The Anglican Incompleteness Theorem

A Review of Incompleteness

Kurt Godel is a mathematician famous for his incompleteness theorem, which basically states that in a formal axiomatic system -where you start from what might be termed “basic assumptions”, there will be some hypotheses that cannot be proved within that system.

For example, Euclidean geometry is defined by five axioms, and the fifth or parallel postulate states that:  "That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles. "

Or, to put it more crudely, in a popular fashion, parallel lines never meet

Now one can construct consistent systems of geometry (obeying the other axioms) in which the parallel postulate is true, and others in which it is false - spherical geometry being one example. Both systems are complete and valid within themselves with the four axioms, although they differ markedly on the fifth.

Kitchen or Cathedral: Which Postulate is True?

Looking at what has been happening with the Anglican Churches in England and in Wales, there is something very akin to this going on.

The Anglican English “geometry” holds that clergy cannot livestream or put out on the internet pre-recorded services from within their own churches, or ring bells, even if government guidelines permit it, for a variety of reasons, one of the most significant of which is solidarity: we are all in this together. The Archbishop of Canterbury broadcasted from his kitchen.

Meanwhile the Anglican Welsh “geometry” says that clergy can livestream etc for a variety of reasons, one of the most significant is symbolism and a sense of continuity in troubled times. The Archbishop of Wales broadcasted from  his Cathedral

Most other denominations such as the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales – and Jersey – tend to follow the Welsh position. The Moderator designate of the Church of Scotland, for example, live streams regular Sunday services from the Kirk (in fact just as he was before the lockdown).

So I don’t think the arguments for and against the two positions are something one can judge and take sides on: there would seem to be compelling reasons for taking either position. They cannot be derived uniquely from any general theological principles. We cannot just put Canterbury in one set of scales, and Wales in the other, and hope to see on what side the balance lies!

I favour the Welsh approach, but others favour the English approach. Any review of the discussion on “Thinking Anglicans” shows arguments given on both sides, but clearly none decisive enough to sway their opponents. It is very much a case of an Anglican incompleteness theorem.

Laudian Discipline: And Why it is Wrong.

So what can we say about the difference between English and Welsh Anglican stance? I think it is not so much about arguments, but more about how this was imposed from above.

Since Convocation, and after that the establishment of Synods, the Church of England has appeared to operate on the basis of consensus, which is, after all, how both women priests and women bishops came about. But the recent rulings by Justin Welby, even if he had the agreement of the English Bishops, seem to have totally ignored the wishes of the clergy of laity and the need to build consensus.

The last Archbishop whom I can recall really irritating the clergy and the laity was Archbishop William Laud, who was Archbishop to Charles I.

Jersey historian G.R. Balleine’s critique of him in “The Layman’s History of the Church of England” addresses the failings of Laud in imposing his rulings upon the church. Now Laud was very much a ritualist, and Welby is not, but the sentence in Balleine rings true – “his attempts at coercion absolutely infuriated the laity.”

Balleine lists one of Laud’s mistakes as a failure “to realise that England was an adult nation now, ready to respond to reason and to skilful leading. but absolutely impossible to drive”. Laud took a different view, that “the discipline of the Church should be felt as well as spoken of.. A Bishop’s first duty was to enforce regulations.”. According to the Times, regarding the current situation: “Those who breach the rules have been threatened with disciplinary action that could mean suspension.”

It is also notable that other denominations (and Welsh Anglicans) have singular failed to follow his lead which suggests a failure to build consensus which has been short-circuited by the use of church discipline on the Church of England instead.

While Justin Welby may have very cogent (and to himself) compelling reasons for the “lockout” of clergy, the one thing he has not done is to treat the clergy and laity as adults. He has enforced regulations (on streaming, recording and bell ringing), backed up (or so it appears) with a threat of ecclesiastical discipline, and I suspect that much of the anger stems from the fact that he has forced a position, rather than continuing to work to persuade.

Advice or Directive: Being Economical with the Truth

Christian Today reported on Father Marcus Walker, Rector at Great St Bartholomew's, in London, who had questioned whether the bishops had a legal right to order clergy not to say daily prayers and offer Communion inside their church buildings. Archbishop Justin Welby was asked about this on the Andrew Marr Show last Sunday. He insisted that the bishops had not broken any canon law in asking churches to remain closed. "We have given guidance, not instruction," the Archbishop said. He continued: "Frankly, Andrew, in the Church of England, the one way to get anyone to do the opposite of what you want is to give them an order. It works with all of us. Someone said it's like herding cats.”

This is, of course, a blatant evasion of the truth. The missive sent out by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York uses the words "directive" not "guidance". The difference is illustrated simply. The Government of Jersey first issued guidance about social distancing, but when they later gave it force of  law, it became a directive.

And finally, it should be noted that the Welsh position is broader than the English one: it is possible for clergy in a Welsh parish to follow the English position, but they are also (within government guidelines) free to follow the lead of the Archbishop of Wales. In other words, he has treated the clergy like adults, able to weigh up their own consciences and make their own informed decision., and not like “herding cats”.