“What is this difference that causes them to read the Bible so differently? This is the question that I think we need to be addressing.”

I would be interested in your own answer to this question. I imagine you have quite an insight considering your own experiences pre-and post reception by the RC. Although, I still don’t buy that harsh dualism between the two that you set up right from the get-go. Granted, there are differences, and they’re important. But difference need not be a violent and exclusionary factor.

You are absolutely correct: a number of conservative evangelicals are critical of Wright on various points, particularly his interpretation of justification in the writings of St Paul. But this is all disputation within the family of evangelicalism. I have read the majority of his writings, both popular and scholarly. He’s an evangelical–an Anglican evangelical, to be sure, but an evangelical nonetheless. At least that is how I read him, and I suspect he would agree with my assessment. Of course, on any given issue, he might hold an opinion that is more “catholic” than Reformed; but let’s remember, evangelicalism is a big tent. Daniel asserts above that American evangelicals, for example, largely oppose Wright on the ordination of women; but that is by no means clear. I’ve been subscribing to Christianity Today for 30 years, and I think one would find strong support for Wright among its readership.

What is the crucial difference between a catholic Christian and an evangelical Christian? What is this difference that causes them to read the Bible so differently? This is the question that I think we need to be addressing.

I meant to write this earlier, but I forgot. I’m so glad that you’ve joined us!

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I think your statement as to “whether serious theological accountability is any longer possible for Anglicans. We are not talking abstract theology. The past thirty years haven seen Anglicans making decisions of import that have both broken the unity of the Anglican Communion…” is fair and does take us more to the center of the issues at hand. This, as well as the failure of the AC to act in a disciplinary way with regard to serious theological errors prior to the 2003 event is in my opinion what is driving much of the “conservative” reaction (of which I am sympathetic in many ways, as I have stated before).

I do though agree with Daniel that your posts with regard to N.T. Wright and they way that you seem to be using “evangelical” in connection with Wright is puzzling and unclear.

When Daniel writes,”the majority of American Evangelicals are distinctly opposed to Wright on women’s ordination. So, it is not at all clear how Wright’s ‘evangelicalism’ over-determines this issue and his conclusions on it, nor that one must be either evangelical or catholic, as if the two are mutually exclusive,” I tend to agree. For example, ironically in the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), many evangelicals think that Wright is too Catholic in his views of justifcation, ecclesiology etc.–go figure. Also, I have a number of RC friends who specifically think of themselves as evangelical Catholics–as an example, see–http://www.evangelical-catholicism.com/. I understand that you are not suggesting that Wright lacks in intelligence etc., but I still am unclear as to what you mean when you say, “He [Wright] reads the Scripture as an evangelical, not as a catholic.” This seems to equate as I suggested previously to Wright is an evangelical. Wright is not a Roman Catholic. Hence, he does not does not agree with every (official) point of doctrine espoused by Roman Catholic. Again, that seems fairly obvious. You have responded in an attempt to clarify that Wright is not properly tradition-ed in the Roman Catholic faith, but what does that mean? If we could get a better understanding on this latter question, I think that the dialogue will indeed move forward. There do seem to be a number of areas in which Wright would be in great agreement with the RCC and her teachings, yet as you point out Wright would not agree with e.g., transubstantiation (although I would be surprised if he denied the real presence). From my very limited perspective, here it seems that at least one of the major reasons for the disagreement has to do with the fact that transubstantiation has not been proclaimed as an (infallible) dogma for the AC (of course there is no magisterium in the AC–but that brings us back to the starting point, viz., Wright is not a RC–of course he does not believe in the infallibility of the magisterium. In mind opinion, this doesn’t mean that Wright is anti-tradition (as it seems that we are all part of some tradition), but it does mean (at least) that Wright does not embrace every aspect of RCC dogma (which again seems obvious).

Thank you (and everyone else) for your continued engagement and participation in this thread.

Cynthia

“Anglican Churches have acted as if they enjoyed the authority of the catholic whole, even though they admit that they do not possess an exclusive catholicity. The result has been theological chaos and ecclesial disintegration.” I’m assuming that you don’t count the following as examples of the Anglican Churches acting as if they had all of catholic authority: 1. the invitation for Kaspar to come and speak to the General Synod (something which the RC could do more of, that is invite real theological dialogue between RC and Anglican theologians), 2. two bishops counting it worthwhile to spend the time to engage his ideas at length, and 3. countless visits by the Abp. of Canterbury to Rome, etc..

The real question is whether serious theological accountability is any longer possible for Anglicans. We are not talking abstract theology. The past thirty years haven seen Anglicans making decisions of import that have both broken the unity of the Anglican Communion and distanced them from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Anglican Churches have acted as if they enjoyed the authority of the catholic whole, even though they admit that they do not possess an exclusive catholicity. The result has been theological chaos and ecclesial disintegration.

In his special ecumenical dialogue with Anglicanism, the Catholic Church has taken for granted the creedal and catholic commitments of Anglicanism. It is slowly realizing that it can no longer assume a deep unity of faith and practice. Hence the warning of Cardinal Kasper to the English House of Bishops last year.

Constructive theologian engagement is probably not possible in a blog thread. We are all pretty much reduced to sound bytes. But on re-reading your comments I must say that it is not at all clear to me that you have read what I have written.

I find your presentation to be decidedly not Balthasarian in that you seem largely unwilling to engage certain ideas on the grounds of their being “evangelical” – this would have precluded Balthasar’s writing of the Theology of Karl Barth. It is one thing to point out that Wright’s positions are evangelical by first identifying what you mean by evangelical and then engage them will full muster – this would be Balthasar’s approach – and another to call them “evangelical” and dismiss them as cogent. In one respect, I imagine even Pope Benedict himself would want to identify with the term evangelical. Surely the Church has an evangelical role. You are unclear in calling him an evangelical without clarifying your terms and specifying how being “evangelical” commits him to one point or another without reserve.

Furthermore, and I think this is of the utmost importance when we speak about clarifying our terms, the majority of American Evangelicals are distinctly opposed to Wright on women’s ordination. So, it is not at all clear how Wright’s “evangelicalism” over-determines this issue and his conclusions on it, nor that one must be either evangelical or catholic, as if the two are mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, “Thomas Torrance, Robert Jenson, George Lindbeck, Lesslie Newbiggin, and Michael Polanyi” allow for a notion of paradigm shifts in cultural thinking that seems to be much different from what you mean by being formed by the Roman Catholic tradition as a means of opening oneself to Real Truth as distinct to not being formed by the RC tradition. I find it interesting that your views on hermeneutics are shaped (in toto, it seems) by Protestant theologians.

I do not know how one can be Balthasarian without at the same time embracing his understanding of the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition, the Petrine office, and the nature of dogma. For Balthasar, theology, ecclesiology, and spirituality are woven together–at least that is how I read him. But I do not claim to be an expert in Hans Urs von Balthasar and gladly bow to more knowledgeable readers. His Theo-Drama and Theo-Logic are still sitting on my shelves, crying out to be read. Perhaps one day …

Please do not read me as a neo-scholastic or manual theologian. I’ve never read any of the neo-scholastics. My reflections on hermeneutics, such as they are, have been most significantly influenced by Thomas Torrance, Robert Jenson, George Lindbeck, Lesslie Newbiggin, and Michael Polanyi, with a dash of John Henry Newman and Stanley Hauerwas. It is these individuals who have taught me that one must first be formed deeply in the language of faith before one can reach that point where one can speak competently about the grammar of the faith.

Hence my earlier comment about N. T. Wright. As brilliant as he is–and he is, without question, my favorite New Testament scholar–the fact remains that the sacerdotal experience of the Church remains largely alien to him. He reads the Scripture as an evangelical, not as a catholic; therefore, it is not surprising that he finds little support for the male priesthood in the Scripture. Other equally brilliant evangelicals read the Scripture and find little support for eucharistic sacrifice, real presence, baptismal regeneration, and invocation of the saints. Clearly it’s not a matter of intelligence but rather ascetical formation and dogmatic commitment.

Father Kimmel,
By now you’ve probably figured out that I’m largely Balthasarian in my approach to the majority of issues. So, my distaste for your perspective, quoted above, will be of little surprise to you That is, considering Balthasar’s “catholic” use of protestants like Barth, Bonhoeffer, etc., and “heretical” figures like Ps-Denis, Goethe, etc.. Yet, I don’t think Balthasar’s approach is of finding the truth in those outside of the RC circle or his charity to those outside that circle is unique to him.

The councils themselves are in many cases appropriations of logical systems from “outside the circle” (e.g. Greek metaphysics!). Theology, ESP. Roman Catholic theology has never benefited from dismissing arguments in toto on the grounds that they’re not part of the RC Boys club. For instance, the demise of certain RC stains of theology – neoscholasticism, in particular – can be blamed largely on the arrogance and insularity practiced by most RC seminary professors at the turn of the 20th c. I have in mind here particularly B. Garigou-Legrange, who not 100 years ago was arguably the most influential RC theologian of his time. Yet, today he’s barely read, completely ignored in Thomistic critical scholarship, and a nobody to new theology students, all for the very reason that he tried to use the magesterium’s power instead of quality arguments in his attempt to keep “modernity” (as he understood it) out of Thomistic scholarship.

I do want to press you a little further on the last point you make in the above comment, if you don’t mind. You say that Wright and Stancliffe want to “wrap themselves in the mantle of catholicity” yet, you deny them this on the basis that they are reserving “the right to innovate … without accountability to the [Roman] Catholic church”, hence the breakdown of RC and CofE Ecumenical progress.

Aside from what I humbly consider to be your gross mischaracterization of CofE and RC ecumenical ventures – I direct you again to the recent statement by the IARCCUM release for a comprehensive assessment of what can only be considered a lively and complex situation – I would like to ask you to clarify what accountability to the catholic church (catholic with lowercase c) in matters of innovation would look like. Surely you don’t mean to imply that ecumenical dialogue begins with assumption that Anglicans must assenting to Rome’s decree what is ok and not ok in innovation without reciprocity. Rather, I think you mean that the CofE should in some way submit to a larger communion (Anglicans in reciprocal fellowship with RC, Orthodox) in its innovations. I’m sure Wright would like this, too. However, we’re not already in this state for that reciprocity to be actualized. But even this notion doesn’t exist in Kaspar’s speech. Rather, I think Kaspar means exactly what I asked you if you were implying. Consider Cynthia’s earlier comment and citation of Wright/Stancliff in reference to the innovation of the filioque, papacy, and Mary, all “innovations” lacking catholic support. I strongly suggest that “catholic” support for Kaspar is merely an insidious implication of Roman Catholic precedence. Moreover, as those like Kaspar, and presumably yourself, would have it, the church is not “innovative” at all, but is merely uncovering previously ordained truths that had henceforth been known only imperfectly. Yet, the other communions (i.e. Anglican and Eastern) are not allowed to do this as well?!? Kaspar would have Canterbury operate like Rome’s stepsister, always unsure of herself, second guessing her a own decisions, and Rome always correcting her, not vice versa.
As neither Cynthia’s comment nor Wright/Stancliff’s argument have been adequately dealt with in this thread, I’m going to paste her citation below (their note about Cyprian is particularly damning to the cogency of that section of Kaspar’s argument).

Cheers!
Dan

“Faced with Rome’s charge that Anglican innovations might make a projected unity more difficult, even those in the Vatican most concerned with patrolling the boundaries must recognise that to many Anglicans it seems that this charge could be levelled the other way round. The dogmas relating to the papacy (1870) and to Mary (1950) remain real obstacles for many who find it difficult to recognise them as developments in any sense from scripture and the tenets of the early church, and the recent work of ARCIC has not managed to find a pathway to help the churches travel together in these areas. The ‘filioque’ clause in the Creed is to this day regarded by Eastern Orthodox Christians as an unwarranted Roman addition to the creed of the universal church. Anglicans will naturally ask by what criteria Rome claims the right to introduce potentially divisive innovations in some areas, while advising Anglicans against developing the practice, rather than altering the doctrine of the church, in others. In what sense would ordaining women to the episcopate alter the doctrine of the church? We note in this context that when Cardinal Kasper refers to Cyprian on the unity of the bishops he fails to point out that Cyprian was writing explicitly about the collegial unity of all bishops over against the possibility that the Bishop of Rome might tell the others what to do.