You are here
"It's both/and, not either/or," says Anglo-Catholic scientist
Dr. Heckscher responds to a recent column by the Rev. Canon Dr. Paul Zahl, TESM president on Imputation (Protestant) versus Infusion (Roman Catholic).
By Stevens Heckscher
I do not agree with the learned Dr. Zahl. Bear with me.
First, I am not convinced that the ninth article of the Thirty-nine unambiguously supports imputation over infusion, but even if it does, I do not regard it as having binding authority today on Anglicans, but rather as a document of limited authority, and perhaps mainly of historical interest. We have come a long way since the Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement, and the rule of lex orandi lex credendi as it applies to Anglican sacramental practice and liturgical worship may be in conflict with this article. Indeed, I am not convinced that the Elizabethan Settlement was always entirely self-consistent.
My own position, perhaps a typical Anglican fudge to be sure, but one which commends itself to me for what I regard as good reasons, is that, in the matter of infusion versus imputation, it is both/and rather than either/or. Yes, we remain sinners after Baptism, in which both righteousness is imputed and grace given, but throughout the Christian life we grow in holiness as grace is infused. I think that justification for this position can be found widely in the Church Fathers, to whom Anglicans appealed at the Reformation. If a Patristic position is discovered partly to contradict one of the Thirty-nine Articles, are not we modern Anglicans bound by that appeal to accept the former?
--Stevens Heckscher, Ph.D. is a mathematical ecologist and Lay Associate for Spiritual Direction at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA. He is the author of a chapter in the book Spiritual Information edited by Charles L. Harper Jr. (Templeton Foundation Press 2005), as well as of a number of other published articles in both science and religion.
