Passing the threshold: what lies beyond the doors of the church
The now rather obscure figure of one Jules Lechevalier,[i] once offered a telling image in critique of the thought of the famous nineteenth century British theologian F. D. Maurice when he observed that
“Mr Maurice’s system is a very good one for bringing men in, but it is all door.”
The French Christian socialist and anthropologist who was an early proponent of social welfare as well as of international development theory and of community-based microeconomics.
The implication was that, in his enthusiasm for inviting everyone into the church, Maurice’s vision had become so expansive and fearful of any impediment, that there was no intellectual content or propositional definition left by which the theological fabric of the very church — which all were being invited to enter — could be defined. In short, what is the point of a door if there is no building beyond it to enter?
Such is the existential crisis which must threaten any organisation, but most especially any putative part of the Church, which cannot define its own identity, for with no identity there is nothing to sustain through time.
On the positive side, some might feel tempted to find here a misplaced sense of assurance in supposing that in such a world they could never, through any lack of belief, put themselves outside the church.
If so tempted, they might usefully call to mind the political case of one Italian Prime Minister who, at a time of national crisis, was asked if he feared there might be a coup d’etat? He smoothly replied that this was impossible, since in Italy, “There is no Etat”.
Hence do we see that any form of Christianity which requires no particular beliefs at all has no means to define itself and leaves thus no Christianity or church either. This must therefore be the worst-case scenario for any putative understanding of the church (ecclesiology) while the opposite has to be one where the zeal for definitions and obligatory statements is so great that it does indeed pose a barrier across the door of entry and thus to salvation.
The word “necessary” is not one to use lightly in matters of theology a fact that can only be salutary for those who would define too much. The story of the thief on the cross should remind us of just how simple the basic requirement of faith is for salvation, just as the “fiat” of Mary comprised one simple act of assent. Yet this does not mean that such moments and such acts, are anything less than hugely profound in their meaning and consequences — for they do indeed provide nothing less than the door to eternal life.
From the earliest times, Christians have wrestled with this terrain. The Anglican Communion is most assuredly no exception and it continues to do so with no little difficulty, not least because of what can only be called its deeply rooted epistemic humility.
Anglicans are notoriously reticent when it comes to hard-edged definitions and boundaries and we have paid a high price as a result.
Then again, no less a figure than Richard Hooker himself — for all that he was by instinct very much a systematic theologian, once concluded that it is requisite to leave some pragmatic room for error when there is otherwise real potential for costly conflict. Thus did he write”
“that sometime an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail, till the same authority perceiving such oversight, might afterwards correct or reverse it, than that strifes should have respite to grow”.[ii]
One might even say that it is one of Anglicanism’s gifts that it strives so mightily to avoid “that strifes should have respite to grow”, yet for all that, this does not, in fact, mean that Anglicans are defined by lacking definition and all particularity in belief. Quite the contrary in fact, for history makes clear that Anglicanism has always both wrestled with but also affirmed a corpus of beliefs and theological essentials. Assuredly it does so in a way that forsakes simplicity in the interests of authenticity.
As Anglicans, we have always considered ourselves to be both the inheritor of medieval and earlier Christianity in England as also in legitimate succession to the mission established by Augustine of Canterbury which is to say an authentic “branch” of the universal which is to say Catholic Church. Nonetheless, through declining to create some artificially simplified historical narrative of “theological progress” and of the “development of doctrine”, Anglicans are compelled to engage with multifold sources and expressions of the faith which we are nonetheless called to believe and accept. These lie in the Scriptures, the Creeds and teachings of the Early Church Councils and find expression for Anglicans most especially in our formularies Prayer Book tradition. And we do so knowing that “The authority of the Church in the realm of doctrine arises from its commission to preach the Gospel to all the world and the promises, accompanying that commission, that the Lord would always be with his disciples, and that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth”.[iii]
The words of the Encyclical Letter from the Bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 1948 illustrate well both the strengths and the challenges of our Anglican tradition where:
“Authority, as inherited by the Anglican Communion from the undivided Church of the early centuries of the Christian era, is single in that it is derived from a single Divine source, and reflects within itself the richness and historicity of the divine Revelation ….. It is distributed among Scripture, Tradition, Creeds, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the witness of saints, and the consensus fidelium ….. It is thus a dispersed rather than a centralized authority having many elements which combine, interact with, and check each other; these elements together contributing by a process of mutual support, mutual checking, and redressing of errors or exaggerations to the many-sided fullness of the authority which Christ has committed to His Church. Where this authority is to be found mediated not in one mode but in several we recognize in this multiplicity God’s loving provision against the temptations to tyranny and the dangers of unchecked power …..” [iv]
The consensus fidelium, it should be noted is not defined as a majority — as it does “not depend on mere numbers”, but is rather one of several means by which doctrine is to be recognized as authentic. It is explicitly linked to conciliar decisions and the early church and Fathers of the church. And even church councils are described as resting “at least in part” on “their acceptance by the whole body of the faithful” as well as upon coherence with scripture. These points are of the utmost importance for the whole matter of how doctrine —and potential new teachings especially — are to be assessed. This can never be merely a matter for the majority of Christians in one place and time, one province or national church alone. The validity of reception must in the end lie through time with whole body of the church universal.
Standing over all these matters we must always remember however is the fundamental assurance we have that Church of Christ embodies Christ. This has salutary consequences in reminding us that unity in truth is a telos we cannot forsake and this must have practical consequences for the way Christians should act together institutionally in order that the truth given to us is not only to be determined but also to be transmitted through time in the Church of the Ages to come until the Parousia. As St Augustine of Hippo so memorably put it:
Wherefore, the entire world judges with security that they are not good who separate themselves from the entire world.[v]
This means that articulating a doctrine of the Church is unavoidable and can only bear fruit if we recognise that this will have its costs. For we must be willing to pay the price for having an identity which will be submitting in unity before the heritage of truth our very identity calls us to uphold — something that may indeed entail an openness to self-criticism and a certain modesty, in deference to the wider community of the faithful when considering the most recent putative insights we may tempting.
In the midst of the prolonged season of cultural crisis that we see all around us in contemporary societies, establishing what it takes to assert and sustain the identity of Anglicanism defines both our present context of crisis and our opportunity, which is to achieve yet greater clarity in the future than Anglicans have in the past. Articulating this heritage of faith as Anglo-Catholics within the robust tradition of leadership that has for so long defined the role of this parish, is the challenging vocation that lies before us.
[i] The French Christian socialist and anthropologist who was an early proponent of social welfare as well as of international development theory and of community-based microeconomics.
[ii] Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, [1593 – 7], London, Everyman Ed, 1954, I, 119 (vl.3).
[iii] Doctrine in the Church of England. The Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922, London [1938], 1962 ed, 4 (Chairman’s Introduction, by William Temple, Archbishop of York) p. 35.
[iv] The Lambeth Conference, 1948. The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops; together with Resolutions and Reports, London, 1948, Report IV, ‘The Anglican Communion’ p. 84.
[v] “Quapropter securus judicat orbis terrarum, bonos non esse qui se devidunt ab orbe terrarum”.