What are the theological guiding principles when Christians disagree?

Archbishop of Canterbury's Address to the SEAD Conference, The Cathedral Church of St Luke and St Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, Thursday 8 April 1999

I am so pleased to have this opportunity to address this distinguished body and congratulate you that, within the space of seven years or so, you have become one of the most serious theological platforms in the Episcopal Church of the United States. It is so important, at a time when there is so much superficiality around - not just in religious debate, but more generally in society - that we all have the opportunity to gather in a reasonably relaxed way, to deal at some depth, with matters which are of great importance for the future of God's world. So I am glad to be able to be with you, to listen, to discuss, and at this moment, to speak openly, frankly and I hope generously about some of the things that are challenging us as a developing Christian community today.

As I look at the Church generally and the Anglican Communion in particular I am reminded of the opening words of Charles Dickens greatly classic "A Tale of Two Cities": 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of credulity'.

Those contrasts are very evident in our world and in our Communion. We are only too aware of the extraordinary development of the world over the last hundred years, which has unlocked the most amazing potential both for good and for evil. As we sit here today, we know of the pain and suffering of armed conflict in Serbia and in other parts of the world; of the constant threat of poverty and famine in large tracts of the third world - and also in many of the developed countries as well.

We are, I hope, very conscious that with all the benefits the technological revolution have brought to humanity, these things should be avoidable, or at the very least redeemable. Yet we struggle, sometimes ineffectively, to reach out and utilise the huge gifts we have been given.

In the Church the challenges are the same. Division continues. There seems to be a growing tendency to retreat every time we face disagreement into smaller and smaller groups, each more certain that they hold the truth, and more determinedly aggressive in their stance against those with whom they disagree.

Let us take our own Communion, which is the focus of this lecture. 'It was the best of times.' Yes, last year's Lambeth Conference, which is a good but by no means infallible guide to our state of health, showed us that in many different ways the Communion is in excellent heart. There is tremendous growth in many parts of the world. The faithfulness and self-sacrificial service of many facing the most awful conditions is awe-inspiring. There is great thirst for development. Even in the more established churches such as England, the USA and elsewhere, from where some would say, no good can come, there is actually much to encourage us.

I was present at both Lambeth 88 and 98 and was heartened by the progress we have made as a Communion on many different fronts. Our commitment to the 90's as a 'Decade of Evangelism' I feel has paid off in many respects - not least in a change of culture in many Provinces from a culture where the priority seemed to be 'keeping the show on the road' to one where there is a real and growing sense of mission. I want to recognise these advances and to welcome them wholeheartedly.

But 'the worst of times'? Is it not also true that we are faced with serious difficulties? As the Communion has grown and developed, it has become more confident. For years we talked of autonomous provinces, a concept which has encouraged each church of the Communion to be adventurous in developing its own life to meet the particular needs of people in different areas. And we were not wrong to do so, for we must be a 'rooted' church. As the report from Section II of the Lambeth Conference says:

"The Church we long to see is...a network of worshipping communities, both great and small, which are rooted in context, living out God's vocation to live in love, seeking the welfare of all God's people, irrespective of racial or cultural differences, and living in forgiveness and generosity... " (p.10)

But perhaps we have also been short-sighted. Perhaps we failed to see the inherent dangers of such diversity of growth. Whilst there has remained a strong and heart-warming sense of loyalty to our Anglican roots, those things which have held us together - common prayer, common ministry, common history have become less and less influential in our individual churches. The powerful question, then, which confronts the whole Anglican Communion is what are the fundamental characteristics of Anglicanism which continue to demand our loyalty, regardless of the particular elements of our church identity which have grown from the local context?

You see, it is clear to me that we are faced with a number of challenges which threaten our unity as a communion, and the intention of this lecture is to offer you some reflections which I hope will help us all as we consider the way forward.

But let me first tease out some of the issues:

There is the tension between 'diversity' and 'unity' in matters of doctrine. Are there, or should there be limits to our doctrinal heterodoxy?

There is the issue of Anglican theological methodology. How far can we rely on the words of Scripture, and how can we authoritatively interpret them for our present age?

There is the tension between what William Franklin, Dean of Yale Divinity School has recently called the Quadrilateral of first world churches - with its historic emphasis on the Church as 'biblical, credal, sacramental and episcopal' and the Quadrilateral of the emerging churches which he describes as 'evangelism, freer worship, commitment to scripture and clear moral teaching'.

And beyond these important issues hangs the question of corporate responsibility. How may we act responsibly together to 'maintain the bonds of peace' whilst the serious issues are considered carefully and prayerfully by us all?

Resolution III.1 of Lambeth 98 calls on us all to explore the subject of applying the 'message of the bible in a world of rapid change and widespread cultural interaction.' It is an exploration I encourage. But we must do so within the context of a wider consideration of how we engage in theological reflection today. It was said during the course of the debate on homosexuality that Resolution 1.10d departed from Anglican theology into biblical literalism. It is not the intention of this lecture to debate that issue or any other in particular, but, rather, to address the wider concern about how potentially divisive issues are handled theologically. I wonder, though, whether it is in fact the case that there was a 'departure' from Anglican methodology? It is a serious charge and needs to be considered carefully.

But let us glance back into our past to see the complexities of 'doctrinal coherence'. When Archbishop Longley, at the request of colonial bishops called the bishops of the Anglican Communion to the first and famous Conference of 1867 he was keen to dispel any suspicion that the Conference would engage in any doctrinal defining which would challenge the received faith of the Church. Longley assured the Lower House of the Canterbury Convocation: 'I should refuse to convene any assembly which pretended to enact any canons or affected to make any decisions binding on the Church'. He went on to say that it was clearly understood that Provinces have the right to make such adaptations and additions to the services of the Church, but 'it is necessary that they receive and maintain without alteration the standards of Faith and Doctrine as now in use in that Church'. That is, the mother Church. Indeed, in this year when we commemorate the 450th anniversary of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, it is right that, alongside the BCP, we acknowledge the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion which have been commonly attached to the Prayer Book since Elizabethan times, as a unique attempt to express the faith of our Church and which set out to map some boundaries within which legitimate diversity could be held in a time of fierce theological and political debate. Longley would surely have assumed them to be still at the core of Anglican belief.

I want then to note two interesting developments in the Communion since 1867. First, the introduction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrileratal through the genius of Samuel Huntingdon. This simple focus on the shape of Anglicanism as a 'biblical, credal, sacramental and episcopal' church was meant to give an ecumenical form to our ecclesiology, not definitive but attractively open. It remains, in my opinion a perceptive outline of apostolic fidelity - of what the Church should take care to nurture in an inclusive and hopeful and hopeful way.

The other development was a growing focus on scripture, tradition and reason as a characteristically Anglican way of doing theology. Chapter 3 of the Virginia Report splendidly outlines this method with the primacy falling on scripture. 'Sola scriptura has been consistently rejected by our Communion as a theological method but we have never rejected Scripture as the pivot and mainstay of theological truth.

It would of course be quite wrong to suggest that this way of doing theology is confined to the Anglican Communion. I do not know of a mainstream Church which does not, in some shape of form, theologise by reference to Scripture, reason and tradition! We must be careful, then, of the danger of exaggeration, but Anglicans explicitly theologise in this way, by what the Virginia Report calls the 'interplay' of the three important tools of theological reflection. But, never, has this meant that Scripture is downplayed or ignored. Anglican scholars have always been in the forefront of the development of biblical criticism, and we can be justly proud of that tradition. We have consistently rejected a narrow biblicism, and I do not myself see any evidence that Lambeth 98 fell into this trap. Nonetheless, it is clear that some felt differently, and we must face that challenge honestly. Perhaps the challenge lies with those who contend so, to provide us with alternative models which are equally faithful to our heritage. From the Reformation on we have sought to engage with Scripture seriously, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and Scripture with tradition and the insights of the human mind and knowledge. As A.S. McGrade observes: 'Hooker's unwillingness to have the Bible used as a source of ahistorical, unambiguous proof texts for dogmatic solutions to all problems is typical of later Anglican thought'. This is clearly so. Anglicans, in line with those of other traditions have on occasion interpreted doctrines beyond the explicit words of Scripture but - as far as I know - have never developed them against the unanimous testimony of Scripture. Scripture thus remains the heart of Anglican theology and Resolution III.1 is a powerful challenge to us all to go more deeply into Scripture and to do so together. Only in that way can we meet the powerful challenge of one bishop at Lambeth 98 who said: 'The bishops were unanimous in their desire to be obedient to Scripture but divided in how to interpret Scripture'.

Inevitably, to engage theologically in this way is to encounter very sharply questions of 'diversity'. Anglicanism has never avoided this. It have never been a 'pure' 'confessional' Church defining itself over against other Churches in an exclusive way. We are heirs of the Reformation as well as of Catholic tradition and we have prided ourselves on being able to hold together evangelicals, catholics and liberals in one household even at times when the tensions between traditions have been very high. At times it must seem very unruly! We have called this diversity 'comprehensiveness'. And we rejoice in the breadth of our Church and Communion. It denotes a generosity of spirit which can sometimes be lacking elsewhere. It is an admission and recognition that no one of the disparate traditions in the family conveys the whole truth of God. We need each tradition to enrich the whole.

I am however surprised and disconcerted when from time to time such 'diversity' or 'comprehensiveness' is held up to be the defining characteristic of Anglicanism. Surely this is wrong. If the only thing we can say about our Communion is that it is diverse we are in serious trouble! We are in search of truth, and at all times we seek to live our lives in a true relationship with God as revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ. That we recognise the validity of everyone's search, and that all may bring fresh insight into the truth does not mean that all views or are acceptable; that anything is tolerated; that there are no cardinal doctrines, beliefs and limits to orthodoxy. The Virginia Report emphatically contradicts this mischievous notion and makes it clear that the limits of diversity are precisely conformity to the 'constant interplay of Scripture, tradition and reason.' Thus, we must be very wary of any understanding of comprehensiveness that masks doctrinal indifference. Instead we need to view it as the breadth of a Communion exploring the fullness of a faith rooted in Scripture, anchored in the creeds, expressed in faithfulness to the Dominical sacraments and embodied in a faithful episcopally-led Church.

William Franklin's essay entitled Lambeth 1998 and the Future Mission of the Episcopal Church is a most thought provoking article which demands serious consideration by us all. He begins with the observation that at Lambeth '98 bishops from the historic churches of the British Isles, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were, for the first time, outnumbered by the bishops of Africa, Asia, South America and elsewhere. He argues that their contribution was particularly significant because it represented a shift from former concerns of structure to life and growth. He suggests that a new Quadrilateral is emerging which he summarises as:

  Growth. Many of the Churches in the second category plan towards, pray for and expect growth to happen.

  Freer worship. Anglican churches of Africa and elsewhere have learned to offer 'freer' styles of worship than Anglicans have hitherto been used to.

  Scripture. Although Anglicans pay lip service to scripture we do not go into it in depth in our teaching which is often shallow, brief and unrelated to the concrete realities of life.

  Clear Moral Teaching. Some Provinces are calling for a 'biblically-based moral code' as a guide to public and private living.

There is much in what Dr Franklin offers with which I agree wholeheartedly. His analysis is thoughtful and fascinating. I have to say that I am not totally convinced by it however. First, I remain convinced that the Chicago Quadrilateral is still fundamental to our identity as a Communion. It has stood the test of time, and has been very significant in ecumenical terms. It can stand quite happily alongside more contemporary forms of self understanding.

More seriously, though, I wonder if it is all a little too neat. I wonder if Dr Franklin has overlooked the fact that the four aspects are not limited to the newer Provinces but have striking parallels in the so-called 'historic' Provinces. I myself would not have great disagreement with any of the points mentioned! Furthermore I note that William's four points have a parallel in the Report of Section IV of the Lambeth Conference, where eight features of Independent Churches are raised as a challenge to the Communion. Lastly, perhaps, it is a great mistake to assume uniformity of purpose or practise in any province of the Communion, and generalisation in these matters can be very misleading.

However Dr Franklin wisely concludes that the principal task of the Episcopal Church in the wake of Lambeth must be the propagation of reasonable dialogue. I welcome this and strongly endorse it. But how may we make this a reality? How may our Communion see these current difficulties as an opportunity not for deepening divisions but for their healing?

There seems to me a trinitarian form to dialogue which I offer now to the Communion for comment and for action. The trinity I speak of is that of love, theological truth and holiness.

Perhaps they may hang together in this form:

• Love without truth is vague and sentimental
• Truth without love is harsh and exclusive
• Holiness without love is legalistic and unattractive
• And this trinity of theological virtues applied to our tensions today may offer us the following:
• The Church needs love to be as generous and as inclusive as the Gospel.
• The Church needs truth to keep in step with scripture and God's will.
• The Church needs holiness for the sake of its integrity.

The Church needs love to be generous and as inclusive as the Gospel. We look at our world today and we see the lack of love and the way this drives people to take sides in a spirit of intolerance and superiority. The Church is sometimes indwelt by this attitude of confrontation. The antidote is to take the Gospel to it. In that outstanding book by Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, the former Archbishop considers the issue of disunity and reflects: 'The movement towards the problem of the reunion of Christendom is also compelled to see its problems in close connection with the Passion'. He goes on to say that the unity question will not be solved through easy humanistic ideas of fellowship and brotherhood but by the hard road of the Cross. He offers there a way of seeing one another as sisters and brothers of the Cross.

Let us take the issue of women in the ordained ministry. There remain deep divisions in the Communion. On the one hand we must recognise that there are those who seek to be faithful Anglicans in spite of their deep theological questions about the rightness of women in the Priesthood. I believe they are to be respected for their devotion to Christ and their integrity. For many of them there is no other place they can call home - and to deny them room in our household is an ironic contradiction of our much-vaunted comprehensiveness. I welcome and encourage efforts to maintain full communion between those of different views and urge that we resist the temptation to sideline them.

On the other hand, I must call on those who are troubled by the ordination of women to accept that women now have respected places as canonically ordained people within our Communion and they too should be honoured and welcomed. In those Provinces where women have been ordained Priests their gifts and the exercise of their ministries should be allowed full reign.

Perhaps I may be allowed to give an illustration from our experience in England. The Church of England's decision in 1993 to create Provincial Episcopal Visitors to assist with the care of congregations who could not accept women's ordination was not universally welcomed! It was a recognition, however, that there was still some distance to go before there could be unanimity on the matter, and that there must be time for reception of this development in ministry in the wider church. The aim was to enable the fullest degree of Communion possible, ensuring that all parishes remained within the diocesan structures, whilst some received the ministry of a specially recognised bishop for some elements of their life.

You may have noticed that some are at present calling on the House of Bishops and the General Synod to rescind the Act of Synod which created these bishops. It is said that PEVs are a theological nonsense and potential source of division. I don't see it that way. As a House of Bishops, we saw the importance of holding the Church together and believed that some 'untidiness' of theology was preferable to the bitterness of division. I must quote the splendid words of Michael Ramsey who, when concluding his remarks on the Passion, states: 'The Cross is the place were the theology of the Church has its meaning, where the unity of the Church is a deep and present reality, and where the Church is already showing the peace of God and the bread from heaven to the nations of mankind'. And where Christians are able to meet with the cross at the centre of conflict they will find sufficient resources to meet in understanding - even if, for some time they will not find agreement. But what they will have discovered through respect and loving encounter is what Ted Scott, that splendid former Primate of Canada, wrote: 'the Church will only be able to act with authority as it becomes an accepting, loving and supportive, challenging community, a community held together by 'bonds of affection'.

But the Church seeks theological truth to keep in step with Scripture and God's will. For Christians, the ultimate source of authority and truth is God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the final, definitive revelation of the Father and he it is whom we declare to the world. This is not a 'cop out' from hard thinking nor does it make it any easier to resolve some of the intractable problems of life. We have only got to think about the interpretation of scripture itself; questions of discipleship, morality- to say nothing of questions of nationhood, international conflict and environment.

There are, indeed, two aspects to this question of truth and authority.

First of all it is personal. We cannot submit to truth and authority in the Church if we have not first bowed to its demands in our individual lives. The Christ we first call Lord is the one to whom we submit as Lord. I will enlarge on this in a moment.

But, of course, it is also corporate and social. I have always been attracted to the Congregational theologian P.T. Forsyth. It was he who criticised the radical tendencies of some Free Church theologies that 'stressed evolution rather than revelation, viewed the kingdom of God as a human creation rather than a divine invasion, minimised human sin and guilt, scaled down the New Testament Christ and his Cross to all-too-human dimensions and regarded Paul as the perverter of an originally simple Gospel about God's fatherhood and man's brotherhood'.

Sadly, such views are still around. Such a gospel will hardly commend itself to people for very long and the Church which embraces such a travesty of the Gospel will die and will deserve to perish. For P.T. Forsyth, the heart of religion was the principle of authority. It was 'ultimately the whole religious question' because submitting to the authority of the church required from that same church faithfulness to the apostolic teaching, testimony to which lay in scripture itself. And Michael Ramsey quotes P.T. Forsyth with approval for arguing that 'the great Church is not the agglutination of local churches but their prius ... the local church was not a church but the Church.. the totality of all Christians flowing to a certain spot and emerging there'. This insight, which another predecessor of mine, Archbishop Benson drew out of his studies on Cyprian one hundred years ago, is, of course, a reminder and a warning about the interdependence of us all in one communion. You will have picked up that I believe the view that 'Anglicanism is but a federation of autonomous Churches' is inadequate. If that is so, I have argued, we are not really a Communion at all - it is just a name. Interdependent is the proper description for a communion of churches, recognising as it does that the whole exists in the local and the local in the whole. We should not be surprised therefore if the Communion is hurt and weakened when Provinces act without proper consultation; we should not be surprised when Provinces are damaged when a few dioceses act unilaterally; we should not be surprised when diocesan unity is undermined when parishes act independently. It is easy to fragment. But history shows that fragmentation leads to further fragmentation. It also shows, as we all know to our cost, how immensely difficult it is to rebuild unity once unilateral action has been taken. It is far harder, but much more in line with Michael Ramsey's views, to determine to stay together, until truth emerges. Our fierce commitment to truth and our stand upon it must be moderated within the believing fellowship. That is why the much neglected Resolution 11 of 1978 Lambeth Conference of 1988 advised: 'member churches not to take action regarding issues which are of concern to the whole Anglican Communion without consultation with a Lambeth Conference or with the episcopate through the Primates committee'. Decisions made without recourse to a theology of the Church may undermine the Church itself and, as we shall contemplate later, hinder its mission.

The Church needs holiness for the sake of its integrity. I said a moment ago that theological truth had implications for the individual and that the truth of accepting the claims of Jesus Christ through baptismal confession is to embrace the totality of the claims that he makes. We are called to a life of discipleship which is a journey into holiness of life and integrity of conduct. 'When Christ first calls a man', said Bonhoeffer famously years ago, 'he bids him come and die'. How neglected in the Church today is the language of sanctification! Could it be that we are so influenced by a culture of 'Have it All Now' that we have timidly moved holiness from the forefront of our expectations to the back? And when holiness is a victim of our culture, sacrifice quickly goes too. And I must make it clear that by holiness I mean wholeness and wholesomeness in the entire spectrum of human life and relationships. We are talking about transparency, about honesty and about faithfulness. The Church should be an environment where people are truly safe and where the fruits of the Spirit have full reign. A culturally driven Church will find this very embarrassing and a holy Church will often be in trouble with the culture in which it is set.

Let me now bring this trinity together. You will have noticed of course that it corresponds to the Holy Trinity: God the Father whose love is generous and inclusive: God the Son who is the Truth: and God the Holy Spirit.

Now is the time to apply this to my title: The Precious Gift of Unity. Generosity in our dealings, commitment to God's truth in our speaking and holiness in our living will bring many fruitful challenges to the building up of our Communion.

First, they will challenge the spirit of independence. I have already referred to the ancient Cyprianic insight that the 'whole' church is embodied in the 'local' and the 'local' in the 'whole'. Ramsey the Anglican, and Forsyth the Congregationalist, are at pains to point out that the implications for unity are that we are dependent upon one another. The whole 'ecclesia' is present in the local and the local is represented to the whole through its bishop. It is not the whole, nor is it independent of the rest. There are thus serious repercussions when a 'local' representation of the whole decides to take unilateral action without the support of the whole. The result may well be deep misunderstanding and division, ending perhaps in broken communion. Similarly, if any part of the body takes unilateral action by interfering in the life of another part of the whole, the action will automatically trigger division.

We all have a responsibility for the whole.

A second challenge is to create united leaderships within the Communion. Your distinguished Presiding Bishop and my good friend Frank Griswold is seeking to build a deeper unity in the House of Bishops. This is to be applauded and encouraged - not only here in the United States but throughout the Communion. We are an episcopally led Church and when there is disunity in the House of Bishops its dangerous chemistry can lead to division in the Province and Communion. Church history tells us that when bishops disagree, disunity and heresy are usually the fruit.

Bishops have a great responsibility for the unity of the Church. Indeed, in the Declaration at the Ordination of a Bishop in the Church of England - and I am sure there are parallels in all Ordinals - the Primate says to the person to be ordained: 'As a chief pastor, he (the bishop) shares with his fellow bishops a special responsibility to maintain and further the unity of the Church, to uphold its discipline and to guard its faith'. It is obvious therefore that the unity of the church is seriously weakened when bishops and dioceses make decisions independently. Disunity at many different levels will ensue when this happens.

'But', we may say, 'compassion for others or zeal for the truth compels us to act even if it means challenging the 'status quo' of the Communion or of our Province'. Well, to challenge is one thing. I hope I have made clear on many occasions that we can and must face the challenges of the complex world in which we live. We cannot stand apart from the reality of the lives we are all living.

But unilateral action is quite another. No one has the right to take decisions which affect the whole. The moment the 'local' wrests decisions which properly belong to the 'whole' from the 'whole' it is engaging in division. No diocese should take unilateral action which impairs the life of the whole Province. No Province should take unilateral action which affect and impair the whole Communion.

Of course, I well understand that decision making is often painful and difficult and, especially when it affects people, may seem agonisingly slow. But if we are to be true to the unity of the Gospel, we have no alternative.

That does not mean, however, that we do nothing. In matters which are demonstrably controversial and divisive, we must deepen the dialogue across the cultures and Provinces. We must not intimidate one another, misrepresent one another or despise one another. It has been suggested that one bishop has refused aid to another because of the way he voted in the Lambeth debate on homosexuality. This is immoral and deeply un-Christian, and certainly has no place in the Anglican way.

Well, I began with Dickens' marvellous statement of the days on the eve of the French Revolution: 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of credulity'. That could all be said of the times we live in. So much potential for growth and failure, for hope and disillusionment, for vision and short-sightedness.

The precious gift of unity is precious because it is a gift for the mission of the Church. Our Lord's prayer for the unity of the Church in John 17 was 'that the world may believe'. That is where our gaze must constantly be as we address issues to do with our identity and self understanding. And we could do far worse than to echo the wonderful words of the First Congress of the Protestant Episcopal Church in its commitment to mission: 'There is one admitted and acknowledged way of expressing the unity of the Church, a method which both procures and denotes that unity, and that is what we call missionary work, the great work of labouring for Christ, when men get together with the heart of Christ and labour side by side and hand in hand to do his work ... Is it possible that there can be a nearer approach to a perfect unity than this? It is to this elevation that the Church Congress desires to lift up the Church's mind; to that state where prejudices and passions shall go to sleep, where the sharp angles of differences shall be rubbed off by communion and contact; where the venom of prejudice shall be purged out, and where reason sees by its own pure light'.

What a tremendous affirmation of mission and unity!

I want to close with this personal testimony borne of serving this Communion over the last eight years. I am a witness to the very best of Anglicanism and some of the worst; I have seen poverty and materialism, wonderful faith and craven unfaithfulness, marvellous sacrifice and patent selfishness, great learning and great ignorance. And the range of these contrasts have been noted in all Provinces. I have concluded that in spite of the many good things I have seen - and they outweigh by far the worst - we are still seeking the full richness of being a Communion of Churches. So far our words dwarf our actions. But, I believe, we are on the way to being a Communion and we shall in reality be a Communion, great, growing and strong, when we truly learn to share, when we truly start to build bridges across the cultures and when we truly start to take mission seriously. And, perhaps, above all, when generous love, commitment to truth founded in the well honed traditions of Anglican theological method and holiness of life permeate the whole of the Communion.