What We Can't Not Believe

In 2003 J. Budziszewski published What We Can't Not Know: A Guide.  The work was Budziszewski’s apologia for a recovery of natural law, by returning to those sources of natural or moral law which our culture has lost, but which nonetheless are entirely proper to the human creature and society.  In his more recent critique of the significant evangelical political influences (Evangelicals in the Public Square), he argued for natural law as a bridge between Christianity and the culture in which it presently finds itself.

In June 2007 the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed resolution 186.  The Saint Michael Report suggested that “10. We are agreed that blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being credal.5  The determination of this question will not hinder or impair our common affirmation of the historic creeds.”  The resolution which passed declared that SSB’s are not in conflict with the core doctrine of the AC of C (in the sense of being creedal).  What I want to focus on is the little phrase in parentheses, never mind that it has been consistently and repeatedly omitted from the subsequent discussions, reporting and communications.

I want to ask whether the “historic creeds” can now function in a way similar to Budziszewski’s view of natural law.  Can we now unapologetically say that the historic creeds constitute “What We Can’t Not Believe”?  More than that, can they function as bridges between cultures within the Church?  I suppose that would be the case only if they are commonly held to convey a common meaning.  They are, after all, specific statements in response to specific questions and problems.  As such, their meaning is intended to be clear on certain questions.  The semantic range is limited – one cannot say the creed “with fingers crossed”.   Likewise, will they begin to function as "enforcable" boundaries? Or to put it another way, is there a conservative element in that resolution which the average Anglican has not yet appreciated, because the church was and is so caught up in the first phrases? 

To those questions, as Legolas said, the elves do not have an answer.

Comments

[Abigail Ann Young]

I have not read Budziszewski (it sounds like I should) but this use of the natural law concept really appeals to me -- I think because it speaks to that part of me that's still under the influence of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. And I like even better your idea about the historic creeds -- speaking as someone who is usually too conservative in a liberal group and too liberal in a conservative group and who is a supporter of local option on SSBs, I can affirm all the articles of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed in what I understand to be an orthodox way. As long as you leave out the Filioque.... But seriously, why can't a common creedal faith be a bridge between those of us who differ on still-important matters like SSBs or how the Eucharist functions, or the necessity of substitutionary atonement? Thanks for bringing this up!

[Mrs. Falstaff]

Local option on SSB won't work, because the people who are objecting to them don't believe that they are adiphora.

[Abigail Ann Young]

I do understand that there are those who don't think that SSB's are adiaphora -- in fact, I am not sure that I think that myself! It seems to me we need some kind of term for things that are more important than adiaphora but still not on the same level as the creeds. Adiaphora, to me, should be things like vestments or whether you say or sing the Psalms. But I know it's tricky -- for some people whether or not the consecrating priest uses the manual acts is adiaphora and for others it is crucial.
In any case, I think what the St Michael Report meant by saying that SSBs were not core doctrine in the sense of being credal was to establish such a category between credal matters and adiaphora and put SSBs in it. That seems to me to be the right place for them and for some other issues like lay presidency at the eucharist that are or are becoming significant areas of disagreement in the church right now.
It seems to me that we can tolerate in the same diocese or the same church some local variation on the things in this middle category, provided that it's done after adequate discussion and with some sort of permission granted. For example, to use something other than SSBs that I think falls into the same category -- how about open communion or lay presidency? I happen to disagree strongly with both and believe they are profoundly unscriptural. However, if we had a wide-ranging church-wide debate and discussion of one or both and decided that local option was the way to go, I would find it tolerable that there were parishes in my diocese that adopted them. If my own parish did, I'd have to find another and that would be hard, but I could cope.
I'm not trying to minimise the importance of SSBs by putting them in that category though, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Abigail

[Susan]

Open Communion and Lay Presidency evidence such a fundamental breach of what I understand to be the essence of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that I do not know how I could remain "in communion" with those who practice the same. What on earth has happened to the proper and true understanding and living out of classical sacramental theology in the Anglican Church? SSB's are so totally connected to this.

[Tim]

I'd be equally interested in a post entitled 'What we can't not DO'. But, you know, sooner or later we'd run into love for enemies, and we all know where that leads!

[joseph]

yes - to evangelism :^)

[Troy]

I admit that I have never understood the whole "not a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being creedal." What exactly do they think the first clauses of the creed mean?

"I believe in God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth."

If everything visible and invisible is created, then it has an ordered purpose. The inventor determines the product made by the machine of his own design. I am not suggesting that the first clauses of creed only mean what I have stated above, but if one is going to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic I don’t see how it could not be considered.

[Donald]

I wonder if anyone's ever written the book: "Loving your enemies: The essence of evangelism."

[Drumroll]

I wonder if anyone has ever written the book: "The essence of evangelism ~ Thou Shalt Not!"

[The Sheepcat]

Preach it, Troy!

[joseph]

...or "Essence of Evangelism" - a new line of fragrances by Chanel.