http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/11/anglicans-anglicants-and-anglicuckoos.html
[The Ugley Vicar] 20 Nov 2009--There is a moment in the otherwise-dire Once Upon a Time in Mexico, where Johnny Depp’s character asks a henchman, “Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican’t?”
I want to steal that idea to say how tired I am of the Anglican’t. You know the kind — the member of the Church of England (often one of the clergy) who hasn’t got a good word to say about it. Bishops are useless, Archdeacons execrable, the parish system an obstacle to gospel ministry, the parish quota an imposition, the priesthood unspeakable, the sacraments unnecessary, the Prayer Book a relic and modern liturgy a waste of space.
Now of course, there are many things wrong with some, if not all, of the above. But oddly enough, when you go to other parts of the Anglican Communion than our own, they have the same structures yet they are growing healthy churches in expanding dioceses.
I said to someone just the other day, it is rather like comparing armies. They all have footsoldiers and generals. They all have a bit of gold braid and a bit of ‘square bashing’ — but they vary hugely in their effectiveness and performance. The key is not having generals or getting rid of lance-corporals. It is in what you do with these things.
In the same way, such problems as the Church of England has are not because of bishops, parish boundaries, or any of the other things per se about which Anglican’ts complain.
So enough with the constant whingeing. If you think its that bad, why not go somewhere else? There are other boats, and there are plenty of fish out there to catch. And hey, it might actually be more fun.
But then we come to the Anglicuckoos.
10 comments:
So, would someone who comes to Anglicanism without any real background in it, and then proceeds to screech and squawk about how their version is the on true one, and want to drive out all others, be an Anglimagpie?
Robin, why don't you join ACNA and become an Anglo-Catholic. I'm sure they will welcome you and your semi-pelagian modern worship with open arms.
I don't plan to go anywhere. I'm a Christian first and I will continue to shoot at every heresy and heretic I see.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
Charlie,
In a number of your posts you have increasingly been trying to pick a fight with me over one thing or another. This most recent post is the most provocative. As you well know, I am not semi-pelagian or Anglo-Catholic in my theological views nor do I have any intentions of joining the ACNA so I must wonder at what benefit you gain from making accusations that are not only patently false but also ludicruous. Why also the need to assert that you are not planning to go anywhere, that you are a Christian first, and that you are a fierce opponent of heresy and heretics? No one to my knowledge has disputed that. I certainly have not.
Do you feel that somehow my latest blog entry was posted to criticize you? What specifically attracted me to this particular entry on The Ugly Vicar was John Ricardson's discription of Anglicuckoos. It reminded me of the cuckoo's egg's analogy that I have used elsewhere. Cuckoos lay their eggs in the nest of other birds and then fly away to leave the other birds to hatch and feed their chicks. The cuckoo chick pushes the real hatchlings and remaining eggs of its surrogate mother out of the nest. This analogy can be applied to liberals in the Cof E and TEC and to various groups in the ACNA. I was pleased to read Richardson make a similar observation.
It's Hortonesque Anglo-Magpie Gospel: Pharisaic self-justification through "purity" of one's doctrine.
Ironic, given the vituperation against Anglo-Catholic works justification, no? Protesting too much, and all that?
In other words: no Gospel, just "Law" (and not Biblical Law, but man's); no forgiveness, just censorious condemnation; no love, just spitting contempt.
Of course, this Pharisaism, just like its Liberal counterpart, is often based in unresolved personal sin.
Deep in ones soul, does one really know the Lord, or just contentious doctrine?
Is there fruit-bearing?
It's a question of eternal importance.
Dom:
Over several days, I waited for one response from you. Your bluff was called and you've resurfaced. Your answer never came. Can you, again, tell all of us what are the "doctrines of the ACNA?"
Please afford specifics, examples, book citations, blogsite, or other scholarly works for substantiation--other than theo-babble.
Putting your frequent theo-blather, theo-babble and theo-bluster--DOM--to the side, my question is for civil-minded man, Robin Jordan.
You're being called on it again. If nothing substantial, just be quiet.
Again, Robin, to matters of more importance and civility, how did you use the Cuckoo's analogy? I saw it at ugleyvicar earlier. (Trying to understand the UK situtation.)
What are the specifics? Specifics to ACNA?
Phil,
I posted two earlier articles on Anglicans Ablaze containing the cuckoo analogy—my own “Where Does the ACNA Really Stand on GAFCON?” (http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/05/where-does-acna-really-stand-on-gafcon.html) and Richard Kew’s “Cuckoo Theology” (http://richardkew.blogspot.com/2006/08/cuckoo-theology.html), which influenced my own thinking. In the comments thread in response to Glenn Davies’ “Is the ACNA too Catholic?” on Sydney Anglicans at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/is_acna_too_catholic/ I expand upon the views that I express in “Where Does the ACNA Really Stand on GAFCON?”
Phil,
I doubt that Dom can produce any statements of doctrine that the ACNA has issued beside the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement that the ACNA has incorporated into its constitution. Indeed the ACNA constitution and canons are the closest that the ACNA has come to a statement of doctrine. I am waiting to see what the ACNA produces in the way of a new Church Catechism. The commission charged with preparing this catechism is currently polling ACNA congregations regarding what they believe.
As for ACNA’s affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration the ACNA’s affirmation is in the words of Ephraim Radner “general” and “loose in its meaning.” It was also moved from the Fundamental Declarations article of the ACNA’s constitution to its preface. The ACNA’s affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration was largely political. It needed the recognition of the GAFCON Primates. Jack Iker, when he reassured Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would be determining the direction of the ACNA, shows how weak the ACNA ‘s actual doctrinal commitment is to the Jerusalem Declaration. CANA’s Anglican District of Virginia’s decision to adopt a stronger affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration in its constitution than that of the ACNA suggests that all ACNAers are not of one mind regarding the Jerusalem Declaration. CANA has also retained its connection with the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Nigeria played a leading role in the preparation of the Jerusalem Declaration and the official GAFCON exposition of that declaration. The Church of Nigeria has incorporated the Jerusalem Declaration into its new prayer book.
The thing with a cuckoo’s egg is that, when it hatches, the mother bird in whose nest it was laid, is unable to distinguish the baby cuckoo from its own brood. The baby cuckoo is also a very aggressive and demanding chick and the mother bird’s maternal instinct kicks in. Even if she harbors any doubts in her avian mind, that instinct keeps her feeding the baby cuckoo. She is also hard wired to preserve and perpetuate her species. It is these instincts that enable the baby cuckoo not only survive in the nest of its foster mother but also to prosper. The baby cuckoo ensures its survival by eliminating all competition for food, pushing the mother bird’s own hatchlings out of the nest along with any unhatched eggs. It is similar impulses to those motivating the mother bird that lead conservative evangelicals outside of North America to support the ACNA despite their reservations about the direction in which it is going. Unfortunately their support is also exploited within the ACNA to maintain the status quo.
Robin,
All that you have just stated is a crying shame.
Joe
Robin:
Thanks for your continuingly good input.
I'll ponder this some more.
Prima facie, it would appear that theology is a wax nose that can be punched and shaped according to subjectivistic interpreters canons of ego-exegesis.
I keep looking.
Thanks again.
Philip, the ACNA documents are out there for all to see. Why do you need me to spoon-feed them to you?
Post a Comment