The Episcopal Fellowship for Renewal and the Fallacy of 95 Theses. Pt. 1 Introduction

Or on the Problem of Historical Malpractice

I am not one for undo criticism. When it comes to public discourse, I would like to believe I have learned to keep my hottest takes quiet. There is something to be said for the log and twig analogy from the Gospels. However, for those of us in the Sacramental Traditions (Broadly Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox) I do think there is an higher level of scrutiny that we need to hold ourselves to, both in terms of communion across boundaries and internally.

With all of that said, I can't help but call out bad theology in my own camp when I see it. The "Episcopal Fellowship for Renewal" is a lay-led organization that styles itself as "one voice of many, crying out for a return to orthodox teaching in The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." Immediately I am intrigued. I am all for renewal, and honestly, I agree with the diagnosis that all sides have offered TEC (the Episcopal Church): Change or Die. TEC is dying. Our most pessimistic internal projections suggest that I will outlive the denomination that has been a place of healing for myself and countless others. I truly believe that TEC has slipped into culture wars and compromise. However, my intrigue with the "Episcopal Fellowship for Renewal" immediately vanished when I began to dig into their origins. The fact that they like to claim Gen Z status doesn't bother me. We need young people in the trenches. But the connection to the online account styled "Redeemed Zoomer" should cause one to pause. Redeemed Zoomer is an online user who is part of the PC(USA) but is opposed to Liberalism and Progressive theology. I am not here to fight with Redeemed Zoomer. I am not a protestant; I am an Anglican: neither Protestant nor Catholic. But the whole project of the movement RZ has started and aptly called 'Operation Reconquista' has come to my church door and thus I feel compelled to address its Episcopal branch.

This renewal movement has, like all branches of Operation Reconquista, pledged to stay Episcopal and to foster dialogue to bring the church back to orthodoxy. Again, normally I wouldn't feel compelled to answer the claims of groups, but if we want dialogue, perhaps it should start by taking seriously the questions that some active young folk are bringing. If these folk want to imitate Luther who placed his 95 These for disputation (Medieval debate), on that community board (church door) in Wittenberg then absolutely, let us engage these points so we can understand each other better.

So, without further ado, what's the deal with these 95 Theses? They introduce their 'theses' thus: "The following statements are coming from parishioners and priests of the Episcopal Church who are committed to its flourishing and faithfulness. In true Protestant fashion, and in honor of our faith tradition, they will be framed as ninety-five theses in hopes that, unlike the Roman leaders during the Reformation, the Episcopal Church will honor the call to return to the traditional values of the English Reformers, the Doctors of the Anglican Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Homilies, the Church Fathers, and the Creeds–Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian. Additionally, the three Anglican authorities: Scripture, Reason, and Tradition." As a snobby aside, this is a far cry from how Luther frames his own theses: "Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen." But I digress. They frame this as a list of statements that will hopefully call the church back to orthodoxy, and list "The English Reformers, the Doctors of the Anglican Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Catechism of the BCP, the Book of Homilies, the Church Fathers, and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, plus the Anglican authorities of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition as the metrics by which they will judge all other assertions. Putting aside the flat characteristic they give to the Roman response to Luther and his cadre before we sally forth onto the field of discussion it is first necessary to understand these criteria.

The 'English Reformers" is a category too broad and vague to be helpful. Do they mean Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII, and the 1549 Prayer Book? Do they mean the 1552 Prayer book? Do they mean those thinkers who participated in the Edwardian Reformation, the Marian Restoration, or the Elizabethan Compromise? Too much blood was spilled in this period for it to be invoked so vaguely. If we can't solidly know what they mean by 'English Reformers', then let us look to the next criteria: "The Doctors of the Anglican Church." This statement, while plainly put is not straightforward. They betray both their Anglo-Catholic sentiments (which I share) and the lacuna of an unclear modifier (which I loathe). The Anglican Calendar of Saints doesn't use the term "Doctor of the Church," it prefers the honorific, "Teacher of the Father." So, we run into the problem of the confused modifier. Do these folk mean to invoke the traditional title offered by our Roman Catholic and Orthodox siblings, "Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis," or do they mean something different? There are crossovers. The Calendar of Saints for the Church of England has many people who bear the title, "Teacher of the Faith" who also bear the title "Doctor of the Church." St. Basil the Great; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; St. Hilary of Poitiers; St. Thomas Aquinas; St. Cyril of Jerusalem; St. Cyril of Alexandria; and St. Irenæus, all share the title "Teacher of the Faith" and "Doctor of the Church." However, in counterpoint, St. Francis De Sales, St. Bonaventure, and St. Gregory of Nyssa are not venerated as "Doctors of the Church" by the Roman See yet are labeled "Teachers of the Faith." For further confusion F.D. Maurice; Sundar Singh; Brooke Foss Westcott; Jeremy Taylor; Richard Hooker; and the Rt. Rev. William Temple are remembered as "Teachers of the Faith" and are Anglican figures post-Reformation and therefore not recognized by the Roman See as Saints, nor as Saints in the Anglican Church. Herein this mugginess lies an important point: The Anglican Communion isn't in the habit of canonizing saints, hence why we have adopted the language of "Teacher" rather than the traditional "Doctor." But, by invoking the "Anglican Doctors" the compilers have thus confused us by making it unclear what people they are referring to. It might even be in fact a contradiction in terms.

If we cannot invoke the 'English Reformers' and we cannot invoke the "Anglican Doctors of the Church' then let us turn finally to some solidity: The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. This collection of statements from 1571 offers some solidity by which we can find some ground in this debate. This claim to historical authority is justified. The Church of England promulgated the Thirty-Nine Articles, and all members of the Anglican Communion are free to use them as a guide. So good on them for the clarity here. I am going to jump ahead and include here also the Book of Homilies. They don't cite which version, but we could assume that the Elizabethan era reform is the book they are thinking of since this is the version that is suggested for use by the Thirty-Nine Articles. Here lies another interesting place of discourse. The Book of Homilies is from the 16th Century. It is helpful insomuch as it's a window into the thought of early English reformers, most notably Cranmer, but like the Thirty-Nine articles, it is both entrenched in a moment and not often invoked. I say this only to say that it may not be an obscure point of reference, but its usefulness must be at least secondary if not tertiary. (It also should be noted that TEC's version of the articles, to be touched on momentarily, commends their use but suspends the command to use them until such a time that they can be updated.)

Next, we get the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer. Again, straightforward enough. The BCP contains a catechism that while brief is helpful guidance in Theological Discourse. I have used it when helping in the catechesis of youth. It is pithy and short and a perfect embodiment of the Anglican embrace of Apophatic theology. On this note, before we depart concrete sources, it should be noted that while the compliers of these theses invoke historical documents of the Church of England, they either by ignorance or malice fail to invoke the historical documents that TEC itself has listed as helpful for doctrinal guidance including but not limited to Documents of the Council of Chalcedon, The Preface to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer; the Articles of Religion as Established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1801; The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, and 1888 we could also mention that they fail to invoke the BCP itself, which is by its reckoning for both formation and worship. (If I seem far too quick or specific with those documents, they are included in the 1979 Prayer Book, the research isn't hard).

Leaving this solid ground the compilers then invoke the "Fathers of the Church." Again, language is everything. Do they mean the Apostolic Fathers: those great leaders and thinkers of the church who led in the first century of church development? Do they mean the Greek fathers? Are they invoking Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, The Shephard of Hermas, and the Didache? Or could they mean Athanasius, Justin Martyr, and the Cappadocians? Or is this a sloppy catch-all that could run the gambit from St. Augustine and St. Gregory to St. Simeon the Stylite to St. Anthony of the Desert? Again, like the invocations of 'English Reformers' this is too vague to be helpful. If we offered a charitable reading, perhaps they are simply attempting to invoke the authors through the Patristic and Conciliar Period. But, if that is what they mean, then just say that. (Stephen King has the best writing advice I have ever encountered: "Just say said." Don't gussy-up your language, it only confuses the reader.)

Then, coming close to the end of the citations they invoke, "the Creeds–Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian." Now, not to be overly pedantic (as if I haven't already been) one would rightfully assume that when the writers here invoke the Nicene Creed, they are referencing the creed that we say each time we come to Eucharist. However, this is not the original Nicene Creed from 325 A.D. which ends with the statement, "I believe in the Holy Spirit," but rather the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which was amended in 381 A.D. to include the entire later stanzas about the Holy Spirit and the Church. All of this goes without introducing the filioque clause which is not original to either creed but is added centuries later and is a contributing factor to the 1054 East-West Schism (Orthodox/Catholic split).

Finally, we come to the closing invocation: "Scripture, Reason, and Tradition." The three-legged stool of Anglicanism, if you will allow the metaphor. One is immediately stuck with the thought that if they had led with this, it might have saved them the trouble of ambiguity. Scripture is no longer a hotly debated topic (mostly). Reason, as a categorical classification, is likewise hard to throw out. Tradition is a tricky devil as criteria though. My favorite fact is that if you look through Church history with an eye towards "heresy" for every theological position that the broader church later rejected or redefined there is someone with an ST. in front of their name that espoused that position in the previous generations. Heresy hunting is boring. Appeals to tradition are helpful in order to place one's thought in a larger continuity. But just like with any appeals to any historical work, proof-texting is not a viable argumentative strategy. An easy example is that yes Luther argued for an understanding of God's action in salvation as a Grace: Sola Gratia. However, the non-agency that has come to infect Protestantism would be foreign to him. He, like St. Augustine before him, is commenting about the goodness of God and not the foulness of men. What gets itself done in the work of Baptism is above your paygrade to change, it's Grace freely given- so stop stressing about whether you are good enough, God in Christ has done the work. Or as the BCP puts it in one of its post-Eucharist prayers:
Almighty and everliving God,
we thank you for feeding us with the spiritual food
of the most precious Body and Blood
of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ;
and for assuring us in these holy mysteries
that we are living members of the Body of your Son,
and heirs of your eternal kingdom.
And now, Father, send us out
to do the work you have given us to do,
to love and serve you
as faithful witnesses of Christ our Lord.
To him, to you, and to the Holy Spirit,
be honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.
Luther would not recognize those who invoke grace as a means of obscuring human agency. He was rather answering the philosophical anxiety that comes with the recognition of agency. Sola Gratia is theological dramamine to the nausea of consciousness.

If you've stuck with me this far, congratulations, you've made it to the concluding remarks! You might be (fairly I would add) asking yourself 1. Why am I going so hard on an introductory clause from a small online group? 2. What is to be gained in this harsh criticism? My answer comes in parts. The first and simplest reason is that what we say matters. Yes, I am being incredibly pedantic about word choice. If we are going to have a debate or discussion about real and serious issues that are threatening the integrity of our institutions, we must be cautious about our word choice. A well-written sentence is better than a poorly written book, or a poorly written set of doctrinal assertions. Theology is hard work because we must parse carefully. All theological language is like grasping at straws in the dark and we should be hesitant to overstate. The second reason why I am taking this so seriously is because this debate is important. If we are going to stay committed to the Anglican way, then we must be rigorous. I agree in principle with the compilers of this document that TEC needs reformation! But if we become reactionary then we have lost. The great writers and great thinkers of the church have worked tirelessly and methodically over lifetimes to wrestle with big questions, we won't solve everything now. If we are going to attempt to address the problems in TEC then it starts with raising the level of dialogue. No more poorly written ideological drivel. Let us enter the arena of discussion with our swords ready to be sharpened by one another. Let us enter with epistemological humility, and a commitment to stay in communion with one another. Therein lies my major agreement with the compilers of this work. I am going to spend my life praying that we stay in communion.

I will begin the work of addressing the 95 Theses of this group in my next post. But for now, I leave you with the words of the BCP.

Most holy God, the source of all good desires, all right
judgments, and all just works: Give to us, your servants, that
peace which the world cannot give, so that our minds may be
fixed on the doing of your will, and that we, being delivered
from the fear of all enemies, may live in peace and quietness;
through the mercies of Christ Jesus our Savior. Amen.

Grace and Peace,

Jonathan.