The Octave of Christian Unity

I found two articles by Fr. Victor E. Novak (1/18 & 1/25) referencing the "Octave of Christian Unity" and concerning the current state, and way forward, for the Anglican Communion, helpful and thought-provoking.  My perspective is one of an active lay person who has, at one time or another, been part of the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed (Presbyterian) communities.

When I taught the new members class at my former Presbyterian church, I would tell them that Luther sought to “reform” the Church by discarding everything that was contrary to Scripture, but that Calvin sought to “re-form” the Church in the image of the early church by throwing out everything that was not specifically mandated by Scripture.  It seems to me that the Anglican reformers, such as Thomas Cranmer, were seeking  something similar.  What each tradition sought to do was to cleanse the Church of what Scripture did not sanction and restore (re-form) the Church in its ancient purity based upon the authority of Scripture.  Throughout the 16th and 17th Centuries there were attempts to bring greater unity to the three traditions in the face of Roman attempts to subject them to Rome.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, they were unable to find that unity.  That failure reverberates today in the fragmentation of the Church around the world and the confusion of its messages.

All three of these Reformation traditions (or at least parts of them) have retained the ecumenical creeds of the united Church and are, in that sense, orthodox.  And while Reformed Christians are perhaps more attached to the Westminster Confession, and Lutheran Christians more attached to the Book of Concord, than Anglicans are attached to the 39 Articles, the purposes and practice of the three doctrinal statements are essentially the same.  For the most part, only ordained persons are required to subscribe to these statements.  None was intended to state anything other than what each tradition believed was mandated by Scripture.  And none was intended as a complete statement.  They are best seen as attempts to distinguish each tradition from the others and from Roman Christianity - as is obvious in the numerous statements from each saying not only what was correct doctrine, but also naming and criticizing incorrect doctrines of the other traditions.  All were viewed as ultimately subject to Scripture.  They also serve the purpose of slowing down doctrinal change over time.  They were never intended to create doctrine apart from Scripture.  In legal terms, they were not legislative but merely declarative of Scripture.

All three of these traditions, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, believed they were restoring (re-forming) the ancient catholic Church.  None of them believed it was creating something new.  Indeed, the explicit purpose was “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda!”, an inherently conservative doctrine seeking to restore the New Testament Church and to prevent non-Scriptural future innovations from contaminating the Church.  The authority of Scripture was raised above any authority of Tradition, or of bishops or councils, in order to preserve the reformed church from corruption.  And let me suggest that this aspect of the Reformation is an important aspect of orthodox ancient Christianity which has been lost, certainly by Rome, and I think by Constantinople and Moscow as well.  That is, the orthodoxy of the united ancient Church is more than just the absence of innovations by the Bishops of Rome.  These three traditions preserve something, the authority of Scripture, that would be lost if the orthodox in the West simply united with the Eastern Orthodox and adopted their doctrine in its entirety.  I think there are other aspects of Reformation theology and practice which are part of the ancient Church but have been lost by both Rome and Constantinople.  But space limitations limit me to this, most important, one.

I must also point out that Fr. Novak’s reference to the ancient patriarchal sees does not really reflect reality.  Canterbury was never one of them, yet he implies that the Anglican Communion would still be solid if the Church of England and Canterbury remained orthodox.  Neither was Moscow one of the ancient Patriarchates.  The Turks may essentially eliminate Constantinople by preventing the election of a successor to the current Patriarch.  There are at least six current Patriarchs of Antioch from different ecclesiastical traditions.  Each national Eastern Orthodox church is independent owing only nominal fealty to Constantinople.  Some of these Patriarchal sees, both past and present, do not accept the Nicene Creed and are thus not orthodox in the ordinary sense.  And so on.  While I think that more institutional connectedness is generally better than less, it is not the essential element of being “catholic” or orthodox, which depend on belief and practice, not membership in some human organization.  And if the Anglican Communion needs a Patriarch, may I suggest the election (by the orthodox provinces) of an orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury as an alternative - around whom the orthodox in the UK might rally in a new, orthodox but disestablished Church of England.

Having been a part of, and admiring in some respects, all three of the great Reformation traditions, I believe that, regarding almost every disagreement over faith and morals, the differences are not insurmountable.  Almost all of the differences are 1) matters primarily of semantics and not substance; 2) matters upon which Scripture is ambiguous; 3) matters which are secondary and not essential to salvation; and/or 4) matters which are of importance only for students of the history of the 16th and 17th Centuries and which are either considered insignificant, or are no longer held, by most orthodox Christians within the three traditions.  There remain significant differences in matters of governance, “catholic orders” and the Eucharist.  Within each tradition, there are unresolved differences over, inter alia, the ordination of women.  And finally there are variations in worship practice, giving rise to the so-called worship wars.

Does Fr. Novak believe that these differences among the three traditions, or within the orthodox Anglicans themselves, are really more than the differences between orthodox Anglicans generally and the Eastern Orthodox?  Perhaps he himself, and the congregation he leads, would be easily assimilated into Eastern Orthodoxy.  But I do not think that is true of Anglicans generally.  I think a better direction for the future would be for the orthodox among Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed to seek greater unity among themselves.  The place to start is probably not with institutional or confessional unity, or even inter-communion.  Rather there should perhaps be a very general statement of the places of theological agreement, starting with the authority of Scripture and the most important places of difference with the “progressive” denominations, and an agreement of co-operation.  These traditions could co-operate by, for example, opening up our places of worship to fledgling congregations from the other traditions.  Anglican and Reformed church plants could especially benefit because TEC and the PCUSA have property clauses so that many orthodox congregations departing those denominations will have to give up their buildings.  A congregation opening up its building to a church plant would also benefit because the church plant would be expected to contribute, according to its means, to the upkeep of the building.  Other ways in which the traditions could co-operate in doing mission would also benefit all three traditions.  Over time, the disagreements over faith and practice which are still significant might be resolved enabling inter-communion and even institutional integration.  And these Reformation traditions should right now cease to think of themselves as “Protestant” by defining themselves by their opposition to the Roman church.  Instead they should define themselves, and ultimately name themselves, as Evangelical, Apostolic and Catholic.

In my opinion there are three issues among the Reformation traditions that would ultimately have to be resolved, and one issue within each of the traditions.  The former include the Eucharist, the Apostolic Episcopacy, and the ordination of lay elders, deacons and deaconesses.  The latter is the ordination of women.  Even with these difficult issues remaining, I believe there is hope.

As to the Eucharist, the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) simply says, “Our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper.”  The 39 Articles (Anglican) state, in part, “The supper of the Lord is not only a sign . . . [T]he Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”  The Westminster Confession (Reformed) says, in part, “Our Lord Jesus, in the night that He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church unto the end of the world . . .”  While I have quoted somewhat selectively to emphasize the commonalities, all three of the traditions explicitly reject “transubstantiation” and all three accept the “real presence” of the Messiah within the elements - though that real presence is expressed differently.  My own preference is the simplicity, and Scriptural reference, of the Lutheran view, but surely there is a way to express these views in a way acceptable to all three groups.

Reformed Christians do not have bishops.  Some Lutherans have bishops while others do not, primarily for historical, not theological reasons.  Luther, I think, hoped that the western catholic church could be reformed and that “Our Churches” would return to a new, reformed, catholic hierarchy.  Anglicans have retained an apostolic episcopacy.  I don’t think this matters from a salvation perspective.  But from an institutional perspective, my preference would be the Anglican view here.  It is a tradition among not only the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, but also among the Oriental Orthodox churches and other traditions.  Lutherans, while they may not be attached to the view would not find an apostolic episcopacy difficult to accept in a broader context.  Even Presbyterians now have individuals holding the office of “Executive Presbyter” which functions much like a bishop in many ways.  Having an apostolic episcopacy helps bring us closer to the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches and may lead to eventual reunification or at least inter-communion.  It also links us with the past, including the church through the ages.  And it would be an additional check against doctrinal drift along with theological statements such as the Anglican 39 Articles and the Lutheran and Reformed “Confessions”.

Unlike Lutherans and Anglicans (and Roman and Orthodox Christians), but, with all due respect, like the early churches described in the New Testament, Reformed denominations ordain their lay leaders as elders (presbyters), deacons and deaconesses.  I believe this tends to encourage the lay leadership of a congregation, give lay-people a greater voice in the larger Church polity and help lay leaders to take their role more seriously.  In Reformed polity, elders (or “ruling elders” along with ministers, called “teaching elders”) serve in the governance of the Church.  Lay deacons and deaconesses help in the ministries of the church to those in the community in need of help.  While, again, I do not believe this is a salvation issue, I believe the Reformed, in this case, have the better view.  The more people are brought into leadership, the more seriously they take their leadership role, and the more lay people take ownership of the Church, the better off the Church will be.

Finally, with respect to the role of women, I think the Anglican Church of North America chose correctly by deciding that, for now, each diocese would decide, for itself, whether to accept women as priests but limited the episcopacy to men.  I believe that, according to the cannons, this compromise cannot change unless pretty much everyone agrees on the change.  Paul’s letters sometimes describe elders and deacons in purely masculine terms.  And there is a paucity of female leadership in the New Testament church.  But it is not clear that it was absent.  Some women are referred to as deaconesses - simply the female form of the word deacon and implying no difference in function.  And Prisca, with her husband Aquilla, seem to have been leaders of the Church in Rome.  There was also, at the time, a paucity of female leadership in the society at large.  So church practice may have simply followed then contemporary societal practice and not represented a theological imperative.  It is also undisputed, however, that within a couple of centuries, formal ordained office was limited to men, and remains so in the vast majority of Christian churches around the world.  And I take seriously the admonition that once women are ordained to the ministry other, more clearly un-Scriptural, departures from traditional orthodoxy follow - though it is not clear what is cause and what is effect.  Christian theologians and leaders, for many of whom I have the greatest respect, have written, stridently, on one side or the other of the issue.

The role of women is disputed as much within each tradition as among the traditions.  Without finding a way to compromise, or at least finesse, this issue unity among the orthodox will never be achieved either within our among our traditions.  Feelings run high.  Each side is confident of its correctness.  The ACNA position, which is impossible in the absence of bishops, preserves (even if strained) the possibility of some sort of inter-communion with Rome, Constantinople and Moscow and allows the respective hierarchies to recognize each other as legitimate.  It allows women to participate in leadership - and women who wish to do so to find a home within the Church.  Yet no one is required to act against his or her own conscience.  For those favoring women’s ordination, the door is open.  Yet there will be places, and offices, in the Church in which women will not be able to serve.  For those opposed to the ordination of women, they must reconcile themselves to the fact that women will be ordained in some parts of the Church, to some offices.  Yet the episcopacy of the Church will be preserved in the traditional form.  For now, and until He comes again or His Spirit provides a clear answer, this seems like the best that we can do.  Nobody wins everything.  Nobody loses everything.  And hope remains for relationships with other orthodox church bodies.

I have suggested that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not represent, in themselves, the entire faith and practice of the undivided ancient church, just as the Roman church does not.  I have further suggested that the Reformation traditions, Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican, were all an attempt to re-form the Western church in its Scriptural, orthodox form, and that they have more in common with each other than these traditions separately have with the Eastern Orthodox churches.  And I have suggested that the Reformation churches, though certainly imperfect, carry within themselves aspects of the New Testament church not fully present in either Rome or the East, particularly the ultimate authority of Scripture, and which should be preserved.  I therefore concluded that seeking unity with the Eastern churches before seeking unity among the Reformation churches was the wrong way forward.  I concluded by proposing ways in which the orthodox Reformation churches might draw closer together.  They might also remember the, very Scriptural, charismatic gifts which have been largely lost in main-line churches, and look for ways to learn from other Christian traditions.