Brothers+

There was a prophetic statement in the book, The
Suicide of Christian Theology, by James Warwick
Montgomery, published in 1970.  The book is a
collection of Montgomery’s essays written prior to
1970.

In the opening paragraph of a chapter, Montgomery
quoted from James Orr who said that in each epoch of
the Church’s history the church was forced to come to
grips with a particular doctrine of crucial,  long
lasting significance.  In the Patristic era it was the
relations of the persons in the Godhead.  In medieval
times it was the meaning of the atonement.  In the
reformation the issue was the application of
redemption in justification.  On the eve of the 20th
century, Orr said  Eschatology would be the unique
doctrinal challenge for modern Christianity.
 
Here are paragraphs in which Montgomery presents what
he believed was the greatest challenge to Christianity
in our times and which makes clear to us the
foundational failures in ECUSA’s general convention
and why bishops of Anglican provinces cannot speak
with one voice. 

Dr. Montgomery wrote in the 1960's, “What great
doctrinal issue does the modern Church face?  Orr
thought that he could see in Eschatology the unique
doctrinal challenge for modern Christianity. 
Subsequent events, however, have proven this judgment
wrong: the doctrinal problem which above all others,
demands resolution in the modern Church is that of the
authority of Holy Scripture.  All other issues of
belief today pale before this issue, and indeed root
in it; for example, ecumenical discussions, if they
are doctrinal in nature, eventually and inevitably
reach the question of religious authority – what is
the final determinant of doctrinal truth, and how
fully can the Bible be relied upon to establish truth
in theological dialog?” 

“As the Patristic age faced a Christological
water-shed, and the Medieval and Reformation churches
confronted soteriological crises, so the contemporary
Church finds itself grappling with the great
epistemological question in Christian dogmatics.  And,
let it be noted with care: just as the Church in
former times could have permanently crippled its
posterity through superficial or misleading answers to
the root-questions then at issue, so we today have an
equal obligation to deal responsibly with the
Scripture issue.  If we do not, future generations of
theologians may find that no criterion remains by
which to solve any subsequent doctrinal problems, and
the theologians of the twentieth century will have
gained the dubious distinction of having made their
discipline (and the Church which looks to it for its
doctrinal guidance) totally irrelevant.”

Those paragraphs are from an essay by Dr. Montgomery
titled, “Biblical Authority.”  The essay in the book,
"Suicide of Christian Theology."  

The Christian world looks at the way in which ECUSA
and the Anglican communion is coming apart and wonders
why?  What is wrong?

Dr. Montgomery diagnosed the problem 36 years ago. 
Ultimate authority is an epistemological problem that
the Anglican Communion and ECUSA has not resolved. 
The ECUSA General Convention and the Anglican
Communion “have permanently crippled its posterity
through superficial or misleading answer to the root
questions” as Dr. Montgomery said.  His prophecy has
come true, even as fine a theologian as the Archbishop
of Canterbury has “no criterion by which to solve any
subsequent doctrinal problems.”  The leadership of
ECUSA and the Cof E and some other of the Anglican
Provinces a generation ago made it clear that they
were veering away from “the faith once and for all
delivered to the saints.”  They did this by the
failure to discipline clergy who wrote and taught
questioning the authority of Scripture and basic
teachings of the Creeds.  In the era 1966-1969 when I
was attempting to find a Church that combined catholic
teaching with liturgical worship and respect for
Scripture, the Anglican trumpet was even then giving
forth dissonant sounds and could not rouse this
soldier to war.

I had not heard of John Warwick Montgomery in those
days, nor was aware of any substantial movement within
ECUSA that was attempting to turn the tide to prevent
the cataclysm the whole world witnesses today.  It was
apparent to me in 1968 that ECUSA tolerated leaders in
high places who openly taught and wrote contrary to
Scriptures and  the affirmations contained in the
first 8 of the 39 articles. In 1969 I pitched my tent
with the Continuing Anglicans who, in spite of their
peculiarities gave at least verbal loyalty to
Scripture and tradition.  

By happenstance, as I was reading Dr. Montgomery’s
essays from a generation ago and researching
relatively recent articles on hermeneutics, I came
across one written in the 1970's by a scholar named
Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams was critiquing a radical
piece that questioned the accuracy of the Gospels. 
Dr. Williams made some cogent criticisms pointing out
the deficiencies of the piece and ended with a plea
for further study.  Within the bounds of the academic
community, such genteel treatment of error may be
appropriate, though ineffectual, as the heresies he
mildly opposed only multiplied in the last 3 and ½
decades.  Old habits die hard or never.  When faced
with heretical statements and schismatic practices, he
still exhibits scholarly reserve, expresses himself in
the language of the academy and refers the critical
issues to a committee for further study.  To the
Christian world at large, the trumpet gives an
uncertain sound and the soldiers war among themselves
or retire from the battlefield (awol).
	
I have expressed before that ++Williams is a tragic
figure.  His writings indicate he is a man of deep
faith and his academic qualifications are
unquestionable.  Those responsible for the political
process that called a man of his temperament and mode
of expression to this office have much to answer for. 
Did not the times demand a person with a voice clear
to even the unlearned, would call an errant church and
all men to repentance?  What excuse is there for the
episcopacy if is not to be the staunch teacher of the
truth and defender of the faith?

Dr. Montgomery's diagnosis appears to me to be
correct.
He said, "the theologians of the twentieth century
will have gained the dubious distinction of having
made their discipline (and the Church which looks to
it for its doctrinal guidance) totally irrelevant.”


Charles+.  
Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis