The Rt. Rev. Stephen Sykes, Chairman of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, requested from various bodies in the Anglican Communion comments on four questions. This is the response of the Diocese of Saskatchewan

The Response of the Diocese of Saskatchewan to the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (2006)

“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 to salvation.” --The Sixth Article of Religion

If any principle of Scriptural interpretation offers the current state of the Anglican Church, with respect to its ecumenical partners and its internal disagreements, a way forward in theological dialogue, it is the sixth Article of Religion. The economy of the Anglican Communion’s traditional position on the place and significance of Scripture in the life of the Church both limits and restrains the demands Ecclesiastical hierarchy can make upon the faithful, and requires of the faithful only what can be proved from the plain reading of Scripture.

What can be proved, the articles go on to demonstrate, are the propositions of the Catholic Creeds (Article VIII), which are binding on all catholic Christians, and the moral law of Scripture (Article VII). Moral law and the Creeds, along with the teaching authority of the Church entrusted to the Church’s Councils and Bishops, find their authority absolutely in the God’s word written. They are neither superior to it nor judges over it. Rather, they find their meaning, purpose and freedom in subordination to it. This is also true of traditional Church ceremony, which is to be retained so long as it does not run contrary to Scripture. It is the peculiar genius of the Anglican tradition to subject the life and freedom of the Church to the freedom promised in Scripture. Scripture, as witness to God’s revelation of Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the ground of the freedom the Church seeks, assumes and is promised as Christ’s Body.

Anglicanism has sought to appropriate this truth as a matter of principle and theological method in the Articles and as the content of the lived Christian life in its Book of Common Prayer. Central to this appropriation are the lectionaries for both the Office and the Holy Communion. In all of this, the Anglican Communion has been faithful to its vision of a Reformed Catholicism grounded in the Scriptures as interpreted by the Creeds, Councils and Fathers of the undivided Church. The sufficiency of Scripture and its practical appropriation in the spiritual lives of the faithful are recurring patristic themes.

The primary authority given to Scripture within the context and lived history of Catholic Christianity distinguishes the Anglican way both from radical Protestantism and from Roman Catholicism (which has inherited from the Council of Trent the dual authorities of Tradition and Scripture). It forms the basis of the tradition of Anglican theological reflection, found both in our theological divines and formative poets. Whether or not this perspective can be re-appropriated is perhaps the most urgent question facing our Communion, which has already begun seeking alternative authorities to the rule of Scripture in covenants, for example, and in increased episcopal and synodical authority.

The Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission’s ongoing consideration of the meaning of communion for Anglicans offers the Church the opportunity to revisit the place and authority of Scripture in the life and witness of the Church. Below, brief responses to the Commissions’ recent circular are offered.

1. Anglicanism has always given a high place to the reading of Scripture as the ground of its worship and teaching. How is it possible for Anglicans in different parts of the world to listen to the Bible together?

Anglicanism has always given the highest place to Scripture within the hierarchy of authorities that inform the life of the Church. Following the teaching of St Augustine on Scripture, our tradition notes that the end of Scripture is to teach us to love God for his own sake, and our neighbour for the sake of God (see Book I, of the De Doctrina Christiania). This principle is enshrined in the BCP Holy Communion service in which the twofold summary of the law precedes the reading of Scripture. As St Augustine notes, there can be multiple interpretations of select passages of Scripture and hence Scriptural conversation includes deducing multiple and complimentary readings of the sacred text. But this does not mean that interpretations can be arbitrary, self-willed, or blind to the plain meaning. As St Augustine writes: “Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist.”

In Scripture we come to know whom the God worthy of loving adoration is and the meaning of human community in the light of his love. Listening to Scripture together presupposes our submission to the hard, trying and testing truths of Holy Scripture in which we are called out of sin into righteousness through our incorporation into the life and death of Jesus Christ. This is made possible when we presuppose in our own reading of Scripture the position of the undivided Church. Its reading of Scripture was neither static nor conservative, though it rested upon key assumptions: 1. Scripture’s Trinitarian ontology, 2. its doctrinal content, 3. its sufficiency for salvation.

2. The IATDC and the Windsor Report are both emphasising the notion of ‘covenant’ as a basis and expression of communion. If a covenant is more than a constitution, what implications does this have for decision-making by churches that are in a covenantal relationship with each other?

At the Last Supper Christ offered to the disciples and to the Church the New Covenant in his Blood, shed for the remission of sins. The Church finds its lifeblood there and its theological reflection since that moment has sought deeper and more adequate ways of understanding this covenant within the whole history of God’s revelation of himself recorded in Scripture. The history of this reflection resulted in the traditional formularies of the faith, contained in the Creeds of the Ecumenical Councils. No covenant can exist between Churches that obligates any partner to accept more or less than the traditional formularies of the faith, classically understood by Lancelot Andrewes as such: “ One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period ... determine the boundary of our faith.” It is by recourse to this understanding that we can best conceive of current relations between the Anglican churches. It is not clear that covenant relationships that stipulate more than this ought in any sense to bind Anglican Christians. The danger of covenants is that we seek our unity in extra-Scriptural forms and models that both rub against traditional Anglican polity and undermine the legitimate freedom of Christians. Covenants also run the risk of increasingly approximating the structure of our communion to Rome ’s, or at the least of increasing Episcopal or Synodical authority beyond all measure. The understanding of covenant relationships between Churches must itself be revisited in order to ensure that it is not seek unity among Churches through external, bureaucratic, or structural means which compromise the Gospel.

3. How do you think the genuine and meaningful expressions of communion that your church experiences with Anglican Christians in other parts of the world will be able to survive current disagreements in the Anglican Communion?

According to the traditional liturgies of the Anglican Communion, what unites the Church across time and culture is a simple claim: we are sinners saved by grace. Amidst the current struggles in our communion, a vivid realization of this truth and of the humility, submission and contrition required in the pursuit of fidelity to the Good News of Christ is the best way forward. The more we come to experience the current disagreements as demanding a renewal of contrition from all, the more competently, wisely and patiently we can move forward. Impatience, hostility, and pride and an unwillingness to bear one another’s burdens has characterized current debates. This road is hard and will mean for many having to witness to truths the Church is unwilling to acknowledge. Nonetheless, the road of suffering love is the only paradigm under which the Church can operate.

4. What sort of language (theological and otherwise) is appropriate for speaking about Christian people with whom you disagree?

Dialogue presupposes that all engaged can speak earnestly and that they will be earnestly attended to. There is very little we can say “about” those with whom we are engaged in theological dialogue. We must speak about different positions, different understandings, different theological methods, and we must hold them up to scrutiny and intense investigation. Scripture must be the language that permeates the conversations. In Scripture we find words of peace and of prophecy, words of rebuke and of judgement. Christ himself comes to bring peace and a sword. What must be avoided is the desire to minimize the gravity of the end we are discussing: fidelity to our Saviour. This is a subject worthy of intense debate and we must avoid a political nicety that clouds the urgency of our mission. Scripture suggests at least three principles for evaluating how we speak to one another:

1. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks;

2. The truth must be spoken in love;

3. Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you.

Inasmuch as we experience theological difference as opposition and even persecution, the later holds. However, in order to speak to one another at all there must be a clear point of reference beyond us, namely, the Scriptures as interpreted by the Councils. This point of reference leaves open a great many questions, and raises a great many more, but provides us with an objective ground to which all are responsible.