Reason and reconciliation

Anglican method in theology is usually described in terms of a balance between a variety of authorities, characteristically listed - following Hooker - as scripture, reason and tradition. This method provides tools for conflict resolution which are not available to those who claim to deduce all truth from a single unchanging authority.

In the Bible and the early Church reason was characteristically affirmed. The strongest rejection of it was among Gnostics who were rejected by the majority. In the early Middle Ages educational standards declined and it became common to subordinate contemporary reason to the wisdom of the ancients. From the eleventh century onwards, when educational standards began to rise again, conflict developed between traditional teachings and new ideas. This resolved into the late medieval dualism which taught that all truths in matters of faith were derived from divine revelation without the use of reason.

The Reformation produced a situation in which competing authorities offered contrasting accounts of divine revelation, and without the use of reason it was impossible to resolve disagreements. In time, reason was reaffirmed. One development, characteristic of Enlightenment philosophy, sought knowledge with certainty on the basis of a narrowly-defined reason, and over time produced arguments against the existence of God. Another, characteristic of classical Anglican theology, appealed to a wider concept of reason and rejected the expectation of certainty.

It is this Anglican account of reason which has the resources to resolve conflict in matters of faith today.

Homosexuality and the Bible

The 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 rejects homosexual practice as ‘incompatible with Scripture'. This claim makes sense only from the perspective of a certain type of biblical interpretation.

The Christian tradition has appealed to different systems of scriptural interpretation at different times. In New Testament times Jews and Christians were aware that many commands were irrelevant, out of date, no longer suitable for their purpose, contradictory or apparently immoral.

In early and medieval times these problems were resolved by means of allegory; the literal meanings of texts were subordinated to their spiritual meanings. In practice allegory made it possible to give any scriptural text virtually any meaning. From the third century allegory lost interest in history and interpreted the Bible in terms of universal and timeless truths.

At the Reformation allegory was rejected and literal meanings reaffirmed. Texts continued to be interpreted as having universal and timeless authority. This is the tradition within which Resolution 1.10 has significance.

In response to the conflicts of the Reformation, English theologians developed alternative principles of biblical interpretation, which laid the foundations for the critical scholarship later developed by German theologians. The process is more empirical, deriving judgements about the meanings of biblical texts by examining their context rather than by imposing external theories upon them.

Within Anglicanism, Reformation and critical interpretations have coexisted since at least the early seventeenth century. Resolution 1.10, however, illustrates an attempt to impose the Reformation system onto the Communion as a whole. This would be a retrograde step as critical scholarship has far better resources both for understanding the original meanings of biblical texts and for meditating on their significance for Christians today.

Listening and Learning

Resolution of the Anglican Communion's current disputes requires empathetic and respectful listening. For this to take place disputants need to accept certain basic disciplines of dialogue between equals. This paper focuses on two avoidance techniques which need to be resisted.

The first is paternalism. When we express our opinions we expect others to respect, and reflect attentively on, what we have to say. In the same way we should all be prepared to respect, attend to, and learn from the opinions of others. Unfortunately some Christian traditions encourage believers in an excessive sense of certainty which prevents equal dialogue. The Church of Uganda Position Paper on Scripture, Authority, and Human Sexuality illustrates how paternalism easily takes root in certain circumstances.

The second is institutional closure. Here the temptation is to use the authority of institutional resolutions as a means to silence views of which one disapproves. Every institution needs methods for dispensing with some of its formally accepted principles when they become inappropriate, but this becomes impossible if the leadership is determined to suppress dissent.

Outside the realm of religious discourse, these two limitations are generally recognized and defended in principle, even though they are not always upheld in practice. It is a tragedy that in religious discourse they are widely rejected even in principle. We believe they need to be reaffirmed.