difficulties with a modest proposal, 1: scripture

so, i have of course noticed that all the denominations have not collapsed into one self-recognized holy catholic and apostolic church in the 120 years since 1888. i can't help but think that one of the reasons for that is that most of the official work and discussion has been between folks in fancy clothes--top down. many of the laity don't seem to see so much difference between the different theological positions as they should.

while acknowledging that the episcopal church is currect to insist that there are "principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of christian faith and order committed by christ and his apostles to the church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men." (bcp 1979, p. 877), it seems that what separates us are often not those things.

yet even on those things about which we seem to be in agreement, there are often unnoticed differences (and sometimes highly emotional ones). take the episcopal statement about scripture: "the holy scriptures of the old and new testaments . . .[are] the revealed word of god." the lambeth conference changed that statement to "the holy scriptures of the old and new testaments . . . "[contain] all things
necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith."

the lambeth conference statement is closer to the orthodox (and, mostly, catholic understanding) that the term "word of god" refers primarily to second person of the holy trinity, as he is spoken of in the preamble to the gospel according to john. the word of god did not become incarnate as a book, but as the son of mary.

why, you might ask, do i perhaps seem to undermine my modest proposal that such a statement might be grounds for a grass-roots understanding that the church is one because of the action of christ jesus? it is because of all the misunderstandings that are possible when people get into the "but i thought you said" frame of mind, which can easily happen when we hear what we want to hear.

for my own part, i am quite happy with the understanding of scripture from the lambeth conference. but i also notice that folks within the same communions, whether they be orthodox or baptist, or the same local congregations, whether they be methodist or episcopal, agree with that statement and disagree on what scriptures mean and still we come together at the lord's table. it is the objective authority of scripture which i find primary, not my or your subjective understanding or misunderstanding.