His five arguments are:
–Present Anglican polity has severe design flaws.
–Our doctrinal boundaries are too vague.
–Current “Instruments of Communion” are not up to current challenges.
–Liturgical chaos prevents unity.
–Doctrine trumps polity and Scripture trumps tradition, not vice versa.
I gave up 2/3 of the way into the first of the lonnnnnnnnng paragraphs; someone should tell the author about an invention called the carriage return 🙂 .
Whether a new reformation and a new ecclesial structure are ‘necessary’ is purely a matter of opinion. A certain segment of the church feels compelled to create a new system more to their liking, but many of us have no problem with the existing lash-up.
The author suggests that the Anglican Communion needs to be a true communion, and not just a federation like those of the Lutherans and the Methodists. I hope it doesn’t sound snarky of me to say that this sounds like Rome envy, a serious case of wannabe-ism. I remember a Saturday Night Live sketch in the 70s (?), lampooning Canadian TV as nothing more than pathetic, barely-disguised copies of U.S. shows; a knock-off of The Wizard of Oz is the one I remember. That’s how the desire to be a ‘real’ communion strikes me.
I love Anglicanism but we can just already get over ourselves? I mean, how grandiose is it for us to call this a “new Reformation”? It is pretty absurd I think.
We are simply living out the polity of Protestantism. It was clear back at Marburg (1529) when Luther and Calvin could not plainly determine the plain meaning of Scripture regarding the Lord’s Supper.
Divide and divide again. Anglicanism has done it less than others, but we are in the end no different.
“In those days there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own sight.”
The idea of the Anglican Communion as a federation like the Methodists and Lutherans has some merit. For one thing it will save some money spent in court costs and lawyers’ fees if we can agree to more than one expression of Anglicanism in a country. The Lutherans seem to be able to tolerate the ELCA, LCMS, LCWS and some others, and the United Methodist Church, the AME, AMEZ, CME, and others co-exist in relative harmony. Could we recognize that the Episcopal Church, the AMiA, CANA, REC, APA, etc. are all expressions of the Anglican heritage?
We might learn from the AME and AMEZ about churches in the same community belonging to different “episcopal districts.” The present policy of going to court to preserve property is a scandal.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
The way the Episcopal Church is going, I am not sure for how much longer we will be able to recognize it (in the main, that is) as an espression of anglican heritage…
I have made it through the whole essay, and I agree with most of it. Anglican polity [b] does [/b] have severe design flaws. I like to describe it this way: Anglicanism has worked so far (more or less) on a “gentleman’s agreement”, a very British concept, where everyone is simply expected to act as a gentleman, not doing anything to disrupt others or go against the general intent of the agreement (which even not spelled out is simply known by the others, being gentlemen, you know). In this case, all provinces were expected to maintain basic doctrine and were free to adapt liturgical elements, as long as it didn’t operate a change in doctrine. This all worked fine as long as we all agreed. But lo and behold, it is not the case anymore ! (Here jump in the liberals who will claim that we all agree on essentials, our disagreements are only on non-essentials). Point made; we don’t even agree as what constitutes the essentials of the faith. Segue to the good father’s 2nd point: our doctrine is vague.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we ultimately need someone or something to adjudicate finally on matters of doctrine, as we do on other matters in the secular world. We can debate whether it should be a pope-like figure, the Primates or an international synod, but when no one is in charge, pandemonium ensues. TEC seems to think its General Convention is the end of the road, that there can be no higher hierarchy. That’s fine if you are your own denomination, but not if you claim to be part of an actual branch of Christianity. Councils of the Church (the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) have existed since the early centuries of Christianity. It’s about time we re-establish some sort of council that can make determinations on issues of faith.
Well, as Chris Johnson occasionally points out, you can borrow our Pope any time you want.
As the author of this piece, I readily acknowledge and apologize for how very reader-unfriendly it is. If anyone wishes to take a look at a much more readable version, just shoot me an email at fatherruy@yahoo.com, and I’ll be more than happy to forward it.
I hope to post a much shorter version or sequel soon.