09/23/2004: "The limits of pluriformity"

Duke professor David Steinmetz does a great job of blowing away Frank Griswold's infinite-diversity approach to the faith of the Church:

In the midst of this increasingly chaotic situation, Archbishop Williams appointed in 2003 an internationally representative body of prominent Anglicans to see whether what remains of the unity of the Anglican Communion might be preserved. The report of the so-called Lambeth Commission will be released on Oct. 18. Both the London Times and the Telegraph predict it will recommend that the Episcopal Church be disciplined.

The most likely form of discipline would involve suspension of liberal bishops from the international councils of the Anglican Communion, at least until they "repent" and modify their policies. If so, Presiding Bishop Griswold would suffer the humiliation of not being invited to meetings of the primates of the Anglican Communion.

Griswold clearly regards such a proposed course of action as monstrously unfair and in violation of the spirit of "classical Anglicanism." Classical Anglicanism, in his view, involves unity in baptism, prayer and the celebration of the eucharist. It does not involve doctrinal uniformity and is deeply suspicious of overly literal readings of Scripture. Moreover, it tolerates theological diversity, not out of weakness or indifference, but out of a deep conviction that evangelicals, liberals and Anglo-Catholics need each other in order to be as much as possible a self-correcting church of Christ.

The question Griswold does not answer in his spirited defense of classical Anglicanism is where legitimate boundaries lie. At what point does diversity become incoherence?

After all, what is usually called heresy is not simply a "divergent opinion" that can readily be tolerated. Heresy is the rejection of a fundamental principle that has hitherto defined a group. The Sierra Club would undoubtedly be more inclusive if it accepted members who were eager to drill in the Alaskan wilderness, but it would not be more coherent. Not drilling in the Alaskan wilderness is part of a fundamental set of principles that defines the Sierra Club and makes it what it is.

Which means diversity has its limits, even in the admirably tolerant world of classical Anglicanism. The question for liberals and conservatives alike is where to draw the line, not whether.

Read it all.

Replies: 6 Comments

on Thursday, September 23rd, Christopher Culver said

'After all, what is usually called heresy is not simply a "divergent opinion" that can readily be tolerated.'

Well, heresy is often thought of as something that deviates from the creeds of the ecumenical councils. But no ecumenical council ever condemned homosexuality, which is the current matter of dispute. Therefore, I don't think (as unhappy as I am with ECUSA) that one province's approval of the matter can be placed on the same level as Arianism or Gnosticism.

on Thursday, September 23rd, Marion R. said

As you state it, no.

But the normalization and sanctification of homoerotic behavior is merely a symptom.

Even its most ardent proponents must admit that until this latest generation the Church has advised clearly against enaging in this behavior, and has done so both with direct appeal to Scripture and with natural law reasoning.

Any critical thinker must ask: what changed?

When you look back over the theological, pastoral, and ecclesial practices that brought about this abrupt change in Church opinion you find simple Gnosticism.

on Thursday, September 23rd, Christopher said

Mr. Culver,

I was raised a Unitarian Universalist and remained one well into my twenties. I could not have imagined then that I would one day be a traditional Christian. However, I would never have believed that anyone, let alone a Christian, could argue that because homosexuality was not mentioned in one of the ecumenical councils that a Christian could in any way admit that there is some wiggle room as to it's status morally. I honestly stand amazed, and humbled at the depth of Adam's self deception when I read statements like yours...

on Friday, September 24th, Jeff said

Christopher,

I'm sorry to see you treat Mr. Culver so poorly here. He actually raises an interesting issue. There is no cause to assume that support for integrating homosexuality into the life of the church is itself heretical. The thought leading to such support may be heretical, but there is no evidence that all thought leading to support is by necessity heretical. You and Marion have so far only provided arguments of conveniuence, which are insufficient cause to deny that homosexuality might be integrated into the life of the church. Rather than attack Mr. Culver, why not make an argument that either overcomes or sidesteps his assertion?

on Friday, September 24th, Christoher said

Jeff,

First, I hope you can see that I disagree with Mr. Culver's (and yours) philosophy, and would never think of treating either of you "poorly". Second, your statement that

"There is no cause to assume that support for integrating homosexuality into the life of the church is itself heretical"

Is such an affront to any reasonable assessment of Revelation History, Church Dogma, that I again stand amazed that any one would seriously assert it. Jeff, do I really need to cite the extensive and consistent witness of the Church to the status of homosexual behavior? Do you Jeff actually attend a Christian Church? Have you actually read Holy Scripture? If you have, then you also are aware of the clear and unbending condemnation of homosexual behavior. The burden is on you sir, to convince Christian's that we, being guided by God Himself, have been lead astray...

on Friday, September 24th, Jeff said

Have you read my mind to know what my "philosophy" is? Why don't you tell me about it?