Abstract
This is the first part of a two-volume work on authority and Anglican theological method. As such it deals with the period from the Reformation to the Enlightenment and begins to look forward to the next volume which will consider the 19th and 20th centuries. Even so this volume must be seen in the wider context of Avis’s writing on authority and theology which he sees as falling into three main areas: the sources of authority, the structures of authority, and the dynamics of authority. He points back to two of his previous books as looking at the dynamics of authority and a forthcoming book looking at the structures of authority. This book and the next volume are completely concerned with the sources of authority, but they build on three previous books Avis has written (p. xi). This is a huge sweep of a discussion of authority too big to consider here. Thus Avis puts authority as central to questions of ecclesiology both within the Christian church and for the identity of Anglicanism.
Given this wide discussion in other books, this one self-confessedly looks at sources of authority and only for the period from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. This is not a narrow book looking at Anglican theological method in the sense of centring on Scripture, reason, and tradition, but rather puts Anglican thinking in a wider context and then leads to more of a discussion of theology within a wider cultural debate. In particular Avis sees the Enlightenment in England as primarily a Christian and Anglican movement. Thus a whole group of people who we might usually associate with a more rational and critical view of Christianity are suddenly brought back into the Christian fold; many of them were church members, and this includes people such as John Locke, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Hobbes. It is perhaps good to correct many of the more traditional interpretations of cultural history that see such people as expounding intellectual views that are regarded as antithetical to traditional Christianity, and in pointing out the fact that many of them involve themselves in theological debate as well as in philosophical and scientific discussion. This certainly enriches the theological perspective of the 18th century and its contribution to the present day.
In looking at Scripture there is a most welcome section on how Anglicanism differs from Puritanism. Anglicans see Scripture as having ‘all things necessary for salvation.’ Puritans, and a particular Calvinistic strand of the church, see Scripture as having all things necessary for life. So whereas Anglicans may want to appeal to reason in working out various issues not related to salvation, or found in Scripture, the Puritan answer was that these were all there in some way in Scripture. This is a very helpful distinction that begins to relate to and clarify some of the contemporary issues in Anglicanism and perhaps shows how many of the more conservative interpretations around today still follow a Puritan line more than the 39 Articles.
In discussing the Enlightenment Avis shows the complexity of the movement and is in line with recent discussion on enlightenments rather than one single stream. This enables him to put in one chapter such diverse people as William Law, John Wesley, Joseph Butler, and Edmund Burke, as exponents of Anglican Enlightenment, and yet at the same time to show that they have distinct emphases. Avis is probably correct in chiding us today for a complete neglect of a study of Joseph Butler and his contribution to Anglicanism. This is in part because of the neglect of the 18th century, or of those within it who are not of the evangelical movement. In looking at such a diverse group one begins to see the difficulties of ‘reason’ as one of the three key methodological categories, since ‘reason’ has a whole number of shades of meaning particularly in relationship to other issues such as revelation and feeling.
While showing the growing importance of experience, Avis wishes also to say that conscience was an aspect that developed in this period, and that these two elements might be included as further legs on the chair of theological methodology. This is not yet fully expounded and perhaps may become an issue in the next volume.
There is always an issue of emphasis and who you choose to discuss within a book such as this. I think in light of a mention of the importance of Lancelot Andrews, more space may have been given to him. I also thought that the simple dismissal of Samuel Clarke as heterodox seemed not to be accounting more recent studies that rehabilitate him, and underestimate the significance of this particular person in the development of Latitudinarianism. Like the Enlightenment the latitude men had a variety of exponents, and while later Unitarians were to claim Clarke as their inspiration, particularly in liturgical change, there is a significant difference between the theology of Clarke and Theophilus Lindsay.
It was clear from the beginning that the book was to be wider than a narrow look at scripture reason and tradition. There were times however where I felt that this was being slightly lost and I needed more steering as to why some of the discussion was being included. I wonder here if there is a tension between the desire to give an overall view of the development and flow of Anglican theological method, particularly in the context of reclaiming many Enlightenment figures as Anglican theologians, and the more narrow examination of the particular elements of theological method. The extent to which Avis’s restoration of some philosophers as also theologians will be accepted within the academic community is to be seen. However, Avis is correct in pointing out that the theological interests of these people, and their personal piety in many cases, are often completely neglected in other histories of philosophy and thought. As such that is an important reminder and suggests the possibility of an Anglican humanism today based on Christian doctrine and values that might be able to replace some of the aridity of contemporary philosophy.
This is not perhaps the easiest introduction to Anglican theological method, particularly as it is only half of the story, which will become increasingly complex as Anglicanism becomes a worldwide church. This may entail some discussion of American theologians and while in terms of structures of authority they are particularly important, not least in the setting up of the Episcopal Church, distinctions in the sources of authority can already be seen in the difference between Samuel Seabury and William White.