Basic Integrity

One of the things that's often celebrated about the Anglican Church is that it's broad enough to accommodate a range of views on various matters. The typical, inoffensive, example of this has to do with different local 'traditions' in corporate worship. Some Anglicans are very formal and run quite 'churchy' services with particular robes, symbols, actions and classical music, whereas others are very casual and have services that are more informal with no particular dress code, more modern music, etc. etc. While there are some important missiological questions to ask around this, it's all fine as far as it goes.

However, there are some who use this idea of an accommodating church to suggest that Anglicanism is equally relaxed about its doctrine; while some people in the church believe x, it's completely acceptable that others believe y. To some extent, this is the case. For example, on the more contentious issue of whether or not the Church should consecrate female bishops, the Anglican Church of Australia has given the green light but also provided an Alternative Episcopal Oversight Protocol for those ministers whose consciences won't let them sit under a female bishop. Different views are accommodated on what's considered to be a second-tier issue.

One of the arguments used to support the idea that its ok for Anglicans to differ on other matters of doctrine is that we are not a confessional church. Unlike, say, the Presbyterians with their Westminster Confession, we don't have a document that systematically outlines our beliefs. But the problem with this argument is that we do. We have several, in fact.

Many of the orders of service in the Books of Common Prayer contain the Creeds of the church - the systematic articulation of what we believe. When ministers are ordained (in Australia at least), the Ordinal has them publicly declare their acceptance of the authority of the Old and New Testaments. Then, when a member of the clergy is licensed to a ministry they publicly say that they

assent to the doctrine of The Anglican Church of Australia as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and the Articles of Religion, as acknowledged in section 4 of the Constitution, and I believe that doctrine to be agreeable to the word of God.

and

declare my assent to the Fundamental Declarations of The Anglican Church of Australia as set out in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

Now, my issue at this point isn't to argue that these doctrines and declarations are right or wrong, good or bad, but simply to ask this: How could someone who doesn't truly believe all this stuff become a minister in the Anglican Church without massively compromising their integrity? How can it be that we've had leaders in the Church who don't believe in Christ's resurrection? Or in the uniqueness of Christ for salvation? Or in the existence of hell? While we might want to look at the institution's failure to weed them out before they got ordained, my question is, why didn't they opt out themselves? Where was their integrity in signing up?

It will always be the case that people will have different views on matters about which the Church has never formally stated its position. And there will always be room for strong debate on the complex issues of the day. And it will always be that different people have different interpretations of the meaning of officially drafted doctrines. And it will always happen that people's views, and even an institution's position, will change over time. But even when you add up up all these, they still don't equal a church that has no fixed doctrinal position. And they certainly don't mean it's no big deal for a leader to swear to something that they don't actually believe.

Beyond the question of personal integrity, think also of the impact on the church at large. Why should anyone trust a church minister if it turned out that their public vows weren't sincere? How could the church expect anyone else to take their oaths seriously if ministers don't - is a wedding vow just something you're meant to say on the day too? What will people think that the church really stands for? This is a critical issue for the church. The reality must line up with the rhetoric.

Having said all this, I should add the footnote that I am, of course, just discussing a small minority of leaders in this post. But even a few can have a significant impact on the whole organisation and so it's worth flagging the vital need for integrity among the clergy on matters of belief.