by the Revs Iain Boyd and Robert Sturdy
Over the past few months, because of various events (Gafcon, ACNA, GenCon 09’) the issue of the unity of the church viewed through the lens of an Anglican context has come up with increasing regularity. In the conversations we have had with fellow priests and even in statements from men and women serving at a very high level of leadership in the diocese we have noted two things. The first thing we would note is that while the individuals themselves are, for the most part trained theologians and men and women of great theological depth and Biblical faithfulness they have failed to publicly reflect with any great depth on the situations we are now presented with. The second thing we have noticed about the discussion of the unity of the church in an Anglican context is that the evangelical understanding of the unity of the church is poorly represented amongst the highest levels of leadership in the Diocese of S.C.
Our desire in presenting this is to facilitate a discussion on some very difficult matters. We also wish to form the discussion along certain lines that we do not believe have played a significant enough role in the corporate discernment of the Diocese. We wish to form this discussion first and foremost not in terms of any one theological tradition, but rather we wish to center this discussion within the confines of the Biblical witness of the church in the New Testament. We understand that our theological tradition will no doubt inform our reading of the New Testament, nevertheless we seek first and foremost to honor God by submitting to his Word as best as we are able before entering into any discussion based on Anglican tradition. This leads to our next point. We wish to demonstrate the understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism as it applied to the multiple expressions of Christian churches in England during the period of the Reformation. As it will be seen, we do not present an understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism that is at odds with the Biblical witness, but rather one that fits quite comfortably within it.
It is our honest intention to honor Christ by humbly submitting this reflection. We wish to contribute to the current discernment that up until now has only been done by a select few. The format of this paper will be an overview of both parts followed by an extended discussion on both Christian unity in the N.T. as well as how it was understood in early Anglicanism.
Interesting that the one response at the bottom of this paper rejects ACNA as narrow…that is a hard perspective to support given the broad practice and theology of those currently in ACNA. In fact most critics suggest it will never hold together because it is far too broad, obviously these too not understanding the necessity of the Tillichian dialectic and Francis Schaeffer existentialism inherent in Anglicanism, these two themselves setting certain boundaries to orthodox faith.
This is an interesting article.
It’s main thesis seems to be to recognize ACNA as godly and apostolic and faithful Anglican brothers and sisters. I have not seen many conservative Anglicans not be willing to do that [although some other recognitions are more difficult to come by], but maybe there are issues in SC that I know not of.
On the other hand, the article does not say “therefore we should join ACNA.”
Maybe that’s supposed to be in *the next article* . . . ; > )
Or maybe not.
I’ll be watching closely.
A good apology for the evangelical position, but one which most likely would make a catholic uncomfortable in some respects.
I’m probably a bit off from the usual “catholic” understanding of orders, in which, it would seem, that some sort of “electrical charge” called “grace” is passed on in the laying on of hands. Nevertheless that “tactile succession” is an “outward and visible sign” of the handing down of the apostolic teaching and the authority to be an apostolic teacher. And that is the charisma given.
But where we do agree is that where the apostolic teaching is ignored, the outward sign becomes empty. Now supposedly that view is the Donatist heresy. But I don’t think the church fathers (and certainly not the Orthodox or Roman churches) mean that to apply to orders. The whole dispute was that an “immoral” (i.e., having apostatized) bishop could “validly” baptize or preside over the Eucharist. It is also held that while a heretical bishop might ordain, the ordination was at best defective and even “null and void” (consider the Roman view of Anglican orders!).
I think the same case could be made as the evangelical make, from the point of view of Scripture and the Church Fathers of the first five or so centuries, although it would be more “catholic”.
In any event the biblical unity of the church is a unity in truth–the truth (as well as the way and the life) which is Jesus Christ. And this is why even the mangled baptismal rite of the BCP begins the Baptismal Covenant with the affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed, followed immediately by the first promise to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship”. Even the breaking of bread and the prayers come after that premise!
Finally, I’m always amused at TEC’s claim that schism is worse than heresy–a view which totally undermines the English Reformation!
Then there’s property. Really now. TEC should return all the colonial church property to the Church of England.
And the Church of England should return all pre-reformation church property to the Bishop of Rome.
Well, it is certainly evangelical, and thus has a flawed view of Anglican ecclesiology. I never really get why Evangelicals want to be Anglican, but to each their own.