matters can be discussed, debated, and discerned. Against this background, Inclusive Orthodoxy strikes me, I am afraid, as incredibly bland and rather unattractive, lacking the depth and roots of historic Anglican traditions.
The position I have outlined in this post is not, very obviously, an in-depth exploration of Inclusive Orthodoxy. It is, as I have stated at the outset, nothing more than an attempt to articulate why I have never warmed to the term Inclusive Orthodoxy. I make no claim that this post reflects the views of others who broadly share with me a vaguely similar space in contemporary Anglicanism. It does, however, seek to explain why this Anglican does not identify with the term Inclusive Orthodoxy.
(If there are to be any comments on this post, I ask commenters to engage meaningfully on the issue of Inclusive Orthodoxy, not to engage in caricatures, and to respect opposing theological viewpoints. Thank you.)
Comments
Post a Comment