One of the weaknesses of the Protestant Churches is that they are devoid of a teaching office whose role is to guide the people in the ways of faith. While we may protest that Rome has a tendency to micromanage the lives of its people, particularly with the use of tenuous arguments from natural theology, it is apparent that any church should have a strong teaching office that instructs the people in what it means to be Christian.
Readers may correct me but it seems that this absence in Protestant churches was produced by a reaction to the unfaithful way the Roman Church used its power in the 16th century and the reformers emphasis on grace over the law. The severely reduced teaching office of Protestant Churches means that clergy cannot be leaders but only cheerleaders. Liberalism, that slippery product of modernity, ensures that no definite stand may be taken about anything. This means that Rome often looks legalistic and often it is, unreasonably so. If the sin of Protestantism is that it cannot say anything, the sin of Rome is that it says too much.
The fragmentation of Protestant denominations has produced a spiritual marketplace in which churches compete for believers and in which believers may choose which suits them best. The balance has thus swung from God addressing us to ourselves choosing which denomination best satisfies our needs. Because self assertion is the essence of Enlightenment thinking we experience no anomaly in this.
Not only does this situation throw the emphasis onto the believer it also distorts the life of the church that now looks to its own survival. The Holy Spirit is replaced by the techniques of the church growth movement and those nauseating signs that we find in the front of Protestant churches. The capitulation to modernism has become the capitulation to market forces and the biblical notion that the church is a charismatic body is obscured.
There is some truth here but alot of superficiality. My big issue with Rome is that they teach that Catholics are to believe doctrines that are not supported by Scripture; examples are the immaculate conception of Mary, which they celebrate tomorrow, and purgatory. And just yesterday I saw a report on BBC where Benedict maintained that a trip to Lourdes would provide an indulgence allowing those who make this trip to avoid purgatory. Confessional Protestant churches in fact do tell their parishioners what it means to be Christian; check out for example the websites of the PCA or the LC-MS. The issue with Anglicanism is that we are not confessional. I think that in a realigned Anglican orthodoxy, the 39 Articles should be raised to confession status.
There is one word, that if taken seriously by the “Majority” of Epsicopalians and Bishops, would solve the entire mess of the Episcopal Church. We are in the Season that is the perfect time to do or use or enact that word. The word is REPENTANCE! It is what the PB will NOT do, “We are not going backwards!” and she is setting the tone for the rest of the reasserting Bishops. So Sad!
#1…You certainly fit the Protestant model. For Roman Catholics authority resides in both Scripture and Tradition (equally); for Protestants in Scripture and scripturally normed tradition.
The main issue for me is infallibility. Philosophically, I cannot get my mind around that issue. Open fideism isn’t a possibility for me, but positivist individualism isn’t either.
By the way, modernism (rationalism) is pretty much dead. We just haven’t figured out postmodern/post rationalism yet. Maybe, one day we’ll reach a synthesis between ecclesial authoritarianism and individualist rationalism.
#1, Physician without health,
I’d put the emphasis the opposite way. I think there’s a LOT of truth in the Peter Sellick article, and SOME superficiality, which is probably due to the fact that it’s a short editorial and in a journalistic style. But I’d have to agree with you that one of the things that keeps me from going over to Rome is precisely that Rome has made binding dogmas out of extra-biblical, and even anit-biblical doctrines.
And tomorrow’s Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a classic example. The idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, was conceived without the taint of original sin is both unbiblical and unnecessary. There is no logical need for Mary to be born without original sin in order for Jesus to be so too (or how far back must it go?, shouldn’t Mary’s mother, St. Ann, be immaculate also? etc.). I like to remind my RC friends that the Eastern Orthodox Churches also reject the western idea of the immaculate conception, despite their great devotion to Our Lady. And so did St. Thomas Aquainas, which is of course a considerable embarrassment to RCs. In any case, as Anglicans who sing or say “The Song of Mary” each night as part of Evening Prayer (as I’m sure every single Anglican reader of this blog does without fail!), we are constantly reminded that Mary herself needed a Savior, just as much as the rest of us. For in the Magnificat, she joyfully confesses, “May soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God MY SAVIOR…”
But having said that, I must also admit while I very much agree with Physician without health that our lack of an authoritative creed is more of a weakness than a strength in our current crisis, I CAN’T agree that the solution is simply to reimpose the 39 Articles as binding. The Anglo-Catholic wing would never agree to that, and rightly so. The fact is that the grand old 39 Articles are a snapshot that reflect where Anglicanism stood at one point in time (1563), early in Elizabeth I’s reign. But since then, Anglicanism has evolved into a true Protestant-Catholic hybrid (thanks to the Caroline Divines after the 1620s, and then the Oxford Movement etc.). I don’t mind so much that the American 1979 BCP relegates the 39 Articles of Religion to the virtual appendix, buried in the section of “Historical Documents” toward the back. What I DO object to and mourn is how they are blithely dismissed and totally ignored, as if they had NO VALUE AT ALL. We need to be able to clarify which parts of the 39 Articles are still binding (including the firm requirement that Scripture be maintained as the pre-eminent authority in the life of the Church, as in articles 6, 20, and 34), and which parts are not binding anymore (which I’ll leave to the reader’s imagination).
I know there are many conservative Anglicans who still love and cherish the grand old 39 and see them as much more than dusty old museum pieces. AMiA Bishop (and interim TSM president) John Rodgers would certainly be one of those. I look forward to his long-awaited commentary on the 39 Articles, which may help spark an overdue renewed appreciation for them. And of course the REC and the Sydney evangelicals (not to mention other low-church types) are deeply devoted to them (as well as perhaps the eminent facultry at Wycliffe College in Toronto). But they will NEVER fly in my home Diocese of Albany. Never. They are way too one-sidedly Protestant.
Alas, the proposed Anglican Covenant is a case of “Too little, too late.” It’s a small step in the right direction. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough. And the reason for that is all too clear. The current Instruments of Unity/Communion are still stuck in the futile attempt to “maintain the highest degree of communion possible.” By which is meant, without excluding large segments of its liberal provinces in the West (including the ABC himself). I think that’s simply a case of wishful thinking, or even blatant denial. As the last several years have proven all too clearly, there is no way to build a viable bridge between the “relativist” wing and the “orthodox” main body of Anglicans. The chasm between the two now makes the Grand Canyon look small.
So, in the end, I mostly agree with you, Physician without health. We do need much clearer doctrinal and moral boundaries. And we DO need an authoritative magisterium, just not one centered in a single person (too much danger of abuse). Let it be the Primates or some other such group, but there indeed MUST be some kind of living trans-provincial authority that can settle serious disputes of this sort. Without evolving some such central authority that can deal with the outright anarchy now evident within Anglicanism, there will be a lot more people eventually swimming the Tiber, despite their reservations about things like indulgences, purgatory, and the exalted role of Mary among our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
Jaroslave Pelikan got it right years ago, with his famous balanced assessment that the 16th century Protestant Reformation was, “A TRAGIC NECESSITY.” Alas, I think the same is true today. There seems to be an equally compelling, but also equally lamentable, need for a 21st century New Reformation. And a large part of the drastic reforms that revolutionary movment will spawn will be a new clarity about Doctrine, and few forms of exercizing Discipline. We simply have to put the Doctrine and Discipline back in the classic Anglican triad of the “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship” we have known and rightly loved so much.
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Earnest Proponent of that New Reformation
[blockquote] One of the weaknesses of the Protestant Churches is that they are devoid of a teaching office whose role is to guide the people in the ways of faith. [/blockquote] This is nonsense. The Protestant Churches do have their teaching office: it is the pulpit, traditionally raised high above the congregation at front and center of the seating area. It was given that exalted postition, not to elevate the pastor, but to elevate the Word of God from which he execised his teaching office.
The Protestant Church has failed because it abandoned its teaching office to elevate the Word of God above the babble of the rabble.
…still in the Briar Patch,
[blockquote]I like to remind my RC friends that the Eastern Orthodox Churches also reject the western idea of the immaculate conception, despite their great devotion to Our Lady. [/blockquote]
The Easterners do not have the same theology of original sin as we do in the West. Their rejection of the dogma of IC is primarily due to that difference.
[blockquote]And so did St. Thomas Aquainas, which is of course a considerable embarrassment to RCs.[/blockquote]
I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen an RC “embarrassed” by this. Nowhere did St Thomas ever claim to be infallible. Quite the opposite. St Thomas was also wrong about ensoulment. No big deal. Theologians are often wrong. That’s why we have the Magisterium in the first place.
The point being what? They still reject it.
Instead of focusing on the specifically Roman idea of infallibility, it might be helpful to ask where and how else it might be exercised. Those who say they cannot accept the idea of infallibility seem to forget that our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. If that is true, where is this church against which the gates of hell will not prevail? And if this church is embodied (i.e., visible), as the Incarnation would seem to require, then how does it function infallibly?
As a matter of logic, the “failure of Protestantism” is not inconsistent with the “tragic necessity” of the 16th Century Reformation. What was necessary then may not be necessary now. Pelikan himself obviously came to this conclusion when he converted to the Orthodox Church.
The Eastern doctrines about the Theotokos are such that Protestants will be up against almost all of what they find worst about both the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Assumption. They just aren’t put in such Augustinian language as Rome used. It is not as if the Easterners on are on the Protestant “side”. Regarding the Assumption, neither was Luther.
[blockquote]The point being what? They still reject it.[/blockquote] The point is that the Easterners have entirely different theological reasons for the rejection of the IC than Protestants.
[blockquote] The fragmentation of Protestant denominations has produced a spiritual marketplace in which churches compete for believers and in which believers may choose which suits them best. The balance has thus swung from God addressing us to ourselves choosing which denomination best satisfies our needs. [/blockquote]
There are truths such as this in the article.
#9, Mark McCall,
If I understand you correctly, you are making the important point that just because the original 16th century Reformation may have been justified as “a tragic necessity,” that doesn’t mean that a New 21st century Reformation is justified in similar fashion. And, of course, that’s true. The validity of the first one doesn’t necessarily imply the legitimacy of the second. I hope to demonstrate the utter but lamentable necessity of that New Reformation at length in a future book. But in the meantime, I’ll continue to make partial arguments to justify that controversial notion on sites such as this, as opportunity allows.
But for now, I’ll simply point out that the conversion of the great Jaroslav Pelikan to Russian Orthodoxy (and he was of Slavic roots, as his name suggests), and the similar conversion of many more leading Lutheran theologians to Roman Catholicism in recent years (e.g., Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Wilken etc.), suggests to me that we are witnessing not just the “failure” of Protestantism, as Peter Sellick claims in his article that started this thread, but that such conversions also show the paradoxical “success” of the Reformation as well. For after all, post-Vatican II Catholicism has at last adopted many of the reforms that Luther and others fought for so long and hard (liturgy in the language of the people, communion in both kinds, the laity encouraged to read the Bible etc.). And not least, of course, there is the remarkable ecumenical agreement over the doctrine of justification signed by leading Lutheran and RC theologians at Augsburg. So in some ways, we could teasingly say that we on the Protestant side could just declare the Reformation over, and say that we won!
But the war has changed fronts, and the main divisions are WITHIN denominations now, including within Catholicism itself. And the best thing that any of us can do to promote the eventual unification of the whole Body of Christ, as our Lord prayed for so earnestly in John 17, is to work on cleaning up the mess in our own houses.
David Handy
Still Committed to that New Reformation
I cannot dissect Newman’s conversion at so great a distance. But the issue with denouncing rationalism is that churches denounce it and then use it anyway. Likewise, the problem with being infallible is that you always have to be right. A lot of very smart people have had a go at the big questions of theology, and a lot of them haven’t come up with the Catholic or Orthodox answers. And if one wants to say that such reasoning only works within the church: that is such blatant special pleading as to not merit refutation, much less consideration.
The “need” for an authoritarian structure behind theology is the true scandal. Infallibility is not a good answer, because it is only needed when the church appears to be wrong. One must then take obedience as a substitute for truth. We Anglicans are finding that being wide open to the opposite extreme isn’t working either. It therefore seems clear to me that a legitimate position lies somewhere between those extremes, with no assurance that we can find the perfect spot.
It also seems to me that unity is far from the highest eclessiastical principle. Excessive– dare I say, Catholic– emphasis on it breeds division, because it demands exclusion.
#14, C Wingate,
I’m sympathetic to your concerns, but I think your claim is grossly exaggerated. It seems to me that you have confused and lumped together legitimate and illegitimate exercises of authority. Not all attempts to spell out what consitutes acceptable and unacceptable teaching is “authoritarian.” Doctrinal authorities don’t have to be infallible to be authoritative.
Consider the U. S. Constitution and the Supreme Court. Both are fully authoritative for all U. S. citizens, even though neither is infallible. In a similar way, the Bible is the true Constitution of the Christian Church. Any church legislation passed that is contrary to the Scriptures is in principle null and void (as in Article 20 of the classic 39 Articles). But we desperately need an authoritative (not authoritarian) Anglican body that is equivalent to the Supreme Court that can render an official pronouncement on the subject and thereby declare such an act (of say General Convention, or the General Synod of the Ang. Ch. of Canada) “unconstitutional.”
The fact that we currently have no such ecclesiastical Supreme Court is one of the main reasons why we so desperately need a New Reformation. Our excessive fear of “authoritarianism” is one of the chief obstacles preventing the creation of such a fallible, but essential and authoritative, new Instrument of Unity/Communion.
David Handy+
Ardent Supporter of that New Reformation
#15, if it’s fallible, how can it be authoritative in the sense that it binds the conscience of the believer?
I was raised in Sunday School that the 39 Articles [i]are[/i] binding. So I was shocked hearing people (principally clergy) saying, after the Robinson Affair began, that the Articles are no longer followed by TEC. I had never heard this before; I guess I had been one of those ignorant people in the pew. That’s when I found out the ’79 Prayer book relegates them to an “historical document.”
So, can I ask some ignorant questions, because I still don’t understand this? In the Book of Common Prayer given to me at my baptism by my godparents, it says the Articles were “established” by PECUSA in 1801. When were they dis-established? Was there a Convention vote? Is there a canon that says this? Or was this another sleight-of-hand change in our theology, like the “Baptismal Covenant,” that was just slipped into the 1979 Prayer Book? Also, I know the charter of my diocese required it to follow and be in conformance with the Thirty-Nine Articles. So is my diocese in violation of its charter?
re 15: I don’t think there’s necessarily that much difference between us, but that we are looking at differnet areas of the problem. I don’t really have a problem in the abstract with authoritat[i]ive[/i] examination of the faith. At this point, for instance, I see every reason to take the Nicene formula of the Creed as authoritative. What I’m looking at are three conditions upon that. First, we would have to know when to stop. The tendency in authoritative theology is to have answers for everything, when judging from the larger world of theology, there are a lot of issues where the range of opinions tends to imply that an authoritative opinion isn’t justifiable. Second, we have to do without infallibility. As I said before, the only time you need it is when you are wrong, for the truth is self-justifying.
It is the third condition, however, that really causes the divisions. One can talk about reassessing the theological process in any number of ways; but one is faced with the present reality that neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are going to go along with such a reassessment. Therefore one has accept that one will be divided from them.
[blockquote]Second, we have to do without infallibility. As I said before, the only time you need it is when you are wrong, for the truth is self-justifying.[/blockquote]Sigh. And the truth is so blindingly obvious that only the maliciously stupid ever differ from it, right? That’s why there are more denominations at present than some denominations have members.
However, Chris Molter #11, the doctrine is still rejected, no matter the reason. The point is that neither side should assume it can look to Orthodoxy for succor against the other.
With regard to #16-18,
Boy, you go offline for an hour or so, and you miss a lot. In response to #16, Chris Molter asked how a fallible authority can still be binding. I’d give a practical answer; this happens all the time. To stick with my earlier Supreme Court analogy, no one claims the Supreme Court is infallible, the nine justices themselves seldom give a unanimous verdict. But until a new ruling is given that overturns a previous one, their decisions still remain the law of the land. It would take a long essay to give a more thorough answer, but suffice to say here that even the Bible itself is not infallible. I know that some readers will object to that, but at least the great majority of biblical scholars would admit that it’s not inerrant. So what? The Constitution isn’t perfect or infallible either, but it’s still the supreme law of the land.
As for #17, Jim the Puritan asks just when the 39 Articles ceased to be authoritative. That’s a complicated historical question. But essentially, this illustrates the value of recognizing that the “working theology” of the Church often diverges from its official documents. In a similar way to how an old law on the state books can gradually cease to be enforced, but it’s never officially removed from the state code, so the grand old 39 Articles graducally ceased to command the assent of more and more clergy (and thus eventually laity). This was especially true, of course, in high church or Anglo-Catholic areas, since the 39 are so strongly Protestant, even Reformed/Calvinist. The process of abandoning them began back in the 1620s, I’d say, with the emergence of the catholicizing movement led by what we call now “the Caroline Divines” (bishops Lancelot Andrewes, Henry Hammond, William Laud, Jeremy Taylor, John Cosin etc.). But I understand your sense of having been betrayed.
Finally, #18, C Wingate responded to my #15 post, with some interesting thoughts. I’ll just say here that I stand by what I said earlier, authoritative does NOT equal authoritarian. And while you are of course correct to point to the massive blocks of the Roman Catholics and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as tending to invest Church Tradition with the status of being virtually infallible in some ways, one can point to Vatican II and see that even the most rigid and authoritarian structures are finally forced to come to terms with reality eventually. Rome itself now understands the declaration of Papal Infallibility (sic!) at Vatican I in 1870 to have very limited applicability. And the East is used to the Patiarchs squabbling among themselves (as Moscow is doing right now with the supposedly “Ecumenical” Patriarch in Constantinople).
But in the end, I have to agree in principle with Ed the Roman’s pointed rejoinder (#19), alas, the truth is not always so self-evident. That is why we indeed need authoritative interpreters. Recall the principle in 2 Peter 1:21, i.e., that Scripture is not simply a matter for “private interpretation.” Or stated more positively, the famous (albeit circular) rule of St. Vincent of Lerins (5th century) is highly important. As orthodox Christians we seek to believe and live that which has been believed and taught “everywhere, always, and by all.” Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est!
David Handy+
It is a good layman’s take on the genuine question:
What, at this point, are we holding our for? And is it justified in light of the mess were in?
I’d like to respond to New Reformation Advocate above and his citation of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a Catholic dogma that is both “unbiblical and unnecessary.” We Catholics, of course, believe that the dogma is both biblical and necessary, though we concede that the biblical support for the dogma is more implicit than explicit and that the theological necessity of the dogma presupposes specific understandings of grace and original sin that not all Christians share. Regarding the former, I refer readers to Scott Hahn’s book Hail, Holy Queen. Regarding the latter, I refer readers to John Henry Newman’s Letter to Dr Pusey.
Three comments in particular:
First, the Eastern Orthodox should never be invoked by Protestants, including Anglo-Catholics, in support for their opposition to the Immaculate Conception. Orthodox rejection of the dogma is rooted in their very different understanding of original sin (see my own discussion of original sin). If you ask an Orthodox believer whether he believes that Mary was personally sinful, you will hear a very non-Protestant answer! Before any Protestant dares to enlist the Eastern Orthodox in their opposition to the Immaculate Conception, they should first sing the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos.
Second, the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not need a Savior. This was precisely the point that prevented St Thomas Aquinas from affirming the immaculate conception. How it was possible to affirm both the universal necessity of Christ’s atoning work and the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mother of God was left to John Duns Scotus to resolve. With Duns Scotus, the Catholic Church asserts that Jesus was the savior of his mother.
Third, the theological necessity of the immaculate conception is not grounded in a logical “need for Mary to be born without original sin in order for Jesus to be so too (or how far back must it go?, shouldn’t Mary’s mother, St. Ann, be immaculate also? etc.).” Piety and instinct precedes logic. The Catholic Church affirms the immaculate conception of Mary because the denial of this belief violates a fundamental Catholic apprehension of the personal sanctity of the Mother of God. The “necessity” of the dogma is not grounded upon the logic of theologians but upon the prayer and faith of the faithful.
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, didst prepare a worthy dwelling place for thy Son, we beseech thee that, as by the foreseen death of this, thy Son, thou didst preserve her from all stain, so too thou wouldst permit us, purified through her intercession, to come unto thee. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who livest and reignest with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
Hi, I too have been away for quite a while. In #21, David, New Reformation Advocate, writes that we need authoritative interpreters of Scripture. I heartily agree. But it is important to define what authoritative is. Scripture contains all things necessary for Salvation. And as Luther taught, single verses are to be interpreted in light of the whole. Great men like Paul Zahl, Frank Limehouse, and indeed all of our Advent clergy have helped me interpret Scripture. But it is also up to me to be able to recognize false teaching when I see it, and stay far away. In that sense, each of us is personally responsible NOT to follow a false teaching of one who appears to be authoritative.
As for St. Mary’s having needed a Saviour, there is a poignant Christmas song “Mary did you know,” with the line that goes something like, “The baby you delivered will soon deliver you.” Gives me goosebumps and chokes me up every time I even think of it!
As an “Easterner” (I prefer the term Orthodox Christian since there are Orthodox Christians who worship in the West and in some cases according to the Western Rite), I will affirm a number of the comments made previously about our differences with Rome over the IC. We reject the IC because we reject the Latin understanding of sin (especially but not limited to “original sin”) as well as the Roman Catholic understanding of grace. In this sense Orthodoxy has profound differences with Western Christianity in general. And while Fr. Kimel is correct that it would be unwise of Protestants to look to Orthodoxy for support in their debates with Rome, it should also be mentioned that more than a few (polemical) Orthodox like to refer to Roman Catholics as the first Protestants. All of this said Orthodoxy has far more in common with the Roman Church than with any of our Protestant brothers and sisters, none of whom share even the same concept of “church” with us or in many cases with one another.
On #23-25,
OK, back from supper and a prayer meeting. Interesting to have these three comments be from the perspective of an (ex-TEC) RC, a Protestant-minded Anglican, and an “Easterner”/Orthodox Christian.
#23, Fr. Kimmel, I don’t wish to go too far off topic and get drawn into debating the Marian dogmas, including the IC. But as we haven’t interacted before, I’d love to know more of your own story of why you eventually “swam the Tiber.” I know Scott Hahn’s story, and those of R. J. Neuhaus and J. H. Newman etc., but not yours. That may be off topic too, so feel free to respond by private email if you wish. Suffice to say here, that it’s one thing for the Church to go BEYOND Scripture (as in the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed, the normative three-fold ministry etc.) but in ways that are fundamentally compatible with Scripture. It’s another thing altogether to go AGAINST Scripture, or the thrust of Scripture. And I must confess that there I still am very suspicious of the dogma of the IC. I think the Angelic Doctor was actually right in this case (as he usually was). It does seem to me to imply that Mary didn’t need a Savior.
Next, Physician without health (#24), I’m glad you called our attention to the important Reformation principle that Scripture is its own best interpreter, and that every believer has a vital responsibility to exercise discernment in evaluating the teachings they receive. But part of the Anglican tradition has also been a recognition that the Church has authority to go beyond the clear warrants of Holy Scripture in areas like liturgy and polity, where there are no detailed provisions in Sacred Writ. There is also a respected tradition (granted a high church one) that asserts a very unCalvinistic principle, i.e., “It’s the role of the Church to teach, and the Bible to prove.” The Reformers preferred to speak of the “perspecuity” or the clarity and “sufficiency” of God’s Word. Both are honored parts of the Anglican heritage. Alas, I fear this great and terrible crisis we are in is showing the we do need a real living magisterium to settle disputes about the proper interpretation of God’s Holy Word. Only, I repeat, we are rightly suspicious of vesting that kind of authority in any single human being (and that does seem to be a point we share with the Eastern/Orthodox Church).
Finally, Ad Orientem (#25), I’d be curious to know your personal story too, especially if you are an ex-Anglican (like say, Timothy Ware). Suffice to say that I am grateful for any input from the neglected perspective of the Eastern Christian tradition. Given how you signed your post ICXC NIKA (“Jesus Christ Conquers,” and I’ve seen it before on some of your previous ones), it may interest you to know that I have had the same or a simlar sign on the license plate of my car for many years. Alas, here in VA, someone else beat me to that particular vanity plate sign, so I had to resort to a mixture of Western and Eastern symbols, XT NIKA. But as I’m a Western Christian with a love for the Eastern Church (especially the Ukrainian Catholics), that hybrid symbol may be even more apt.
Please keep enriching this venue with your comments. Suffice to say here that the BCP shows clear signs that Archbishop Cranmer and later revisers appreciated elements of the Eastern liturgy, e.g. Form V (I think it is) in the Prayers of the People and Eucharistic Prayer D (Liturgy of St. Basil) in the Rite II Eucharist, the Tris-hagion (Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy Immortal One, have mercy upon us), and the “Prayer of St. Chrysostom” in Morning Prayer. The East and the West need each other.
David Handy+
#26 New Reformation Advocate says:
Speaking for myself, I’m not anxious for any kind of magisterium to tell me what I ought to believe. But part of me enjoys constructing solutions to problems; so if we were to form an Anglican Magisterium, here — off the top of my head — is one way it might be done:
Every province appoints or elects, as its internal polity prefers, four persons: one bishop, one priest, one deacon, and one lay person, each one to be chosen for their standing as a scholar and theologian. Four times, what is it, 38? is about a hundred and fifty people; these would constitute the Anglican Magisterium. That’s a large enough number to get some sort of corporate discernment, but small enough that there’s some hope of them arriving at a decision. The body would always be available to serve as a theological advisory council to the Instruments and to the Communion at large; but by, oh, let’s say a 2/3 majority vote would be able to speak authoritatively to the Communion on matters of doctrine.
That doesn’t address all the problems, of course, but it seems to me to be at least a plausible sketch of an authoritative Anglican teaching body.
I am very gratified to have generated so much informed comment with my article. It is a nice contrast to the usual rubbish I get in Australia:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6720
The piece was agony to write because it was limited to 2000 words. I could not fully praise the reformers for their precious contribution to a church that was in intellectual decline, not could I give credit to Protestant theology, particularly in the person of Karl Barth. On the other hand, I could not enumerate the gaping errors in the Roman position particularly as regards contraception and manditory celibacy for priests.
I guess that my friends will expect me to test the waters of the Tiber and certainly my disappointment with liberal Anglicanism moves me in that direction. I am an avid reader of First Things and wonder why there is not a similar magazine in Protestantism. Thank you for you considered discussion.
NRA, my story can be found here.
On #29, Fr. Kimel, thanks. I look forward to reading it.
On #28, Peter Sellick, thank you for a thoughtful, stimulating article. I would feel equally frustrated with such a minimal 2,000 word limit for such complex matters.
But your comment reminds me of a famous earlier case in Anglican history. The highly controversial High Church Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, who helped provoke the English Civil War in the 1640s, was likewise widely expected to convert to Roman Catholicism (at least by Puritans). He admitted being tempted, but insisted that Rome would have to change significantly first. I forget Laud’s exact words, maybe one of the history buffs who’s watching can provide it. Many of us are wrestling with these complex issues and are deeply torn in two or more directions.
On #27, Ross wrote that he’s not at all eager for the creation of the kind of living magisterium that Anglicanism has always resisted and gotten along without up until now. I understand the suspicion. There is a deep-seated fear among Protestants and evangelicals that any such thing could undermine that precious sense of living in the “freedom for which Christ set us free” and might lead us back into submitting again to a papal-like “yoke of bondage” (cf. Gal. 5:1).
The great Oxford evangelican Anglican theologian A. McGrath has recently written a big book on “Chrstianity’s Dangerous Idea,” which is really Protestantism’s dangerous idea, i.e., that every believer has the right and duty to read the Scriptures for themselves and draw the appropriate conclusions as to its meaning for their lives. And while this has obviously led to the endless and regrettable fragmentation that has characterized Protestantism, it has also led to the enormous vitality and adaptability that has enabled Protestantism to thrive in many different social and cultural contexts.
So two responses, Ross. First, there is already a certain scholarly magisteriusm that exists (all of us with Ph.D.s in biblical studies, or the faculties of our seminaries). Hmmmm. Not very inviting or confidence inducing, is it? But while scholarly expertise is essential for some aspects of biblical interpretation (mainly the exegetical side, i.e., trying to determine the historical or “plain” sense intended by the author[s]), the fact remains that “the Bible is the Church’s book,” not the Academy’s and the role of the magisterium has ever been to discern what the Sacred Page MEANS for the Church, not so much what it MEANT originally to its first hearers and readers. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were all top-notch biblical scholars and expositors in a way that none of the English reformers could match, and yet, of course, they simply couldn’t agree on crucial matters. That’s our problem. ‘Twas ever so.
Second, your proposal is interesting, but totally unworkable. It’s way too large and unwieldy, not to mention grossly unrepresentative of the AC as a whole since it places all 38 provinces on an equal footing, no matter how small or large they are, which seems very unfair to me. Why should tiny provinces like Korea, Myanmar, or even Scotland and Wales, have equal weight in such a magisterium with giant Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya? Plus, it would be way too expensive to gather, and would simply take way too long to reach decisions.
I’ve been invoking a parallel with the U.S. Supreme Court. It has only nine members, of course. Yet they have great difficulty reaching decisions. Just imagine how clogged our legal system would be with untried cases if the Supreme Court had over a hundred members! Even a group the size of the Primates’ Meeting would be far too large and would never work. I don’t have a counter proposal to make at this point, and it’s not my place really. I’d leave that up to the current Instruments of Unity/Communion.
The real question is (and it’s a BIG and serious one): Is the whole notion of a living magisterium with binding trans-provincial authority so unProtestant that it’s simply incompatible with the nature of Anglicanism? That, to me at least, is the proverbial $64,000 question.
David Handy+
Advocate of just such radical reforms
Dear #28 Peter Sellick, I add my thanks to you for a thoughtful and stimulating article. As for a very fine Protestant magazine of the highest quality, may I recommend Modern Reformation? They have a website at http://www.modernreformation.org
NRA,
Thank you for your kind post. This is really not an appropirate forum to be posting even an abreviated auto-biogrpahy. However if you would like some details please feel free to email me at jec1ny@aol.com.
Just for the record I am not actually an ex-Anglican (although my Godfather is). I am an ex Latin who swam the Bosporus a couple of years ago after leaning in that direction for almost a quarter century.
#33, Ad Orientem,
You’re welcome. I’ll contact you privately. I’m not sure yet which ethnic branch of Orthodoxy you’ve affiliated yourself with, but it seems that the great majority of Epsicopalians and American evangelicals who have turned to the East have taken refuge in the Syrian/Antiochan Orthodox Church. The last I knew ex-Campus Crusade for Christ leader Peter Gilchrist, who leads their outreach to Americans, reported that there are now about 250 congregations made up primarily of such western converts to Orthodoxy.
David Handy+
NA,
I am in the OCA. Although we have hsitoric and cultural ties to the Church of Russia we are an autocephalous American Orthodox Church. Some parishes remain rather ethnic in their composition but many including mine are poly-ethnic with a significant number of converts. Also most OCA parishes now conduct all or the majority of their services in English vice Slavonic.
#34, Ad Orientem,
Thanks. I do hope the OCA can gradually drawn in more and more of the still ethnically divided Orthodox churches into a genuinely indigenous American church. Certainly St. Vladimir’s Seminary and Press has done wonders to help those of us outside the Orthodox Church tradition to appreciate more of the depth and richness of the eastern Christian heritage.
But if the proud ethnic distinctions within the eastern Christian world still show little sign of fading away any time soon, I’m afraid we Anglicans also face a similar problem. It’s much less obvious, of course, but Anglicanism in North America seems never to have become fully indigenous either. We don’t have the language barrier, but there ARE significant cultural differences between the English mindset and the American (or even the Canadian perhaps). Just to take one or two common examples. The English tend to be much more reserved than we “uninhibited” Americans (just look at how carefully the royal family hides their emotions from public display!). That has certainly contributed to the common perception that Episcopalians are so cold and formal that we are often characterized as “God’s frozen chosen.” That certainly doesn’t help promote church growth in our cultural context.
More significantly, perhaps, there is the stark difference between British and American usage when it comes to the word, “enthusiasm.” In England, it still appears to be virtually synonymous with “fanaticism” and “extremism.” Whereas here in the U.S. it has very positive associations. That lingering English sense of reservation or even suspicion of too much enthusiasm also hampers our ability to reach out effectively to our fellow Americans.
I freely confess that on that particular score, I’m thoroughly American. I am naturally drawn to fervent, enthusiastic Christians. Contagious enthusiasm is a natural by-product of the kind of “High Commitment” Christianity I favor so strongly, and for which I’m an ardent advocate. No matter how many eyebrows it raises.
But it does often leave me wondering: Do you have to be an Anglo-phile to be an Anglican? Do you have to prefer British/Anglo-Saxon culture to your own culture in order to really fit in and be comfortable and accepted in the Anglican Communion? In the past, it often appeared to be so. But now that the majority of the world’s Anglicans don’t have English as their native tongue that may be finally changing at last. If so, thanks be to God!