On a strictly historical level, the Articles are a tremendously important document and they ought to be taken more seriously. Yet, taking them seriously on a historical level means doing precisely that. Sydney Anglicans are not going to find anything in the Articles that vindicates their neo-Puritanism. Setting them in the historical context of Elizabethan Anglicanism means having a right respect for the priesthood and authority in the Church more broadly. It also means that a) Anglicans might have historical rejected Transubstantiation, but they most certainly left open the possibility of corporeal presence (Elizabeth rejected Cranmer’s support for the Consensus Tigurinus, which was present in his 42 Articles); b) Anglicans believe that the sacraments are effectual signs (a point that Cranmer clearly believed, as his unfinished draft of canon law, the [i]Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum[/i] makes clear); c) Anglicans accept some form of synergism as part of salvation (again, this is a change of Cranmer’s 42 Articles, which state that Christ works “in” us – the 39 Articles state that Christ works “with” us); d) Calvinist speculations on the will are not part of Anglican theology (hence the above point, as well as Elizabeth deleting Article 10 in Cranmer’s 42 Articles, which held a very Vermigli-esque understanding of the will); e) the monarch had a place of primacy in ecclesiastical matters, and the monarch brought with it a whole cult of image, liturgy, sainthood, and healing (re: the Royal Touch) – in other words, material religion and material devotion, which Sydney Anglicans are, undoubtedly, allergic to (which would be quite funny if it weren’t so serious); f) approved liturgies are precisely that, and ought to be [i]obeyed[/i] as such (obedience being something that the Sydney “Anglicans” have a rather hard time with, despite how loudly they trumpet the Bible); g) Anglicans use the Book of Common Prayer and [i]obey[/i] its rubrics (neither of which Sydney Anglicans do); and finally, h) Anglicans celebrate Christmas and since the time of the Restoration the rejection of Christmas has been understood as a heretical manifestation of neo-Arianism (yet, you won’t find an Anglican church in Sydney open on Christmas day!).
Other Anglican break-away bodies have re-written the Articles at various times. For example, the Methodists have the Twenty-Five Articles; the Reformed Episcopal Church once had its Thirty-Five Articles (all of which were Zwinglian and revivalists, oddly enough for a group claiming to be traditional). If Sydney Anglicans were serious about retaining what can be maintained about the Articles while reforming what no longer holds (e.g., the points about monarchy), then their own theological platform would crumble. Either these folks are very ignorant, or they have another agenda. My guess is that the latter is, in fact, the case.
I should have added that Anglicans decisively rejected reforming or revising the Articles more than 40 years ago at Lambeth 1968 in [a href=”http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-43.cfm” target=”Resolution 43″]Resolution 43[/a]:
[i]The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.[/i]
It’s too bad the report isn’t available online (although used copies can be found, as can copies in libraries). One wonders why we must revisit something that we thought settled long ago. But again, as I noted, Sydney Anglicans have a pretty hard time with obedience and submission (not unlike certain Americans…).
On a strictly historical level, the Articles are a tremendously important document and they ought to be taken more seriously. Yet, taking them seriously on a historical level means doing precisely that. Sydney Anglicans are not going to find anything in the Articles that vindicates their neo-Puritanism. Setting them in the historical context of Elizabethan Anglicanism means having a right respect for the priesthood and authority in the Church more broadly. It also means that a) Anglicans might have historical rejected Transubstantiation, but they most certainly left open the possibility of corporeal presence (Elizabeth rejected Cranmer’s support for the Consensus Tigurinus, which was present in his 42 Articles); b) Anglicans believe that the sacraments are effectual signs (a point that Cranmer clearly believed, as his unfinished draft of canon law, the [i]Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum[/i] makes clear); c) Anglicans accept some form of synergism as part of salvation (again, this is a change of Cranmer’s 42 Articles, which state that Christ works “in” us – the 39 Articles state that Christ works “with” us); d) Calvinist speculations on the will are not part of Anglican theology (hence the above point, as well as Elizabeth deleting Article 10 in Cranmer’s 42 Articles, which held a very Vermigli-esque understanding of the will); e) the monarch had a place of primacy in ecclesiastical matters, and the monarch brought with it a whole cult of image, liturgy, sainthood, and healing (re: the Royal Touch) – in other words, material religion and material devotion, which Sydney Anglicans are, undoubtedly, allergic to (which would be quite funny if it weren’t so serious); f) approved liturgies are precisely that, and ought to be [i]obeyed[/i] as such (obedience being something that the Sydney “Anglicans” have a rather hard time with, despite how loudly they trumpet the Bible); g) Anglicans use the Book of Common Prayer and [i]obey[/i] its rubrics (neither of which Sydney Anglicans do); and finally, h) Anglicans celebrate Christmas and since the time of the Restoration the rejection of Christmas has been understood as a heretical manifestation of neo-Arianism (yet, you won’t find an Anglican church in Sydney open on Christmas day!).
Other Anglican break-away bodies have re-written the Articles at various times. For example, the Methodists have the Twenty-Five Articles; the Reformed Episcopal Church once had its Thirty-Five Articles (all of which were Zwinglian and revivalists, oddly enough for a group claiming to be traditional). If Sydney Anglicans were serious about retaining what can be maintained about the Articles while reforming what no longer holds (e.g., the points about monarchy), then their own theological platform would crumble. Either these folks are very ignorant, or they have another agenda. My guess is that the latter is, in fact, the case.
I should have added that Anglicans decisively rejected reforming or revising the Articles more than 40 years ago at Lambeth 1968 in [a href=”http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-43.cfm” target=”Resolution 43″]Resolution 43[/a]:
[i]The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.[/i]
It’s too bad the report isn’t available online (although used copies can be found, as can copies in libraries). One wonders why we must revisit something that we thought settled long ago. But again, as I noted, Sydney Anglicans have a pretty hard time with obedience and submission (not unlike certain Americans…).