The Authority of Scripture & the Lambeth Conference of 1948

---------------- a discussion starter --------------------

Whereas The Articles of Religion are most clear on the authority of Scripture, the Lambeth Conference has been, at best, vague and at worst misleading!

Article VI states that 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 Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation.” Then in Article XX it is stated that The Church has “authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Article II speaks of the Word of God, the Son, made flesh.

Here the authority of the Word written and its relation to the Person of Jesus Christ is clear.

Since 1948 it has become common amongst Anglican theologians to speak less of the authority of the Holy Scriptures and more of a “dispersed authority”. The latter is defined by the Lambeth Conference of 1948 in these terms:

“Authority… is distributed among Scripture, Tradition, Creeds, the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the witness of saints, and the consensus fidelium , which is the continuing experience of the Holy Spirit through his faithful people in the Church. It is thus a dispersed rather than a centralized authority, having many elements which combine, interact with, and check each other; these elements together contributing by a process of mutual support, mutual checking, and redressing of errors or exaggerations to the many-sided fullness of the authority which Christ has committed to his Church.”

Such a statement would have been inconceivable, and if conceived driven away as error, by the Reformers of the sixteenth and the standard divines of the seventeenth centuries. Yet it has been used to justify all the innovations of the ECUSA and Anglican Provinces in the West over the last fifty years.

Let us note a few of the problems with it. First of all the impression is given that all the items mentioned, from the Bible to the consensus fidelium, are of equal or roughly equal standing. The Bible is not singled out as having unique authority through Christ Jesus over everything else, although it is first in order. Secondly, it is not clear what is Tradition – of the Patristic Age? Of the Reformation Period? Of all time? Thirdly, it is not clear which Saints – of the Easter, Roman or Anglican Calendars, or of all? Finally, does the consent of the faithful mean the majority votes of Synods or something else?

In terms of how this approach has been used in North America, we may express it thus:

Scripture is in essence a record of religious experience which must be defined, mediated and verified, for what the Bible provides is data and not doctrine. It is unique in that it is first of its kind. What is described in Scripture is defined by the Creeds and in dogma, doctrine and continuing theological writings; it is mediated by the ministry of word and sacrament and it is verified in the witness of the saints and in the consent of the faithful in their democratic synods. Finally (see the 1979 ECUSA and the 1985 Canadian prayer books) “liturgy…is the crucible in which these elements and authority are fused and unified in the fellowship and power of the Holy Spirit” (Lambeth Conf. 1948). Thus the constant and widespread use of the Latin tag – lex orandi, lex credendi [the law of praying is the law of believing] – as a kind of proof that the recent Liturgies are sound.

One can see immediately how the ECUSA has introduced all kinds of innovations in worship, doctrine and discipline and why it consistently claims that it has done so and continues to do so democratically (= consensus fidelium) in local and national synods.

As I pointed out in the 64 page booklet which responded to the Book, To Set Our Hope on Christ, by the Presiding Bishop’s theological team addressed to the whole Anglican Family, the situation in ECUSA has long been that Scripture does not contain doctrine to be believed, confessed and taught, but rather data of religious experience to be collected, sifted, judged and used for a modern purpose. [for my Same-Sex Affection…. Go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com or call 1 800 727 1928]

The Church is to be always under the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God written, in which is not merely data but doctrine in propositional form to be believed, confessed and taught in the Church and by the Church to the world. Of course the Church itself has a certain authority (defined in the Articles); the Creeds have authority; and Councils/Synods have authority; but only as subordinate to the final authority of the Scriptures. And we must not forget that although the visible Church is “a witness and keep of Holy Writ [a most important vocation & duty], yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessary of Salvation” (Article XX).

The Lambeth Conference has erred often and will continue so to do in matters small and large! As also will all church synods. We all need to study the Articles again to recover our real Anglican approach to the Lordship of Christ and the Authority of the Word written, which is closely tied to the Word made flesh, the same Lord Jesus Christ.

[For a set of 12 major expositions by learned divines of The Articles in pdf and on one CD for $20.00, go to www.anglicanmarketplace.com]

As the Province of Nigeria and its Primate, Dr Akinola, have said, the Anglican Churches need their Formularies to guide them and keep them straight and the Articles are one of the Three classic Formularies!

October 20, 2005 petertoon@msn.com