http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-anglican-v.html
[Theological Theology] 23 Oct 2009--So far I have tried to argue that Anglicanism is catholic, Protestant and Reformed. The formularies reveal a doctrinal base that values continuity with faithful Christians in all ages, the critical distinctives of the Protestant reformation and the emphases within that reformation exemplified in the theology of men like Bucer, Bullinger and Calvin. But perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that authentic Anglicanism is evangelical. After all, most historians date the evangelical movement from the revivals associated with John Wesley and George Whitefield. Isn't it rather anachronistic to speak of the foundations of authentic Anglicanism as 'evangelical'?
In one sense the answer to that question must of course be 'yes'. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that there is such a thing as an authentically Anglican evangelicalism which takes seriously both the Anglican theological and ecclesiastical heritage and the evangelical emphasis on the necessity of personal conversion and not simply church membership or attendance. It would be flying in the face of history to suggest there is no such a thing as authentic Anglicanism that is unambiguously evangelical.
That part of the evangelicalism of the eighteenth century which saw its heritage as indubitably Anglican arguably involved a return to reformation distinctives such as sola scriptura, the centrality of cross of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc. (all affirmed in the Anglican formularies), a repudiation of the growing formalism and sacramentalism that was emerging in certain quarters even a century before the Oxford Movement, and a new prominence to the issue of one's personal standing before God that did not necessarily negate or ignore the critical corporate dimension of the Christian life.
It is surely beyond dispute that there has been a long succession of evangelical leaders within the Church of England over the past three centuries. These men and women (Selina, Countess of Huntington comes to mind), did not want to leave the Church of England. They valued the doctrine of the Articles and the way the the gospel found expression in the Book of Common Prayer. It is certainly true that some did leave in time (Wesley himself being the preeminent example) but most saw no need, since in neither their doctrine nor their practice were they departing from authentic Anglicanism. Great hymn writers, powerful patrons of mission and social reform, great, perservering preachers of the gospel were used by God to breathe life into the established church.
15 comments:
In recent days, I have informally asked the question: If Anglicans were to restore the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles to their deserved preeminent or even exclusive status, would that be enough? To my surprise, I think the answer from some at least is 'no'. They don't think the 39 Articles have a sufficiently crystalized Reformation theology (cannot call it a 'confession'). Is that over-reaching?
It also seems that some reformed Anglicans are seeking additional cultural changes in the direction of low churchmanship. Again, is this over-reaching?
Finally, I wonder about Anglicanism in Africa and Sydney, both of which are considerably more evangelical than we find in the the UK and the America. Would it be acceptable to restore evangelical Anglicanism in the West through a 'vine' from elsewhere. And there again I think I'm seeing that many Anglican reformers would rather just say 'no'.
Anyway, I'd like to effect real change, but so far I don't see a battle plan; rather just battle cries.
Hudson,
I think that you need to identify those who deny that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a "confession" and explain in more detail why they take this position. Some of those who deny that the Articles are a confession do not want the limitations to theological diversity that a confession would impose upon the Anglican Church. Others deny that the Articles are a confession because it does not fit their idealized notions of a confession which in their minds should be much more detailed, extensive, and precise. The Articles permit much more theological diversity than they would prefer.
The Thirty-Nine Articles, however, are Anglicanism's confession of faith--too Reformed and too limiting for some and not Reformed enough and limiting enough for others.
Gillis Harp makes what I think is an important point in his Churchman article "Recovering Confessional Anglicanism."
"Although I have long been an amateur student of the Articles, I confess that I have become more keen about them in recent years. Like many Anglican evangelicals, I have long been an admirer of the Westminster Standards,
particularly the Shorter Catechism. My recent interaction with conservative confessional Presbyterians has convinced me of several things…Three (and more to the point here),the Westminster Standards, despite their many virtues, are occasionally too detailed and precise about secondary matters. This feature of Presbyterian confessional standards has created problems within conservative Presbyterian circles. Read about the current arguments within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) regarding the Confessionʼs wording about the days of creation (were they twenty-four hour periods or not? etc.) and you will understand my point. I would argue that the Articlesʼ brevity is a wonderful virtue (note here that I said brevity and not ambiguity—on the core issues, the Articles are decidedly not ambiguous, as we shall see). The Articles (along with the classic 1662 BCP) are one of Anglicanismʼs great treasures."
I totally agree with you Robin. Not to distract, but there's a smaller parallel conversation going on here at the moment: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Anglicans-in-the-Wilderness/115770010816?ref=ts I'm going to cross-post. Some gleanings:
1. Unlike other Reformed bodies, the Articles must be read with its companion texts in the 1662 BCP, including the forms of worship and the catechism. As such, the brevity of the Articles themselves is not such a problem.
2. There really are no ambiguities when the Articles are combined with the 1662 BCP, but let's allow for the fact that confusions do arise when they are combined with other Prayer Books.
3. As a personal preference, I like 17th Century English in liturgical worship, but I do not like it in Scripture readings, the catechism, or the Articles where the purpose is to teach and convey understanding principally to the mind (as opposed to the heart). I would therefore favor a modernized version of the Articles and the catechism... but without changing the meaning and content.
4. Also not be underestimated is the instructional value of the Creeds (three) if in fact they are correctly translated (cf. 1662 BCP, NOT '79 BCP) and used by catechists for their intended purpose... to instruct. I believe that a careful reading of the Nicene Creed, for example, reveals all or most of TULIP and the Solas. While Presbyterians have criticized Anglicans for not being confessional, one might criticize Presbyterians for not being credal. Both approaches come to the same endpoint.
As for identifying those who deny that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a "confession", I am sure they read your blog and will identify themselves as they see fit.
Aaytch:
You said:
"In recent days, I have informally asked the question: If Anglicans were to restore the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles to their deserved preeminent or even exclusive status, would that be enough? To my surprise, I think the answer from some at least is 'no'. They don't think the 39 Articles have a sufficiently crystalized Reformation theology (cannot call it a 'confession'). Is that over-reaching?"
I'm one who says "No," there's need to be an "upgrade" that informs the future. Elizabeth and James precluded that.
Aatych:
You said:
"Anyway, I'd like to effect real change, but so far I don't see a battle plan; rather just battle cries."
Concur, but who will the leader, Bp. Leonard Riches of the REC? Not. Or the amalgamists?
Not interested.
Robin:
You said:
"I think that you need to identify those who deny that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a "confession" and explain in more detail why they take this position. Some of those who deny that the Articles are a confession do not want the limitations to theological diversity that a confession would impose upon the Anglican Church. Others deny that the Articles are a confession because it does not fit their idealized notions of a confession which in their minds should be much more detailed, extensive, and precise. The Articles permit much more theological diversity than they would prefer."
Idealized notions of a confession?
Your term "idealized" is rather dismissive?
It will be a long time before we see the kind of maturity and biblical reflectiveness of an Archbishop John Usser with the Irish Articles.
Of course the ACNA leadership can't handle that. They're amalgamists bring their "Latitudinaran Biases" with them.
I'd prefer to call it "Latitudinarian Boxes," piled up in the old garage. Nobody's sorted the boxes of unidentified issues...other than to dismiss them.
And no one appears to have "principled" determinations to exegete the Bible first, do the theology secondly, and let Anglicanism be a fruit rather than the root.
Much of it is "tradition worship" to my mind.
Still weighing that.
Aaytch:
You said:
"1. Unlike other Reformed bodies, the Articles must be read with its companion texts in the 1662 BCP, including the forms of worship and the catechism. As such, the brevity of the Articles themselves is not such a problem."
The Articles cannot be read apart from the Reformed context of the English Reformers themselves.
The Articles are 90-ish years before 1662. There was a failure, in my estimation, to upgrade with biblical clarity.
Gillis Harp's article is nice, but--at this point--is not as closely argued as I'd like.
It's surely better, however, than Jack Leo Iker's open revisionism, reading the Articles through Newman's eyes, that is openly on offer in the ACNA...without as much as a peep or rebuttal at the site for virtual paper-jobs.
Aatych:
You said:
"While Presbyterians have criticized Anglicans for not being confessional, one might criticize Presbyterians for not being credal. Both approaches come to the same endpoint."
That's not going to fly, to wit, that Presbyterians are creedal. If you examine the WCF, you'll find the "Creedal" language embedded in them.
Further, the Reformed (Continental sense), e.g. the Heidelberg Catechism, is structured to the Apostles Creed.
The grand failure of the Civil War of England was tossing the Prayer Book. We're beyond that.
The grand failure of the Restorationists was their failure to listen and learn from one of the greatest assemblies of learned divines in history. For reading types, we're beyond that too.
To @reformation: I hear you Phil, but I still think that the combination of the Articles, the 1662 catechism, the 3 Creeds (in their original language) and the 1662 BCP itself is quite adequate for articulating the fullness of Reformation teaching. My only wish is for the Articles and the catechism to receive a modern english upgrade.
I realize that my view can be accused of being somewhat seeker sensitive, but I just don't think the Irish Articles is a practical (politically feasible) alternative. It is a long and complicated confession. Convincing Anglicans that the Articles should be junked in its favor is not going to be easy. Much easier to convince them that the Articles should be elevated to primacy, as the Jerusalem Declaration already did (ironically).
Aatych said:
"To @reformation: I hear you Phil, but I still think that the combination of the Articles, the 1662 catechism, the 3 Creeds (in their original language) and the 1662 BCP itself is quite adequate for articulating the fullness of Reformation teaching. My only wish is for the Articles and the catechism to receive a modern english upgrade."
The problem, of course, is that William Laud, in 1628, advocated the plain and literal reading of the Articles. He then promoted rank and odious Arminians to every high level post that he could.
Arminianism is rank error. I understand the "moderns" can't follow this, given the fact that its taking them--including now the diocese of SC--years to conclude that the TEC is going in the wrong direction.
Aaytch:
You said:
"I realize that my view can be accused of being somewhat seeker sensitive, but I just don't think the Irish Articles is a practical (politically feasible) alternative. It is a long and complicated confession. Convincing Anglicans that the Articles should be junked in its favor is not going to be easy. Much easier to convince them that the Articles should be elevated to primacy, as the Jerusalem Declaration already did (ironically)."
Of course its impracticable for the ACNA to embrace the Irish Articles. They have men who don't embrace the Articles in their primary, intended, natural and contextual sense. Iker reads the Articles like Newman. Asking Iker (and his company) to embrace the Irish Articles would be like asking the Pope to get married. Not going to happen.
Let me add a post on some thought from the ground, on this issue.
Aaytch:
1. Bible survey and questions (with answers), e.g. working through a set of say 1000 questions over a year or two...the NT. Same for the OT. Teach and disciple as our Majesty did. The Bible first. I taught NT and OT survey courses for five years after the military.
2. Out of that, some leadership should the LORD guide. Simple. You pass the tests or no further recommendations for leadership or advanced studies for graduate school, e.g. theology. If no completion, then a church leader as an aide-de-camp does not arise. Genuinely train people. Perhaps at a home or over coffee at Barnes and Noble. The "hungry" will come. Those seeking cafeteria religion, this city is full of that. Let them go there and be satisfied. The Bible is transcendant in authority to BCPs.
3. MP or EP to start, as an aside. Perhaps in time, HC.
4. Stay independent, but raise up one's own leadership. Since when did a church *necessarily* need a Bishop? OK, if they're Reformed, Confessional, and *consistent,* unlike the infamous Mr. (Bp.) Leonard Wayne Riches. Who can follow that capitulator? Why invest in something that is exposed to all the manifold faultlines of the coreless ACNA?
I'd rather have a handful of well-trained Marines for small unit action that the luggards with small to no theologies. Or, the substantial incoherencies of the ACNA. Or the charismatics of the ACNA. AMiA is nice, but where is the *principled" stands for the Reformation? For consistency of "confession with the mouth and heart" versus the "realities of incoherencies?"
These are my thoughts on the local situation here at Camp Lejeune.
Phil,
"Idealized" may not be the best choice but it was the best I could come up with. I had in mind individuals who will not recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles as a "confession" because it does not address theological issues that they believe that a confession should address. However, a confession is a formal statement of religious beliefs and the Thirty-Nine Articles meets that definition.
Hudson,
There are two contemporary language versions of the Thirty-Nine Articles on the Internet.
(1)Philip Edgcombe Hughes's A Restatement of The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion in Today's English (1988) is at: http://www.cesa.org.za/39-articles.html
(2)An English Prayer Book (1994), The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is at: http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/EnglishPrayerBook/EPB_Articles.htm
I include Hughes' A Restatement in An American Prayer Book, which is essentially a "translation" of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer into modern idiom with alterations and additions suggested by the 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayers Books; the 1785 Proposed American Prayer Book and the 1789 American Prayer Book; the 1926 Irish Prayer Book; the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book; the Free Church of England's 1956 Prayer Book; the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book; An Australian Prayer Book (1978), An English Prayer Book (1994), A Prayer Book for Australia (1995), the Diocese of Sydney's Sunday Services (2001); and the Anglican Church of Kenya's Our Modern Services (2002, 2003).
The missing part of the URL is:
EnglishPrayerBook/EPB_Articles.htm
Post a Comment