Albany Via Media

October 14, 2010

To the Editor:

In his typically thoughtful way, Dennis raises some reasonable points. So let me respond:

1. “Fully orthodox” — I am happy to dispense with the qualifier, “fully.” It does have a potentially pharisaical ring to it. Let's just say “orthodox.”
2. I do actually mean to suggest that those who lack an orthodox understanding of the creeds have an erroneous or at least incomplete grasp of the Christian faith. That, after all, is the function of the creeds, to clarify the content of Christian belief.
3. If I were a “progressive Episcopalian” I would not object to the previous point as “rigid” or “judgmental.” I would simply ask: what constitutes “orthodoxy” and who decides what meets the standard? I would do this not deconstruct to the notion of orthodoxy, but rather to establish the grounds on which to make the case that certain progressive views are themselves orthodox. This might lead to a reasonable debate about the nature and content of orthodoxy, in which we probably would not agree on most points, but might at least delineate some common ground.
4. The fact is, in my own view, my friends in Via Media have not, for the most part, dispensed with the essentials of Christian orthodoxy. Compared to many “progressive” Episcopalians I have known outside the Diocese of Albany, their views are actually fairly traditional.
5. Christian Orthodoxy is not synonymous with “traditionalism” or “conservatism,” as such. It is rather the catholic consensus about what constitutes the authentic articulation of Christian revelation on essential matters of faith — and not just on a surface level. There are plenty of conservative religious people whose understanding of Christ or the nature of salvation may not be entirely orthodox. As an example: some conservative Christians have “Appolonarian” tendencies, and piously minimize Christ's humanity. Some may tend toward works righteousness and a “Pelagian” moralism that does not grasp the nature of grace and justification.
6. “Anglican Comprehensiveness” — As a student of classic Anglicanism, I would agree that “comprehensiveness” is indeed a marker of the Anglican ethos. On the other hand, the manner in which this term is often understood today is a product of mid-twentieth century broad churchmanship, and would be unintelligible to any Anglican from the 16th to the early 20th centuries. Anyone who has studied the history of Anglican doctrine, or, in particular, the content and role of the Articles of Religion will recognize that the claim that Anglicans have never striven for doctrinal coherence and clarity is a modern myth.

Christopher Brown+