Final Court of Appeal

Continuing with the second reason for “Why Not Orthodoxy?”.

Second, I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals. We Anglicans are now witnessing first-hand the disintegration of a world-wide communion partially because of the absence of a divinely instituted organ of central authority. In the first millenium the Church employed the Ecumenical Council to serve as this final authority; but for the past thirteen centuries Orthodoxy has been unable to convene such a council. Is it a matter of logistics, or is the matter perhaps more serious, a question of constitutional impotence? Or has God simply protected the Orthodox from serious church-dividing heresies during this time, thereby temporarily obviating the need for such a council? Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now.

Yet as Orthodoxy begins to seriously engage the worldview and values of modernity (and post-modernity), the need for a final tribunal will perhaps become more evident. Consider just one example—contraception. It used to be the case that all Orthodox theologians would have roundly denounced most (all?) forms of contraception. But over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a growing diversity on this issue amongst Orthodox thinkers. Some state that this is really a private matter that needs to be decided between the believer and his parish priest. Clearly this privatization of the issue accords with modern sensibilities; but I am fearful of the consequences. Given the absence of a final court of appeal, does Orthodoxy have any choice but to simply accept diversity on many of the burning ethical questions now confronting us? Can Orthodoxy speak authoritatively to any of them?

Now there is no longer a desire for openness to all the saints and for conversation between all the historically great theologians. Now, in the face of the uncertianties of modernity, there is a demand for a “final court of appeal”. Now we must get judgmental. Now we must get things decided. Toe the line! Root out the bad guys! Get after those heretics! Studying the past can afford a neutral academic exchange. Action in the present calls for decisiveness.

No, this can’t be right! Surely the Church ought to remain consistent in its attitude and method both historically and in the present. It can either stand back, take an entirely neutral stance, discuss issues this way and that — both then and now — OR it can jump into the fray, make its decisions, stand by them, and assert its authority — both then and now. Or of course it can do something in the middle, which is to try to listen, learn, discuss, pray, study, pray some more, and, going with “what seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us”, make the call. (And be ready to be judged by those in the future who will do the same.) In any case, the Church should do what does — be what it is — both then and now. No double standard.