May 12, 2014
In the first half of the 50-year post-Vatican II period, international and national interchurch dialogue commissions addressed a range of doctrinal differences inherited from the 16th century Reformation era and produced joint or agreed statements on them. In the last 25 years or so, the perception has grown that Christian unity is now hampered more by emerging differences over current moral questions than by historic Reformation issues.
In 1994, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) published an agreed statement on morals titled Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church. In it, differences in the articulation of moral vision are presented as a matter of varying emphasis rather than substantive disagreement, or as different applications of agreed-upon principles which are not seen to present a significant challenge to moral teaching.
There has been in the history of Christian ethics a long standing debate as to what forms the primary ground of ethics: is it character or behavior? In other words, is the fundamental moral question “What kind of persons are we called to become?” or “What ought we to do?”
An example of the tension between the two approaches is found in two documents prepared independently of one another and published just months apart. In 1993, the papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor, basing its moral vision primarily on the concept of divine law, came down clearly on the side of behavior, while the ARCIC Life in Christ document, taking a more relationship-responsibility angle of approach, tilted to the side of character.
As a result, in 1995 the Anglican-Roman Catholic Theological Consultation in the U.S. (ARC-USA) produced a statement on Christian Ethics in the Ecumenical Dialogue in which it called for more attention to be given to “the contemporary influence of theological, geographical and cultural diversity on the formulation of Anglican doctrines concerning moral questions, by contrast with the universal teaching that characterizes the Roman Catholic magisterium in such matters; and the role of ecclesiastical authority in shaping the formation of moral judgments by individual Christians and the whole Church.”
Last month, the current ARC-USA dialogue released a joint statement which did precisely that. Titled Ecclesiology and Moral Discernment: Seeking a Unified Moral Witness, the statement, “submitted to the leadership and to all the faithful for their prayerful consideration,” focuses on how we teach and how we learn.
In its introduction on morals and church teaching, it identifies the relationship of ecclesiology – the nature, constitution, and functions of the church – to moral discernment as “the main issue before us … It is critical to acknowledge how differently our two communions structure and exercise authority (3,4).”
The document describes the Anglican pattern of moral teaching as “dispersed and non-centralized, subject to possible error and correction.” While the Roman Catholic Church has “a supreme and authoritative teaching magisterium … the particular churches of the Anglican Communion, by contrast, are episcopally ordered and self-governing, with shared bodies or ‘instruments’ for consultation and the articulation of teaching across the Communion” (par 23).
Such “articulations” of common teaching depend upon its reception within each particular church. “The absence of an authoritative universal magisterium among the churches of the Anglican Communion marks a signal difference in the structure of teaching authority” (29).
To be sure, there are Communion-wide gatherings such as the Lambeth Conference (decennial assemblies of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury), “but Lambeth does not legislate for the churches of the Anglican Communion; its statements or resolutions must be adopted or otherwise accepted and received by the various self-governing churches of the Communion” (30).
Thus, over time, given theological, geographical, and cultural diversity it is not surprising that a plurality of practices and teachings emerge.
Part II of this article will be published on Wednesday, May 14, 2014.