Orthodoxy, Heresy, and the Proposed Anglican Covenant

This is the title of an essay by The Rev. John Kettlewell, Rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, Schuylerville.  The Rev. Kettlewell calls himself a lifelong, orthodox, Anglo-Catholic Christian.  In his essay, Kettlewell+ turns the usual argument in favor of adopting a Covenant on its head.  Rather than a defense of orthodox Anglicanism, the Covenant is argued to be irreverent, perhaps even tantamount to heresy.  This is a strong indictment, based upon an alternate reading of the true nature of orthodoxy.  Whether you agree with the argument contained in the essay or not, it is worth close consideration.  Fr. Kettlewell has kindly allowed the essay to be reprinted here:

The Covenant is one more attempt to establish clearly and without confusion the nature of the Anglican Faith.  My concern is that it diminishes, almost to an irreverent degree, the foundations of Christian orthodoxy and its very nature.  The Creeds, with their richly symbolic language, embrace and embody the essence of our Faith.  The liturgical life of the Church expresses that Faith.  Why do we need a "covenant?"

The supporters of The Covenant represent something like the simplistic notion of the Fifth Century Christian thinker, St. Vincent of Lerins, who affirmed what apparently The Covenant is trying to affirm about Anglicanism:  "Orthodox doctrine is what is believed everywhere, at all times, and by all."  On the basis of that simplistic notion St. Vincent condemned the thinking of St. Augustine, one of the greatest of all the Christian theologians.  The Encyclopedia Britannica says of his views, "...he was convinced that Catholicism held the truth and that any innovator who indirectly or directly destroyed any part of the truth was a heretic."  Ironically, not long after his time, his views were strongly criticized by the writing of St. Prosper of Acquitaine.  The so-called "Vincentian Canon" carried little weight in the history of Christian thought.  It would not be possible to fit into that narrow box the thinking of the Greek and Latin Fathers, or of St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Anselm, or Richard Hooker, or Edward Pusey, or most, if not all, of the leading theological thinkers of Christian (and Anglican) history.

From The Christian Century: "British theologian Kenneth Leech says that "...the holding together of apparent contradiction and ambiguities is of the very nature" of what he calls "the orthodox project."  For Leech, "it is heresy that attempts to oversimplify the problems, to quash the struggle."  In Leech's terms, the whole aim of The Covenant would be "heresy."  The chief purpose of The Covenant is to "quash the struggle."  Leech says, "The rejection of paradox and ambiguity is the characteristic of heretics of all ages."  Exactly what the purveyors of The Covenant are trying to do.  "Heresy is one dimensional, narrow, over-simplified, and boring.  It is straight-line thinking, preferring a pseudo-clarity to the many sidedness of truth, tidiness to the mess and complexity of reality.  Orthodoxy by contrast is rooted in the unknowable."  In other words, the whole idea of The Covenant has a distinctly "heretical" character.

We, the Church, are "stewards of God's mysteries" (1 Cor. 4:1)  The irreverent aim of The Covenant is to abandon that responsibility, for the very human assumption that: We know what the Bible says.  We know what is true, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, undermining the "mysteries" of true "orthodoxy" for the sake of simplistic clarity.

The Reverend John Kettlewell (a lifelong "orthodox" Anglo-Catholic Christian)

Comments

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

To affirm the value of theological reflection does not mean that we abdicate accountability to the recognized doctrinal standards that constitute us as a Church – which I take to be Fr. Waverly-Shank’s point about the need for limits. The Gospel needs to be re-appropriated in every age; as Karl Barth said, “God’s Word is new every morning.” But that does not mean it is okay to say the Creed with your fingers crossed, or to reduce its careful chosen terminology to poetry or metaphor.

It is precisely because theological reflection is an ongoing process that the process of discernment is so important. The Covenant provides such a process.

To say that the Covenant does not add to classic Anglican formularies does not render it innocuous or purposeless. Our problem is that many feel that the current leadership of the Episcopal Church merely gives lip service to these formularies while ignoring them or reinterpreting them to such degree that they have lost their meaning or force. Others, of course, disagree. The Anglican Covenant provides a framework for a rational and prayerful process of discernment on the part of the whole communion on matters that affect the whole.

[John White]

The Rev. Canon Dr. Brown attempts to reassure us about the Covenant, that “it does not stifle theological reflection.” Yet the Rev. Mr. Waverly-Shank calls instead for a limit on intellectual discourse, yelling: “This is why we need a Covenant! No one is building limits. And we badly need them!” Unfortunately for voices of moderation, there are too many other indications that the framers and supporters of the Covenant look forward to cracking down on those they find too “liberal”.

[William F. Hammond]

"... Join the Episcopal Church -- they won't make you believe any thing.

"That is true today. Not only that, TEC doesn't offer any moral standards. ..."

Really !?!

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

Fr. Kettlewell misconstrues the point of the Anglican Covenant.

The covenant is NOT “an attempt to establish clearly and without confusion the nature of the Anglican Faith.” Rather, the text elegantly reaffirms “historic formularies” (identified by a footnote as the Articles of Religion) while integrating the text of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrillateral into section 1.1. The Covenant does NOT add to these foundational definitions of Anglican teaching, nor even propose one particular hermeneutic for their interpretation.

The Covenant calls Anglicans to treat these formularies responsibility. But it does not stifle theological reflection, recognizing that “prayer, study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as it seeks to… proclaim the gospel afresh in each generation.” Sometimes matters that are controversial may “evoke a deeper understanding … of God’s revelation”; but others may be “obstacles to the faith.”

The Covenant proposes a responsible and responsive process to address such issues as a body -- “such matters therefore need to be tested by shared discernment.”

At its core, the Covenant clarifies the nature of “Communion” and the tension between the autonomy and accountability. It provides a process of functioning as communion that takes both of these into account.

[Father Michael Waverly-Shank]

Iam writing this to disagree with Father John Kettlewell. I sadly feel that an Anglican Covenant is necessary.
One of the theology professors at Phila. Divinity School liked to get a good discussion going each class time. He would tell us about some orthodox theological concept and then wait for the debate to start. Class members might suggest 3 or 4 variations on what the professor had said. In his quiet voice he would allow that these were validalternatives. Then some one might come up with a really off the wall alternative # 5. In the same quiet voice the professor would sadly say. "I'm sorry son, now you are a heretic."
This is why we need a Covenant! No one is building limits. And we badly need them! Years ago there was a sad joke about TEC. Join the Episcopal Church - they won't make you believe any thing.
That is true today. Not only that, TEC doesn't offer any moral standards. THis is why we need an Anglican Covenant.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

First a historical note (a more wide-ranging response to come):

Why exactly are we talking about Vincent of Lerins? Vincent was actually much celebrated in Church History class at General Seminary (not exactly a bastion of theological rigidity) twenty five years ago.

Vincent’s principle objection in formulating his “canon” was to Augustine’s doctrine of Double Predestination -- that the elect and the damned are predestined from eternity. This view was ultimately sidelined by the consensus of the early church (in agreement with Vincent) which tended toward John Cassian’s Semi-Pelagianism. Augustine’s position resurfaces a millennium later when Calvin describes it as a “horrible decree” but true, nonetheless. While I rather like Calvin, and especially Augustine, Vincent’s definition holds on this point. Augustine goes well beyond the Catholic tradition (as well as Lutheran and Anglican teaching) on the doctrine of predestination, as well as its Pauline foundation, and the comfort level of most (non-Calvinist) Christians. (Augustine’s view certainly runs counter to the universalistic sentiments of most theological “progressives”).

While Vincent doesn’t assist the church in the discernment of an authentic prophet witness, or even deal with Newman’s important notion of development of doctrine, it has a limited but common sense utility.