What I have grown weary of seeing is Anglican clergy who seem to go out of their way to convert people to Roman Catholicism, who buy the lie that the Anglican heritage is somehow flawed, and that our Orders are just barely valid in spite of (when in truth, they are really fully valid because of) what the English reformers believed. After buying all the false history, and with barely any grasp of sound learning, such clergy give people no confidence in the heritage of the very church they are charged to serve with honest leadership. How could they expect to grow congregations if they don’t believe in their own church?
What I find wearying is Anglican Clergy who seem to go out of their way to convert people to the Baptist Church, who seem to think that Anglicanism must be ‘purged’ of all liturgical trappings, that their Anglican heritage is somehow flawed because it has kept the liturgy and vestments, etc. in spite of what the Via Media really means, or accepting that the Puritans LOST their bid to turn Anglicanism into congregationalism. I also find it wearying the number of people who complain about those who WANT to keep the liturgy in the Anglican Church.
Anglo-Catholicism, Evangelical Anglicanism and Charismatic Anglicanism can co-exist quite nicely, thank you. Any who doubt it I would recommend Richard Foster’s excellent work “Streams of Living Water”.
Happy New Year!
Jim E. <><
I currently attend a church where there is an “Anglo-Catholic” priest who has NOT one “evangelistic bone” in his body.. The congregation would welcome new people, but most certainly would not go out of their way to bring them in. The congregation is encourage to participate in things where there is publicity. Outreach is limited to one effort. So far, its a roaring failure.
Dr. Harmon once told me, he was a “high-church evangelical”. I’d love to know how that works.. So far, it seems either/or, with a heavy lean to losing the liturgy, and gaining guitars etc. WHERE is the middle way?
Grandmother
Our brand new rector is such a hybrid. He’s personally visited the homes in the neighborhoods surrounding our church and has added chant to our already-high worship. The result has been wonderful! New people and a new vibe coming in!
What I have grown weary of seeing are Protestants who are so uncertain of their own patrimony that they need to make up stories about Catholics! I believe his story about St. Veronica is a load of hooey. And what will Baptists and other Protestants do when they find Heaven thick with clouds of incense? Thankfully I don’t suspect asthma will be an issue there.
No.
RE: “It is possible for Anglicans to be both Evangelical and Catholic”
Sure — but the opinions of those who believe so don’t really matter to those who believe not and the opinions of those who believe not don’t really matter to those who believe so.
So I think it a moot question that appeals only to the actual group to whom the question is being asked who believe so or believe not.
I think so, but historically, theologically, and liturgically it also means coming down the hill on the Protestant side even if only a short distance.
Yes – IF you don’t take tradition too seriously, giving excessive weight to early saints just because of their antiquity or status in the organized Roman or Orthodox churches – or – allow tradition to bend, add to or subtract from Holy Scripture itself.
Who’s to say Origen or Athaneus, et al, were more correct, orthodox or anointed or reliable than Luther, Wesley, Tozer, Spurgeon or Packer?
History repeats itself.
Read up on William Augustus Muehlenberg. The Evangelical Catholic.
May I plug [url=http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/evangelical-or-catholic/]something I just wrote[/url] touching on the very same theme? Elves may delete this if they wish.
[blockquote]Sure—but the opinions of those who believe so don’t really matter to those who believe not and the opinions of those who believe not don’t really matter to those who believe so.[/blockquote]
On the other hand, Sarah, people do indeed change their minds on numerous issues, and sometimes do so through encountering the opinions of other people. Having been raised a Southern Baptist, I became an Anglican primarily because of things I read–the opinions of those who perhaps should not have mattered to me, but did.
RE: “people do indeed change their minds on numerous issues . . . ”
Agreed.
RE: ” . . . the opinions of those who perhaps should not have mattered to me, but did.”
Of course they should have mattered to you — they were right! ; > )
But again, my comment was specifically and narrowly referring to those in Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy who do not deem it possible for Anglicans to be both. And those in Anglicanism who believe it certainly possible.
To William Witt: Thanks for referencing your article. I’ve spent much of my ministry around enclave Anglo-Catholics (even was one for a decade or so). Your analysis of the two “enclave” positions and the damage they do to one another is very useful. I want to send your article to my fellow Nashotah trustees.
To Kendall or the Elves: Perhaps the Witt article would be a good post in its own right (or is that rite? 🙂
[blockquote]But again, my comment was specifically and narrowly referring to those in Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy who do not deem it possible for Anglicans to be both. And those in Anglicanism who believe it certainly possible.[/blockquote]
My mistake. I interpreted this as an in-house comment. My knee-jerk reaction perhaps reflects my bone-weary tiredness with certain kinds of Anglicans/Episcopalians who seem to live for the sake of promoting partisan churchmanship divisions.
“Who’s to say Origen or Athaneus, et al, were more correct, orthodox or anointed or reliable than Luther, Wesley, Tozer, Spurgeon or Packer?”
Or, for that matter, than Valentinus, Marcion or Montanus? That’s the real question, isn’t it?
I humbly also ask to have Dr. Witt’s article as a stand-alone.
I have come to believe that each of us tends to ‘like’ better one aspect of Sacramental/Liturgical, Evangelical or Charismatic – but that the three streams of the Church are a reflection of the three Persons of the Trinity: God the Father made clear in the OT that liturgy and proper rites matter a very great deal (thus the rope tied to the priest’s ankle!); ‘Evangelical’ literally is about the Word (Who was made flesh); Charismatic is, by definition, the Holy Spirit. When we can embrace all three streams in our worship and lives we are closer to embracing the fullness of the Trinity, rather than just the Person of the Trinity who suits us most comfortably.