(I write this as one who is committed to the Comprehensiveness of the
historic Anglican Way of Christianity, and who is always seeking to explain
to Anglo-Catholics the concerns of Evangelicals and to Evangelicals the
concerns of Anglo-Catholics! Please read on)

Anglican Comprehensiveness & Diversity in 2001. Are they the same?

I recall that during the 1970s when I was the Librarian of Latimer House,
Oxford, conservative Churchmen talked a lot about and published booklets and
essays on the general theme of Comprehensiveness – on Comprehensiveness both
in the Church of England and in the Anglican Communion of Churches.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

What did we mean in 1975 by Comprehensiveness? We meant (to use the analogy
of the wheel) that there must be a common center or hub to which all hold
and which belongs to all, and then there can be, as the spokes of the wheel,
a variety of doctrinal. liturgical and ethical interpretation of that common
center. Therefore, there was a place in the Church for latitudinarians,
evangelicals, high churchmen and anglo-catholics, as long as they recognized
the authority of Holy Scripture, the truth of the Creed, and an obligation
to use only lawful rites at public worship. At the very center (hub) there
was virtually no place for speculation, but the more one followed the spokes
to the perimeter, the greater the possibility for speculation (e.g., with
respect to theories of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, to cosmology
and creation, to ethical theory etc.) and the greater the diversity in Rites
and Ceremonial (e.g., with respect to the Lord’s Supper/Mass and to
additional devotions).

Of course it was possible in 1970 to advance such a view, appeal to Anglican
history with many examples, and then expect general agreement in a mixed
gathering. For we were all living in what has been called “modernity” and
thus true to certain emphases of the Enlightenment we believed in objective
truth and rational order and agreement. As yet the impact (or full impact)
of so-called inclusive language, subjectivism, individualism, feminism, gay
rights and modern “liturgical renewal” was not yet fully known. Most clergy
and laity considered it was right to live within the general circle
permitted by the Anglican Formularies as they had been understood in the
Church of England for the last few centuries.

DIVERSITY

Today in the Church of England – and much more so in the Episcopal Church of
the USA – there is little talk of comprehensiveness and much talk of
diversity. This parallels the talk in modern society of multi-culturalism
(and the host of other “multi’s”). The dominant model is no longer the wheel
but the round table (a much beloved analogy of Presiding Bishop Griswold of
the ECUSA). Here unity resides in the mutual recognition that each of us,
an autonomous being, has within his/her heart a truth, that this
individualistic truth is to be shared, and that in this sharing of personal
truth each participant will deepen and clarify his/her own sense of “truth
for me” and “truth as I see it.”

At this table there is only one universal truth -- that is that there is no
such thing as objective truth, something out there in the order of things to
attain to and reach for. Rather, truth here is subjective, something to feel
and cherish in the heart. Further, at this table there is one mutually
agreed supreme moral law -- the obligation at all times to tolerate all
others who are themselves also tolerant. Anyone who thinks that he has “THE
truth” or is even searching for “THE truth” cannot be allowed to sit at this
table. He is politely asked to leave and be seated at another table that has
a different philosophy of truth. True “community” is where each one present
affirms the autonomy and subjectivity of all others and looks to benefit
from them.

In a church where toleration is accepted as the primary virtue then those
who have had a tendency to be dogmatic or traditionalist or orthodox very
quickly learn that to survive well they must think the best and believe the
best of others, whom formerly they would have deemed to be heretical or
mistaken. So to toleration [permission] as a modern value/virtue is added
the further value/virtue of niceness. The tolerant and the nice learn to
smile and accept every person and viewpoint (as long of course as such
persons are not overly difficult and intolerant).

In this atmosphere of toleration and niceness, philosophers, sociologists,
psychologists, theologians, liturgiologists, and bishops [and gradually
everybody!] consciously seek to create forms of words for public use that
are open to a variety of meanings so that their use offends no one – except
that is those who believe that there are right forms of words and who are
outside their circle of toleration (but they deserve to be offended!).

The tolerant and nice also tend to provide ways of speaking to cover a
variety of “lifestyles” and ethical relations/relationships so as not to
appear to be condemning what was formerly known as sinful. Further, they
seek to create respect and understanding of different kinds and types of
persons as God is said to have made them (i.e., as they now are).

And not surprisingly while they still use the old word “God” it is for them
no longer a noun of masculine gender but rather of the neutral [or even
feminine] gender. And they hesitate or refuse to speak of this “God” as “the
Father” or “the LORD” and experiment with verbal nouns and new metaphors
(Sanctifier, Sophia, Mother etc.). Further, Deity virtually loses all of its
Transcendence and assumes primarily an immanence so that the it seems as if
we are describing Pantheism or Panentheism.

In this Diversity there is no center, except the individual self, looking
for affirmation in community, in relationships and partnerships. So the
theological content of Christian doctrine and festivals is adjusted and
changed in innovative ways to account for the massive shift from
transcendence to immanence and from God the Holy One to the human self.

IN CONCLUSION

There is no doubt but that the modern religion of diversity is attractive to
a growing minority of people, especially those who want the church to be
always relevant and who have intellectual and psychological reasons for
being angry with “a patriarchalist & sexist society.” As what is called
“post-modernism” (emphasizing personal autonomy and subjectivity with no
objective standards) becomes more dominant in the West, so the religion of
diversity, toleration ad niceness, which affirms the autonomy and
subjectivity of each participant will increase.

We need to recover for the Anglican Way in England and America (as elsewhere
in the Communion) a genuine comprehensiveness that is conscious of the
post-modern world in which it has to survive and prosper, but is more
conscious of the fullness of the Christian Tradition. In this
comprehensiveness, God will be known as the Transcendent Holy Lord who by
His Spirit is known in his creation and in His Church. At the hub of its
wheel will be an authoritative Scripture providing revealed truth and the
basic Trinitarian & Christological dogma of the Nicene Creed. Yet in its
spokes it will know, even rejoice in, a variety of ceremonial in the use of
approved Rites [classic BCP & recent Books of Alternative Services] in
public worship. And it will accept the Threefold Ministry of Bishop,
Presbyter & Deacon [as they are outlined in the classic Ordinal] as
non-negotiable.


In the USA there is an urgent necessity for genuinely traditional
Anglicans/Episcopalians, who are now found as a minority within the
Episcopal Church and in over thirty larger or small
jurisdictions/denominations of the Anglican Continuum, to draw closer
together. Maybe into a New Province via a national Congress.

Anglican Christians who are desirous to be orthodox in faith and morality
must not merely tolerate each other but forbear one another in love, be in
eucharistic communion, and stand together in essentials and against false
religion, in particular that post-modern form of diversity, toleration &
niceness.

And in order to move forward to this goal it would seem that the best way is
for each major Anglican school of thought and practice to be true to its
best or highest tradition and thereby to practice the theological virtues of
faith, hope and charity. The danger right now is that each school [or
“party”] is making itself known not according to its highest and best
tradition but by way of majoring on minors, emphasizing secondary matters
and being over sensitive about its own vocabulary, terms and sentiments. And
the reason for this is that many people are not really familiar with their
own tradition, less still with that of other schools.

For example, the Anglo-Catholic movement at its best has a passion for the
pure worship of the Father through the Incarnate Son in and with the Holy
Spirit in the “Eucharistia,” as the early church called the one service of
the ministry of word and sacrament. Also it has a deep commitment to the
discipline of the daily offices and developing the habits of holiness.
However, if these activities are presented more in terms of specific ways of
celebrating the Eucharist or of vestments for the Eucharist or bodily
posture at the Eucharist and the like, then the secondary and the negative
can so easily be conveyed and the glorifying of God in spirit and in truth
eclipsed.

Likewise, the Evangelical movement at its best has a passion for the
preaching of the Word both to edify the faithful and to convert sinners.
Also it has a deep commitment to family prayers and personal study of the
Bible as a means to a holy walk with the Lord Jesus. However, if these
activities are deeply affected by modern individualism and the consumerism
rampant in the USA, tend to proceed by modern so-called church growth
techniques, and do not originate from a great reverence for the Lord and a
sense of His Majesty, then they can so easily become counterfeits and
substitutes of the real thing.

In an orthodox Anglican Province characterized by genuine comprehensiveness
the Anglo-catholic will be true to the best in his tradition and so will the
Evangelical (and so also will the evangelical high-churchman and the
high-church evangelical and the charismatic high-churchman and the
high-church charismatic). The one will benefit from the strengths of the
other and the unavoidable mutual tension will be healthy in the long term
within genuine koinonia (fellowship) of the Holy Ghost. However, if either
of these two schools (likewise any other school) is functioning at less than
its best then any initial unity will be in danger of being but a veneer and
will be in danger of being destroyed, as the powerful centrifugal forces of
post-modern culture cause friction and division.

Only as each school, like the spokes of the wheel, is firmly attached to the
center (the worship and service of the Blessed and Holy Trinity in spirit
and in truth and the proclamation of His Word in spirit and in truth) can it
be true to the LORD, true to its own providentially-given distinctives, and
live in faith, hope and charity. The Holy Spirit exists to be the
centripetal LOVE and POWER bringing true believers together as they are
drawn nearer to the Father through the Son.
.
The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon June 15, 2001