The Judicious Mr. Hooker and the Episcopal Church
I'm sorry for yet another Anglican post, but I fear this is of interest to others of other churches as well.
I'm reading a bit of Richard Hooker, often considered the primordial Anglican, or at least the first Anglican rationalist. And for that, he is sometimes enlisted by the liberal strand within Anglicanism as a sort of founding father (itself ironic, for it seems strange that liberals would make appeals to authority. But I digress). Among other things, he got himself in a big broohaha because of a sermon he preached in which he suggested that many of his English forbears, although led astray by popish errors, may well nevertheless, in the mercy of God, be saved. When the puritans flipped out about that, he preached another sermon to defend himself, "A Learned Discourse on Justification."
In it, as we might expect from a very rational thinker, he makes distinctions, perhaps the biggest being the difference between ERROR and HERESY. Error is what we do in our papers all the time, we make mistakes: but if we're corrected by the truth of God's Word, we humbly submit. Heresy is when we obstinately oppose ourselves to the truth of God's Word, even after a brother or sister (or council) has attempted to lead us out of our error. Good stuff, that.
So, his popish forbears were undoubtedly in error, because they believed that they were saved, not by Christ alone through grace by faith, but by works as well. But they weren't heretics, because they sinned in ignorance, and no one corrected them. They were in error; and, to paraphrase St. Peter, love covers a multitude of theological errors. And besides, surely on their deathbeds thousands of poor English farmers said something like, "I am a poor sinner, and I trust in Christ alone, he is my only Savior."
Now for the second distinction. One could either deny the foundation of the Christian faith DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. What might that involve? Well, he's pretty plain about the foundation: "salvation purchased by the death of Christ." This, of course, includes the identity of Christ (viz., Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy), his saving work, and, by derivation, sola gratia, sola fide. In short, Saracens and infidels deny the faith DIRECTLY, because they do not confess what we confess in the Creeds. Papists deny the faith INDIRECTLY: they confess the Creeds, they believe in salvation through Christ alone, but their confusion of inherent for external righteousness denies by consequent that salvation is, strictly, through Christ alone.
Now, the interesting thing is that Hooker pulls together his two distinctions. If a papist, who denies the Faith indirectly, does so merely in error: surely we should not doubt that God, in his mercy, will grant salvation to him as well. But if that same papist obstinately insists that apart from works he cannot be saved, he is a heretic, and his indirect denial of the foundation becomes, shall we say, more dangerous. But there is still hope, says Hooker, because even the stubborn papist still denies the foundation only indirectly: he still confesses the Nicene Creed.
Then he makes this really interesting observation, again because he is a very rational man. He points out that the ancient fathers had two major sorts of arguments on their hands: first, against those who denied the faith DIRECTLY (Origen contra Celsus); second, those who did so INDIRECTLY (Augustine contra Pelagius). Those of the first sort had to prove the foundation; those of the second argued from the foundation, and showed thereby why their opponents were indirectly denying it. It doesn't do any good to argue from the authority of Scripture or the Creeds that, say, God is Trinity, if one is arguing with someone who doesn't accept those authorities. On the other hand, if you're dealing with an Arius who really does believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then your conversation is going to be of a different sort. This is all very much like Thomas, by the way; that's why Hooker is interesting.
Which all leads to my question. Is it really fair to call, say, Spong, a heretic? I have in the past, and I'm starting to wonder about that. I think he's really a pagan. And the same goes for others of a like mind. What do you guys think? And, how do you think this changes the way we should craft our discussions/arguments on this front?
Now the hard question. "All infidels deny the foundation of faith directly: by consequent, many a Christian man, yea whole Christian churches, have denied it, and do deny it at this present day. Christian churches denying the foundation of Christianity? Not directly, for then they cease to be Christian churches; but by consequent, in respect whereof we condemn them as erroneous, although for holding the foundation, we do and must hold them Christian." If Hooker could say that about Rome, and justify the English schism, I can't even begin to imagine why I should have any scruples about "splitting" from the Episcopal "church." That's not my question. My question is simply, has TEC denied the faith directly? Is the Episcopal church, a church?
I'm reading a bit of Richard Hooker, often considered the primordial Anglican, or at least the first Anglican rationalist. And for that, he is sometimes enlisted by the liberal strand within Anglicanism as a sort of founding father (itself ironic, for it seems strange that liberals would make appeals to authority. But I digress). Among other things, he got himself in a big broohaha because of a sermon he preached in which he suggested that many of his English forbears, although led astray by popish errors, may well nevertheless, in the mercy of God, be saved. When the puritans flipped out about that, he preached another sermon to defend himself, "A Learned Discourse on Justification."
In it, as we might expect from a very rational thinker, he makes distinctions, perhaps the biggest being the difference between ERROR and HERESY. Error is what we do in our papers all the time, we make mistakes: but if we're corrected by the truth of God's Word, we humbly submit. Heresy is when we obstinately oppose ourselves to the truth of God's Word, even after a brother or sister (or council) has attempted to lead us out of our error. Good stuff, that.
So, his popish forbears were undoubtedly in error, because they believed that they were saved, not by Christ alone through grace by faith, but by works as well. But they weren't heretics, because they sinned in ignorance, and no one corrected them. They were in error; and, to paraphrase St. Peter, love covers a multitude of theological errors. And besides, surely on their deathbeds thousands of poor English farmers said something like, "I am a poor sinner, and I trust in Christ alone, he is my only Savior."
Now for the second distinction. One could either deny the foundation of the Christian faith DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. What might that involve? Well, he's pretty plain about the foundation: "salvation purchased by the death of Christ." This, of course, includes the identity of Christ (viz., Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy), his saving work, and, by derivation, sola gratia, sola fide. In short, Saracens and infidels deny the faith DIRECTLY, because they do not confess what we confess in the Creeds. Papists deny the faith INDIRECTLY: they confess the Creeds, they believe in salvation through Christ alone, but their confusion of inherent for external righteousness denies by consequent that salvation is, strictly, through Christ alone.
Now, the interesting thing is that Hooker pulls together his two distinctions. If a papist, who denies the Faith indirectly, does so merely in error: surely we should not doubt that God, in his mercy, will grant salvation to him as well. But if that same papist obstinately insists that apart from works he cannot be saved, he is a heretic, and his indirect denial of the foundation becomes, shall we say, more dangerous. But there is still hope, says Hooker, because even the stubborn papist still denies the foundation only indirectly: he still confesses the Nicene Creed.
Then he makes this really interesting observation, again because he is a very rational man. He points out that the ancient fathers had two major sorts of arguments on their hands: first, against those who denied the faith DIRECTLY (Origen contra Celsus); second, those who did so INDIRECTLY (Augustine contra Pelagius). Those of the first sort had to prove the foundation; those of the second argued from the foundation, and showed thereby why their opponents were indirectly denying it. It doesn't do any good to argue from the authority of Scripture or the Creeds that, say, God is Trinity, if one is arguing with someone who doesn't accept those authorities. On the other hand, if you're dealing with an Arius who really does believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then your conversation is going to be of a different sort. This is all very much like Thomas, by the way; that's why Hooker is interesting.
Which all leads to my question. Is it really fair to call, say, Spong, a heretic? I have in the past, and I'm starting to wonder about that. I think he's really a pagan. And the same goes for others of a like mind. What do you guys think? And, how do you think this changes the way we should craft our discussions/arguments on this front?
Now the hard question. "All infidels deny the foundation of faith directly: by consequent, many a Christian man, yea whole Christian churches, have denied it, and do deny it at this present day. Christian churches denying the foundation of Christianity? Not directly, for then they cease to be Christian churches; but by consequent, in respect whereof we condemn them as erroneous, although for holding the foundation, we do and must hold them Christian." If Hooker could say that about Rome, and justify the English schism, I can't even begin to imagine why I should have any scruples about "splitting" from the Episcopal "church." That's not my question. My question is simply, has TEC denied the faith directly? Is the Episcopal church, a church?
posted by Anonymous at 9:16 AM
10 Comments:
I could not follow your logic that leads you to see Hooker endorsing schism. I have not read Hooker sufficiently to know how he understands this, but I have read Thomas on this. So I continue to deny your claim that you can rationalize schism. But since that is not your question...you ask if TEC is a church. I suggest we turn to Calvin on this. Read Institutes 4.1.9-15. You will see clearly that Calvin denies you the right to make that decision. He denies your right to private judgment on this issue. And he warns us against the zeal of those who use language almost exactly like that which you have used in asking us if TEC is a church. I will go with Calvin's wisdom on this one. I will also point you to Newbigin in Household of God where he critiques Calvin's marks of the church, and, in effect, makes it even harder for anyone to proclaim TEC "not a church." Yes, beyond question, Claire belongs to a church. Yes, Jonathan Melton is a deacon in a bona fide church. Yes, Susan Eastman is a priest in a bona fide church. Yes, Ephraim Radner is a priest in a bona fide though rebellious church. Yes, I was confirmed by a bishop who belongs to a bona fide church. Yes, Lauren Winner is a member of a bona fide church. All of which raises another question, "In whose place do we locate ourselves when as individuals we claim otherwise? See Genesis 11:1-9.
If Calvin never exercised private judgment regarding the RCC, then why wasn't he a Roman Catholic? If Hooker didn't endorse schism from Rome, then why did he defend the Church of England of Elizabeth's Settlement? I'm not for a minute suggesting that all individuals and churches within TEC are therefore automatically excluded from Christ's church. Only a confused Protestant attempting to maintain a Roman ecclesiology could ever think such a thing. I'm suggesting that, for all intensive purposes, the doctrine of those who control TEC may be better describe as paganism than as a heretical form of Christianity.
Don't you remember CH14, Calvin's Reply to Sadoleto? What was that, if not his justification of separation from the Roman church? For Calvin, that was not schism; the only schism is that which leaves the teaching of the Apostles. For the Romans, that was schism; that's why Calvin wasn't a Cardinal in the Roman Church.
By the way, isn't Calvin exercising his own private judgment when he refuses me the right to exercise my own? But then again, he was the first Genevan Pope.
If you assent whole-heartedly with Thomas on schism, then you must submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome. He leaves no wiggle room on that point.
I have to hand it to you though, it is takes great ingenuity to use John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas to defend the chuchliness of TEC.
I agree with your term pagan based on my exegesis of Galatians and 1 Cor 5 together, which we will publish shortly. I interpret the term to mean those who have not been brought into the gift of identity as Israel.
Actually, I remember vividly the Letter to Sadoleto. I wrote an essay on it. And if you check the Institutes further you will see Calvin speaking about heresy in ways commensurate with that polemical letter. But on the subject of discipline and schism, read the reference. There is a distinction between someone writing in the role Calvin had who at the same time subjected himself to the community of faith as the only location for a decision on matters of discipline, and someone else exercising private judgment. As I said, I don't know enough about Hooker to comment.
As for Thomas, if I assented wholeheartedly with him, I would also have to kill those convicted of heresy if they backslide after being readmitted to the church. I don't advocate that either. In community, I believe you and I and all those who walk with us in Christ are able to read Scripture and our received tradition together and make such difficult discernments faithfully, guided by the Spirit.
And of course I agree with your recognition of my extraordinary ingenuity. Told my wife the same thing this morning. Maybe you two should talk, cause she didn't pick up on that it as well as you.
Calvin's Geneva was not Duke's "community." He was the pope. The closest thing to a communal decision that happened there, was when he tried to have Servetus beheaded, not burned at the stake. Probably the only time he didn't get his way.
Craig, I'll grant that you don't have to kill penitents if you follow Thomas on schism. But goodness, the Pope isn't just an incidental figure in his reflections on schism. I'm sorry, but you just can't claim Thomas on your side in an argument about schism, so long as you're not submitted to the bishop of Rome.
Embrace your Protestantism; if you don't, then at least pope, that would be entirely more favorable than remaining in TEC.
Your logic is interesting. If one chooses to be informed by Thomas, then one may not read Thomas from one's own given location and polity; one must embrace the Pope. Hmm. I guess you're right. But just in case, let me run that by Dr. J and Stanley....
Craig, I'm not saying you have to take the whole thing hook line and sinker. Hooker, from what I can tell, is an interesting example of one who draws on Thomas without being a Thomist. But it's a pretty tight argument, that Summa, and often times if you aren't careful when you use it ad hoc it ends up less than convincing. That is true of the Summa as a whole, but even more so within a single question or article. I'm suggesting that it's less than coherent to use a great defender of the pope to defend whatever it is that you're defending. Maybe we should start a disputation ala Paris in the 1250s on this question of schism, it could be really fun.
At the risk of encouraging serious private judgment...I wonder about the leading of the Spirit in all this. There's a lot of discussion on this topic about what Calvin and Hooker and Thomas say. Is there a leading of the Spirit in either of your own experiences? And what has that been. I consider my own call by the Spirit to be one in the UMC. And I consider that to be a call to stick with the UMC until they kick me out (no matter how "pagan" it gets...not that I think it is even near what you're talking about in TEC). Is there not a remenant in every covenant community with God? And does God give up that remnant? Even in exile? I think, no.
Tom,
Am I not right in believing that right there in the book of discipline it speaks of acts of the Spirit as something that only the community can confirm?
If by "Pope" you mean someone who gets to dictate what happens in a Christian community, then Calvin was far from being the Pope of Geneva. He was frustrated quite often. A lot of decisions were made that he didn't like (i.e., Lord's Supper was only celebrated once a quarter). Read Cottret's biography.
True Tom, I exaggerated, and I shouldn't have. But Geneva wasn't Hauerwas' model of discerment in community, either.
Post a Comment
<< Home