Over at Titusonenine, the rhetorical games continue. Reappraiser says something. Reasserter says it makes no logical sense. Dialogue averted. QED
Phil Snyder says, "CG [sic] has no teaching authority."
Well, who does?
The conventional wisdom of the reappraisers is that the ABC is not an Anglican Pope. OK. But one does not necessarily have to be the Pope in order to have some teaching authority. See Eastern Orthodoxy. ++Rowan (as much as I fear giving him such dignity) might be like the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Or maybe he is something unique in himself.
What is the relationship between Canterbury and TEC? What strains the bonds of our unity? The answer to that question is to be found in the history of a most turbulent decade, both politically and doctrinally: the 1780s.
I don't quite know the answer yet.
2 comments:
Or maybe not. It seems upon further review that the English bishops would have ditched the Creeds if they didn't fear the disapprobation of the Non-Jurors and possible consequences from some vague party (not George III probably).
It would seem to me that Ecumenical Patriarch is closer than Pope (unless we mean the Pope of Alexandria, Shenouda III at present). An Ecumenical Patriarch, however, must be willing to settle disputes noting problems on all sides, and ++Williams has failed in this task to date. He is not, I repeat, not impartial (he rarely chastizes boundary busting bishops for example), and that suggests to me that we need more diffuse arrangements of authority (given bishops have and do ere).
I think it might be better to consider polycentric approaches that recognize Christ at the Center. This is closer to the East than to the West. This means matters would only reach his level when disputes cannot be settled at a lower level, and then these matters should not be settled ex cathedra but rather in counsel not just with bishops but with presbyters and laity (I think the move toward a Primate heavy Communion is quite dangerous. I didn't become Anglican only to embrace another Curia.).
But I also think there needs to be some recognition of both autonomy and interdependence both provincially and also personally (it seems gay folks don't get such recognition as the powers play their games). McIllaya should be able to present against ++Akinola for gross abuses of fellow believers who in good faith disagree. But that requires a larger tent than some are willing to live under.
As for teaching authority, bishops do have this, but ++Cranmer redirected their authority mostly as shepherd, as he saw grave abuses with episcopal authority and lack of contact with real people. And it's limited. Christians can and do in conscience disagree with their bishops on many matters. I think, however, when it comes to matters of first import, matters of Creed, then bishops should have much more weight, as should theologians (who have a certain imprimitur--some theologians go over the edge on such matters and who had quite a great deal of authority from universities in the Medieval period).
Overall, I'm for authority and teaching authority, but within certain limits and with the ability to challenge teaching or actions by bishops where the teaching is in direct contradiction to the Creeds (+Spong comes to mind) or where bishops use authority to do harm to fellow members of the body. This might force bishops to think more carefully before acting, even to refusing communion to a member of the Body, which should always be done without haste, without malice, and with a recognition that if s/he is wrong in the action, God's judgment of abusive shepherds is quite harsh.
But that requires that moral matters not be conflated directly with dogma, and the reasserters are loathe to do this. So I wonder how we might conflate usury, the eating of blood, and having sex during menstruation with the Trinity and Incarnation?
Post a Comment