Thursday, September 09, 2010

Anglican—By What Standards?


By Robin G. Jordan

The Anglican Church in North America, which the Common Cause Partnership launched in response to the GAFCON Primates’ call for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America, is substantially a continuation of The Episcopal Church from which most of its congregations and clergy come. Those of its leaders who are not former Episcopalians or former Reformed Episcopalians come from non-Anglican denominations.

The Episcopal Church is not known for its strong attachment to the Thirty Nine Articles or the central place it has given them in its teaching and life. Successive revisions of the American Prayer Book moved it away from biblical and Reformation teaching of the 1662 Prayer Book toward the unreformed Catholicism of the pre-Reformation Medieval service books. Anglo-Catholicism dominated the church from the mid nineteenth century until liberalism displaced it in the mid twentieth century. The Episcopal Church’s once vibrant evangelical wing either abandoned the church in the 1870s due to the growing influence of ritualism or succumbed to liberalism and adopted Broad Church principles. The Episcopal Church’s brief evangelical revival in the 1960s-1980s touched only a small part of the church. Charismatic renewal swept through the Episcopal Church during the same period.

The Anglican Church in North America has adopted a similar attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles as The Episcopal Church. It is not given a prominent place in its teaching and life. The ACNA uses the Episcopal Church’s most recent and most liberal Catholic of the revisions of the American Prayer Book—the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books. It also uses the two most recent Episcopal hymnals, The Hymnal 1940 and The Hymnal 1982. Most of the ACNA congregations and clergy who are self-described “evangelicals” are actually charismatic and even charismatic Catholic. The two dominant theological influences in the ACNA are the Anglo-Catholic movement and the Convergence movement. The doctrine of the constitution and canons favor the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues. A number of decisions of the Provincial Council and College of Bishops have supported the Anglo-Catholic position on these issues. In their preoccupation with denominational growth the leaders of the ACNA show a willingness to open the church to independent Catholic and Convergence groups that have no Anglican history, much less loyalty to authentic historic Anglicanism. As long as a group is Catholic or friendly to Catholicism the Anglo-Catholic leaders are willing to welcome its members into the ACNA and as long as a group is charismatic, the charismatic leaders are willing to welcome its members. The group’s connection to the Anglican tradition is a minor consideration if it is considered at all.



Confessional (or conservative) evangelicals with their roots in the English Reformation and the Evangelical Revival and their strong commitment to the Protestant Reformed faith of the Church of England and her formularies are a weak element in the ACNA, and are not represented in its leadership. They are scattered throughout the dioceses and other groupings of the ACNA. While at least three dioceses are Anglo-Catholic and the Provincial Council created a special diocese for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, the Diocese of All Saints, the Provincial Council has so far shown no inclination to modify the doctrinal positions of the constitution and canons to make them less objectionable to confessional evangelicals or to invite conservative evangelicals to establish their own enclave within the ACNA.

With the emergence of a new orthodox Anglican province in North America Anglicans in and outside of North America had hoped that the Thirty-Nine Articles would be given a central place in its teaching and life. There is little likelihood of that happening on a large scale in the ACNA. Considering the position that the Jerusalem Declaration takes on the Articles, it is surprising that they have not been given more prominence in what is regarded outside of North America as GAFCON in North America. It is also surprising that the ACNA has not distanced itself from the American Prayer Book tradition, which is so closely identified with The Episcopal Church and its liberal Catholic drift.

A substantial portion of the ACNA congregations and clergy are more Episcopalian than Anglican in their identity. The Episcopal Church had already moved too far from authentic historic Anglicanism before they left. They do not have a strong Anglican identity. For example, the Articles that are an essential element of Anglican identity are unfamiliar to them. The American Prayer Book tradition with which they are acquainted has deviated significantly from the English Prayer Book tradition, which, even though it has produced a number of contemporary language service books, retains the 1662 Prayer Book as its authorized standard of faith and worship. For Episcopalians the current American Prayer Book has been their authorized standard of faith and worship. Its doctrines and practices have changed with the Episcopal Church’s doctrines and practices. The Episcopal Church’s theory of Anglican identity has also changed with the times. The bulk of those who comprise the ACNA are still very Episcopalian in their thinking. For this reason it is more accurate to describe this segment of the ACNA membership as conservative Episcopalian rather than Anglican.



Most of the congregations and clergy in the ACNA do not identify with the peculiarly English conservative form of Reformed Protestantism that is authentic historic Anglicanism; much less give adequate expression to it. They have come to accept in its place traditional Anglo-Catholicism; the older, more moderate form of liberal Catholicism; Convergentism; or some other ideology that its proponents have represented as genuine Anglicanism, redefining Anglicanism and even reinterpreting and revising Anglican Church history in order to lend credibility to their claim. Like the doctrines and practices of the American Prayer Book, this definition changes with the times. A new ideology comes upon the scene and the definition of Anglicanism is changed to accommodate it. Anglican Church history is rewritten. This is what Dean Philip Jensen refers to as “sociological Anglicanism” in his article, “Why Anglican?” Whatever a church with a historical connection to the Church of England believes and practices at a particular time in its history is defined as Anglican. The result is a constantly changing, developing Anglican identity that sets no boundaries to what may be described as Anglican, and which J. I. Packer has compared with the Roman Catholicism of John Henry Newman.

Confessional Anglicanism, on the other hand, views the historic Church of England formularies and to a lesser extent the two Books of Homilies, as authoritative standards by which the doctrines and practices of churches claiming to stand in the Anglican tradition may be measured and tested. To be authentically Anglican, the doctrines and practices of a church must be in continuity with these standards.

A similar view of Anglicanism was taken by the 1888 Lambeth Conference that resolved that new missionary churches should be recognized as Anglican only if “their Clergy subscribe Articles in accordance with the express statements of our standards of doctrine and worship,” adding that “they should not necessarily be bound to accept in their entirety the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion,” an allowance that parts of the Articles assume and name political structures that do not directly apply to Anglicans or Anglican churches outside the United Kingdom. It recognized that the Articles are “the Anglican version of the Catholic tradition of Faith and Discipline.” Loyal Anglicans may not form any other version.

An Anglican province does a disservice to the global Anglican community when it endorses as a genuine expression of Anglicanism the doctrines and practices of a supposedly Anglican body without a comprehensive and thorough assessment. Both the liberal Western churches and the conservative global South churches are guilty of doing so—the Provinces of Canterbury and York in their continued recognition of The Episcopal Church and the Provinces of Kenya, Nigeria, Southern Cone, and Uganda in their recognition of the ACNA. Neither TEC nor its would-be replacement is close to the standards of the Church of England formularies. In the past twelve months the two churches have become even more removed from them.



It is difficult to see the basis upon which the Provinces of Kenya, Nigeria, Southern Cone and Uganda recognized the Anglican Church in North America as “a genuine expression of Anglicanism.” The wording of the sixth and seventh declaration of the ACNA Fundamental Declarations effectively neutralizes the authority of the historic Anglican formularies as standards of doctrine and worship for the ACNA. Congregations and clergy in the ACNA may hold a different version of “the Catholic tradition of Faith and Discipline” than the Anglican version. Among the requirements that they must meet is that they must accept the Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic view of bishops being essential to the existence of the church, a view over which Anglicans historically have been divided and are still not in agreement to this day. The ACNA has adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession in its canons and the College of Bishops in its reception of Bishops Lipka and Jones as bishops of the ACNA affirmed this doctrine. Implicit in the canons are a number of other Roman Catholic doctrines.

The Constitution and Canons of the Church of Nigeria stipulate that the Church of Nigeria “shall be in communion only with Anglican churches, dioceses and provinces that that hold and maintain the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as the Lord has commanded in His holy word and as the same are received as taught in the Book of Common Prayer and the ordinal of 1662 and in the Thirty-Nine Article of Religion.” The first of the Fundamental Provisions of the Constitution of the Church of Uganda states:

The Church of Uganda doth hold and maintain the doctrines and sacraments of Christ…as the Church of England hath received the same in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and further it disclaims for it’s the right of altering any of the aforesaid standards of faith and doctrine.”

The Fundamental Declaration of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone states:

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone is established as a Province of the Anglican Communion, a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which professes the historic Faith and Order as contained in the Holy Scriptures, … and as observed in the Book of Common Prayer and the administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies, in the form and manner of Consecration, Ordination or Institution of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons and the Articles of Religion….

Of the four churches, only the Anglican Church of Kenya makes no reference to the Thirty-Nine Articles in its constitution and canons. It does, however, “declare its acceptance of the doctrine, Sacraments, and discipline of the Church as these are set forth in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Form ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons attached to the same Book.” All four churches signed the Jerusalem Declaration with its affirmation of the authority of the historic Anglican formularies.

Their recognition of the Anglican Church in North America as “a genuine expression of Anglicanism,” however, raises the question of how committed are these four churches in actuality to the historic Anglican formularies. It casts doubt upon the sincerity of that commitment. Having provided oversight and support to components of the ACNA, they may have believed that they had no other choice. However, it reflects poorly upon the four churches that they did not do a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the ACNA before certifying it to be authentically Anglican. It also raises the question of what criteria did they use in making that determination and how objective and reliable is that criteria.



If political expediency was the primary reason for their recognition of the ACNA as “a genuine expression of Anglicanism,” it brings up the question of what do the four churches gain from recognizing as Anglican a church that is at best marginally so. While it must be admitted that the ACNA does have congregations and clergy that are more than marginally Anglican, their existence in the ACNA does not mitigate the marginality of the Anglican identity of the church as a whole. The church needs to take a number of steps to strengthen its Anglican identity but it shows no indications of moving in that direction. Indeed it is moving in a direction that weakens its marginal Anglican identity.

How do the four churches benefit from supporting a marginally Anglican church? They realize a number of their aspirations. They assume a position of leadership in the world Anglican community. They enhance their prestige in the eyes of their fellow Africans. They acquire Western allies in their struggle with liberalism in the Anglican Communion. They expand their sphere of influence. They acquire a new source of financial aid to replace The Episcopal Church and reduce their dependence upon the liberal Western churches.

These benefits, however, come at a high cost. The marginally Anglican church that they are supporting does not represent authentic historic Anglicanism, and consequently the pressing need for a genuine Anglican witness in North America, ground in the Bible and the Reformation, is going unmet. The drift away from the Protestant Reformed faith of authentic historic Anglicanism is going uncorrected, and the retrograde movement toward the corrupt unreformed Catholicism of pre-Reformation Medieval Church and the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church is going unchecked.

Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism have not shown themselves particularly immune to the influence of liberalism and modernism. This is especially true in North America. As Lesley Fairfield has shown, “Catholic Modernism,” to which he attributes primary responsibility for the present state of affairs in The Episcopal Church, is an outgrowth of Anglo-Catholicism, influenced by liberalism and modernism.

The highest cost takes the form of the continued widespread abandonment of the New Testament gospel in the North American Anglican Church for “a different gospel.” The gospel of justification by faith and salvation by grace recovered at the Reformation after having been so long lost to the Church of England has been lost once again to her daughter churches. Whatever they proclaim from the pulpit and in their liturgical celebrations, it is not the gospel of grace. North American Anglicanism, if it can be rightly called that, has reached one of its lowest watermarks.

18 comments:

Reformation said...

More good work, although the fuzzy-headed syncretists will grimace.

From an Anglican in the wilderness,
Phil

PS...Leo Riches and Ray Sutton, REC, know precisely whereof thou speakest, Robin. But, they are unprincipled and "lust for acceptance." Their track record is long and ignoble.

traditionalanglican said...

Evangelical and catholic are not exclusive of each other. I do not agree that evangelical must be anti-catholic even if catholic is viewed as the Roman Catholic Church.

Even for those who do not have any of the charismatic gifts, a charismatic service is not something to be feared. That is assuming the charismatic gifts are real. I know many now or formally with the CEC who exhibit true charismatic gifts and to worship with them is a joy. My discernment process about charismatic service was a long process but is one for which I have no question as being the will of God.

You said: ”If the Holy Spirit wishes to bring renewal to Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA, he does not need to use human agents.“ This is true, but the Holy Spirit does work though people both as individuals and as groups.

traditionalanglican said...

Let it be clear. I am a seven-sacrament and sacerdotal Anglo-Catholic. While, I have not done any major study, I think my view of the 39 Articles is similar to that of Newman.

I disagree that the 1928 BCP is liberal. This is assuming the meaning of liberal to be the same as progressive. It was liberal within the classic meaning of liberal. Yes, there was an accommodation toward the Anglo-Catholics but I do not see the progressive influence of which you speak.

I have observed that the three streams movement has two different definitions of the streams. One is catholic, evangelical and charismatic. The other is liturgical, evangelical and charismatic. There is a major difference in the two theological views. There is a significant difference between liturgical and catholic. I observed that the second group did not see the need to test any charismatic expression against the church fathers, something I see as a major weakness.

Charismatic as a noun, in the sense that Anglican is a noun, is to me a very scarey place to be. It runs the risk that the voice you hear is not of God. Charismatic as an adjective, such charismatic-Lutheran or charismatic-Roman-Catholic is a good thing. I do not have any of the charismatic gifts, but as an Anglo-Catholic I welcome the addition of people from the CEC to the ACNA.

While I was disappointed, the CEC breakup, it did not surprise me. It was more or less along the lines I have just described. I think you can trace the split in the CEC, in part to the two definitions of three streams. The people who are joining ACNA are close to being a charismatic express of being Anglo-Catholic, even if before joining ACNA they did not express it as such. The other group is Protestant with a strong charismatic expression which uses the liturgical form of the 1979 BCP but do not self-identify as catholic.

I rejoiced when it appears that many former CEC people are coming into ACNA. It rounds out the ACNA in a way that the Continuing Church movement never achieved.

Fr. Steve said...

I think you actually have a point here, included in your usual rant about the ACNA. We need the "Reformed" Anglicans just as much as we need the Anglo-Catholics and the "Convergentists". But to categorize any one party of Anglicans as "not Anglican" goes a bit too far. They are just not Anglicans in your own definition of the word. Its exclusivist (is that even a word?).

Anyway, I'm actually starting to enjoy your writing again, even though I don't always agree with you.

Chris Nelson said...

You make a lot of sweeping generalizations.

"Most of the ACNA congregations and clergy who are self-described “evangelicals” are actually charismatic"

Most? Really? How did you determine that "most" are actually charismatic? I ask because I attend a "self-described evangelical" ACNA church and am familiar with quite a few others- and none of them have even a tinge of charismatic about them.

RMBruton said...

Nice use of Morris Dancers.

David.McMillan said...

I have read your stuff and like it, but I think you may be too far out on the limb as well calling ACNA apostate. I know many in this church. I would not call them that certainly. It is ok to disagree with their direction, but watch out the limb you are on may break! You may want to adjust....

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

If you are aware of other groups in the ACNA, you need to identify where they stand in terms of doctrine and practice. What are these churches understanding of the term "evangelical"? What do they identify as "evangelical" distinctives? What is their pastors' understanding of this term? What do their pastors identify as "evangelical" destinctives? From what seminaries did their pastors graduate? How central a place do their pastors give to the Thirty-Nine Articles in their teaching? Who are the authors they encourage their congregations to read? Who do they ask as guest speakers? What do they teach about salvation, predestination, election, the sacraments, apostolic succession, ordination, the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer, and the gifts of the Spirit? What kind of music is used in worship services--traditional, contemporary, blended? What service book is used? Do the people clap to the music or raise their hands when they sing? Do they move to the music? What kinds of vestments does the pastor and other ministers wear? How do the people address the pastor and what do they call the Lord's Table? What kind of ceremonial, gestures, and postures are used in worship services? Where does the pastor stand when he officiates at the Lord's Supper? To what jurisdiction within the ACNA do these congregations belong and from what Common Cause Partner did they come? Who is their bishop?
You also need to explain your understanding of "charismatic.

I have observed that everyone likes to think of their church as an exception but on closer examination it proves not to be the case. The church will fall into one of a number of categories, identifiable by similarities in doctrine, practice, group origin, etc.

Cont'd.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Self-described "evangelicals" within the ACNA and other Anglican bodies in North America generally fall into two groups:

1."Charismatics" or "charismatic evangelicals." This group's practice of a charismatic worship style, their use of the gift of tongues and interpretation and prophecy and the use of tongues in private prayer, and their acceptance of a Pentecostal view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit varies, and may range from pronounced to non-existence. Their theology shows the influence of popular American evangelicalism, the charismatic renewal movement, John Wimber and the Vineyard movement, Robert Webber and the Worship Renewal movement, and the Ancient-Future, or Convergence movement.

2. "Confessional evangelicals" or "conservative evangelicals". This group's theology shows the influence of the English Reformation, classical Anglicanism, the Swiss Reformers, Puritanism, the Evangelical Revival, 19th century writers like Dyson Hague and J. C. Ryle, and twentieth century writers like J. I. Packer, Leon Morris, Philip Edgcombe Hughes, D. Broughton Knox, and Donald Robinson.

These groupings are not categories that I personally created. They come from various articles and essays posted on the Internet, as well at least a couple of books.

Retired Bishop Fitz Simmons Allyson observed in the early 1960s that there were no real evangelicals left in the Episcopal Church--only Low Church liberals. Traditional evangelical Anglicanism had disappeared from the Episcopal Church by 1900. This was before the brief evangelical revival of 1960-1980s. Most "evangelicals" in the ACNA are not products of this revival. They are products of popular American evangelicalism, the charismatic renewal movement, and the third wave movement if they are former Episcopalians. Or they come from independent charismatic or evangelical churches and evidence the influence of the Worship Renewal and Ancient-Future movements. These movements constitute a charismatic or Pentecostal influence.

A number of individuals that use the term "evangelical" to describe themselves are not evangelical at all--not by contemporary popular American evangelical standards or traditional evangelical Anglican standards. They are Anglo-Catholics.

Robin G. Jordan said...

David,

I used "apostate" and "apostasy" in the non-pejorative technical sense of having abandoned formerly held beliefs or being in continuity with a group that deserted previously held beliefs, and took care to point out the sense in which I was using the word. I wrote:

"They have both abandoned the evangelical Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies and in that sense they are as equally as apostate."

I went on to say:

"This defection was not sudden. It did not take place overnight. It has been generations in the making. It began in The Episcopal Church when it was still the Protestant Episcopal Church and from which the bulk of the members of the ACNA come. It has taken generations to bear fruit, but bear fruit it has. The church that broke away from what it viewed as an apostate body was apostate itself! The spiritual forebears of most of its congregations and clergy long ago fell away from the evangelical Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies if they ever held to that faith. They embraced a different faith and a different gospel."

One can be an apostate from communism or an apostate to liberalism. It means one is a defecter, deserter, a renegade in the sense of a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another. Likewise one can be a defecter, deserter, or renegade from one form of Christianity to another.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Traditional Anglican,

You need to explain your statement, "Evangelical and catholic are not exclusive of each other." What are you defining as "evangelical"? What are you defining as "catholic"? In some senses these two words may not be exclusive of each other but in other senses they are. Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics do share some core Christian beliefs. They both believe in the existence of a God that is three persons in one being, and one of those persons is the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God of the Son. However, they have some pointed differences in other areas, including a number of primary issues, and these differences cannot be glozed over. They relate to salvation, grace, the sacraments, apostolic succession, holy orders, ordination, and the like. You also need to explain what you mean by the term "anti-catholic"? Are you using it in the sense the liberals use the term "anti-gay" to refer to anything that is not supportive of the gay rights movement and the normalization of homosexuality, in this case, anything not supportive of Catholic doctrine, order, and practice?

Unless you accept the post-modern post-Judeo-Christian supposition that there is no absolute truth, all truth is relative, there is no "the" truth but many truths, and no religious faith has a monopoly on the truth, then either the Roman Catholics or the Protestants are right. They both cannot be right. It is one or another.

If you are regenerate, you have the Holy Spirit, Regeneration and the Holy Spirit go hand in hand. If you are regenerate and have the Holy Spirit, then you have the charisma, or manifestations, of the Holy Spirit.

Pentecostalism focuses too much on the sign-gifts--tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. But the manifold grace of God is not limited to the sign-gifts. The sign-gifts can also be counterfeited.

Classical Anglicanism takes a Biblical approach. It seeks to know the tree by its fruits. It judges a man as regenerate and having the Holy Spirit on the basis of the fact that he bears the fruit of the Spirit, not that he speaks in tongues or he claims a prophetic gift.

I was involved in the charismatic renewal-third wave movement at one time, and participated in prayer and praise meetings, Life in the Spirit work shops, healing conferences, "charismatic services" and other aspects of the renewal movement. An affirmed belief in the immediacy of God can give an expectancy and vibrancy to worship not seen in churches where the worshipers have not had their belief in God's immediacy affirmed. At the same time I have experienced the renewal movement's weaknesses first hand--the bad hermeneutics, the equally bad theology, and the spiritual-thrill seeking.

The Holy Spirit does not confine himself to charismatic churches. He is present in non-charismatic churches and working in the lives of its members. I witness the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of the young people who flock to the Journey, the Southern Baptist church with which I am presently sojourning. I see him working in the lives of the participants in the Life Team (home cell) in which I am involved.

I would add a word of caution to those who wish to interpret every development in the ACNA as a movement of the Spirit. It is that God's ways are not our ways. And the human heart is very deceitful. As 1 John 4:1 warns us, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

If you are interested, I am planning an article on classical Anglicanism and the Holy Spirit.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Steve,

I am always open to suggestions as to other topics.

Chris Nelson said...

You also need to explain your understanding of "charismatic".

Really, we all know what charismatic means- and if it doesn't involve public speaking in tongues during services it hardly qualifies as charismatic. Of course, just as you redefine "anglican" to exclude all but a vanishingly tiny portion of all Anglicans in the US, you can make charismatic mean what you want...

Trinity Seminary is usually described as evangelical. Do you agree? Or are Trinity grads just "low liberal charismatics"?

RMBruton said...

Unless there have been real parishes and seminaries not only occasionally dabbling in some half-assed attempt at what they presented as "1662 BCP" Services, but which actually use it properly and on a regular basis and who hold to what you and I understand as Classical English Evangelicalism, no one in either TEC or the Continuing Episcopal Church of North America have any idea of what you are talking about. They have been sold something and been told it was something else, entirely. If it were possible to draw labs on these people I have absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, that we would find them to have either critically low "E" or no "E" at all. By "E" I mean Evangelicalism. They think that they are evangelicals, but they are not. This has been a catastrophic situation in Anglicanism and I believe accounts for why we find so very few who hold fast to what would be defined as Classical English Evangelicalism. I really fear that we are becoming extinct.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

You have said nothing about the distinguishing characteristics of your own church and the other churches that you allege share these characteristics or identified the jurisdiction to which they belong.

There are charismatic/Pentecostal churches in which people do not speak in tongues or exercise the other sign gifts during the service. I have been to services of charismatic/Pentecostal churches that are indistinguishable from the worship of non-charismatic churches, and visa versa. There is considerable overlap between charismatic and contemporary worship. What some folks identify as charismatic is contemporary and visa versa.

As for redefining Anglican, it was the Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologs who redefined Anglican in the 19th century and each group that has come along since that time has redefine Anglican even further so it can wear the Anglican label. What I am presenting is not a redefinition of Anglican but an accurate description of Anglican before all the redefining began. The kind of evolving definition of Anglican which so many Episcopalians and former Episcopalians have come to accept is a relatively new development, and it embraces such theological diversity that even universalism, pluralism, synecreticism, and the normalization of homosexuality and homosexual practice may be decribed as Anglican. It turns Anglican into a catch-all for all kinds of disparate theologies and practices, a far cry from the intent of the English Reformers who drew up the Thirty-Nine Articles.


Trinity, if you are referring to Trinity Episcopal for Ministry, has undergone a number of changes in the last few years. It has had a number of deans who come from different backgrounds, including charismatic. I receive TESM's news letter and their current dean states that TESM does not so much emphasize evangelical Anglicanism or Anglican evangelicalism but the Bible since its students come from a variety of backgrounds--charismatic, Anglo-Catholic, etc.

Reformation said...

Placing hand firmly on the thermostat...and the heat, truth and light goes upwards in Robin's articles.

Alas, a Confessional Anglican!

Not to be found in other centres of publicity and ACNA-enthusiasms.

Thanks Robin.

Reformation said...

A tribute to "my Dad," reared in Canadian Anglicanism and historic, Confessional Presbyterianism. Dad knew the differences. Anglicanism was our heritage.

Consider Dad's faithful witness at:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/09/my.html

Prayer Book, Confessional Anglicanism exists in memories, not realities. The moderns have left us.

Regards.

Reformation said...

Robin:

Dad was a Canadian, WW2, Vet, reared in historic Anglicanism and Presbyterianism.

I disavow the US and remain faithful to the 1662 BCP.

The moderns are dysfunctionally non-apostolic in doctrine, having cut themselves off from apostolic doctrine.

My reminesescnes on "Dad" are offered at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/09/my.html

I cannot and will not trust ACNA-mishmashers. I have an old BCP, the Articles and the old Reformation-faith.

I will not and shall not yield to the amnesiacs.

Phil