Although the body is primarily seen as an orthodox alternative to the current national churches in North America, [Martyn] Minns stressed there is still diversity.
“I think what we’re saying is that there’s a theological heart to what we’re doing but there’s a variety there,” he explained. “There’s a common set of theological assumptions that unite us but we’re not all jumping out of the same box.”
Within The Episcopal Church, however, the diversity was too broad.
“Some pushed the envelope too far and so as a reaction some said we can’t go that far; we need to come out and at least have some definition to what we believe,” the CANA bishop said.
Minns labeled the new body as “orthodox, Anglican, mission-minded, biblically-centered.”
“I would it’s basically a fairly traditional Anglicanism with a passion for mission,” he briefly explained.
I think +Minns could make more salient points without taking a pot shot at the British Empire. Surely the goals he desires can be achieved without that sort of leftwing ’60s era name calling.
Since Bishop Minns was born in Britain during World War II, and experienced much of the breakup of the British Empire first-hand before emigrating to the United States, I believe that he has much greater right to use that analogy than I to criticise him.
[i]Minns labeled the new body as “orthodox, Anglican, mission-minded, biblically-centered.”[/i]
Recently Kendall made a remark on how reappraisers use the words like ‘fundamentalist’ without defining it. Here’s a great example of a reasserter doing the same thing. What is ‘orthodox’? Women’s ordination or not? Divorced priests or not? Remarriage of the divorced or not? ‘Biblically-centered’ is another one that always goes without definition. Defining what it means to say the Bible is the Word of God is massively complicated even for the strongest reasserter, once you get down to interpreting the text. I’m guessing that most lay people do not understand the definition of the phrase in the way that priests understand it to mean.
Just because Minns experienced the break up of the Empire first hand does not mean that it is necessarily wise to use anti colonialism to further ones religious goals. As in there is no need to divide the orthodox in this country (many of whom are not anti the Empire/Commonwealth or Monarchy) or needlessly threaten the Church of England. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize group decision making – I merely felt the shot at the empire was gratutitous.