The Consistency of Anglicanism

Anglicanism is a large umbrella theologically speaking, with diverse, and sometimes even opposed beliefs and practices standing together in the same ecclesial space. Evangelicals, Catholics, Charismatics, and Reformed Christians, amongst others, all have a place (even if not an exactly equal place) at the table in the Anglican Church, giving a breadth and depth to our tradition (albeit with some tensions) quite unique in Christendom. The term “generous orthodoxy,” I think, well expresses this theological mood/approach. However, Anglicanism’s generous orthodoxy is not without its critics. Both within and outside the Communion, there are those who have argued that Anglicanism’s theological diversity suggests an inconsistency at the heart of the tradition, generating unsustainable tensions and contradictions in the Church’s doctrine and practice. I want to make the case, or at least begin to make the case, that this argument, while superficially compelling, is ultimately unfounded, and that, underlying Anglicanism’s theological diversity, lays a deeper and perfectly consistent logic.

First, Anglicanism is dogmatically consistent. Theologians often distinguish between dogma properly so-called, which refers to certain necessary and fundamental Christian truths, or, put another way, articles of faith, and other, lower orders of Christian truth (e.g. doctrine, pious opinion, adiaphora). When it comes to dogma (as defined), the Anglican Church has consistently maintained that dogma, and, concomitantly, all that must be believed for salvation and membership in the Church, is wholly contained in the catholic Creeds (the Apostles’ and Niceno-Constantinopolitan), as put forward in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Thus, while important, debates over the Real Presence, predestination, or what vestments are appropriate for worship, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas of the Church, for which reason we allow a variety of positions on these and other topics. Our generous orthodoxy, then, far from being an inconsistency, is rather our consistent application of the distinction between dogma and non-dogma in refusing to elevate non-dogmatic Christian truths to the level of dogma, which, of course, naturally lends itself to diversity on such points. No other Church can claim this: there is always the Creeds + some doctrinal idiosyncrasy (e.g. de jure papal authority, limited atonement, ubiquity)

Second, Anglicanism is consistent in its emulation of the primitive Church. Anglicans, regardless of churchmanship, have always sought to order their doctrine and discipline on the model of the primitive Church, which is to say, the Church of the first five/seven centuries following Christ’s death. But the primitive Church was a large, multivalent, and diverse Church. Indeed, one cannot take so much as a survey course in patristics or Church history without being amazed at the eclectic fecundity of the ancient Christians, and the wide range of beliefs and practices across her Latin, Greek, Coptic, and Syriac instantiations. Thus, Anglicanism’s diversity in doctrine (in contradistinction to dogma) and practice mirrors that of the primitive Church, consistent with her principled emulation of that Church. This is a rare treasure in the modern world. While most other churches have given in to the quintessentially modern, post-Enlightenment temptation to formalism, substituting broad catholicity for doctrinal system building, our Church has resisted this systematizing impulse, remaining faithful to the primitive and patristic example of theological diversity within dogmatic unity.

Third, Anglicanism is ecumenically consistent. Ever since the twentieth-century ecumenical movement, Christians have come to recognize that Christian unity is not some ornament or add-on, but a real imperative, and that the Church’s fragmented state has negatively impacted her witness in the world. However, all too often ecumenism stops at this recognition, due in large part to the undue elevation of denominational and sectarian idiosyncrasies to the level of dogma and conditions for communion, such as Rome’s commitment to a late medieval notion of papal authority, Calvinism’s distinctive view of a limited atonement, or Lutheranism’s peculiar doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, to use our above examples. Not Anglicanism! Consistent with their desire for a united Church, Anglicans, within certain very broad limits, are perfectly willing to live with and within the tensions involved in the Church’s generous approach to orthodoxy, so long as there remains a baseline unity on the articles of faith as contained in the Church’s Creed.

Fourth, and last for this article, Anglicans are consistent in their reverence for mystery. With the exception of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, there are in most Christian communions/denominations two opposed and pernicious tendencies: either to over-define the mysteries of the Christian faith or, worse still, to reject those mysteries altogether. On the mystery of the Eucharist, for example, the Roman Church insists upon a fairly rigorous, and peculiarly late-medieval explanation of the Real Presence involving Aristotelian metaphysical categories, while, on the other hand, Baptists have rejected the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Supper tout court, holding that the Eucharist is a mere memorial of Christ’s passion. Anglicans, along with the Orthodox, have evaded both these tendencies, consistently maintaining the reality and sublimity of the mystery while not pretending to an exact or exhaustive definition thereof. To be sure, symbolic instrumentalism, receptionism, consubstantiation, etc., are all viable positions within the generous orthodoxy allowed by the Church as school opinions, but nothing more. The apparent inconsistency in doctrine relating to mysteries, therefore, is actually underpinned by a consistent and deeper recognition of those mysteries’ profundity, their transcendence as objects of theological inquiry, and, as a consequence, the limits of human reason in trying to account for them.

I hope to have shown, or at least to have begun to have shown, that Anglicanism’s “inconsistencies” are only apparent, and that, underlying them, are more fundamental dogmatic/doctrinal commitments, themselves perfectly consistent. Now, I am fully aware that this will not satisfy everyone, indeed, not even everyone who buys the basic thrust of my argument. There will always be those who desire greater doctrinal precision, or to worship with those who agree with them more fully, and without the tensions involved in Anglicanism’s generous orthodoxy. To those people, I want to say just a few things, or, rather, ask a few questions. One, for those desiring greater doctrinal precision, is an arid system of doctrine (say Turretin’s Institutes or Quenstedt’s Theologia Didactico-Polemica) really preferable to a living spiritual tradition? What does it say of a soul if it should choose written theological formulae, entombed in a hermetically sealed, self-enclosed system, over participation in a rich, dynamic tradition of liturgy, devotion, and scholarship, with space for imaginative development and free play (within certain bounds)? Two, for those who would presume to elevate this or that doctrine to the status of an article of faith, is this any less hazardous than subtracting an article? Does Scripture not condemn those who “add unto” along with those who “take away” from the apostles’ doctrine (Revelation 22:18-20), as the catholic Fathers warn again and again? Third, for those who might not elevate their favorite doctrine into an article of faith, but would, say, like to “live more fully into it,” or hold it with confidence, or some such notion, is this really worth breaking fellowship with other of the brethren? Does it not seem petty and uncharitable to refuse fellowship with one’s spiritual kin because one prefers their ritual a little higher, their conversion experiences a little more lively, or their ordo salutis a little more tightly organized? If you’re thinking about leaving, or remaining outside of, the communion of the Anglican Church you ought to ask yourself these questions. The Anglican Church, as we have begun to show, is consistent in her principles, devoted to the faith handed down by the apostles as contained in the Creed, with neither addition nor subtraction and, moreover, is the Church God has established for the English-speaking world. As North American Christians, then, to be outside her communion is to be in danger, which one should not venture lightly.