Comprehensivness and Fracture Final

1

Literature Review: Comprehensiveness and Fragmentation TH8002 University of Chester September 1, 2015 Ryan Cook

2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction: A Comprehensive Church? 1.b Comprehensiveness as an ideal 2. The Fragilisation of Society 2.a Charles Taylor and the notion of Fragilisation 2.b.Secularisation, De-secularisation or Somewhere in Between? 2.c Secularisation and Britain: ‘Vicarious Religion’ 2.d Immigration, Minority Religions and Proliferations of the Spiritual 3. Methods of Approach 3.a Theological 3b. Sociological 3.c Experiential 3.d Structural or Legal 4. Theological Method and the Inevitability of Diversity 4.a Scripture 4.b Tradition 4.c. Reason 5. Results of Anglican Theological Method: Multiple Integrities 5.a Ecclesiology of Conflict 5.b Differentiating ‘Thick’ and ‘Thin’ Grounded Ecclesiologies 5.c The Church as Semiotic 5.c Dealing with Multiple Integrities 6. Suggestions for Further Research: Transformative Practice a. Desire, Practice and Belief: James K. A. Smith b. A Performative Apologetic: Elaine Graham

3

1. Introduction: A Comprehensive Church? Anglicanism is in the midst of an identity crisis. Surely it is not a new phenomenon, but in recent years, the worldwide Anglican Communion has begun to fragment. In the United States and Canada, the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church in Canada have both experienced fragmentation over issues of identity. The implicit question underlying the discussions that have led to fragmentation is what can be allowed within the big tent of Anglicanism before it is no longer considered Anglican, or further, Christian. Anglicanism has, in modern times, understood itself as a ‘comprehensive' church. ‘Comprehensiveness' as an ideal that suggests the boundaries of the Anglican tent are broad enough to encompass a variety of theologies, ethical stances and liturgical styles without members having to break communion. As the communion experiences fragmentation, though, this notion of comprehensiveness has been brought into disrepute. There is a live question in modern Anglicanism about where the boundaries of the tent are.

In Britain, the Anglican Church has fared better than its North American counterparts. For instance, in regards to women's ordination it has developed a system of multiple integrities within the church as a means of mitigating damage, and in theory, making room for all participants to flourish. However, it is questionable whether or not this strategy will be fit for purpose in the coming years. The tension is seen in the current event of the Church of England consecrating its first female bishop. While this move is thought of by some to be a victory for equality within the church, it became very evident that it had increased the fragmentation, notably, during the consecration of Phillip North. The Archbishop of York was not permitted to lay hands on North during his consecration because of his involvement in the consecration of the first woman Bishop in the Church, Libby Lane.1 This 1BBC

(2015, June 12) Bishop of Burnley: Rt Rev Philip North consecrated. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-31085569

4 illustrates that on a practical and sacramental level, the Bishops of the Church of England no longer function as a locus of unity and identity for the Church in the same manner as has happened in the past.2

The modern alarm bell regarding the notion of comprehensiveness rang through the work of Bishop Stephen Sykes. In 1978, just before the Lambeth Conference, Sykes produced a call for the renewal of Anglican ecclesiology in his book The Integrity of Anglicanism (Sykes, 1978, 5-25) The Integrity of Anglicanism is a challenge to the notion of ‘comprehensiveness' as put forward, especially, in the thought of F.D. Maurice and Michael Ramsey.3 His diagnosis of the problem suggested that the ideal of comprehensiveness led Anglicanism to believe that it has ‘no special doctrines'. For Sykes, the 'no special doctrines school' led to such broad boundaries that the integrity and identity of the church was being compromised. To defend Anglicanism, Sykes suggested that it must be able to articulate its ecclesiology in a systematic way; to make plain its boundaries and borders as a means of retaining its integrity as an ecclesial body.4

The critique of comprehensiveness offered by Sykes appears to have some merit, as can be witnessed in the aforementioned examples. The question of Anglican identity, which is

For another important study which seeks to expose the diversity of the church in practice, see Francis, Leslie J., and Mandy Robbins. Fragmented Faith?: Exposing the Fault-lines in the Church of England. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. The issues are shown to be far deeper than the institutional issues of women’s ordination or sexual ethics, but also tensions between generations. 2

3The

concept of ‘comprehensiveness' for Sykes is the suggestion that "…the church contains many elements regarded as mutually exclusive…" and for Anglicanism this is "most naturally associated with the inclusion of protestant and catholic elements…in one fellowship." 8 Regarding the theology of F.D. Maurice, Ramsey and the notion of comprehensiveness see Vidler, A. (1948). The theology of F.D. Maurice. London: SCM Press. Also Wolf, W., & Booty, J. (1979). The spirit of Anglicanism: Hooker, Maurice, Temple. Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow. 4

For another critique of comprehensiveness written at the same time, following Sykes’ line of argumentation, see Packer, J. (1981). A kind of Noah's Ark?: The Anglican commitment to comprehensiveness. Oxford: Latimer House.

5 essentially the question of where the boundaries of comprehensiveness lie, is a pivotal question for the future of the church. Mark Chapman notes that there have been significant attempts to bound the idea of comprehensiveness, but none has been widely enough received to provide what is needed (Chapman, 2012,180).5

This literature review will look at the issues surrounding cultivation of Anglican identity in England. Towards this end it will suggest that the Church of England does not exist in a vacuum, but in many ways is a reflection of larger cultural trajectories towards fragmentation. A brief survey of religion in Britain will be discussed, drawing on the work of Grace Davie and recent research by Linda Woodhead et. al. The review will then look at some of the important facets of Anglican theological method, a key to understanding how Anglicans come to a place of such theological diversity resulting in various embodiments of ethics and worship. Understanding the nature of Anglican theological method is also critical to comprehending its inadequacies for navigating the future of the church. The end of Anglican theological method, a system of ‘multiple integrities’, will also be engaged through looking at various exponents of this approach. This leads into a discussion of various ‘methods of approach' in identifying the Church of England using the framework provided by Richard Turnbull: the sociological, theological, legal and experiential. The review will conclude by positing various suggestions for resolution of the problem at hand, which will include commentary on a present method of reconciliation based on ‘encounter of the other’ and the possibility of reimagining the identity of the church through the lens of praxis.

5See

Discussion in Anglican Theology Today (2014) where Mark Chapman discusses the effects of the Lambeth Conferences which were birthed out of the explicit need to address issues related to comprehensiveness, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and renewed attempt to focus on the Episcopate, and the attempt at an ‘anglican Covenant'. (180-209)

6 2.a Charles Taylor and the Notion of Fragilisation The most recent research on the state of religion in Britain suggests that any monochrome, homogenous picture of what it means to be religious in Britain is far too simplistic. While Britain bears marks of secularity, this has not meant a removal of spirituality. Aspects of secularity and spirituality coexist and overlap in many ways. The boundaries between the secular and the religious, and or spiritual, are porous, and no aspect of culture can isolate itself from the pressures of pluralism.

Charles Taylor uses the word ‘fragilisation’ to describe the effects of pluralism in modern western societies. Taylor suggests that one exists in the tension "…between the draw of narratives of closed immanence on one side, and the sense of their inadequacy on the other, strengthened by encounter with existing milieux of religious practice, or just some intimations of the transcendent” (Taylor, 2007, 304). For Taylor, it is not a choice between the religious or the secular, but a convergence of spiritual, philosophical and or religious options. These options press on individuals resulting in a ‘fragilisation' of belief. Taylor says, "The salient feature of western society is not so much a decline of religious faith and practice though there has been lots of that…but rather a mutual fragilization of different religious positions, as well as the outlooks both of belief and unbelief” (2007, 595).

The fragilisation of faith experienced by modern people, due to the contestability of belief, means that religious and secular people often hold their positions more tentatively. James K. A. Smith, commenting on this aspect of Taylor's thought says "…In some fleeting moments of aesthetic enchantment or mundane haunting, even the secularist is pressed by a sense of something more – some "fullness" that wells up within (or presses down upon) the managed imminent frame we've constructed in modernity. In the same way, postmodern believers cannot shield themselves from

7 competing stories that call into question the fundamental story of faith. Evolutionary psychology and expressive individualism are in the water of our secular age, and only a heroic few manage to quell their chatter to create an insulated panic room in which their faith remains solidly secure” (2014,12)

For Taylor, exposure to the different ‘stories’ of faith, belief, and politics – a byproduct of the diversity found in western cultures like Britain – ‘fragilises’ the boundaries and borders of identity. An institution like the Church of England navigates its identity, draws up its boundaries and borders, in the midst of this climate.

The experience of religion in Britain is, to use Charles Taylor's language, a ‘crosspressured space’ (Taylor, 2007,595-617) in which various religious, ethnic and spiritual cultures attempt to coexist alongside one another.6 The snapshot is one of diversity, which inevitably creates a porousness in boundaries and borders of institutions like the Church of England. As a means of explicating factors that contribute to this ‘fragilisation’, the following will be discussed: (1) the evolving conversation on the nature of secularity (2) the reality of rising numbers of immigrants and those adhering to minority religions and (3) the proliferation of spiritualities in modern Britain.

2.b Secularisation, De-secularisation or Somewhere in Between? The secularisation thesis became popular in the 1960s through the work of sociologists of religion Peter Berger, Brian Wilson et. al. It suggested that modernisation inevitably leads to a decline in religion, both in society and the minds of individuals (Berger, 1969,146-171) The process of secularisation was hypothesised to be a relatively linear movement, one

6

James K. A. Smith defines Taylor’s idea of ‘cross-pressure’ as “The simultaneous pressure of various spiritual options; or the feeling of being caught between an echo of transcendence and the drive towards immanentization.” (Smith, 2014, 140)

8 that expected ‘…the influence of religion in the public realm to decline with modernity until it is no more than private idiosyncrasy’ (Martin and Catto, 2012, 374).

This understanding of the movement relies on the presupposition of religion as "miscognition or superstition…On this account, religion belongs to the vast corpus of failed science and mythic speculation” (2012, 376). Therefore, the more that societies ground their accounts of reality in empirical science and rationality, the less they will rely on the ‘miscognition' or ‘superstition' suggested by religious or spiritual ways of being. This amounts to the suggestion that secularisation would bring about a displacement of the religious, leaving religion to be believed, practiced and exercised in the private realm. This idea is similar to what Charles Taylor describes as the "Subtraction Theory” (Taylor, 2007, 22, 26-29).

If the thesis proved right in Britain, today the public domain would be a fairly homogenous space where religion would rarely be offered a seat at the table in public conversation unless dealing with issues pertaining to private spirituality.7 The implications of the secularisation thesis for religious groups, Christianity included, is that they would have to decide how to deal with the forces of modernity in such a way as to sustain religion in an anti-religious world. Secularisation was considered antithetical to religion and, therefore, the two could not exist in the same space. Berger himself suggested that if religion was to survive modernity it must modernise. But he eventually recanted this suggestion by saying that contrary to expectations "What has in fact occurred, is that by and large, religious communities have survived and even flourished to the degree that they have not tried to adapt themselves to the alleged requirements of a secularised world. To put it simply, experiments with secularised religion have generally failed; religious movements with For a discussion on the state of public theology, see Graham, Elaine L. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Public Theology in a Post-secular Age. London: SCM, 2013. Ch. 3-5 7

9 beliefs and practices dripping with reactionary supernaturalism…have widely succeeded” (Berger, 1999, 85).

In general, then, the evidence in Britain and the rest of the western world has not supported the original secularisation thesis. To quote Berger again, "The assumption that we live in a secularised world is false. The world today, with some exceptions…is as furiously religious as ever and in some places more so than ever. This means the whole body of literature that historians and social scientists loosely labeled 'secularisation theory' is essentially mistaken". (Berger, 1999,85) To be sure, modernisation has produced ‘secularity' in society but the impact is not as linear or as straightforward as previously projected.

In response, then, emerges the question regarding whether – if the secularisation thesis has been nuanced, and the world appears to be ‘furiously religious' – one should understand the western world to be undergoing a ‘de-secularisation'. This idea is engaged implicitly and explicitly throughout a series of essays Religion and Change in Britain, edited by Linda Woodhead, a sociological study of religion. In their essay Secular and Religion Martin and Catto seem to suggest that while both theories have merit, they are not necessarily in opposition to each other – possibly, both exist at the same time, in the same spaces: in some ways Britain may be experiencing secularisation, and in other ways it may be experiencing de-secularisation (Martin and Catto, 2012, 385-95). Woodhead suggests that seeing these two movements side by side is only a conundrum if "…existing frameworks are retained, because they assume not only that ‘religion' and ‘secularity' are clear and distinct entities, but that they are elements in a zero sum equation, such that the history can only be told as a simple evolutionary tale: either from religious to secular, or from the secular to the religious” (Woodhead, 2012, 7) The space in which religious groups

10 live and breathe is not one of pure and uncontested secularisation, nor of pure desecularisation but is rather a contested, shared space where these ideologies co-exist.

This coexistence of belief and secularity is increasingly being called the ‘postsecular’. The postsecular is described by Beaumont and Cloke as “…the renewed visibility and consciousness of religion in contemporary culture and politics, which presents a complex and dynamic relationship between diverse religions, humanist and secular positionalities” (Beaumont and Cloke, 2013, 60) Proposals of how to proceed in light of the postsecular are varied. The Radical Orthodoxy movement, which embraces the end of secularism as an ideology, suggests that the dismantling of secularity as a concept, and an embracing of the notion that there is no neutral public space, will allow Christian communities to be unapologetically confessional. Furthermore, it will allow a politic based on Christian accounts of reality – a sacramental ontology – essentially the rebuilding of society from confessional foundations (Smith, 2004, 74). An alternative solution, which is put forward by Beaumont and Cloke, is the creation of ‘spaces of hope’. This is an attempt to reconceptualise public spaces by embracing diversity, rather than rejecting it. It is looking for new language and ways of being in pursuit of the common good and mutual flourishing. It's about creating space for “…disparate interests, of multiple subjectivities and varying motivations” (Beaumont and Cloke, 2013, 65).

2.c Secularisation and Britain: ‘Vicarious Religion.' Throughout her career, Grace Davie, sociologist of religion, has attempted to articulate the way secularity has been uniquely embodied in Britain. Davie’s work helps to highlight the non-binary experience of secularism. She is also helpful in distinguishing the process of secularisation in Europe from other western geographies.

11 In her significant work Religion in Britain Since 1945, Davie argued that in Britain it was neither a straightforwardly secular situation nor was it a burgeoning of religion. Davie employed the concept of "believing without belonging”, which suggests that a significant number of the population still adhere to the label of ‘Christian’ while holding lightly to typical identity markers like church attendance; there is belief, but attendance at Christian worship is not seen as necessity. In her essay Europe, The Exception that Proves the Rule, Davie suggests that for Britain, like the rest of Europe, "…the data is complex, even contradictory, and clear-cut conclusions are difficult….We might more accurately say that western Europeans are unchurched rather than secular. For a marked off falling of religious attendance (especially in the Protestant north) has not yet resulted in an abdication of belief. While many Europeans have ceased to participate in religious institutions, they have not yet abandoned any of their deep-seated religious inclinations” (Davie, 1999, 1150).

In her most recent edition Religion in Britain: A persistent Paradox, Davies employs a second conceptual tool, which she suggests is a more accurate description of the reality experienced by many on the ground: vicarious religion. For Davies ‘vicarious religion' means "…the notion of religion performed by an active minority but on behalf of a much larger number, who (implicitly at least) not only understand, but appear to approve of what the minority is doing” (Davie, 2015, 6). What is suggested is that a helpful way to understand religion in Britain is to see the general population as still religious, but not active; approving, possibly even affectionate towards preferred religious institutions, but not engaged locally to a significant extent. Davies seems to suggest that while Britain has experienced the pressures of modernisation, and this can be seen in the decline of participation, the evidence does not suggest that Britain, like other geographies, is straightforwardly ‘secular’, or even as secular as it appears when using the gauge of

12 church attendance. There is an undercurrent of religion that is embraced, though maybe not practiced, by a good section of the population.

Guest, Olson and Wolffe, in their essay Loss of Monopoly, also acknowledge the decline in church attendance but highlight the reality that Christianity continues to exert significant cultural influence on the populace.8 A few examples are listed: (1) In the 2001 census, 71.8 percent of British population opted to identify as ‘Christian'. This figure, which seemed quite high to some, suggested that for many "Christian is said to be a synonym for ‘British' and hence cultural rather than self-ascription… (2) The deep connection between the English language and the Christian faith in Britain, due to the influence of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. (3) The material culture of Christianity in Britain displayed by the existence of churches in every parish in the country, and especially felt when one looks at the influence of cathedrals on the physical landscape. (4) Britain also "lays claim to a rich seam of artistic, musical and literary work that derives much of its inspiration from the Christian tradition (Guest, Olson and Wolffe, 2012, 65-71)

As a means of understanding the significance of these cultural components, the authors derive a metaphor from the ‘physical' and ‘spiritual' bodies of Christ. The physical body is likened to the active participation in weekly worship; the spiritual body is compared to the spiritual, cultural capital, listed above, which still weaves itself into the British social psyche. The authors suggest that the latter is often overlooked and that "Those convinced in the finality of the ‘death of Christian Britain' readily dismiss such evidence as insubstantial and probably transient (Brown, 2012, 231) but others would want to distinguish between the trajectory of the organised churches and that of the wider Christian ideas and values, asserting that the latter continue to be formative influences in

13 British culture and society (Guest et. al, 2012, 74).” In sum, the ‘spiritual body’ of Christ, for the authors, should not be overlooked and should be considered when attempting to identify the nature of secularism in Britain.

What has been suggested from Davie, Guest, Olson and Wolffe, is that secularism has not completely eroded belief in modern Britain but has eroded – to a degree – the practice of religion. In some ways they both echo Charles Taylor’s concept of ‘cross pressured spaces’ that lead to fragilisation of belief, but not necessarily the undoing of belief. While Britain retains a great deal of spiritual-cultural capital, it is not a binary environment in which people are becoming straightforwardly secular, or straightforwardly religious, but possibly conviction in institutional forms of Church, and dogmatic belief is waning, thereby decreasing levels of involvement.

2.d Immigration, Minority Religions and Proliferations of the Spiritual Another significant factor that shapes the diverse experience of religion in Britain, and adds to the fragilisation of religious institutions, is the arrival of people from other countries, specifically in the post-war period. Davies suggests that the initial influx in Britain was related to the need for labour and expanding the economy in the mid-post war decades (Davie, 2015, 9). She notes that these communities have settled and have now been present in Britain for a few generations. Thus, they are now affecting the religious and cultural landscape of Britain. These immigrant groups bring with them religious ways of being that engage, respond to, and shape British culture. In Religion and Change in Modern Britain five minority religions are highlighted as displaying a significant presence in Britain: Judaism (400,000), Sikhism (700,000) Islam (2.4m), Hinduism (558,342) and Buddhism (152,000). While Judaism apparently boasted a significant presence before the

14 war, it appears that all minority religions have seen an exponential increase in the post-war period (Bluck et. al, 2012; 84-149).

The reality of growing minority religions in Britain is that these religions have sought legitimacy through the development of national representative bodies (Woodhead, 2012, 87). For instance, in England, Judaism has developed the position of ‘Chief Rabbi’. This, in some ways, mirrors the means of legitimacy exemplified by the polity of the Church of England, which is represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The settlement of these religions has increased the sense of, to use the phrase put forward by Matthew Guest, a loss of monopoly for the Church of England. The Church of England must rethink its role and identity as the prominent dispenser of religious life by considering how to respectfully and productively relate to various minority religions and their official representatives. It must also deal with competing ethical standpoints as put forward by these settled religious groups.

The settling of religious minorities in Britain adds to the diversity of the religious landscape and, inevitably, creates a porousness – a fragilisation – in the established boundaries of the Church of England. It has become increasingly important for society to recognise these minority voices as they settle and solidify their presence in British culture. In light of this, the Church of England must acknowledge that it is by no means an insular – and / or monopolising – movement but exists within a particular kind of pluralism that cannot but have a profound effect on the way it understands itself. (Woodhead, 2012, 88).

A further cause of fragilisation of culture, which cannot but press on the Church of England, is what Davie calls the move from ‘obligation to consumption’. Davies suggests that in the past British citizens were obliged to participate in the life of the Church but the

15 proliferation of various forms of the Christian church in England has made it possible for choice to drive the engagement with church communities. So in addition to, and as the product of, the increasing presence of other religions in the country, there is a market of Christian spirituality open to citizens that is easy to access, especially in metropolitan centres. (Davies, 2014,135-155)

It is against this backdrop that the Church of England must attempt to articulate its identity as a means of maintaining unity. Britain is an environment which purports a unique secularity which leans far more towards diversity than a homogeneity; an environment in which the Church of England is one spiritual option among many; an environment where the established church may be respected but many people are happy with vicarious participation.

4. Methods of Approach To begin articulating the nature of any religious community one must decide on a method of approach. Emphasis on a particular approach may yield greater or lesser degrees of flexibility, and/or convergence between parties. Some approaches are more prescriptive and others more descriptive; some have greater potential for inclusivity and others tend toward exclusivity. In the literature it appears there are four commonly recognised approaches, which are typologised by Richard Turnbull as the theological, sociological, experiential, and the structural/legal. The following is a summary of each type.

The first method of approach, for Turnbull, is the theological. “It is the claim that belief is more central than form or style of expression. Identity is essentially confessional, based around the historic understanding of the Christian faith (Turnbull, 2007, 2).” This approach to definition seems to be the most common in the literature surveyed. Mark Chapman,

16 Stephen Sykes, and Paul Avis have written extensively from the conviction that the theological positions of Anglicanism may not be clear but they do exist. Turnbull himself notes that “No one approach can fully explain the nuances and complexities of Anglicanism” (2007, 3). However, he is quick to note that his own approach employs the ‘critical centrality of a theological definition (2007, 3).” This mode of approach is what is found in Sykes’ categories of the ‘doctrinal’ (Newman) and under the heading of ‘doctrines and myths’ (Sykes, 1984, 28).9 In Avis this can be found in the underlying method for his ‘baptism as communion model’ or, drawing on Baron Friedrich von Hügel, is called the ‘intellectual’ approach (Avis, 1999, 23-26).

The second approach offered by Turnbull is the sociological. The sociological emphasises ‘form and family…over content and confession’ (Turnbull, 2007, 2). It looks at Anglicanism through a descriptive lens and may focus on the communal practices of the church as a whole and what this means for the wider population. This approach to understanding the identity of the church has some crossover with Newman’s ‘practical’ or ‘political’ aspects of religion, that also tend towards description rather than prescription.10 The sociological focus tends towards looking at the practice of the church and the way she is embodied in the world. Sykes engagement with Smart, though, is more complex. The sociological approach links to Smart’s institutional category but might also encompass, to some extent, the ‘ritual’ category as this is part of the embodiment of Anglicanism. In Avis’ models of the church “Nation as Church model’ reflects the sociological approach at definition. In Von Hugel, the sociological is most reflected in his ‘institutional’ category. In sum, viewing Anglicanism from a sociological perspective allows for a certain flexibility because of its

9

The categories espoused by Smart can be found in The Religious Experience of Mankind. Glasgow: Fount Paper Backs, 1969. 12-41

17 tendency towards empirical description rather than moving from the presupposition of revealed dogma.11

Third, Turbull suggests the experiential method of approach. This approach looks at Anglicanism through the experience of prayer and worship. While this will inevitably include aspects of doctrine and belief, the main focus is on the common shape of prayer and religious experience (2007, 3). He suggests that ‘even in an age of liturgical experimentation, the framework will reflect a common understanding of prayer.” There is a correlation between what Avis puts forward as the ‘mystical’ (Von Hugel). “The mystical element includes the private prayer and contemplation of ordinary Christians and of those who embrace ‘the religious life’, as well as the ordered public worship of the Church (Avis, 2010, 2).” This category also correlates to Sykes drawing on Newman and Smart (Smart, 1969,16) and their respective categories of ‘devotional’ (Newman) and ‘religious experiences and ritual’ (Smart). It is acknowledged by the authors that the experiential approach is the most empirically slippery mode of description as experience is subjective.12

The last approach suggested by Turnbull is the the structural or legal. Turnbull says “Understanding the church in this way gives emphasis to the role and place of the episcopate in Anglican polity (that is the form of organisation, constitution and government) and the structure and development of cannon law and synodical government” (Turnbull, The descriptive approach exemplified by sociologists of religion, Linda Woodhead and Grace Davie leans this direction. It is a more broad base approach that looks beyond those who may consistently attend church and includes anyone who are comfortable to self identify as Anglican, which in England is in the 2001 census was about 72 percent of the population. 11

For a helpful argument about the potential for common worship as a location of identity formation, see Sykes, Stephen. The Identity of Christianity: Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Chapter 11: Worship, Commitment and Identity. 12

18 2007;3). The focus here is on the institution of the church and what constitutes that institution, what gives it shape. In Avis this can be found in his episcopal succession model and in Von Hugel’s ‘institutional’ category. Respectively, for Newman and Smart, this is called the ‘political’ or the ‘social’.13

What is pertinent to the discussion of Anglican identity is that much of the literature employs the first type, the theological. This is important to note, firstly, because one’s method of approach carries potential for varying degrees of flexibility regarding identity. The theological approach tends towards prescriptivity emerging out of revelation. This is not to suggest that it is completely inflexible, but it may not offer the flexibility found in a more descriptive approach, such as the sociological or experiential, which tend toward being more empirical and view identity through the lens of practice. Second, due to the prominence of the theological approach found in the literature, I will focus mainly on the this aspect, but research in the future may be well served through more robust engagement with other approaches.

13

Viewing religion through the ‘ethical’ or ‘social’ lens as found in Smart and Newman allows an interpretation of religious identity that can be seen, described, and interpreted by its external characteristics. This approach may allow common outworking to be highlighted as a means of convergence or conversation between differing theological positions. See Krizmanich, Thea. https://www.academia.edu/7790361/ Ninian_Smarts_Six_Dimensions_of_Religion_and_its_Application_to_Judaism Accessed January, 18th, 2016

19 Avis

Turnbull

Von Hugel

Nation as Church

Institutional

Episcopal Succesion Model

Baptism as Communion

Sociological

Sykes Newman

Smart

Practical (or Political)

Ethical Teachings & Social Institutions

Descriptive

Legal & Structural

Mystical

Experiential

Devotional (or religious)

Rituals & Experiences

Descriptive/ prescriptive

Intellectual

Theological

Dogmatic (or philosophical)

Doctrines & Myths

Prescriptive

4. Theological Method and the Inevitability of Diversity The identity of particular churches, and the church at large, is intimately connected with questions of authority. As is the case for human persons, identity is shaped – borders and boundaries of personhood are constructed – by how one understands the past, key sacred texts, and how we rationalise our experiences and draw information from them about the world. These ‘sources’ of authority, and the way they are employed, serve to erect boundaries of varying degrees of porousness by which one can say, "This is who I am," and, "This is who I am not." Avis says “The question of authority has been at the heart of the debate about Anglican identity as that has been fashioned, in conflict or dialogue, internal and external, over time” (Avis,1989, 2). The sources of authority that are typically called on to help define Anglican practice are scripture, tradition and reason.14

14

Often a fourth source, experience, is added to the three. It is a matter of debate between scholars whether or not it is right to add a fourth. See Wells, Samuel. What Anglicans Believe: An Introduction. Norwich: Canterbury Norwich, 2011. 41

20

What can be seen in the following section is that the principals of theological method, which shape the theology and practice of the Anglican Church, inevitably lend themselves to diversity. The three ‘sources of authority’ will be looked at separately as means of distinguishing their use but with the understanding that they work together, not separately. The question will now be asked “How do the authorities of scripture, tradition and reason contribute to Anglican identity and diversity?” beginning with scripture and then moving on to tradition and reason.

4.a Scripture In what way is scripture appealed to within the Anglican church as ‘authoritative’? Another way of asking the question might be to say, “In what ways does scripture help to draw boundaries for Anglican theory and practice?” The Articles of religion summarise a commonly accepted view by saying: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”15 The Article suggests that the way, then, in which scriptures are authoritative – boundary drawing – is in regards to what is ‘necessary to salvation’.

This view is championed by Richard Hooker who struggled against the puritans on the one hand and the Roman Catholics on the other hand (Hooker, 1888).16 The Puritans rejected

15

https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/articles-of-religion.aspx#VI ; Outside of the articles, Thomas Cranmer, as discussed by Avis in Anglicanism and the Christian Church, placed in the ordinal a charge for new priests which requires them to “…instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to eternal salvation) but that you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the scriptures.” 16

Hooker pushes back on the idea that apostolic practices should be perpetuated in his times. Richard, Hooker. The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity. Ed. Keeble John. Oxford: Nashota House, 2012. See Book 3, Chapter 2.1-2; preface ch 3. iv; Preface ch4

21 aspects of tradition because they were not found explicitly in scripture and further suggested that all aspects of church polity must be meticulously ordered by scripture.17 On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church argued that the church had authority to mandate aspects of tradition that could not be found in scripture, which Christians were bound to obey. Against the Puritans, Avis says, that “Hooker insisted that to consult the Bible about ‘vain and childish trifles…[was] to derogate from the reverend authority and dignity of scripture’ (Avis, 2014, 106). The immutable part of the teaching of the apostles is not concerned with such secondary and indifferent matters as ecclesiastical ceremonies and government, where we have the light of reason and experience to guide us” (Hooker, 1888, 64). Against the Roman Catholics Hooker circumscribed what is required as only that which is necessary for salvation. Hooker thereby narrowed the field of play to essential doctrines, which opened up the possibility of ‘matters indifferent’: things of secondary importance that allowed for freedom of conscience and interpretation.

For Hooker, the primary purpose of scripture was to reveal God’s saving work, leading humankind to salvation. The emphasis on salvation shaped the nature of biblical authority within Anglicanism. Therefore the way in which the scriptures are authoritative in shaping the identity of the church needs to be seen in two ways: 1) things of fundamental importance for salvation, and 2) things of secondary importance, not detrimental to salvation. Anglicans appeal to scripture as an authority in both of these ways. In theory, the authority of scripture in things necessary for salvation is non-negotiable and shapes the fundamental identity of all Anglicans. The authority of scripture in things negotiable creates a liberality that allows diversity of practice and belief.

17

Laws 295, 325 For a discussion regarding puritan contentions.

22 The way scripture is appealed to by different parties within Anglicanism means that various identities have emerged that could all be considered faithful expressions of the Anglican Church. For instance, William Marshall discusses the chronologically overlapping movements of Evangelicalism and Tractarianism. Evangelicals, through the influence of men like Charles Simeon, emphasised the “…supremacy of scripture which kept all other religious writing in a firmly subordinate place.” This put Simeon in tension with the dogmatic approaches of most Tractarians (Marshall, 2010,130), who agreed with Hooker’s circumscribing of scripture but their interpretation of scripture was grounded – not so much in the reformers, as would have been the case for evangelicals – but rather in the Early Church Fathers (Marshall, 2010, 139 -145). A certain level of agreement could be found in ‘what is necessary for salvation’ but because of freedom to appeal to different interpretive communities – The Fathers, or the Reformers – the two groups forged different identities.18

The rise of the historical critical movement posed new challenges to the way Anglicans appealed to scripture as a locus of authority. The movements of higher (nature of the Bible’s contents) and lower (nature of the text itself) criticism challenged fundamental understandings of biblical authority (Marshall, 2010, 170-172). The trustworthiness of the texts and the rationality of old testament ethics were challenged. Scholars such as B.F. Wescott, J.B. Lightfoot and F.J.A Hart, wrestled with the questions posed by historical criticism. While there were various positions reached by scholars, it appears that Hooker’s approach to scripture which allowed for flexibility in non-essentials remained helpful in navigating multiple approaches to the Bible. Agreement around what is fundamental to salvation allowed elasticity around much else that troubled other denominations. In light of this, Reginald H. Fuller is able to say, “The modus operandi of that appeal to scripture has changed since the acceptance of the historical-critical method. Yet we may justly claim that 18

Marshall notes that the conflicts between evangelicals and Tractarians intensified party feelings and cemented adverse identities, 150.

23 the results of this change are broadly consistent with our historic formularies, the book of common prayer, the Articles of Religion and the catechism, as well as with our standard divines from the reformation to the present day (Sykes & Booty, 1989, 89).”

The Anglican approach to scripture, that circumscribes only what is necessary for salvation as that which must be imposed on the faithful, creates a locus of identity forged on what is considered to be primary. This creates the possibility that various parties will arrive at different conclusions on secondary issues, and allows room for groups to employ scripture in shaping spirituality and identity without having to separate, as happens in more confessional denominations. The trouble seems to emerge when those things which were implicitly assumed and agreed upon during the time when Hookers method was advanced – i.e. sexual ethics, place of women in the church – are challenged due to the possibility of multiple readings of scripture. When the assumed ‘normative’ teaching of scripture is challenged, groups within the church have articulated positions and cemented identities around things which may or may not be essential, arguing that their reading of scripture means particular differences are incompatible with essential faith.

The most recent research on how the scriptures are understood within the Anglican communion, a document called Deep Engagement, Fresh Discovery (2012), explicates the reality of diversity in scriptural interpretation. While recognising that diversity of interpretations of scripture must exist within bounds, it is not outlined explicitly what exactly constitutes the bounds of which it speaks.19 The document puts forward ten descriptive

19

“Anglicans recognise that there is a healthy and necessary diversity of views on the interpretation of Scripture but that such diversity exists within limits.” 40

24 themes20 that emerged from this communion wide study and also seven hermeneutical principals that bound faithful exposition of scripture.21 While the research is helpful as surface level articulation of the issues it addresses, and the themes and hermeneutical principals can be helpful in shaping the way scripture is handled, there is no suggestion that uniformity of interpretation is possible or desirable. Diversity of interpretation is inevitable, and practically Anglicanism is not Roman Catholicism, there is no magisterium to authorise a particular reading of scripture.

4.b Tradition One thing that is clear regarding tradition, generally speaking, is that for protestants without a magisterium, tradition is always employed selectively. The evidence suggests while Anglicans have a respect for tradition, they exist in continuity with this protestant selectivity. There are a number of ways in which tradition is defined and appealed to within Anglicanism and it is difficult to give a uniform picture of how it is used. Throughout the literature, while there is some level of agreement, it is recognised that even the term ‘tradition’ is notoriously ambiguous (Avis, 2000, 69). “To appeal to any aspect of tradition as a source of authority is to conjure up the past to serve the present, but selectively (Avis, 2014, 67).” While acknowledging the ambiguity of tradition Avis does suggest that “In 20

1. Anglicans accord Scripture a central place in the life of the Church. 2. Anglicans value biblical scholarship while acknowledging that Scripture must also be read within the context of the Church’s practice in order for us to hear its fullest meaning. 3. Anglicans experience the Word of the living God through the words of Scripture as we participate in liturgy and worship. 4. Anglicans recognise that the application of Scripture to complex issues requires serious study and prayer. 5. Anglicans recognise that there is a healthy and necessary diversity of views on the interpretation of Scripture but that such diversity exists within limits. 6. Anglicans recognise that both the original contexts in which biblical texts were written and the contemporary cultural contexts in which they are heard are important to the way we read Scripture. 7. Anglicans recognise that Scripture ‘reads’ us as we read the Bible. 8. Anglicans recognise that we hold a great deal in common on these issues with our ecumenical partners. 9. Anglicans recognise that the dynamic interplay between Scripture, reason and tradition constitutes a classic Anglican way of viewing and approaching Scripture. 10. Anglicans recognise that every generation has to approach anew the task of engaging with and interpreting Scripture. (Pg. 40) 21

Principle 1: Christ is the living Word of God. Principle 2: The Old Testament is the foundation of Christian Scripture. Principle 3: The Bible is to be taken as a whole and has within it great depths of spiritual meaning. Principle 4: There are many different literary genres in the Bible, which are to be distinguished carefully and consistently. Principle 5: An accurate reading of the Bible is informed, not threatened, by sound historical and scientific understanding: the God who inspires Scripture as a true witness is the same God who created the world. Principle 6: The Bible must be seen in the contexts of the world in which it was written and also brought into conversation or confrontation with our worlds in order to discern God’s will for us today. Principle 7: We listen to the Scriptures with open hearts and attentive minds accepting their authority for our lives and expecting that we will be transformed and renewed by the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. (pg. 41)

25 Anglicanism tradition is usually understood… as early or normative tradition – the tradition of the catholic church, going back before the reformation to the primitive and undivided church” (Avis,1999, 69). 


The challenge of Anglican appeals to the ‘primitive church’ as normative tradition, is that there is no clear consensus as to what the boundaries are for ‘early or normative tradition’ or the ‘primitive church’’. The boundaries set by these terms are flexible and negotiable, with no solid means of adjudicating between the data emerging from the multiple views of tradition. Stephen Sykes says as much in Unashamed Anglicanism: “Anglican responses which invoke tradition of the undivided church, the creeds, or the Vincentonian Canon bear the aspect of private judgement masquerading as tradition…. They all suffer alike from what has been called the ‘Myth of Christian Beginnings’, which were anything but homogenous” (Sykes, 1995, 77)

In light of this, it is generally understood that various parties within the Church of England appeal more or less – consciously and subconsciously – to their own constructions of tradition and selectively decide what part it plays in the shaping of their identity. Heuristically, then, it may be helpful to look at various articulations of tradition on a spectrum of minimalist to maximalist. Minimalist definitions tend toward allowing more room for diversity, while maximalist definitions tend towards more restrictive theology and practice.

A very minimalist definition of tradition can be traced back to Jeremy Taylor. Taylor wrestled with questions of authority against the backdrop of the Thirty Years War (Sykes

26 and Booty, 1988, 103).22 Fundamental disputes were ongoing regarding the nature of revealed theology with the major question “…Could peace come by confining ones self to the definition of religion?”. Taylor, in his book The Liberty of Prophesying, rejected the path of “excessive definition beyond the fundamentals of the apostles creed” (1988, 104). He acknowledged that wisdom could be drawn from the Fathers but the “Fathers and councils do not present a unanimous witness with an authority before which reason can only bow in submission” (1988, 103). In light of this, and for the sake of peace, Taylor contended for a minimalist appeal to tradition as that which should be normative. A similar minimalist definition of tradition is outlined by Samuel Wells: ‘teachings and practices that go back to earlier times and seem to be more or less contemporaneous with the New Testament texts’ (Well, 2007, 54). Wells includes the ‘Rule of Faith’ as put forward by such writers as Irenaues, Tertullian, Origen and the Apostles Creed – a confession used in the earliest practice of baptism which suggests that it contained fundamental beliefs in the eyes of the church (Wells, 2011, 54-55).

Second, moving further from this minimalist definition, the most significant notion of tradition in Anglicanism – although somewhat hesitantly agreed upon – is the ChicagoLambeth Quadrilateral. The Quadrilateral is the work of William Reed Huntington, an American Episcopalian who sought to overcome ecumenical division and to define his American Anglicanism without the trappings of Englishness. Mark Chapman notes that while Huntington’s definition of normative tradition was intended to be a locus for ecumenical unity, it also has become a default definition of Anglicanism (Chapman, 2012,103). The Quadrilateral’s points, as summarised by Rickard Beckwith in the New Dictionary of Theology, are: “1. the supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures; 2. the Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol (no longer so today) in many places, and the

22Henry

Chadwick, in his essay Tradition, Fathers, and Councils (Sykes & Booty, 1988; 103)

27 Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; 3. the two dominical sacraments; 4. the historic episcopate” (Beckwith, 1988, 21) 23 Many contemporary Anglican theologians have given credence to the quadrilateral as an appropriate summation of the loci of mere Anglican appeals to tradition.24 Stephen Sykes notes that “The four elements of this statement (scripture, the creeds, two sacraments, and the episcopacy) have received repeated endorsement up to the present, though lately with qualifications and amplification (Sykes, 1995, 64).” While there seems to be fairly broad embrace of the quadrilateral, there has been no recognition of it as that which formally constitutes Anglicanism.

The third notion of tradition is more broad and is typically attributed to Lancelot Andrewes. Evangelical Anglican theologian, Richard Turnbull, quotes Andrews who says: “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds [Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles], four general councils, five centuries, and the series of fathers in that period – the centuries, that is, before Constantine and two after, determine the boundary of our faith (Turnbull, 2007, 42).” This encompasses a definition offered by Wells, which he perceives to be intimately connected with the catholic revival – the Oxford Movement – which, when employing the term tradition ‘… refer[ed] explicitly to the revered works of the theologians of the first five centuries, whom they called, collectively, the ‘Fathers’ (Wells, 2007, 57)”.25 When this definition of tradition is used it is not an appeal to a particular set of documents but simply to the edifying, somewhat more authoritative, nature of the period before the church divided, which may offer a more pure expression of the Christian faith. The use of ‘tradition' in this way is far too broad to be used to create primary identity for

24

Prominent theologians of contemporary Anglicanism seem relatively comfortable that the quadrilateral represents Anglicanism. Mark Chapman, Anglican Theology 192-194;Richard Turnbull, Evangelical And Anglican., 38; Paul Avis, The Anglican Understanding of the Church., 34; 25

Wells highlights the difference between the apostolic fathers, the eastern Fathers, and the western fathers.

28 Anglicans if one is looking for agreement, but it can serve as a locus for conversations around secondary issues. There is no illusion of consensus in the employment of tradition in this sense.

If the boundaries of defining tradition are pushed out further, one could include the historic documents of the church and loosely held to formulations of doctrine and canon law. Paul Avis includes a list of data that could be included here which may include (1) The historic formularies (Thirty-nine articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal from 1550 and 1662) (2) The ecclesial teaching of the Lambeth conferences since 1867 (3) Reports of doctrinal commissions (4) Documents emerging from the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (5) The Dublin Statement etc (Avis, 2007, 160-161). These documents are widely accepted to be significant in the sense that they are attempts for Anglicans to articulate identity in various times and places. Some, like Avis, would include these documents in conversations about Anglican tradition, although without demand that they be accepted as dogma.

Two further definitions are offered by Wells. Tradition is more grounded in the practices of the church and pertains to the ceremonies and culture of the Church of England: “Whereas the previous two definitions of tradition…have regard for the church’s divine orientation, this understanding is rooted more in the human reality of the Church.” He includes “..clothing and vestments of its clergy, the architecture and furnishings of its ecclesiastical buildings, the liturgical shape and rituals of its church year, the shape and substance of its prayer books…” etc (Avis, 2007, 59). All the things that could belong to culture or local custom, things which may at times be flexible or discarded.

29 If one looks at the many nuances required when speaking of how Anglicans understand ‘tradition’ it should be acknowledged that appealing to tradition as a means of authority, for establishing, for instance, a homogenous ethical stance, is beyond the remit of what tradition can offer. When using the word ‘authority’ to describe the role of tradition, this must be used with appreciation of the variety of uses of the word within Anglicanism . It is a ‘source’ of conversation but, possibly, it would be most helpful to say that the body of tradition which should be seen as authoritative is only that which pertains to saving faith. Tradition helps to fortify essentials, but that which lies beyond the boundary of what is ‘essential’ is used – consciously and subconsciously – within Anglicanism to fortify difference. Tradition is accessed in a piecemeal fashion, which, for Anglicans, is not seen as a negative but does not necessarily offer a way forward for reaching common consensus on secondary issues, at least not a way for a ‘single’ way forward. One thing that seems clear for Anglicans is that the notion of tradition is not uniform or static; it moves, whether this is recognised by various groups within Anglicanism or not.26

4.c Reason The Anglican appeal to reason is often traced back to Richard Hooker. Hooker did not intend to put forward new understandings of reason, but set himself in a trajectory of thought put forward by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (Avis, 2014,112). Because of Hooker's influence on the early employment of reason in Anglican theology it is instructive to begin by engaging his thought on the matter.

26

Rowan Williams articulates the ambiguity of tradition in his book On Christian Theology. He seems to argue that Tradition is not static and must be recapitulated in every generation in a way that requires it to be flexible and malleable. While his articulation is quite helpful, it still is not evident how this would bring about ‘agreement’. Any deeper engagement with the concept of tradition must, though, I suggest, engage with William. Williams, R. (2000). On Christian theology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 2-4

30 For Hooker, reason is participatory: “Hooker believed that the cosmos was an unfolding of the mind of God in a hierarchy of orders or structures." This suggests that all creation participates to a degree in the mind of God (Holmes,1982,12).27 The outcome of which is to be able to say that “…the created order reflects the mind of God, which is discernible to human reason” (1982, 12). In essence, it is the vocation of reason to discern ‘order’ in the various realms of existence – political, familial, ecclesial etc. – to bring about harmony (Avis, 2014, 114). Avis says that for Hooker “…Reason has its function in the world of law – that ordered world that derives from the God whose being is a law unto his working. The vocation of reason is to bring human existence into conformity with the order and harmony in the nature of all things…” (2014,114). This participatory understanding of reason has contributed to the way Anglicans, traditionally, understand their body politic. There is continuity between the mind of God and the order of the cosmos and it is the role of reason to discern such order, which happens in the midst of the ecclesial body (Holmes, 1982, 13)

Alan Bartlett notes an important distinction between Hooker’s understanding of reason and conceptions of reason put forward in the modern world. He argues that for Hooker reason was corporate. “…the collective wisdom of the whole body of the church – as against judgements of individuals….” (Bartlett, 2007, 147). This is significantly different than the way reason is viewed in a post modern culture. There has been, through the enlightenment, an individualistic reshaping of the way reason is understood and employed.

Reason was not understood as it is by some in the modern world to be an instrument of defence against authoritarian structures but rather, for Hooker, reason was the collective understanding of the church to suggest and enforce policy in ecclesial communities. In 27See

also discussion in Bartlett, Alan. A Passionate Balance: The Anglican Tradition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2007.146

31 matters indifferent, the corporate reason of the church puts forward its common mind and the clergy and the people of the church were expected to comply. This understanding of the communal nature of reason in Hooker, understood as the common mind of the church on an issue, provides the framework for community and diversity. The challenge for modern Anglicanism is that the nature of reason has shifted; its corporate nature has given way to something much more individualistic.

The first shift could be described as a move from reason as a ‘divine faculty’ used to discern the order of creation, an entity that participated in the mind of God, to reason as a disinterested universal means of establishing truth by employment of the scientific method. The next significant shift is the turn from individualistic reason allied with the scientific method, to post modernity, which purports multiple ‘rationalities’, rooted in, and shaped by, culture.

Paul Avis locates the first shift of the understanding of reason in the work of Thomas Hobbes. He suggests that, “Hobbes injected into English theology a strangely reductionistic and impoverished concept of reason. Reason was reduced to ‘reasoning', to ‘computation’. Hobbes’ mechanical, geometrical theory of knowledge led him to claim that reasoning was not more than working with propositions, basically adding and subtracting the names of things…. Hobbes pushed Anglican theological method into excessive rationalism” (Avis, 2014, 200-101). This rationalism leaned towards a more individualistic autonomous reason, rather than the more corporate nature of its predecessor, as found in Hooker. This new conception of reason weakened the sacramental, ontological link

32 between revelation and the material world. The exploration of the cosmos was not a discerning of divine order, but leaned towards a more autonomous search for truth.28

Alister McGrath describes this shift as one from reason to rationalism. He suggests that post modernity has fractured reason because it has highlighted the reality of plural forms of rationality. There has been a move from ‘rationality’ to ‘rationalities’. McGrath says that “There is no privileged vantage point, no universal concept of reason, which can pass judgement upon them (McGrath, 2007,145).” This understanding of multiple rationalities has affected Anglican theological method. In a mobile, culturally diverse church, it is nearly impossible to ‘reason together’ in hopes of achieving a unified way forward. This is not to say that it should not be attempted but in light of post modern ‘rationalities’, theological method leans toward producing plurality of thought, not unity of thought. Without a means of adjudicating between multiple rationalities, a final authority as is found in the Roman Catholic Church (the magisterium and the papacy), reason becomes a tool of fracture not union.

As an example of the changing times, in 1982 Holmes suggests that the way that scripture, tradition and reason is made effective as a means of authority is by means of Church councils. He mentions the four earliest church councils as an example and then suggests that the Anglican Church still meets in council, although not ecumenical (Holmes, 1982, 15). The event cited is the Lambeth Conference which meets every ten years and brings together Anglicans from every corner of Anglicanism. When Holmes draws on scripture, tradition and reason and appeals to the Lambeth Conference as a way and means for decision making on particular issues, it makes apparent the shifting times, as

This locating of the shift of rationality in Hobbes is not to suggest a uniform movement. The theological work of the Cambridge Platonists, which would have seen reason as a participatory, coexisted at the same time as Hobbes. 28

33 the Lambeth Conference has for the first time in its history, been delayed by Archbishop Justin Welby due to the present fragmented state of the communion.29 The reality that rationality is understood as contextual and culturally located means that the diversity of the church – African, conservative North American, and many of the South American churches – leads to a diversity of positions. The ‘reasoning together’ that was found in Hooker has not proved stable enough to provide a way forward in the midst of a pluralistic culture.

4. d Results of Theological Method: Multiple Integrities Anglican theological method, as a means of dealing with diversity, suggests that uniformity is not guaranteed, and it has never been. The interpretation of scripture is bounded by ‘that which is essential to salvation’; tradition is selectively used by various parties within the church; and reason, in post modernity must be understood in the plural: rationalities. The Anglican church does not function as the Roman Catholic church whereby the hierarchy of the church can make pronouncements to settle conflict. It is therefore forced to give way to multiplicity, rather than uniformity, in thought and practice.

A contemporary attempt to accommodate the diversity of theological praxis is highlighted in the Church of England’s dealings with the issue of women’s ordination.30 Scripture, tradition and reason were engaged to argue the case for theological development. An example of this engagement can be seen in Bishop Henry MacAdoo’s book Anglicans and Tradition and the Ordination of Women, which illustrates the flexibility within Anglican theological method to authentically accommodate multiple positions on the issue (McAdoo, 1997). The theological development of women’s ordination was eventually accepted by the

Conger, George, http://www.anglicanink.com/article/lambeth-conference-cancelled Retrieved August 13, 2015 29See

30https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/women-bishops/the-women-priests-debate.aspx

retrieved September 3, 2015

34 church. However, the issue threatened to fracture the church because various parties had suggested that the integrity of their practice would be compromised should the church embrace the ordination of women.31 The solution was to develop a theology and practice of ‘multiple integrities’ whereby difference of conviction could be accommodated within one church.32 This resulted in a separate vehicle of episcopal oversight for traditionalists whereby they could maintain their traditionalist lineage. In line with its theological method, ‘multiple integrities’ are accommodated as a means of holding the church together.

The move from single integrity to multiple integrities is the genuine fruit of the strengths and weaknesses of Anglican theological method. In an atmosphere of multiple ‘rationalities’, selective use of tradition and freedom around non-essentials in the interpretation of scripture, multiple integrities is the most natural outcome. A few key authors have written in an attempt to validate a theology of multiple integrities. Kathy Rheinard, Stephen Sykes, Paul Avis and Anthony D. Baker, all provide theologies for accommodating multiple integrities. It could be said that the multiple integrities scheme is the foremost strategy at present for dealing with diversity. I will therefore articulate various ways multiplicity has been theologically argued.

31”Following

the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod the Church of England has acknowledged and lived with the view that two contradictory positions on the ordination of women to the priesthood may be held with integrity. This situation was described early in the process through the concept of ‘two integrities’ co-existing side by side: the one integrity acknowledges and accepts the validity of the ordination of women to the priesthood, and the other integrity denies the validity of the ordination of women to the priesthood.” Carol Roberts, Mandy Robbins, Leslie J. Francis and Peter Hills (2006). The Ordination of Women and the Church of England Today: Two Integrities, but One Pattern of Decline in Membership Statistics. Journal of Anglican Studies, 4, 204 32House

of Bishops, Ordination of Women to the Priesthood; House of Bishops, Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure: Code of Practice (includes Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, 1993) (London: General Synod of the Church of England, 1994).

35 5.a Ecclesiology of Conflict In her article Conscience, Interdependence and Embodied Difference Kathryn Reinhard attempts to construct a framework for the accommodation of multiple integrities in the Anglican communion. She suggests that St. Paul, in dealing with the Corinthian church regarding food sacrificed to idols, articulated a space for ‘conscience’. Interestingly Reinhard does not argue for the potential of conscience being the voice of God and therefore individuals must be free to obey conscience. Rather, it is almost the opposite. Reinhard suggests that for Paul conscience is “…neither God’s voice nor an agent of divine judgment” but is fallible. Paul’s concern in dealing with the Corinthians is not an attempt to get them to resist transgressing revelation but their own internal compass which is a ‘socially conditioned technology of the self’ (Rheinhard, 2010, 410). His primary concern is to create space for individual conscience as a means of protecting the unity of the church.

Reinhard suggests that while Paul is convinced that eating idol meat is not wrong, and therefore that the ‘strong’ in the passage have correct belief, he does not allow the strong to enforce a mandatory ‘enlightenment’ that transgresses consciences of the weak (2010, 411). On this reading, Paul encourages the strong and the weak to strive for interdependence in the midst of difference and to preserve the unity of the church. “Paul sees mutual love and interdependence as the proper focus of community rather than the demarcation of who is right and who is wrong (2010, 413).” She goes on to say “Paul’s focus in not on the correctness of determination of the (always fallible) conscience – whether to eat meat or not – but the good of the interdependent community (2010, 420).”

Rheinhard then applies her understanding of Paul’s use of conscience to the present Anglican debate about homosexuality. She suggests that the debate is at an impasse

36 because liberals and conservatives have deadlocked about whether homosexuality should be considered a sin – an issue of conflict much the same as the conversation around idol meat in Paul’s day. Therefore she suggests that the category of conscience should be employed to allow each group to retain their integrity, while also allowing difference. This creates an embodied difference whereby ethical differences are tolerated while not separating communion.33

5.b Differentiating between “Thick’ and ‘Thin’ Ecclesiologies While Rheihard argues the case for the embrace of conflict – a sort of horizontal means of embracing conflict – Stephen Sykes goes a different direction, distinguishing between local and universal expressions of the church. In his article, The Basis of Anglican Fellowship, Sykes puts forward a framework for understanding how identity and diversity relate in the context of the church. His basic proposal is that the church needs to allow for ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ articulations of the church. He borrows from the work of political philosopher Michael Walzer who uses the framework of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ cultural embodiments of ideals. Walzer suggests that it is the thick experience of justice (ideal) in a particular context that allows one to begin to understand justice in a way that can be universalised for other places and times. He encourages a movement from local to trans-local. It is the movement from the local to the trans-local that Sykes says is crucial. Summarising Walzer he says “The case, he argues, is not that we start with a minimalist account and try to translate it into thick provisions. The correct sequence is important and gives primacy of place to thick local traditions (Sykes, 2003,17).” In this Sykes is pushing back on the typical Roman Catholic move, which he sees Anglicans often making, of trying to move from a universal doctrine

Another argument for embodied difference, emerging from America, is McKnight, S. (2014). A fellowship of differents: Showing the world God's design for life together. Zondervan. McKnight makes a similar move to Rhienhard calling Christian communities to embrace deeper tension regarding various ethical issues, while remaining in communion. 33

37 of the church to particular local expressions. He suggests that the more helpful trajectory is from local to universal – getting ‘thinner’ as it moves towards universal.

This move from local to universal as a way to understand the relationship between unity and diversity in the church is, Sykes argues, precisely what one finds in the New Testament. There are no less than 93 images of the Church found in scripture and therefore “It makes…no sense to try and accumulate them into one universally applicable doctrine of the church (2003, 19).” The diversity must be allowed to stand. Instead of moving from a universal definition of the church and pressing it into local contexts, one should follow the example of scripture and move from plurality to universality; move from thick to thin. As one gets thinner, Sykes suggests, hospitality of spirit and kindness are increasingly necessary (2003, 11)

Sykes then suggests a framework for how the ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ work together. He employs the doctrine being developed within Roman Catholicism of ‘subsidiarity’. Subsidiarity is the teaching that “…higher bodies are subsidiary to lower bodies in respect to certain questions.” Subsidiarity suggests that higher bodies leave lower bodies to do their work, without interference, unless an emergency presents itself. This is not a way of the higher body abdicating responsibility, or the lower bodies simply doing what is right in their own eyes, rather it is prioritising the diversity on the ground and suggesting that the higher bodies play a support role, not a dictatorial role. This allows for freedom of inculturation at a local level while.

In his book Reshaping Ecumenical Theology, Paul Avis expresses the legitimacy of ‘thick’ (to use Sykes’ terminology) local expressions and sees it as the inevitable fruit of the gospel coming to a culture (Avis, 2010). Avis understands diversity in the church's thought

38 and practice as an inevitable situation, which has existed since the beginning. He contends that diversity can be seen in the very ‘trust deeds’ of our faith – the New Testament – and while the development of future creeds brought about unanimity on fundamentals, they did not produce a totalising uniformity of belief or practice (Avis 2010, 27). Diversity arises from the very nature of the gospel; a gospel meant for the whole world, which requires inculturation.

Diversity, then, is inevitable and within bounds, welcomed; it is difficult to have inculturation without diversity. In his own words, “It is the effectiveness of mission, as the gospel is spoken into different cultures and contexts, that is the real source of diversity in the Church. This process is circular and self-perpetuating: diversity of expressions of the gospel is an instrument of mission, corresponding to the diversity of cultures. Diversity, positively, creates a multiplicity of access points for evangelization (Avis, 2010, 28).” In sum, Avis would concur with Sykes that diversity in localities must have the freedom to be ‘thick’ and at the universal level ‘thinner’ ecclesiology must be embraced. It is hard to say how helpful the argument is when it comes to the ethics of the church but the realisation of difference between the local and the translocal gives framework for conversation and possible good disagreement.

5.c The Church as Semiotic Another approach to understanding multiple integrities is put forward by Anthony D. Baker who looks at the difference, in Hooker, between the mutable (laws pertaining to ceremonies and liturgy) and the immutable (doctrine as found in the creed). He draws on the incarnation as the embodiment of a type mutability and change; the incarnation functions semiotically as a complete sign, representation, of the God who is represented – yet one cannot fully circumscribe ‘God’ by looking at the incarnation. In a participatory

39 theology of God and the church, the church seeks to live in such a way as to represent the God that it worships; a God of perfect unity.

For Baker, there are various positions on the spectrum of what is helpful, liturgically and ethically, in trying to reflect this unity. Baker suggests that “‘Laws touching matter of order’, then, are for Hooker the particular incarnations, or embodied signs, of the Logos as articulated in the Church, and since articulated through the mutability of historical languages and performances, are themselves mutable (Baker, 2007, 32).” In essence, the way any Christian community attempts to embody truth is a reflection of an ideal but will never be perfectly representative of its ideal, so there must always be room for change.34 This position seems to be calling for all people to pursue a ‘semiotic’ life in the church, one that represents the God who is ‘One’ but also assumes a degree of mutability in Christ. The identity of God is found in ‘doctrine’, especially doctrine found in the creeds. The creed in this view becomes the semi-trancendent way of knowing the ideal. Baker says “The formulation of a Creed in the midst of worship provides a moment of ascent in which we come to be ‘at or near’ a transcendent perspective.”

Because of the emphasis, for Baker, following Hooker, on the unity of God and the need for the church to reflect that unity, the church never ceases to strive for oneness in her identity and participation in the one God. There is recognition that this oneness will only be fully realised in the eschaton but Baker does not take this as a negative pre-determination, but rather a challenge for the church to lean in heavily to forge unity, which is a gift from God that takes place in the ‘furnace of charity’. The furnace of charity is “…our Instruments of Unity, a potential covenant, and, perhaps more important than either, our constant ”The oneness of the church is also contingent and revisable, and this is no less a witness of New Testament ecclesiology. One thinks here, first of all, of the extension of baptism and Pentecost to include Cornelius and the Gentiles, and the great tensions that colour the church in the book of Acts.” (Baker, 2007,36) 34

40 fellowship with one another in sacrament and mission—are intensities of grace that craft, by the will of God and the co-operative and guiding presence of the Spirit, the gift of unity that is the Body of Christ” (2007, 37).

The paradigms provided by the theologians above helpfully articulate the theological possibility of ‘multiple integrities’ within the church. While there is much to commend about the theology put forward in each of these positions, there are also weaknesses. First, it is not clear how many ‘integrities’ can be held within one communion – or a local church for that matter – before diversity overcomes unity. In the case of the consecration of Libby Lane, the role of the archbishop was bracketed for sacramental reasons and this move has become institutionally challenging to the authority of the archbishop. Can multiple, formal (there are always multiple integrities at work), integrities actually exist, and if so, to what degree and for how long? If multiple integrities continue to exist, and most likely increase in number, what does this mean for the identity of the church? Second, will more boundaried parties within the church – conservative catholics, reformed evangelicals – be hospitable enough to welcome continued expressions of multiple integrities without feeling tainted by their ecclesiological connection? Does a ‘multiple integrities’ scheme not make assumptions about the way certain groups understand their borders and boundaries? Regardless of their theoretical merit, it needs to be acknowledged that there are significant, possibly insurmountable, challenges on a practical level in all the ideas proposed above.35 5.d Dealing with Multiple Integrities: Indaba and Diversity In recent years there has been a growing recognition that uniformity in theology and ethics is not possible and that emphasis on methods of dealing with diversity that become 35

Another helpful angle, which is helpful to mention, is Rowan Williams articulation of ‘passionate patience’ in regards to doctrinal formulation within the church. He calls for a long approach to wrestling with questions of doctrine and borrow the concept of ‘passionate patience’ from George Herbert. Williams, R. (2014). Anglican Identities. London: Darton Longman Toodd. 57-72

41 doctrinally prescriptive may actually increase fragmentation. The movement from abstract theology towards prescription of practice is not working. The recognition of this has produced engagement with other means of trying to retain and cultivate unity. One such tool, The ‘Indaba process’ of conversation, attempts to build trust, resulting in understanding and, sometimes, reconciliation, through encounter of the ‘other’. It is a recognition of ‘multiple integrities’ but begins to lean toward ‘production’ not simply postfactum accommodation of the fact of diversity.

In his article Indaba as Obedience Peter John Lee looks at the Indaba process of conversation and reconciliation experienced at the 2008 Lambeth Conference (Lee, 2009). In light of the fractured state of Anglicanism, the Lambeth 2008 conference sought to provide a way for Bishops to hear each other, a way to engage the distance and difference between various cultures and contexts within which Anglicanism exists. There was an innate hope that Indaba would move participants toward each other and slow the trend of divergence.

Indaba intends to move towards reconciliation and convergence by making space for every voice to be heard (Lee, 2009, 148). Stories from various cultures were shared and small groups met to read the scriptures together. There is, in the Indaba framework, an innate hospitality of spirit which seeks to truly listen, through close contact with others, in hopes of overcoming the vitriol sometimes produced by abstract documents, which are often followed by pronouncements of excommunication and heresy. It seeks to locate the ‘other’ in one’s space; to see him or her as a person that is contextually located and whose situation bears down on, and is in reflexive relationship with particular theological ideals.36 Indaba’s method seeks to democratise voices in hopes that greater empathy for the other

36

For more critique of Indaba by Mark Chapman see Anglican Theology, 208

42 develops. In the case of the Lambeth 2008 Conference, it was necessary that the voices of the ever stronger African churches were able to be heard, in contrast to the dominance of English and North American bodies. Small groups facilitated these encounters and attempted to humanise the other in hopes of shifting the tone of conversation. Indaba's shift from abstract theoretical encounters, towards a more human, concrete experience of the other, is a welcomed advance. Although, in the case of Lambeth 2008, it may have been too little, too late.

Another recent example of Indaba is the shared Shared Conversations Project (SCP). In 2013 a report was released on the Church of England and human sexuality. This report has come to be known as the ‘Piling Report’ after its lead facilitator, Joseph Piling.37 It suggested that because of deep disagreement the church was in need of immediate conversations around human sexuality (Grace and Disagreement, 2015, 2). The Piling Report revealed that the church was deeply divided over what should be affirmed in regards to same-sex relationships. The primary question that is engaged through the SCP is: “What is the church’s missionary task today in relation to LGBTI people, and to the culture within which we are called to witness and minister?” (2015,7) Understanding that culture has shifted on LGBTI inclusion requires the church to articulate its mind, and reflect on what these issues mean for the mission of the church. This is an attempt to find out what can be accommodated within the church while retaining communion. In response to this, the The Church of England launched a two year ‘conversation’ that involves small group meetings with representatives from every diocese in the country. The conversations are happening at present and will finish in the spring of 2016.

Piling Report: https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/11/pilling-reportpublished.aspx 37

43 The SCP, employing the Indaba Process, is attempting to bring people of differing theological perspectives together to hear the other. It is clear that the SCP is attempting to transcend doctrinal divisions and party identities, by creating a safe, non-coercive space, by which people are heard. To facilitate this ‘hearing’ the objective of the conversation is not to come to a ‘common mind’. The Grace and Disagreement Handbook used to prepare participants in the conversations says:

“The paradox of conversations of this kind is that they do not require that any participant changes his or her mind. On the other hand, they do require that participants approach the process in a spirit which allows the possibility that their mind may change as a result. Minds may change – but that would not be a measure, in itself, of the “success” of the conversations.” (2015, 22) In the SCP one can witness a methodological move from prescriptive to descriptive. Removing the ‘objective’ gauges of success, strategically sidelines more prescriptive approaches used to facilitate unity. It is different than a synodical approach which intends decision making and thereby elevates the need for clear doctrinal articulations, which can cause participants to fortify boundaries and declare themselves over and against the other before engaging personally with him or her. The SCP, following in the trajectory of ‘multiple integrities’ appears to have its sights set on ‘good disagreement’, a disagreement that recognises the humanity of the other. SCP is attempting to create a hospitable space of encounter, which will hopefully complexify one’s experience while creating empathy. “It is a fine line between believing that someone is profoundly wrong and believing that they are therefore malicious in intent.” (2015, 25)

44 The SCP, then, is not about reaching a common mind but rather is a means of humanising disagreement through encounter with the other. It recognises the ‘multiple integrities’ that exist within the church and seeks empathy and a posture of bearing with one another.

It is hard to predict the outcome of the SCP, especially considering its organisers do not attempt to direct it in a particular way. What may be instructive and worthy of continued thought is the philosophy of ‘encounter’ expressed in the SCP. It seems to move from the presupposition that encountering the other in the flesh creates empathy and increases the possibility of living with disagreemt. Surely there is more understanding regarding how the church deals with diversity to be gained from the SCP, and the results, which will not emerge until summer 2016, are worthy of investigation.

One possible critique of the SCP is that it represents another post-factum accommodation of the issue of diversity but it does not, and might not, intend to offer creative solutions for convergence and identity construction for the future; SCP is reactive, not productive.

6. Suggestions for Further Research: Transformative Practice Many of the attempts to accommodate diversity in the church, evidenced in the multiple integrities theology, are to a degree based on cognitive propositional arguments for or against the embrace of diversity. It seems fair to say that the multiple integrities scheme is a post-factum accommodation to the reality of growing diversity, and there is much to commend in this. However, beyond continued fracture and endless accommodations, it is not clear how this strategy will function productively in the sense of outlining new ways of existing together, whether that be nationally or locally. There is clearly a need for creative reframing of the identity of the church, theoretically and practically, in a way that will help to

45 forge closer social, relational and possibly even theological, ties. While the multiple integrities paradigm has been helpful in creating room for diversity, and slowing fragmentation, there is need to imagine an identity in a way that does not only accommodate diversity but also provides new ways of moving forward together.

The solutions are not apparent at this point, but noting the work of two theologians – James K. A. Smith and Elaine Graham – may be instructive as a means of reimagining the way churches, dioceses and the larger communion can forge new identity. Both authors shift the centre of the conversation from cognitive rationalistic ways of being the church, to emphasise the importance of transformative practice.

6.a Desire, Practice and Belief In his book Desiring the Kingdom James Smith argues for a recovery of an Augustinian anthropology of desire (Smith, 2009, 37). Smith pushes back against approaches to discipleship that focus almost exclusively on cognitive approaches to worldview formation. He suggests that because of the emphasis placed on cognitive propositional forms of discipleship and Christian education there has been an overlooking of the way that practice shapes belief. The ‘worldview’ paradigm prizes intellectual development through the transference of disembodied propositions (2009, 43). While the cognitive aspects of formation are important, Smith contends that ‘believing’ is not simply about transference of information, but comes into being through ‘liturgical practice’. For Smith, liturgy is understood in its broadest sense and includes the liturgies provided by culture. He cites the liturgical theology implicit even in a trip to an American shopping mall (2009, 23). Liturgy – symbol, ritual and habit – shape our desires, and desire shapes belief.

46 “Human persons are intentional creatures whose fundamental way of ‘intending’ the world is love or desire. This love or desire – which is unconscious or non-cognitive – is always aimed at some vision of the good life, some partial articulation of the kingdom. What primes us to be so oriented – and act accordingly – is a set of habits or dispositions that are formed in us through affective, bodily means, especially bodily practices, routines, or rituals that grab hold of hearts through imagination, which is closely linked to our bodily senses” (Smith, 2009,63)

Smith suggests that if Christians are to be formed to be ‘christians’, rather than extensions of current culture, a robust consciousness of the liturgies that are shaping them – whether sacred or secular – is necessary. For Smith, liturgy is a means of culture formation, one that has been under appreciated, especially within evangelical protestantism.

Smith draws on Charles Taylor’s concept of the ‘social imaginary’, which is a sort of ‘precognitive understanding’ of the way the world works (2009, 61). “This “understanding” is more on the order of know-how than propositional knowledge, more on the order of the imagination than the intellect (2009, 66). The social imaginary is the the air that is inhaled or exhaled before one has had a chance to ‘think’ about it. It shapes the human person, and provides the framework for understanding the world. Smith suggests that one’s ‘social imaginary’ can be reflected upon and then re-constituted, where necessary, through deliberate embodied practices. He does not reject the cognitive approach in full, but calls for a more conscious attention to practice as a more holistic environment to fostering belief. What is pertinent here, in regards to the accommodating of diversity, is the emphases that Smith places on ritual, practice, and embodiment.38 The solutions for dealing with diversity, 38

For more on Embodiment in Smith see Smith, James K. A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013. 31-40

47 proposed above, have emphasised rational theologies which the authors implicitly suggest can be ‘believed’ in the intellect and then pressed down through the mind into action, into a way of life. The theology espoused by the authors attempts to convince the reader of the validity of a particular position, in hopes that it will generate practice. Smith critiques this type of thinking because he finds it lacking in terms of the way human persons come to ‘believe’ things about the world. Practice, he would contend, is necessary for the shaping of desire, which forms the social imaginary of the person, resulting in virtuous living.

Smith emphasises the need for a recovery of liturgical life as a means of coming to ‘know’ in a way that is deeper than cognitive approaches provide. Ritual, practice and embodiment provide a way of coming to believe that has the potential to transcend cognitive theological argumentation. The point here is that the theological method of Anglicanism leans towards a cognitive education of the intellect. Problem solving is primarily engaged on the level of rational discourse and then attempts are made to press the results into the practice of the church. While this should be encouraged, it may be productive to explore more deeply the way that common practice serves as a vehicle of believing together.

It seems fair to suggest that this emphasis on ‘practice’ as a primary – although not sole – means of shaping belief could be employed by Anglicans in England and abroad. It may suggest that finding spaces of common practice, embodiments of faith closely tied to the narrative of the Christian faith, may provide productive strategy for the way we believe towards one another. For instance, what would it look like for Anglicans to partner together in the common practice of social justice? How would this shape the way individuals believe together? Is it possible that there could be an overcoming of some conflicts,

48 created by theological and ethical diversity, by engaging together in the practice of social justice?

6.b A Performative Apologetic Another interesting emphasis on praxis that has something to add to this conversation, is that proposed by Elaine Graham in her book Between a Rock and Hard Place. In this work Graham outlines much of what has been said above regarding the nature of public space.39 Graham displays some comfort in using the term ‘post secular’ to describe western culture at present. Following Jurgen Habermas, she gives an account of the reality that the secular exists, but it exists in light of the persistent continuation of religion. Graham engages the “…dissonance between these seemingly co-existent currents of disenchantment and reenchantment” (Graham, 2013, 46). In a culture of multiple rationalities, whether they be multiple religious or political rationalities, Graham calls the church to a ‘performative apologetic’, an embodiment of virtue as a means of truth telling. As public theologian Graham is concerned to offer compelling faith in the public ‘secular’ sphere but doubts the helpfulness of rationalist apologetics in meeting the needs of a post secular world.

Graham’s intention of establishing the case for a performative apologetic brings her into conversation with rationalist apologetics. An evangelical apologetic, she suggests, is rooted in “…an epistemological dominance of rationalist, scientific and propositional proofarguments, at the expense of more contextual or sacramental ways of knowing” (Graham, Graham says that “While it is a contested concept, what characterises post-secularity, in my view, its very paradoxical and unprecedented nature. The emergence globally and nationally of revitalised religious activism as a decisive force, alongside the continuing trajectory of institutional religious decline accompanied by robust intellectual defines of secularism in western societies, takes us into a new territory, empirically and theoretically. All greater or lesser extent hinge on the legitimacy of religious institutions to intervene in public affairs, and how public authorities arbitrate between competing accounts of citizenship and common good.” 34 Also see 42-44 which help to outline the tensions. Between a Rock and a Hard Place, 2013 39

49 2013, 181). Following Max Stackhouse, she contends that a rationalist apologetic, while not all together unhelpful, is often focused on ‘internal coherence’ of propositional truths. Graham pushes for an apologetic that demonstrates its practical utility in the public sphere; a move that includes, but moves past rationalism, towards performance.

Graham attempts to move the conversation beyond the rationalist apologetics allied with the modern mind towards more ‘imaginative’ conceptions of faith rooted in narrative. She highlights the reality that narrative frames one’s reason and that to move beyond conflict may require a sharing of stories, stories which accrue worth through their habitus, their lived quality (Graham, 2013, 207). Drawing on Van Den Toren, she suggests this is a shift from “…’Truth’ not as correspondence with propositional knowledge but as exemplary lifestyle, as a world into which another is invited, in the understanding that cultural context conditions a response (Graham, 2013, 203). The sharing of cultural stories “…may be a device by which different participants can converge within a pluralistic public realm in order to engage in dialogue and apologetics…” (2007, 207).40 The sharing of narrative, then, accompanied by ‘living human testimony’ offers an apologetic that includes, yet transcends, dogma.

What is pertinent for the purpose of this review, is the attention given to the need for wholistic reasoning, which attempts to transcend the frailties of ‘pure reason’ put forward in the modern paradigm. Graham helpfully articulates a turn to the praxis of faith communities whereby the validity of ‘truth’ can be examined. She calls the church to contribute to the common good by the embodiment of virtue. In a post secular situation this

Recovery of the narrative of scripture as a means of unifying the church is also argued by Wright in: Wright, N. (2009). A Scripture-formed Communion? Possibilities and Prospects after Lambeth, ACC, and General Convention. Journal of Anglican Studies, 163-163. Also see articulation of the need for engaging traditions in Bretherton, L. (2006). Hospitality as holiness: Christian witness amid moral diversity. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub. 40

50 offers the potential for an apologetic that does not get bogged down in abstract, cognitive propositional argumentation.

What might these two authors have to say to Anglicans and diversity? As I have attempted to show in the section on theological method and multiple integrities, Anglicanism is fraught with epistemological and rational diversity, which has often led to the fracturing of identity, defining one’s self against another. I would suggest that these authors have something to offer in reimagining the identity of Anglicanism through the lens of praxis.

As James K. A. Smith suggests, one’s rituals, habits and ways of being in the world, shape one’s social imaginary - the precognitive ‘know-how’. Smith turns the rationalist anthropology upside down and suggests that while human persons are shaped through cognitive approaches to discipleship, humans are fundamentally desiring beings. The intention of one’s desires are critical in shaping belief. Again, these desires are shaped by rituals and practice. Smith focuses primarily on the liturgical life of the church as a primary means of shaping desire. What is of interest here is the suggestion that practice, embodiment, and ritual shape belief.

The question to be asked is, “Where are the places and spaces within Anglicanism where common desires can be shaped through common practice?” While an obvious suggestion is that this happens in the context of worship, as Smith suggests, it could also be explored how this might happen in the context of communities that include people of differing theological positions.41 For instance, the common practice of a social justice project might act as a liminal space in which encounter with the other shapes the way that diversity is 41

In the Identity of Christianity Stephen Sykes also suggests that worship may be a crucible for the shaping of a common mind. Sykes, though, does not revisit anthropology to suggest the phenomenological reasons why this may be helpful, as Smith does, leaving his argument somewhat unconvincing.

51 experienced. Might these spaces build the inner capacity of participants to be hospitable towards each other when it comes to their differences in doctrine? Might these spaces function as a way of believing towards each other, rather than away from each other? Emphasis on praxis may provide a way to transcend dogmatics while leaving dogmatic positions somewhat in tact. In sum, how might a shared social justice project operate as a form of catechesis which shapes the way we believe together?

Graham's argument for a ‘performative apologetic’ as a means of declaring the truth of faith in a way that convinces, may also have merit for inter-ecclesial tensions. The nature of present conflicts is that they produce an introverted church. Instead of the church’s energy being focused on mission, its energies are expended in constant struggles to protect and perfect dogma. The shift from rational demonstration of ‘truth’ through abstract reasoning, towards a performance based demonstration of truth, would mean an outward turn for the church. A compelling case for a lived apologetic, which is not to leave behind rational demonstration of truth, but to point towards the need for lived expressions of truth for the sake of mission, may provide an opportunity for convergence in the face of theoretical, propositional disagreement. Finding common ground, areas of common concern, such as care for the vulnerable may provide places where rational disagreement is transcended for the sake of the common good. I am suggesting that perhaps, then, there is hope for renewed identity and unity through the vehicle of common practice. In sum, it seems productive to suggest further research on the potential of common practice as a transformative agent. A sociological, phenomenological exploration of common practices viewed as ‘liminal spaces’, and the potential for these liminal spaces to create flexibility, hospitality and common identity, could be helpful in providing language and models for Anglican identity.

52 A concern for comprehensiveness, the ideal that allows for diversity while not compromising unity, has been assumed and often defended as hallmark of Anglican ecclesiology and identity. This ideal has been challenged by the ever fracturing state of modern society, which continually presses the boundaries of identity. Secularization, though not homogenous, immigration, a diversity of spiritual practice and other sociological phenomena have contributed to this fracturing. Furthermore, it also appears that Anglican theological method tends toward epistemological diversity and is not able to hold the boundaries of identity. In actuality it is possible that Anglican theological method may even be understood as a contributor to the multiplicity of authentic positions within Anglicanism. If Anglicans seek to remain an identifiable ecclesial body, new approaches to identity construction and description must be employed. This literature review has suggested that new descriptions and means of unity may be found by constructing itself around common practice. Communities of practice might serve as liminal spaces that transform identity by encountering the ‘other’ in a way that moves beyond the stumbling block of cognitivepropositional agreement. The practice of social justice – an ideal that resonates for many across the broad spectrum of the church – and the results of this common practice in shaping beliefs and building cohesion between people of difference, appears to be a respectable direction for further research.

53 Word Count: 15002 Bibliography

Avis, P. (1989). Anglicanism and the Christian Church: Theological Resources in Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press. Avis, P. (2000). The Anglican understanding of the church: An introduction. London: SPCK. Avis, P. (2007). The identity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Anglican ecclesiology. London: T & T Clark. Avis, P. (2010). Reshaping ecumenical theology the Church made whole? London: T & T Clark. Avis, P. (2014). In search of authority: Anglican theological method from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Baker, A. (n.d.). On Making Them All One: Unity, Transcendence and the Anglican Church. Journal of Anglican Studies, 11-11. Bartlett, A. (2007). A passionate balance: The Anglican tradition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Bluck, Robert, Sophie Gilliat-ray, David. J Graham, Gurharpal Singh, and John Zavos. "Christianity: A Loss of Monopoly." Relgion and Change in Britain. Ed. Woodhead Linda and Rebecca Catto. Oxford: Routledge, 2012. Print. Bretherton, L. (2006). Hospitality as holiness: Christian witness amid moral diversity. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub. Cloke, Paul, and Justin Beaumont. Working Faith: Faith-based Organizations and Urban Social Justice. Milton-Keyes: Paternoster, 2013. Chaplain, J. (2014). Anglican Social Theology (M. Brown, Ed.). London: Church House Publishing. Chapman, M. (2012). Anglican theology. London: T & T Clark. Continuing Indaba. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://continuingindaba.com/

54 Davies, G. (2012). Relgion in Britain: A persistent paradox (Second Edition ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Faith in Conflict seeks better ways to manage conflict in the church. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://faithinconflict.com/ Forrest, P. (1997, April 23). The Epistemology of Religion. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/ Francis, L., & Robbins, M. (2005). Fragmented faith?: Exposing the fault-lines in the Church of England. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press. Grace and Disagreement: Shared Conversations on Scripture Mission and Sexuality (A reader). (2014). London: Church of England Publishing. Graham, Elaine L. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Public Theology in a Post-secular Age. London: SCM, 2013. Print. Guest, Mathew, Elizabeth Olson, and John Wolffe. "Christianity: A Loss of Monopoly." Relgion and Change in Britain. Ed. Woodhead Linda and Rebecca Catto. Oxford: Routledge, 2012. Holmes, U. (1982). What is Anglicanism? Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow. Richard, Hooker. The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity. Ed. Keeble John. Oxford: Nashota House, 2012. Print. Kathryn, R. (n.d.). Conscience, Interdependence, and Embodied Difference. Journal of Anglican Studies. Lee, P. (2009). Indaba as Obedience: A Post Lambeth 2008 Assessment ‘If someone offends you, talk to him’. Journal of Anglican Studies, 147-147. Macdoo, H. (1991). Anglican Heritage: Theology and Spirituality. Norwich: Canterburry Press. Marshall, W. (2010). Scripture, tradition and reason: A selective view of Anglican theology through the centuries. Dublin: Columba Press in association with APCK.

55 McAdoo, H. (1997). Anglicans and tradition and the ordination of women. Norwich: Canterbury Press. McGrath, A. (1994). Christian theology: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. McKnight, S. (2014). A fellowship of differents: Showing the world God's design for life together. Zondervan. Martin, David, Rebecca Catto, and Rebecca Catto. "The Relgious and the Secular." Relgion and Change in Modern Britain. Ed. Linda Woodhead. Oxford: Routledge, 2012. Packer, J. (1981). A kind of Noah's Ark?: The Anglican commitment to comprehensiveness. Oxford: Latimer House. Rheinhard, K. (n.d.). Conscience, Interdependence, and Embodied Difference: What Paul’s Ecclesial Principles Can Offer the Contemporary Church. Anglcian Theological Review, 403-428. Richard, H. (2012). Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Nashota, WI: Nashota House Press. Roberts, C., Robbins, M., Francis, L., & Hills, P. (n.d.). The Ordination of Women and the Church of England Today: Two Integrities, but One Pattern of Decline in Membership Statistics. Journal of Anglican Studies, 201-201. Rowan, W. (n.d.). Anglican Identities. Darton, Longmon and Todd. Shared Conversations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http:// www.sharedconversations.org/ Smart, N., & Smart, N. (1991). The religious experience of Mankind (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan ;. Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Print. Smith, J. (2014). How (not) to be Secular. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing.

56 Smith, James K. A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013. Sykes, S. (n.d.). The Basis of Anglican Fellowship: Some Challenges for Today. Journal of Anglican Studies, 10-10. Sykes, S. (1978). The integrity of Anglicanism. New York: Seabird Press. Sykes, S. (1984). The identity of Christianity: Theologians and the essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Sykes, S., & Booty, J. (1988). The Study of Anglicanism. Philadelphia, Pa.: SPCK/Fortress Press. Sykes, S. (1995). Unashamed Anglicanism. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press. Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Turnbull, R. (2007). Anglican and Evangelical. York, England: Contiunum International Publishing Group. Vidler, A. (1948). The theology of F.D. Maurice. London: SCM Press. Wells, S. (2011). What Anglicans believe: An introduction. Norwich: Canterbury Press Norwich. Williams, R. (2014). Anglican Identities. London: Darton Longman Toodd. Williams, R. (2000). On Christian theology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Wolf, W., & Booty, J. (1979). The spirit of Anglicanism: Hooker, Maurice, Temple. Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow. Woodhead, L., & Catto, R. (2012). Religion and change in modern Britain. London: Routledge. Wright, N. (n.d.). A Scripture-formed Communion? Possibilities and Prospects after Lambeth, ACC, and General Convention. Journal of Anglican Studies, 163-163.