Whose Tradition?

All of the recent discussion and debate about the role of Calvinism in the Anglican Church raises a point of supreme importance. What is the teaching office of the Church and how are its teachings to be received and applied? Much of our previous discussion presents an epistemological quandary. How do we know what is the right interpretation of the Christian Faith? The philosophical principle of non-contradiction, which says that two things which are opposite of one another cannot both be true, requires that there must be an objective means for discerning the orthodox Tradition of Jesus Christ. From all accounts previously read, it would appear that in the Calvinist system John Calvin, his followers, and the confessional statements arising from their beliefs constitute a teaching office of the Church - one analogous to that exercised by the See of Rome for the RC Church. My statement is not intended to be derogatory or pejorative, but factual. Holy Scripture is interpreted in the Calvinist system according to the Calvinist hermeneutic - in like manner, Holy Scripture is interpreted by the infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff in the Roman Church, which office is held to be absolute when dogma is proclaimed ex cathedra. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Seven General Councils are infallible and that the Tradition of the Church is a necessary element in the right understanding of doctrine. Confessional Lutherans unabashedly affirm that the Book of Concord contains the truest exposition of the Christian Religion, to the exclusion of all others. All Scripture by nature demands a theological tradition, a means and office of interpretation in the Church.

Having these questions, I must say that, apart from its internal logical consistency and extremely well-formulated and well-organised systemic thought, it is difficult for me to determine why the Calvinist matrix is given moral or theological superiority to rival theological schools, apart from the simple choice to accept it on one's own volition as above others. For instance, the theological hermeneutic of Martin Luther never seems to be considered as valid or as 'pure' as that of Calvin by those who adhere to the Calvinist mentality. What makes Calvinism the teaching office? Why is Luther rejected in favour of Calvin? Are these competing schools of thought or are they complementary? It appears that the confessions of the Lutheran tradition are not given the power or authority of the Calvinist confessions by Calvinists. Lutherans in the main think Reformed teaching, particularly on the Holy Eucharist, is heretical. Does the Calvinist system, as opposed to the Lutheran or the Catholic, bear some stamp of divine authority, of inspiration or supernatural origin? If I accept the Book of Concord as the authentic tradition, and my brother takes the Westminster Confession, who or what can determine which one of us is right? In other words, apart from an arbitrary personal choice based on private judgement, it is difficult for one such as myself to discern the objective ecclesiastical criteria by which such judgements of interpretation are made. Where can I turn to find a Tradition which does not require for its authority the consent or the empowering of my own fiat? Is there a Tradition in which I can rest and under which I can obey without testing it according to my own pre-conceived ideas? And again, there is a difference between taking components, parts, or ideas of a system into one's own consideration of the Faith and taking a whole system in toto as the means by which we live and understand the Gospel. There is 'cafeteria confessionalism' and there is the 'whole-hog' variety. Which is right? Who is right?

We require, it seems to me, some objective instrument of Scriptural interpretation which is universally acceptable and accessible, but more than that, one which bears the unquestioned weight and authority of an authority higher than our own individual wills or theological tastes and preferences. There must be for the preservation of the Gospel a Holy Spirit-led Divine Society, an organic and living Church, given by Christ with a Tradition which authentically interprets Scripture. Mercifully, this philosophical and theological gap was bridged by the Lord Himself in the divine institution of the Holy Catholic Church as the Body of Christ and the Sphere of the Holy Spirit. We can have certainty of hermeneutic in the transmission of the saving Gospel by a divine and Apostolic Tradition which has been handed-down in the Apostolic Churches. For the Anglican, who is a member of the One Catholic Church, the Apostolic Tradition is expressed and encapsulated, universally, in the Creeds and Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, and locally, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion. And the local must be subject to the authority of the universal. I contend there really is a definitive and unambiguous Anglican tradition to which we must hold, faithful as it is to the doctrine of the Apostles and Fathers, which does not admit of extremes in either the protestant or Romanist direction. Although our history admits necessarily of the 'great muddle' or mix of varying and opposing theological views, I submit it is still possible to locate within the complexity of Anglicanism an authoritative central or Via Media tradition - smack dab in the morass. For it, such men as Andrewes and Taylor lived and such men as Blessed Charles I and Blessed William Laud died. It will be necessary, in the pursuit of Christian unity, to recover this sense of Anglican Tradition and live it to the full. We will inevitably have disagreements on adiaphora - but on the Great Tradition, on the means of interpreting the power of the Gospel, there must be consensus and communion, for all else depends upon it. Let us pray we can together recover our unity in the Tradition of the One Body. As Luther said, Here I stand...