Anglicans, with all Christians, should be chiefly concerned with projecting biblical faith into the community — not with projecting the community’s values into the faith.
Alas, such rich debates among Anglicans are fast falling into irrelevance.
Via media — the Anglican motto, meaning by way of the middle — has disintegrated into infighting, and it’s taking the Anglican Communion with it.
But we must remember that for a time, the Church of England, even with all her contradiction, vulnerability to error and organizational shortcomings, was sufficient. Glorious, even.
For she stood, above all else, for the freedom of the English people and the supremacy of the Sovereign.
She was an expression of England’s identity, a bulwark of national independence and, at her best, an endeavour to fuse Enlightenment with Revelation.
And so we’re left with the hard questions.
Is Anglicanism itself an anachronism? A vestige of empire? Destined to succumb to the pulsating rush of liturgical, spiritual and cultural change?
The link for the whole essay is [url=http://news.guelphmercury.com/printArticle/365128 ]here[/url].
[blockquote]It is now clear that the Anglican Communion is finished as a coherent and orthodox church. Considered by some, at various times in her history, as a legitimate branch — along with the Roman and Orthodox communions — of the True Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion is now rife with Gnosticism, private biblical interpretation and agenda-pushing clerics on all sides of all issues. [/blockquote]
And that’s precisely why GAFCON’s mission is so important. We are at the beginning of a second Anglican Reformation…….one which many believe will completely remake the Church.
This article is posted on August 11, the RC calendar’s commemoration of John Henry Newman. His mid-19th-c conversion arguably marked the end of another Anglican era.
Has anyone ever conducted a study of how Anglicanism, in spite of its claim to “inclusion”, has an interesting history of exclusion: Puritans, Methodists, Tractarians. And whose turn now?
A Prayer of John Henry Cardinal Newman:
God created me
to do him some definite service;
he has committed some work to me
which he has not committed to another.
I have my mission –
I may never know it in this life,
but I shall be told it in the next…
Therefore, I will trust him…
If I am in sickness,
my sickness may serve him;
in perplexity,
my perplexity may serve him;
if I am in sorrow,
my sorrow may serve him…
He does nothing in vain;
he may prolong my life,
he may shorten it,
he knows what he is about.
[blockquote]”the Anglican Communion is now rife with Gnosticism, private biblical interpretation and agenda-pushing clerics on all sides of all issues.”[/blockquote]
Hmm. How interesting that the Anglican Communion sounds like a Church that includes sinful humans. Who’d a’thunk it? I suppose the pristine waters of the Tiber or Bosphorus await. But aren’t there people over there too? That’s a problem…
#4 Are you implying that Rome and the Orthodox have learned nothing of human nature in 2000 years? The point is that both these communions are structured to deal with human frailty and survive as institutions. It remains to be seen whether the Anglican Communion is similarly robust; I see no grounds for optimism at present.
Jody & Austin+ (##4 &5;),
Also, Rome has fostered the development of doctrine (cf Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine) according to a cohesive theology. Thus, one chooses to enter into communion with Rome on the basis of a rather clear system of belief and practice (acknowleding the various schools of spirituality w/in Catholicism, the areas still open for development, the recent move towards a rediscovery of liturgical variety, and the fact that there are those who identify themselves as Catholic who nonetheless disregard what the tradition and the teaching authority of the Church have given us — yes, the RC situation has its own glorious messiness. The waters of the Tiber aren’t pristine). The difficulty with Anglicanism, ever since the Elizabethan Settlement (if not earlier?) has been a lack of theological cohesiveness (which lack was offset by a masterfully crafted BCP and the authority of the British Parliament). Anglicanism needs to develop at this moment in history, but along which theological trajectory? And without a real center to hold it together, mustn’t things fall apart? And if everyone is welcome, aren’t some, in fact, going to end up being excluded? Perhaps the end of this Anglican era actually began as colonialism (and thus the authority of the British Parliament) was dismantled and when a largely uniform BCP was abandoned for alternate services.
These thoughts could form the basis of a full essay. But I suspect most readers of this list already have the background to make some sense of my sketchy comments.
“One may, perhaps, leave out of account the Anglican Church, which has long been an object of derision. If it were to be disestablished it would seen to have practically cease to exist. Her lovely edifices are falling into decay; its superb Book of Common Prayer scarcely redeems its shambling services; its clergy are, for the most part, forlorn and negligible. Words cannot convey the doctrinal confusion, ineptitude and sheer chicanery of the run-of-the-mill incumbent, with his Thirty-Nine Articles in which he does not even purport to believe, with his listless exhortations, mumbled prayers and half-baked confusion of the Christian faith with better housing, shorter hours of work, the United Nations and opposition to apartheid.
Malcolm Muggeridge
“Tread softly as you Tread on my Jokes” 1966
The Anglican church will fall apart because it has no core doctrine any more, and therefore is not willing to be exclusive as holding core doctrine forces one to be. Diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism and all the other cant of the left is subversive of all Christian integrity. As soon as you say, “As a Christian, I believe…” you are saying that what you believe is specific. The automatically excludes all who do not assent to your belief. The alternative is to say “I believe in everyone and everything; God is a universal force and so my belief is equally universal” which is to say that you belief in nothing. And this latter is TEC. Larry
Larry,
You nailed it without needing ten pages that certain theologians, Rowen & Tom, so distort and confuse the issue so no conclusion is reached.
#6, I’m with you in more ways than you know. I said in a comment her a few weeks back that part of the problem was the BCP. I stated that the church did a very poor job of teaching the content of the Bible, but did an excellent job of teaching the BCP. I grew up in the ACoC and know the BCP almost by heart. I held some sacred elevation to it. Only recently have I come to realize the the BCP was a mistake. The Bible itself should have been taught and read in services. It should have been narrated over and over in services like the BCP has been. You can just bet we would all know it much better if it was.
I also believe another big mistake of the AC is that they think we are to look back at “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason” for our basis of understanding. The only one of those three that I’ve come to use as my guide is Scripture. Tradition comes from MEN. Reason is HUMAN. We are instructed in Scripture not to put our faith in either of these.
Mark 7:8 – “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Mark 7:9 – He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Mark 7:13 – {thus} invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Collossians 2:8 -See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
It seems that if the LORD is going to continue to be gracious to the AC, then He is using faithful men of God to spearhead such a cleansing and revival. We may quickly-and justifiably-forget all about Lambeth 2008; but let us not be so quick to forget GAFCON.
While I know that ultimately, God is going to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats, it appears that He permits this process in this present age as well. The apostle John tells us: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 1:19)
Paul talked about being in peril from false brethren, and about false apostles. Rebels were constantly being weeded out of the congregation in the wilderness. Rather than witnessing the end of the AC, I think we are seeing God doing a great shaking, so that we’ll see “the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.”
In this case, we may see the things that are made-the man-made religion of KJS & the radicals that have hijacked TEC-separated, and soon to be removed from the AC. In other words, if I may borrow from Isaiah 40:8, that grass will wither, that flower will fade away; but those who have chosen to rest their faith on the word of God which stands forever, will abide.
The AC *as we’ve known it* may be coming to an end; but a purified, faithful church will rise up in its place.
mugsie, what you’ve “discovered” about the BCP is the same thing the Puritans thought they discovered too in the 17th century. Look where they are today! Just check out your local UCC church if you’re not sure. They are in just as bad shape as TEC and ACoC. I think the problem is probably just the opposite of what you suggest, we lost the BCP, which is overwhelmingly taken directly from Scripture, and we began to come up with new and alternative liturgies that have little to do with Scripture.
Mugsie,
More Scripture is heard in a Liturgical service than in any non-denominational Protestant service. For example, where does the phrase/response:
[i]Celebrant:[/i] Alleluia! Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us!
[i]People:[/i] Therefore let us keep the feast, alleluia!
If you said, tradition, you would be only partly correct. The correct answer is: The Scriptures (I cor 5:7, to be exact).
Most protestant services that I have attended have only one Scripture reading which the minister expounds upon, often cross referencing, but not always, and thus gives HIS opinion, or his church’s tradition of ‘correct’ interpretation. One way or another, every Christian denomination relies on Tradition, whether that of the Church fathers or the magesterium, or Martin Luther, or Calvin, or Scofield, or _______ (Fill in the blank). You can’t get away from it.
St. Paul urged his readers/listeners to
“join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” and that
“The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”
(Phil 3:17 & 4:9, NASB) and
“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (I cor. 11:2, NASB) &
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”,
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” (2 Thess. 2:15, & 3:6)….
in other words, scripture AND tradition are both important to our walk in the Lord.
In fact, the first four centuries of the church existed strongly in DEVELOPING tradition until the canon of Scripture was finalized.
Peace!
Jim Elliott <><
Mugsie,
One more thing:
Here’s an interesting exercise: Take one of the Eucharistic services in the BCP, and highlight every passage that is taken from scripture.
You can print it out from [url=http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/]the online site[/url], if you’d rather, and many churches print the service in the booklet given out on Sunday services if you don’t want to mark up a BCP. It’s a real eye-opener as to how much of the service directly quotes Scripture.
To tell the truth, it makes a fantastic Sunday School Bible Study!
There is an interesting story about a man who was challenged by his rector to read the New Testament all the way through. He resisted for a long time but finally relented.
When he finished the rector asked him what he thought. He responded: “I was surprised at how often the Bible quotes the [i]Book of Common Prayer[/i]!” 🙂
#5,
Austen,
Of course not. I’m implying that one merely has to choose which institutionally abetted sin is more palatable and where one is called to preach the gospel against it.
All the talk of Anglicanism as such being on it’s last legs is tiresome–I don’t have a crystal ball, but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for the institution in the long term–but I do know that if the “Anglican experiment” as a way of practicing the Christian faith can be spoken of as being “over” it bears a striking similarity to the way some now speak of the Christian “experiment” being over. If evidence of human frailty and sin were enough to give up on the whole enterprise, I expect the Church would’ve never come into being.
I probably should natter on about core doctrine any more, but I still see it as central to any solution possible to us.Has GAFCON espoused any thing that can be called core doctrine? To call a position “core doctrine” does this mean that it is a definitive statement that to be a Christian (or an Anglican) one MUST espouse? No wiggle room and no qualifications? For to declare that, we will accept that many Americans will never be Anglicans because, as a matter of culture, we believe absolutely in choice and variety. This is American core doctrine, isn’t it? Would anyone in the Anglican church have the…….well, let’s say spine, to take so bold a position?
Larry
My wife is Methodist, and at every Sunday Mass I hear more Scripture than I hear at her church in two months.
Ed, its a funny thing about mainline churches. When you mentioned the Methodist church, it reminded me of the very first church I attended after I became a Christian in my 20’s. It was a Methodist Church, perhaps close to a century old. A lady who I knew from work was in attendance there and was surprised to see me. She was about 30 years older than I was, and had been attending there for some time. I stayed long enough to sit under two pastors, who I befriended. Good guys, for sure, though I don’t believe either man had been regenerated by the Spirit. I left to worship elsewhere in time, and sort of forgot about that little church.
About 5 years or so ago, I noticed that a new pastor had arrived at that church (the name of the current minister always hung on a wooden shingle from the bottom of the churches’ wooden sign out front). Suddenly, I noticed the church holding events such as they never had before-evangelical gospel singing groups, speakers, and the church took out a yellow page ad, with something about “Biblically centered preaching” – something which I had never seen associated with that little church previously.
As it happened, I began to discuss the new pastor with this older lady (now about 80, still going strong), and she remarked to me that “his sermons are so interesting-I’ve learned more about the Bible in just this last year than in all the years I’ve been going there!”
While I think that its a fairly good bet that you will see a truly born again, Bible teaching/preaching minister in the pulpits of churches in the more fundementalist denominations like AOG, Calvary Chapel & Southern Baptist, most mailline denominations are something of a crapshoot. You may, you may not.
Just my two cents.
[i]While I think that its a fairly good bet that you will see a truly born again, Bible teaching/preaching minister in the pulpits of churches in the more fundementalist denominations like AOG, Calvary Chapel & Southern Baptist, most mailline denominations are something of a crapshoot. You may, you may not. [/i]
However, it’s also a ‘crapshoot’ that you will get orthodox preaching and doctrine at the more fundamentalist denominations (non-denominations?), too often off the wall teachings are highlighted: i.e., Kenneth Hagen; Kenneth Copeland; Benny Hinn; R. W. Shambauch; etc.
I’ve heard enough of their ilk when I was in Christian radio back in the 1980’s.
Jim E. <><
Good point, of course. I wasn’t talking about the ‘prosperity gospel’ preachers.
For every one of them, you had numerous others who were quite rock solid and Biblically sound.
Just because its on the radio, TV, or behind a pulpit doesn’t mean its good. Ultimately, thorough knowledge of the Word of God, carefully guided by the Holy Spirit, one can stay clear of gross error. No one denomination is completely free from error, of course. That is why we are instructed to “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” This is an individual imperative. This is also why, even though Christ has come & shown His glory-yet now is gone for a season-He has left us His Holy Spirit: “And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your Teacher will not hide himself anymore, but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.”
I believe that this portion of scripture speaks to the present age, for in the age to come, we will not eat the bread of affliction or drink the water of adversity. I would say then, receive great comfort and guidance from the Holy Spirit, as He is the one who bears witness with our spirit that we are the children and heirs of God.
I would also add, though, that just because a preacher claims to be Spirit led, doesn’t mean he has an automatic grasp of the traditional meaning and interpretation (i.e., orthodox) of Scripture.
Many preachers never go to a seminary or even college. (Al Sharpton, for example was ‘ordained’ at age 9, and taught at his church). That is why it is so important to gain a knowledge of how Scripture has been interpreted throughout the life of the Church.
For example, if Scofield had had a better grasp of the traditional teaching of the ‘last days’ I wonder if he would have been so quick to embrace the ‘pre-trib rapture’ of the Plymouth Brethren and put in into his study Bible?
A friend of mine, long out of touch, was a former Baptist minister. When he announced he intended to go to college, he was warned off saying “All that schooling will ruint you for preachin’!”
I think you have a better chance of getting the orthodox teaching of Scripture in a liturgical setting. At least in days past.
I’m not denying the decay of the mainline seminary. In fact, I’m not too sure our seminaries are any better now, though, than many off the cuff ‘Bible Colleges’ where only their tradition (yes, tradition) of interpretation is taught.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Who has no formal Bible teaching himself, but is rather self-taught.
I would also describe myself as self, and Holy Spirit, taught as well. I am pre-trib, largely progressive dispensationalist (somewhat different than a traditional dispensationalist), and am grounded in the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation.
I realize that this is an Anglican (leaning towards, it would seem, Anglo-Catholic) blog, and that this understanding is different from the approach taken by most here. Supersessionism, for instance, would largely be the order of the day here; I would see that as opposed to what is clearly taught throughout scripture. The majority reading this, I imagine, would be amillenialists. I am a millennialist. We would both probably hold that we have a pretty literal view of the scriptures, but would diverge after that point on several issues.
I suppose this is where we were headed, Jim: I didn’t want to start an argument, but I didn’t want us to speak past each other either.
Nah, all I’m saying is that there is strong, Biblically based preaching in liturgical churches (St. Peter’s is one of them) and in other churches. But that there is also poor preaching in both as well. A generalized statement that one is better than the other is well, a generalization, which always falls flat, generally speaking.
One has to go on a case-by-case basis, not denomination by denomination.
You are going to have orthodox and heretics and “sloppy-agapé” theology represented in every church.
And you are going to have people in the pews who compain about whichever one they have in the pulpit at that time, and who is NEVER as good as the one that just left.
“I swear, preacher, your next sermon is never as good as your last one!”
LOL “sloppy-agape”, I’ll have to remember that one.
I learned that phrase from a small Church of God in Palm Beach Gardens looooong ago.
I attended that one on Wednesday nights for Bible study, and on Sundays went to the Catholic Church.
🙂
This line should have been:
You are going to have orthodox and heretics and “sloppy-agapé†[b]as well as solid koinina[/b] represented in every church.
I realized I gave a negative without a positive counterpart much later after posting it. 🙂
No problem, Jim. I get the picture.