We are about to enter the second decade of the third millennium. In ten years’ time, shall we find the world-wide Anglican Communion still one, or broken up into a group of splinter churches?
Martyn Drakard: Is an Anglican schism in the offing?
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Commentary
Could it be true that, notwithstanding the 1881 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, we “Anglicans” have never in actuality felt like “one” since the Church of England’s Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer were supplanted by differing newer Bible translations and newer authorized liturgy books separately developed in local contemporaneous languages around the world? Even with all the disagreements that arose and continue due to the rise of so-called 19th century liberal theology and the reactions of Protestant evangelicalism and Catholic liturgical renewal, could it be that the simple drift away from the global adherence to the use of the “cradle language” of 17th century England has left us without any other bond sufficient to perpetuate an “Anglican Communion” in the first place? One observes the increasingly common return to the use of the Latin Rite among Roman Catholics, as well as the perpetuation of Church Slavonic in Eastern Orthodox churches, and one wonders whether renewing the historic common language of Anglicans might be and effective step forward in the work of renewing Anglicans’ common sensibility, good will, and commitment to Christ’s mission in the world.
One quick and easy test of the accuracy of newspaper reports is to scan for references to Henry VIII. Articles that refer to him are generally rubbish.
Henry Greville
[blockquote]..we “Anglicans†have never in actuality felt like “one†since the Church of England’s Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer were supplanted by differing newer Bible translations and newer authorized liturgy books separately developed in local contemporaneous languages around the world?[/blockquote]
I think you make a very astute point, Anglicans do not have a magisterium or confession, however it used to be said that our theology is to be found in our prayer book, including the Articles. The last 40 years have seen the development of new prayer books with new theologies. An example is the US 1979 BCP with its “Baptismal Covenant”. As an Englishman, when I started frequenting these blogs, I couldn’t work out what people were talking about with their constant references to it. It took a while, and actually looking at the ’79 BCP to realise that this was something TEC had developed independently of other Anglican provinces including England.
But it is not just in the US, we are seeing divergence all over the place, New Zealand is another example, which has some very peculiar views, as we see it.
With a common bible and prayer book, it was no doubt easier to keep together in our beliefs and worship. With this removed from the center, the options are continued fragmentation, or putting something in its place, and you may find that talk of theoretical confessions has arisen out of this vacuum. The problem with that is that you end up with something new in its own way and distinct from what we understand by Anglicanism. We are seeing other alternatives develop to fill this gap: the Jerusalem Declaration, the Anglican Covenant, and one or two statements of belief the Global South have been working out.
Thank you – a well thought through insight.
I share Pageantmaster’s appreciation for the observations of Henry Greville in this thread. Perhaps one of the efforts toward unity and solidarity (in addition to things like the Covenant) should be the identification and publication of a preferred BCP. There is no mechanism for compelling its use, but if the best minds in the Communion could coalesce on content, it might find favor on its own merits. The 1979 effort in the US was a retrograde step. We were left with a thing of little utility or beauty.