After Dromantine

The besetting problem of our epoch is relativism. In Anglicanism, this plays itself out as reticence about any kind of doctrinal definition, so that neither Scripture, creeds, nor church can make any strong claims on us. For all its moderation, qualification, and minimalism, the Windsor Report dares to commit an act of judgment. In so doing it points a way forward for a truly global Anglican polity. Anglicanism, precisely because it does not have a Roman-style magisterium, must be conservative about doctrinal innovation.

More than enough has been said, and spun, about the Windsor Report, the Primates' Communiqué, and their implications. Even the combatants in their respective trenches have long been exhausted by endless debates about homosexuality. My aim in this essay is to observe an underlying cause, and hence a wider accomplishment, of the Windsor Report and its reception by the primates in Ireland.

The Sickness that Lays Waste

In the modern/postmodern era, the perduring problem is relativism. In the dimension of time it appears as historicism, each occasion encased in its own context. In space it appears as cultural relativism: the anthropologist in us wonders how one can presume the portability of moral criteria from one people to another. The immediate implication is moral relativism as well, since any standard proposed was constructed by someone or other somewhere and sometime, a cruel inversion of the Vincentian Canon. "Different strokes for different folks" spreads itself across our culture like an oil slick. The fit with the proliferation of arbitrary choices in our economic polity is perfect, and who can say which is cause and which effect?

Nor has the church in modern times been spared. Historical criticism shows this same relativism: Are these Hellenistic texts we call "New Testament" not reducible to their own contextual meanings as well? Over the last two centuries, Anglicans who would make their stand on the creeds or the first five centuries soon found that relativism was at work behind the lines. Newman came to see how the crisis of authority endemic to Protestantism was connected to relativism and was expressed outwardly in endless fissiparous possibilities. Gore saw the seriousness of the problem and sought late in his life to stem the tide.1

The Symptom

The debate over the place of homosexuality in church life has taken place at several levels at once, and in each the shadow of relativism is cast. The behavior is clearly and repeatedly rejected in various books of Scripture. But, some argue, if the meaning of these passages is somehow limited to the context in which they were originally written, the prohibitions no longer have a claim on us. If, for example, Romans 1 speaks of a relationship between men and boys particular to the Hellenistic world, then it cannot be brought to bear on our present debate. Likewise, the continuous prohibition throughout most of Christian tradition may be put aside if this is derived from contexts judged to be lacking the insights of "modern science" or suffering from persistent homophobia. More recently, some have argued that same-sex unions must be allowed, since the ordination of women and Prayer Book revision have been introduced. On what grounds may we say that one kind of innovation is allowable while another is not? In other words, the possibility of one change opens the door to another, since they all expose the historical relativity of church practice. Finally, some say the objections of Anglicans from the global South may be disregarded even as they are granted their own contextual due: such negative views can be understood in light of tribal taboos, or struggles with Islam, and need not inhibit us where these contextual factors do not pertain.

The same-sex debate has also intensified the debate over the nature of Anglicanism and its sense of authority. How the doctrinally central (and hence abiding) is related to the secondary and relative underlies the distinction between things essential and adiaphora. The effort to cordon off "essentials"2 has floundered for several reasons, not least because there has been disagreement over what is "essential"; the articles of the creed have been submitted to historical criticism; and seemingly minor issues can put at risk something that is essential. So Newman once commented that an artery is a small point on the body, but from it one could bleed to death.3

A whole generation of Anglican scholars, clergy, and leaders has accepted the notion that Anglicanism is hopelessly indefinite and conflicted. They have even worked to make its indeterminacy its virtue. In an age where people want to "design their own," the church that embraces the questions, the church that is "always open," can be appealing.4 The trick has been to maintain just this détente with relativism while appearing to have some continuity with traditional Anglicanism that clings to the notion of essentials and adiaphora. In this regard, the Righter Trial verdict was an accomplishment for contemporary liberal Anglicanism. In acquitting Bishop Righter, the episcopal judges distinguished between "core doctrine" and "doctrinal teaching." Yet the former could not be identified with the creeds, for example, for they only gave expression to the kenjgma, a "canon within the canon." The creeds make no claims on us, for as soon as they become controverted, the judges stated, they cease to have authority. Add these ideas together and doctrines can never make a claim of authority on us that would make a difference. Or, to put the matter another way, any doctrinal content is an ideal safely unattainable, like a receding horizon. This widespread strategy allows liberals to feel secure in an orthodoxy that can barely make a claim.