The theology of The St. Andrew's Draft can be seen throughout the document, but it is especially prominent in the introduction which, in the words of the document itself, presents a "fuller theological rationale."(1) That rationale grounds the Anglican Communion in the communion of the three Persons of the Trinity.

My purpose in this essay is to analyze the theological doctrine of the Trinity as described in The St. Andrew's Draft and compare it with similar approaches to communion, namely, the Virginia Report and the Episcopal Church's justification of homosexual unions, "To Set Our Hope on Christ." These three documents share a common trinitarian understanding. I shall show that this common perspective is a distortion of orthodox trinitarian theology, amounting to a heresy. Several consequences of this heresy will be described, followed by some recommendations for orthodox believers.

The Trinitarian Theology of the St. Andrew's Draft

The St. Andrew's Draft begins with an introduction which presents its theological perspective. Here are its essential ideas: 1. Communion characterizes the "very divine life of God the Trinity."(2) 2. This life was revealed by the Son. 3. The revelation in Jesus Christ was seen and testified to by the apostles and their followers who formed the church. 4. The goal of the church is to reflect the relations of the three Persons of the Trinity. "This life of the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, shapes and displays itself through the very existence and ordering of the Church."(3) 5. Communion is the goal of creation and of all humanity. "Our divine calling into communion is established in God's purposes for the whole of creation (Eph. 1:10; 3:9ff.)."(4) This, briefly put, is the theological perspective of the St. Andrew's Draft.

What then, is the nature of the communion that characterizes the inner life of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and how must that be reflected in the Church? The St. Andrew's Draft has very little to say about the relations between the triune Persons, but does describe that inner-triune communion as reflected in the church. The church reflects the divine life even "as we are enabled to be made one across the dividing walls of human sin and estrangement (Eph. 2:22 12)."(5) It involves such things as "mutual commitment and discipline," the affirming of the "bonds of affection," being a people who "live, learn, and pray by and with the Scriptures as God's Word," speaking "through a common voice, made one across cultures and languages," and becoming "servants of a greater unity among the divided Christians of the world."(6) As these relations are formed, the Church reflects the life of the divine Trinity who is One in Three.

Three comments are in order. First, according to the St. Andrew's Draft, human relationships, as divinely sanctioned, should be "mutual." Typical comments in this regard are that "mutual commitment and discipline" are "a witness to God's promise," that the Holy Spirit "calls and enables us to live in mutual affection, commitment and service," that the Anglican Consultative Council calls "the Churches into mutual responsibility and interdependence," and that a covenant serves "our mutual relations as reflective of God's life that we share."(7) Since human communion is grounded in the divine communion of the three Persons, the Draft implicitly, if not rather explicitly, affirms that the inner-triune relations are mutual as well.

Secondly, although the nature of the inner-triune unity is not discussed by the Draft, its perspective is apparent. When reflected in the Church, the unity of the divine Persons is seen in such actions as becoming "one across the dividing walls of human sin and estrangement," affirming the "bonds of affection," and speaking "through a common voice, made one across cultures and languages." In the Church, unity occurs through the dynamic of mutual interpersonal relations as persons come together in concert. By inference, the divine unity occurs as the divine Persons, through their mutual relations, come together in a unity of purpose or action.

Finally, the mutual relations of love that create communion are inclusive. They are inclusive in the sense that their goal is to transform all human relationships into the triune image since the communion of the divine life is the goal of all creation.

The Virginia Report

The Virginia Report paints a similar picture. After an introductory chapter on context, it grounds (Chapter Two) the Anglican Communion in the inner-triune life of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It notes that this inner-triune communion was present at creation, set forth in the covenant of Sinai, revealed by the prophets, and supremely revealed in Jesus. In the words of the Virginia Report,

The love with which the Father loves Jesus is the love with which Jesus loves us. On the night before he died Jesus prayed (Jn. 17) that all who follow him should be drawn into that love and unity which exists between the Father and the Son. Thus our unity with one another is grounded in the life of love, unity and communion of the Godhead. The eternal, mutual self giving and receiving love of the three persons of the Trinity is the source and ground of our communion, of our fellowship with God and one another. Through the power of the Holy Spirit we are drawn into a divine fellowship of love and unity. Further, it is because the Holy Trinity is a unique unity of purpose, and at the same time a diversity of ways of being and function, that the Church is called to express diversity in its own life, a diversity held together in God's unity and love (The Lambeth Conference 1988, page 130).(8)

The inner-triune communion of God's "eternal, mutual self giving and receiving love" is the goal of the church. As the church realizes its destiny, it becomes an icon of the presence of God on earth as in heaven. As stated in the Virginia Report,

The mission of the Church is to be the icon of God's life. By prayer and praise, mercy and peace, justice and love, constantly welcoming the sinner, the outcast, the marginalised into her sanctuary, the Church is revealed as communion and is faithful to its mission. As Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 1:16), God's own people (1 Pet. 2:9) the Church lives in mutual love and is sent forth as a missionary community to gather all of creation into God's reconciling love, restore and renew it in the life of the triune God (Rom. 8:19 25).(9)

Similar to the St. Andrew's Draft, mutuality is a feature of the inner-triune relations, and therefore, a norm of human relations. The term is referenced some nineteen times throughout the text of the Virginia Report. The unity of the Godhead occurs in the "love, unity and communion of the three Persons," brought together in "eternal, mutual self giving and receiving love." As a result, the divine unity occurs as the triune Persons, through their mutual relations of love, come together in concert. This love is inclusive, seeking to gather "all of creation into God's reconciling love, restore and renew it in the life of the triune God."

"To Set Our Hope on Christ"

Comparable ideas can be found in "To Set Our Hope on Christ." Part II of that report describes how holiness and God's blessing can characterize same-sex unions. This is apparent when such unions show forth "the fruit of the Holy Spirit: 'joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control' (Galatians 5:22 23)."(10) As such, same-sex attraction can reflect the desire for communion as enkindled by the grace of the triune God. In the words of the document,

This is the love that, poured out for our salvation in the self giving of Jesus, reveals the eternal selfsharing of God the Holy Trinity, the blessed communion of the divine Persons. From this perspective, as expressed variously in teaching documents in the Episcopal Church, sexuality is a divine gift. God works through our bodies and desires. Through our mutual desires for one another we can, by God's grace, be drawn into the love which is of God.(11)

Just as sexual unions are called to mirror the mutuality of the inner-triune life, "To Set Our Hope on Christ" affirms that life in the Anglican Communion is called to reflect that same mutuality. In a section entitled "The Church Lives from and for the Holy Trinity," the report states that the communion of the Anglican Communion "has always been a unity in difference." The unity is maintained, "not by simple agreement among all parties, but by respectful listening to those with whom one disagrees ..." It entails a "willingness to render account to one another in love," "characterized by generosity and tolerance to those of different views," and "a willingness to contain difference and live with tension, even conflict, as the Church seeks a common mind on controversial issues." "It is by way of this very diversity in unity, by way of all these diverse voices, including those previously unheard, brought together in a communion of mutual listening and learning, that we are brought more fully into the fullness of God's truth."(12)

The mutual responsibility, openness, and attentiveness which should characterize the Anglican Communion as a whole, has its origin in the inner-triune communion of the Persons of the Trinity which is a unity in difference. In their words,

We believe that God takes our differences, which the world would wickedly harden into divisions, and embraces them by the power of Christ and the Spirit within those blessed differences in relation of the Divine Persons; in this way the Church's life of conversion and difference may become ever more fully a sharing in that blessed communion which is the life of God the Holy Trinity.(13)

The term "mutual" or "mutuality" is especially prominent, occurring some 37 times in the text. This mutuality has its basis within the mutual inner-triune relations so that mutuality is the norm of all human relationships. The unity of the Godhead, as seen in divinely-sanctioned human relationships, occurs through "mutual desires for one another," "by respectful listening," "by generosity and tolerance," by "mutual listening and learning," and by embracing differences. In this way, the unity of the Godhead reflects the actions of the divine Persons who come together in mutual love. Further, this unity seeks to embrace all relationships, all differences, brought together "in that blessed communion which is the life of God the Holy Trinity."

A Common Trinitarian Understanding

All three of these documents share a common understanding of the Trinity. Once this theological vision is in place, revelation, Jesus Christ, Scripture, creeds (if such be possible), ecclesiastical documents, and relations with others are understood, interpreted, and lived according to the trinitarian vision. For example, all three documents, directly or indirectly, proclaim that the mutual communion of the inner-triune Persons is revealed in Scripture and reflected in the Church. The documents are replete with scriptural references demonstrating the biblical basis of this belief, and its application to human relationships. If that understanding is amiss, these documents, in spite of their copious biblical quotations, their learned style, their pious language, and their earnest tone, will lead the faithful astray.

Trinity Considered

The version of the Trinity offered by these three documents is that the inner-triune relations of the Persons of the Trinity are mutual, and that the unity of the Trinity is a product of the inner-triune relations of love, a love that seeks to embrace the whole of creation. These claims need to be measured against the classical, trinitarian doctrine of the creeds. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was developed over some centuries as the result of a rigorous, exhaustive analysis of Scripture. The results were codified in creeds which, for Anglicans, are normative.(14) In light of the creeds, the doctrine of the Trinity proposed in these three documents is a fatal distortion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Let me explain, beginning with the inner-triune relations.

The Inner-triune Relations

The fundamental inner-triune relations are not mutual. As stated in the Nicene Creed, the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, not conversely. Further, the Spirit is subsequent to both. In the Western Church, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The East holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.(15) Neither East nor West believes the relations of the Spirit with the Son and the Father are mutual. The Son does not proceed from the Father through the Spirit; the Father does not proceed from the Spirit and the Son. The fundamental, critical relations of the Trinity are unequal. None of the three documents referenced in this essay discuss the decisive, unequal, creedly defined, biblically warranted, inner-triune relations.

It is true that the Father, Son, and Spirit love each other, but not mutually, for the love fulfills the unequal inner-triune relations. For example, the Virginia Report gives the clearest treatment of the biblical basis of the presumed "mutuality" of the divine Persons. It quotes John 17, and in that context, claims that the "eternal, mutual self giving and receiving love of the three Persons of the Trinity is the source and ground of our communion, of our fellowship with God and one another."(16) A reading of John's gospel, however, makes it clear that the love between the Father and the Son only occurs in an unequal relationship in which the Father gave the Son such things as the works that Jesus did, the words that Jesus spoke, those who believe in Jesus, and the name, love, and glory of the Father. The Father loved Jesus because he gave these blessings. Jesus loved the Father because he obediently received them and revealed them to the disciples. The disciples entered into these unequal relations of love by receiving Jesus' words, believing them, and living them. John 15:9-10 states the matter succinctly, "As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." John's gospel does not say that the Father obeys the Son's commandments. Love is fulfilled by maintaining the integrity of a relationship in which the Father gives and commands, the Son receives and obeys, and Christians, in obedience to Jesus as Lord, receive and hold fast to his words and deeds. From this perspective, the unity of Christians is achieved, in the first instance, through their obedience to an external revelation that is binding upon them, and secondarily, in their love for each other.

The Persons Distinguished

In the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the divine Persons are distinguished by their unequal relations. The Father is pure origin, the Son is the one who is eternally begotten, the Spirit identified as the one who proceeds from both. The Athanasian Creed states the matter in these words, "The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

The Unity of the Trinity

The Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relations since each of them indwells a single, identical, divine substance. There are not three identical divine substances, nor three different essences, but one substance in which each Person coinheres. The Athanasian Creed describes this by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each eternal, each uncreated, each God, each Lord, but there are not three eternals, three uncreateds, three Gods, or three Lords, but only one eternal, uncreated, divine substance which is the divine nature. In so far as the divine nature is concerned, the three Persons cannot be distinguished. Thinking analogously, any three human beings share the same human nature, and each can be seen to possess that nature, leading to three exemplars of human nature. But in the case of the Trinity, there is only one divine nature which does not have three exemplars, only one. For the divine nature, held by each of the three Persons, one plus one plus one is one. In light of the human analogy of three Persons sharing the same human essence, "Gregory of Nyssa is forced to conclude that in strictness of language we should not speak of a multiplicity of men but of one man."(17)

The result of the foregoing is that the unity of the Trinity is not achieved by three Persons mutually loving each other as in the three documents explored here. Rather, the unity of the Trinity is the divine essence itself, already given in the event of revelation in which the one God, God the Father, sends the Son who reveals the Father's words and works which, empowered by the Spirit, believers receive, believe, and obey, and thereby enter into the divine life.

Trinity Denied

To divide the divine essence, or ousia, is tri-theism. To deny the internal relations of the Trinity is modalism. If the inner-triune relations are mutual, then the divine Persons must be distinguished on grounds other than their unequal relations. This implies some sort of division within the essence. What is assumed in the three documents under consideration is that the triune Persons are persons in the individualistic, modern sense, having a relative autonomy with respect to each other, while the unity is given through their mutual love. This is tri-theism, a violation of the essence and a distortion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. What are the implications of all this? Let me make three observations.

Biblical Interpretation

This is not the place to enter into lengthy considerations of biblical hermeneutics. I have examined a number of hermeneutics published by members of the Episcopal Church in support of her innovations. Each of these entailed a number of theological distortions. In this case, the crucial hermeneutical difference between a Trinity of mutual relations and the orthodox doctrine is as follows: The logical inference of the mutual view is that students of Scripture enter into mutual relations with the biblical authors as the church exegetes Scripture. This exegesis is one of dialogue, conversation, and mutual listening among church members and the biblical authors, leading to hearing the biblical Word of God "afresh."(18) This is essentially the hermeneutic of "To Set Our Hope on Christ" where Scripture is "understood as a living, vibrant, forum where God and humanity engage one another, seeking truth in the process of resolving difficulties, seeking understanding in the process of believing."(19) This conversational hermeneutic inevitably leads to new truths never before believed by the church. For orthodoxy, the transcendent God, the invisible Father, sends the Son who faithfully reveals the Father's authoritative words and deeds. By the power of the Spirit, these words and deeds, set forth as Scripture, are obeyed for our salvation and disobeyed at our peril. One can certainly bring questions, uncertainties, and hopes to the biblical text, but in the final analysis, one must bow before the living God who reveals himself with absolute authority as the text. Much more needs to be said here, but the difference between the two approaches is the difference between life and death.

Resolving the Crisis in the Anglican Communion

Further, according to the theology of the documents under discussion, the crisis in the Anglican Communion can be resolved as the church reflects the mutual relations of the triune God. This entails dialogue, listening, mutual understanding, and the humble submission of self-giving love. Such suggestions can be found throughout the documents at hand. For the orthodox, the crisis is resolved by being obedient to the words of Scripture, which, as in Matthew 18 and elsewhere, describe what must be done. The heresies which now afflict the Anglican Communion are some two centuries old, and they have grown relentlessly throughout the western world.(20) Within the Episcopal Church, exhaustive attempts to restore orthodoxy in the face of these long-standing heresies have failed.

Two roads lie before us. One road is interminable dialogue as the church incorporates every imaginable point of view, including that of an Episcopal priest who recently proclaimed herself to be a follower of both Mohammed and Jesus Christ. The other road is obedience to the gospel. The orthodox must break fellowship, above all, eucharistic fellowship. There can be no more dialogue with heresy, only obedience.

A Final Consideration

The occasion of the Virginia Report was the ordination of women; the occasion of "To Set Our Hope on Christ" was the ordination of Bishop Robinson, and that of The St. Andrew's Draft, the crisis in the communion occasioned by these events. For the documents under consideration, there is really only one fundamental norm, "Exemplify mutual, loving relationships and thereby achieve unity." What does this mean in practice? It means that if a relationship is mutual, then it is biblically affirmed, theologically sound, and divinely sanctioned, reflecting the very life of the triune God. Let me give some examples. If men can be bishops and govern women, by mutuality, women can be bishops and govern men. If men and women can manifest mutual sexual love, so can men and men and women and women. If God is Father, then God is mother, since both mutually contribute to the creation of human life. If Episcopalians can establish mutual, loving relations across the divides of gender, race, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation, they can certainly show mutual love and appreciation for those of other faiths as witnessed in the recent Episcopal/Hindu worship service in Los Angeles which blended the Eucharist with Hindu rites.

This vision of inclusive, mutual love, extending to all relationships, is the theological foundation of "To Set Our Hope in Christ" which, forthrightly, takes the reader to the intended conclusion -- inclusive, mutual love is the final norm. The other two documents are not so forthright, but their theology leads to the same result. When the Virginia Report states that by "prayer and praise, mercy and peace, justice and love, constantly welcoming the sinner, the outcast, the marginalised into her sanctuary, the Church is revealed as communion and is faithful to its mission," there is a subtext. That subtext is simply that inclusive love defines right and wrong, a conclusion consistent with the ethics of "To Set Our Hope on Christ." And finally, the theology of the St. Andrew's Draft leads to the same conclusion. None of its statements would openly deny such a conclusion, and further, all its statements, as pious, theologically learned, and biblically referenced as they may be, are consistent with such a conclusion, for all are consistent with its trinitarian foundation.

What Must We Do

The orthodox cannot accept The St. Andrew's Draft. It is theologically unorthodox and biblically unsound. Rather, the orthodox must do at least two things. First, the orthodox cannot be in eucharistic fellowship with those who have denied the Christian faith. Secondly, we are not in the sixteenth century. It is not enough to simply proclaim our allegiance to the Anglican formularies. That is necessary, but not sufficient. The essence of the heresy that is now devouring the Anglican Communion is revisionist. That is, it accepts all the classical documents of Anglicanism, especially Scripture, and revises them from an alien perspective. A covenant must be written that specifically denies false teaching and its concrete manifestations. That will be the theme of my next essay.

Endnotes

1. The St. Andrew's Draft, the section entitled "COMMENTARY on THE ST. ANDREW'S DRAFT."
2. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction, paragraph 1.
3. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction, paragraph 1.
4. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction, section 2.
5. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction, section 3.
6. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction, sections 4-7.
7. The St. Andrew's Draft, Introduction section 4, 3.1.2, 3.1.4 part III, and the General Comments. Other references are found in 2.2.1, 3.1.2 part IV, 3.2.2., with three additional references in the General Comments.
8. The Virginia Report, paragraph 2.9.
9. The Virginia Report, paragraph 2.17.
10. "To Set Our Hope on Christ," paragraph 2.0.
11. "To Set Our Hope on Christ," paragraph 28.
12. "To Set Our Hope on Christ," paragraphs 4.17, 21.
13. "To Set Our Hope on Christ," paragraph 4.19.
14. Those Creeds are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Creed of Athanasius. See the 1662 Articles of Religion, Article VIII.
15. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978), p. 263.
16. The Virginia Report, section 2.9
17. Kelly, p. 267.
18. St. Andrew's Draft, 1.1.2, 3.2.3; The Virginia Report, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11; "To Set our Mind on Christ," 4.24. The word "afresh" strikes me as code for finding things in Scripture the church has never found before.
19. "To Set Our Hope on Christ," 2.4. The St. Andrew's Draft does little to deny this hermeneutic, simply requiring that "biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently ..." (1.2.4), criteria the authors of "To Set Our Hope on Christ" must surely feel they meet. In 1.1.2 the Draft observes that biblical faith is "set forth in the catholic creeds," but these same creeds do not inform the theology of the Draft. The logical conclusion to a "forum" idea of biblical interpretation is that God and biblical readers mutually create each other. In the words of Michael Johnston, partisan of the new Episcopal hermeneutic, "I prefer to think that God's variety, ambiguity, nuance, and contradiction come honestly from people's authentic experience of God in concrete and diverse situations. In this incarnational stance the divine and the human are both involved in the ongoing work of creation, so God makes us up as we go along as much as we make up God." Michael Johnston, Engaging the Word (The New Church's Teaching Series, Volume 3. Cambridge: Cowley Publications, 1998), p. 97.
20. These heresies began with Schleiermacher (1768-1834), if not before. He combined a form of medieval mysticism with a scientific world view to produce a theological synthesis for modernity. That synthesis, and it is still with us, is a denial of the Christian faith.

The Rev. Dr. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D. is VirtueOnline's resident cyber theologian. His website can be accessed at www.rsanders.org