Why not BOTH? Or are they necessarily exclusive?
The attempt by sects to affirm one and deny the other is the source of the current ire in The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Anglicanism (for better or for worse) has been one of synthesis (current state). In fact, according to one of my professors, our dear JI Packer so strongly believed in the theological process that he would endorse almost every book he was asked to endorse. He had a childlike trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church into all truth!
In any case, there is a polemical argument in arguing for either confessionalism or conciliarism over against the other. However, I look to these two and see the potential, as an alternative to the fighting, for synthesis. I tend to see the Church as a Court. God is judge, he appoints representatives. He has given us his law (a confession, if you will allow this characterization) and has appointed a court to test every spirit (a council, if you will allow this characterization). To be sure, not everything is to be tried by Church courts (e.g., synods), but dealt with at the lowest level possible (see Matthew 18) where possible.
The Church of England, by an Anglo-Catholic conception, started as a synthesis between Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, and Liberals. I have not sought to prove nor disprove this thesis, but I accept it for sake of discussion. It is interesting that in the recent formation of the ACNA, one could argue that allowing liberalism to achieve its Telos has resulted in the schism. In fact, it has been noted (circa 1930s?) that the Evangelicals grouped Liberals and Anglo-Catholics together in their minds and thinking “they are in charge of the Episcopal Church,” while the Anglo-Catholics saw Liberals as distinct from themselves and thought “they are in charge.” Liberalization is by nature or at least allows for progressivism.
Whether or not the original Liberals were so bad is not here being considered but that their heirs have fractured the American Church (as well as others) with a rival confession. Does this mean that confessions are important? More than important, they are inescapable. Just like liturgy can be written down or not, or tradition can be acknowledged or dismissed, both of them as well as confessions are facts of life and are inescapable. That is not to say that every liturgy, tradition, or confession is well-developed, but that they exist, even if only in seminal form.
So is the ACNA headed for a confessional threshing? But of course! To think otherwise would be disingenuous, or at the very least ignorant. I believe the Anglo-Catholics see the coming threshing. I believe there are Evangelicals who look forward to the coming threshing (not that they should as it will be a day of weeping and gnashing).
But what is to be done?
First, the Anglo-Catholics have Francis J. Hall’s Anglican Dogmatics! Good for them. But do the Evangelicals have an Anglican Systematic Theology? Nope, not so good for them, especially in an upcoming Confessional (i.e., theological) threshing. So, adherents of each confession needs to sit down and write out their theologies: ecumenical and polemical, dogmatic and adiaphora, systematic and biblical, etc.
Second, reestablish Church Discipline. I don’t mean spanking people. I mean Church order. Are dissenters allowed to be ordained in the ACNA? This is a set up for failure. What are the minimum confessional requirements for ordination? How loosey-goosey is one allowed to be on the 39 Articles of Religion? It also means censure. Now I don’t want to see the ACNA turn in to some brand of witch hunting that many people have experienced in American fundamentalist Churches. But it does need to have standards.
Third, cast the mold for how we move forward in a Church having rival confessions. Come let us reason together, taking counsel apart, taking council together. Should we be conciliar? I think it’s also inescapable. There is no organization without people. There is no holding together without a kind of consensus (manufactured or actual). Thus there is no Church without a Council.
Historically, it seems that the synod, classis, presbytery, or similar have been the council of the various Church bodies holding court. This has been circumvented by standing committees which have exercised an outsized influence over the conciliar process, which needs to be reassessed by each Church body if we are to be truly conciliar (see Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church).
Beyond that, I’m not ignoring the larger Church at council (“conciliarism”), it’s just we haven’t seen one in a while and it may be that we need to get our “sectarian” councils operating properly so that we can be experienced enough to run a contemporaneous Council of the Church.
Returning to the recent American Anglican schism—I’ll ask a pertinent question to this whole ordeal—could we have kept the liberal progressives in the Church? Or to put it another way, could we have kept the Church together with liberal progressives in our midst?
Yes.
Yes, but…
Yes, but their positive energies and motivations needed to be properly directed (constrained). It is far easier to let their progressive spirit (i.e., a desire to change things while pursuing their ideals) venture them off the deep end and then excommunicate them. It is much more difficult (and we weary so easily in well-doing) to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the LORD!
I mean, can you imagine it? Can you take someone with an ingrained wild, progressive spirit, teach them the ways of the LORD and then release them on the world? What would it be like?
Could someone take their idealism into the Church, not be unduly polemical (divisive), not change things for change’ sake, and seek the pure washing of the bride of Christ with the pure water of the Word? Could someone take their “progressivism” and seek the reforming of the Church? Could someone take their rebellious spirit of individualism and yet submit to biblical authorities? Could someone take their holistic brain and train it in sequential logic?
But of course. That’s me :) That being said, it was a long road and fraught journey.
Last thoughts.
Can East meet West? Some people think that is what characterizes Anglicanism.
Can Confession meet Council? I think history is clear on this point, but we resist.
