Branch Theory?
Author’s note: If articles carried warning labels this one would alert the reader that its contents, while meant to be thought-provoking, are not the result of top calibre academic research, being but the ponderings of a parish priest.
I doubt that many Confirmation or Inquirer’s Classes speak about it much any
more (except perhaps in some of the more hard-core Anglo-Catholic parishes-that
rapidly vanishing variety in the species Anglicana) but for several
generations the reigning ecclesiology in many Episcopal parishes, including
numbers of mid-church parishes, was called the branch theory
.
Or at least this theory was an important adjunct. The universally respected
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
gives this definition of the branch theory:
…the theory that, though the Church may have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each may yet be a
branchof the one Church of Christ, provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its bishops. Such, it is contended by many Anglican theologians, is the condition of the Church at the present time, there being now three main branches, the Roman, the Eastern, and the Anglican Communions…
As an aside it should be noted that the major theoretician of this
approach to ecclesiology was William Palmer (1803–1885), the
Oxford theologian and liturgical scholar, and not, as many suppose, John
Henry Newman. Palmer’s two-volume Treatise on the Church of
Christ (1838) formulated the notion, recapitulated in the above
OCDC
quote, that, provided that both 1) the
Succession, and 2) the Faith of the Apostles are kept intact, then there
the Church exists, albeit in one of its branches.
Interestingly, though this understanding of ecclesiology was to
permeate much of Anglicanism, at least of the mid- to high- church
persuasions, it initially attracted little attention from the Oxford
Fathers. Marvin R. O’Connell writes in his The Oxford
Conspirators: A History of the Oxford Movement 1833–1845
(MacMillan, 1969) that Newman greeted Palmer’s Treatise
…with faint praise. Palmer was dismissed.
Several points need to be made at this juncture. First, there is the
undeniable fact that Anglicanism as an ecclesiastical structure had
already been around for almost 300 years before there was any
formulation of the branch
theory. And while there were no doubt
some embryonic, branch
-like notions afloat, still it was not
until almost three centuries had passed and a catholicizing movement was
emerging that needed some theological justification for the existence of
a separate English Church that this theory arrived center stage.
Apparently even then it was not immediately and universally welcomed.
But be that as it may, there is little doubt that the branch
theory did take hold, and for many Anglicans gave, and gives, catholic
ecclesiological legitimacy to that body. Still, arriving comparatively
late on the scene, being balked at by at least some Anglo-Catholics,
even in the leadership, and, truthfully, having for all practical
purposes died out in the present day Anglican teaching, the question is
raised as to how such a short-lived theory could even yet be maintained,
though it is defended it seems by an ever-decreasing number of
Anglicans. It would seem logical that its declining popularity (it’s
not in the 1979 catechism, nor is even its spirit present in most
current published Confirmation materials in widespread use) is evidence
of its doctrinal impotence.
What then for present day Anglicans passes for ecclesiology? Aside
from the ever-diminishing Anglo-Catholics who hold to the branch
theory, there are the evangelicals of several stripes who hold to a
minimalist theology of the Church. For most of them some version of the
Church as a voluntary association of those who have accepted Christ is
operative. Orders and the ecclesial/sacramental life are negligible
compared to individual piety, with or without the Church, in this view.
This is clearly a Protestant understanding of the Church; honorable,
arguably culturally relevant, and historic (at least 500 years old), but
definitely not Catholic. The other view is that the Church is that
group of people who minister in Christ’s name, and who live out of a
tradition called Christian. Here to be Catholic (connected by Faith and
Succession to the apostles) is an irrelevant category, and unless things
Catholic serve the modernist agenda, they are dismissed.
But the question still remains in some minds: Even though its holders
may be numerically decreasing and though it may be out of current
theological fashion, is, in fact, the branch
theory still a
sensible, valid, and theologically sound way to legitimize Anglicanism
as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
It would seem that the argument of tactile episcopal succession in
Anglicanism has been established rather well. If there is not an
air-tight case, it certainly has no more holes than does the Roman case.
On this score, that Anglican bishops have historically been in
succession to the apostles by means of the laying on of hands, the
branch
theory seems acceptable. However, it is when we examine
the second element in the theory that we run into a great deal of
trouble. Indeed, from several theological perspectives, including the
Orthodox, this second element is the most important ingredient of all.
In most theological encounters with Anglicans, when Anglicans would seek
Orthodox comments on the legitimacy
of Anglican orders, the
Orthodox invariably insist on first examining Anglicanism’s theology, to
determine whether or not it is Biblical and Patristic, in short
Traditional. Without being such, say the Orthodox, then it makes little
difference whose hands were laid on whose head, how many times, in what
manner, or if incense was used. The first question to be answered is,
Is the Faith of this community recognizable to the Apostles, would the
Fathers claim it as their own, and would the martyrs find it the very
faith for which they shed blood?
From the above citation from the OCDC, we note that the
branch
theory is said to be operative, not only when there is a
tactile apostolic succession, but also …provided that it
continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church…
Thus, if the theory collapses when this element is missing, then
Anglicanism has no claim whatever to it in the present hour. Liberal
modernists, who now control Anglican Christianity in England, America,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and who are in the
ascendancy in the remainder of the Anglican world, are usually
forthright in their condemnation of the ancient and patristic Faith.
Certainly modernism is antithetical to beliefs such as the bodily
Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the existence of absolute and
revealed standards of moral behavior (especially with regard to sexual
activities), or the delineation of complementary male and female roles
within the Church and family life. The modern secular aversion to the
sacramental worldview of patristic Christianity pervades Anglicanism and
creates an ecclesiology with a social and psychological program agenda,
rather than one of simply listening to the Master’s voice and seeking to
be obedient to it (for example, the commands in Matthew 25 to serve the
poor and in Matthew 28 to evangelize).
The secularization of Anglican ecclesiology has been accomplished by
jettisoning not only the Holy Scriptures but also, and perhaps more
significantly, the guide the Church had always used to interpret the
Scriptures: the Holy Fathers, those ancient writers most widely accepted
by community consensus, and whose writings provided the Church with the
necessary interpretive frame work to comprehend Holy Write. Today, what
passes for such among Anglican powers-that-be (bishops, seminaries,
diocesan and national committees, commissions and conventions) is
typified by the Report of the Bishop’s Committee of Sexuality of the
Diocese of Maryland. In this report, both Scripture and Tradition are
acknowledged as sources of authority; but how does the report approach
them? With the new interpretive grid of modern scholarship whose current
fashion is the oppressor/oppressed model. Hence, in this particular
report the understanding of much Scripture and most Patristics are
governed by John Boswell’s revisionist work, Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Consequently, the assumption is
that only those portions of the Bible and the Fathers which support the
highly questionable and selective findings
of contemporary social
scientists are to be respected. Thereby, divine revelation is undercut
and the secularization of theology guaranteed. …To hold the
faith of the original undivided Church…
is a description of
one of the primary purposes of Anglicanism, or so many of us were taught
a generation ago in Church School and Confirmation classes across the
Episcopal landscape. And yet it appears that in this one generation
such a task has vanished from the agenda of the contemporary Anglican
church. Occasionally, similar language will be employed, partly to
placate traditionalists, partly to assuage the liberal modernist
conscience that still clings to such images, but by and large it has
disappeared. It is no longer relevant, useful or true.
Thus the branch
theory no longer commands attention and
theological weight. If it were ever a valid theory, nailing down
Anglicanism’s claims to legitimately manifest the Catholic Church in a
certain place and time, it no longer is.
But let’s ask another, perhaps even more important question. Granted
that the branch
theory has collapsed because of the failure of
Anglicanism to uphold both of its essential elements, nevertheless, what
may we say of the strength of the theory before the fall of Anglicanism
to modernism? Several points need here to be made.
First, the fact that Anglicanism has fallen into heresy and apostasy
is itself evidence that, even if the branch
theory were valid,
Anglicanism is not and was not one of the branches—probably not
since the East-West split and certainly not since the Reformation. A
community’s apostolicity is evidenced in that it continues to hold the
apostolic Faith. There may be from time to time theological ferment and
heated doctrinal debate, but when the time comes for decision making,
that community which is apostolic insists on fidelity to that received
Tradition. Anglicanism is presently not such a community.
Second,
the Holy Scriptures know nothing of the branch
theory. The early
branch
theoreticians made much of the fact that the earliest
people of God consisted of twelve tribes, and, at times, two nations,
Israel and Judah. But this ignores the fact that Christ established the
new people of God through the twelve apostles, pre-figured in the
tribes, bound together in visible communion under the headship of Christ
Himself. Whatever the Old Covenant configuration may have been,
Christ’s intention for the Church of the New Covenant is clear: visible
unity expressed through mutually recognized ministerial orders,
Eucharistic fellowship, doctrinal agreement, and adherence to Christ’s
lordship. This Church is exhibited on the pages of the New Testament
and, today, subsists in Holy Orthodoxy. In so far as branches
are recognized in the Bible, they are, as in St. John 15, individual
believers, not Churches who are not in communion with one another and
who hold conflicting theologies.
Similarly, Holy Tradition knows nothing of such a theory. In the
early Church, there were schisms from the Church, but not within the
Church. The Fathers wrestled deeply with the implications of schism
and, of course, the famous cases of how to handle returning former
schismatics, but clearly acknowledged schism as a breaking with the
Church, not the establishing of a branch.
In the end then, we find the branch
theory to be theologically
defective, resting as it does on a non-Biblical, non-Patristic
ecclesiology, very late in development and believed by a minority of
those for whom it was devised. This is not at all to say that Anglicans
could not be holy, or be recipients of God’s grace, or indeed be
considered Christians. On the contrary, many men and women of exemplary
devotion and holiness have inhabited the house of Anglicanism; the
beauty of traditional Anglican worship is deservedly legendary; its
often inspiring architecture is grace in stone; and its teachers,
preachers, poets, and writers, when at their best, have engaged
intellect with heartfelt imagination in the service of the Gospel. For
all of that and more, we thank God. But, to say this is not the same
thing as affirming the branch
theory, but instead it is to
acknowledge the work of God, even beyond the Catholic and Apostolic
Church, and to express gratitude. And yet one would be remiss in not
saying that authentically traditional Anglicans, formerly bolstered by
such things as the branch
theory, would find all that they love
in Anglicanism and which is reflective of the classic Christianity of
the first millennium to be at its fullest and most authentic in Holy
Orthodoxy.
Many people, myself included, told themselves for years that when Anglicanism came to its theological senses it would acknowledge its true heart and center, its Catholic identity.
We have the privilege of living at the time when the true heart of Anglicanism has been revealed, and it has turned out to be not Catholic but liberal protestant. For many, again including me, that is a painful discovery. And yet, God being the death-to-life transformer, this painful situation can also be the occasion for finding our way to that to which the best in Anglicanism points, our true home, the Holy Orthodox Church.
Fr. Gregory and his wife Frederica are former Episcopalians. He is now pastor of Holy Cross Orthodox Mission, (Eastern Rite) Baltimore, MD.