By Robin G. Jordan
“Historic Anglicanism,” J. I. Packer writes in The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, “is not just a style of worship; it is also, and fundamentally a confessional stance.” Packer stresses that Anglican history exhibits a definite theological identity. This identity embodies Protestant evangelical belief. It is an identity that “satisfied and even delighted” both clergy and laity for three centuries after the Reformation. Against those who argue that a new concept of Anglicanism is needed, Packer raises a counter argument that the real need is to “lay hold afresh of the old concept from which we have drifted…; to grasp again the breadth of that old concept…; and to deepen it in the face of the vast complex of relativist and pluralist theologies” that have come to influence the Church in the twenty-first century.
Some of us would argue with Packer that the Anglican Church in Canada and the United States does indeed need to recover the Reformed confessional position of the Thirty-Nine Articles and historic Anglicanism. At the same time we recognize that due to the confusion over Anglican identity that the Tractarians and their Anglo-Catholic successors created in the nineteenth century others do not share our high estimation of the Anglican Church’s Protestant evangelical heritage. The Ancient Future movement with its romanticization of the Medieval Church, its fascination with ancient liturgies, and its emphasis upon piety and practice to the neglect of doctrine has added to this confusion. Those whose ideas of Anglicanism have been shaped by these influences form a larger group in North America than we do. They have bought into the myths relating to Anglicanism that have been in circulation since the nineteenth century. They also show the influence of the movement that is afoot to redefine evangelicalism, to strip it of its Protestant identity and to recast it in a Catholic mold.
One myth that I ran into this past week was that Elizabeth I imposed Protestantism on the English Church at the point of a bayonet. The historical inaccuracy of this view was quite evident. The bayonet did not replace the pike until the eighteenth century. The truth is that Protestantism had already taken root in England before Elizabeth ascended the throne. The number of ordinary laypeople who suffered martyrdom for their Protestant opinions in the reign of Elizabeth’s older sister is testimony to how quickly Protestantism had spread during the brief reign of Edward VI. Mary was not successful in stamping out Protestantism.
Elizabeth herself recognized that if she were to secure her throne as the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, she would have to embrace the Protestant cause. At the same time she sought not to provoke the Recusants to open rebellion. The Protestantism of the Elizabethan Settlement is more moderate in form than many in Elizabeth’s Privy Council and the English Parliament desired. Yet like the Protestantism of Geneva and Zurich, it is decidedly Reformed in character.
A myth is a prevalent but false belief. Because it is prevalent, it is accepted as true. Its veracity is not questioned but is taken for granted. People are apt to react to the revelation that a myth is a conventionally accepted falsehood with denial and disbelief. This reaction may explain why myths persist even when they are exposed as untruths.
A second myth about which I have written elsewhere is the myth of the Anglican via media, which originated with the Tractarian leader and Roman Catholic saint John Henry Cardinal Newman. The closest that historic Anglicanism is to a via media is between Geneva and Zurich.
A third myth is that Anglicanism recognizes seven sacraments like Roman Catholicism. While Anglo-Catholicism may ape Roman Catholicism and recognize seven sacraments, historic Anglicanism shares the Reformed position and recognizes only two sacraments—baptism and the supper of the Lord.
A fourth myth is that Anglicanism holds the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The Thirty-Nine Articles describe baptism as “a sign of regeneration or new birth” by which—“as by an instrument—“those who “receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.” By this sign “the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed.”
The doctrine of the reformed Church of England is that the sacraments are effectual signs of grace by which God works invisibly in us. They have a wholesome effect or operation only in those who worthily receive them. The grace of regeneration does not automatically or invariably accompany baptism. This grace may be received before, in, or after baptism or not at all.
In referring to the newly baptized as regenerate the Book of Common Prayer (1662) uses the language of charitable presumption. The Offices of Baptism assumes that the newly baptized is regenerate until the contrary is proven. Likewise the Funeral Service assumes that the deceased was a faithful Christian.
A fifth myth is that the historic Anglican position on the eucharistic presence is the doctrine of the Real Presence, that is, Christ is present in some way or another in the consecrated bread and wine of the Holy Communion. Historic Anglicanism, however, does not tie Christ’s presence to the bread and wine. Rather to those who “rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread…is a partaking the body of Christ, and likewise the cup… is a partaking of the blood of Christ.” In other words, we do not receive the body and blood of Christ through the medium of the bread and wine. Rather our receiving of Christ’s body and blood accompanies our eating and drinking. It is a spiritual operation. It is by the means of faith that we receive and eat the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Those who are wicked or in whom a vital faith is absent are not partakers of Christ.
The rubrics of the form for the Communion of the Sick (1662)emphasize that we do not need to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with our mouth in order to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. All that is required is that we repent of our sins and steadfastly believe that Christ has suffered death upon the cross for us and shed his blood for our redemption, earnestly remember the benefits that are ours by Christ’s death, and give Christ our heartfelt thanks for them.
A sixth myth is that historic Anglicanism maintains that the Holy Spirit or the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given through the imposition of episcopal hands at confirmation. I have examined the development of this myth elsewhere. The historic Anglican understanding of confirmation is catechetical. After instruction the confirmand professes his faith in Christ before the gathered church and receives the prayers of the church.
A seventh myth is that the historic Anglican position on episcopacy is that bishops are of the essence of the Church. The Anglican Reformers found no evidence of a Scriptural mandate for any particular form of church government or polity. While they retained bishops, they recognized the validity of the orders and sacraments of the Continental Reformed Churches that did not retain them. While the Caroline High Churchmen highly esteemed the episcopate, they likewise recognized the validity of Continental Reformed Churches’ orders and sacraments. It is not until the nineteenth century Tractarian movement that we encounter a group in the Anglican Church that maintained that bishops were essential to the Church. Without them, the Tractarians insisted, there was no Church.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral does not take this position. Rather it recommends the historic episcopate, adapted to local conditions, as a part of a plan for Church reunion.
All of these myths are traceable to the nineteenth century Tractarian movement. They represent the Tractarian redefinition of Anglicanism. They are not the only myths in circulation. They, however, are the most influential and the most pervasive.
These myths have been elevated to the status of official doctrine in the Anglican Church in North America with the consequence that Anglicans who do not subscribe to them but uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies and the teaching of the Anglican Reformers and historic Anglicanism are excluded from that want-to-be Anglican province. They may become a member of the ACNA but at the price of their convictions and their integrity.
They are faced with a situation not very different from that in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. They may privately hold the doctrine of historic Anglicanism but they cannot teach that doctrine or practice its implications without eventually coming into conflict with official doctrine—in the case of the ACNA, myths that have statutory sanction. They are either stated or implied in the ACNA constitution and canons—in Article I of the constitution and in various provisions of the canons.
The leaders of the ACNA could rectify this situation. However, they show neither the will nor the inclination to do so. They appear content to leave things as they are. It does not disturb their consciences that the adherents of historic Anglicanism who do not subscribe to these myths and are not willing to compromise their beliefs and values are by their statutory sanction in the ACNA excluded from membership in the ACNA. It does not trouble them that they are doing the same kind of thing that was done to them in The Episcopal Church and they are doing it to another group of conservative Anglicans!
The adherents of historic Anglicanism believe in the authority and inspiration of the Bible. They accept the teaching of the creeds. They uphold the moral teaching of the Bible. They reject the relativist and pluralistic teaching that prevails in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. They stand in continuity with the teaching of the Anglican Reformers on key issues. They are genuinely Anglican and arguably more genuinely Anglican than those who subscribe to such myths but they are treated as if they were liberals who believe that the Bible is no more inspired than the plays and sonnets of William Shakespeare, Christianity is only one of a number of paths to God, and the Holy Spirit is prompting them to normalize homosexuality and homosexual practice in the Church!
The leaders of the ACNA may not realize it but what they are doing may be to their eternal shame. We must give an accounting to our Lord of everything we have said and done. Most of us do not give enough thought to this fact. We talk and act as if we are answerable to no one.
With a few notable exceptions evangelicals outside of North America appear to be oblivious to the plight of the adherents of historic Anglicanism in North America. If they do recognize their plight, they for political reasons turn a blind eye to what is happening. The thinking is that the illusion of a united front against liberalism must be maintained lest divisions come to light that the liberals may exploit to their advantage. After all, the ACNA is GAFCON in North America (even though its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration is at best token and at least one of its leaders, Bishop Jack Iker, has publicly rejected that document.)
After the last Primates Meeting it should be quite evident that the liberals have seized the levers of power in the Anglican Communion and the illusionary unity that the conservatives have sought to maintain has not proven a deterrent. Any fear that public criticism of the ACNA leaders would in some fashion play into the liberals’ hands is no longer a credible reason for not taking them to task for failing to make the ACNA comprehensive enough to include adherents of historic Anglicanism who do not subscribe to these myths.
The inaction of evangelicals outside of North America suggests that they are divided over the ACNA as they are over the liberals and cannot agree on a course of action. It further suggests that they are too absorbed in their own problems. In the ACNA their inaction is interpreted as support for everything that the ACNA leaders are doing. The GAFCON Primates’ recognition of the ACNA as “a genuine expression of Anglicanism” and more recently the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ ratification of the College of Bishop’s recognition of Bishop Derek Jones’ orders lends credibility to this view.
I am reminded of how parents are apt to react when they learn for the first time that their child has misbehaved in school. Unless their child exhibits problem behavior at home and even if he does exhibit such behavior, they are likely to react with incredulity and denial. They may minimize the seriousness of the behavior. They may blame the teacher. They are likely to do everything but recognize their child’s behavior for what it is—disruptive, unruly, and possibly symptomatic of a learning problem, a lack of parental firmness and consistency, or something of that order. Consequently, the behavior will worsen until something is finally done. If the parents are uncooperative, the school has the option of involving the county child protection agency and the courts. But the adherents of historic Anglicanism in North America have no such recourse. They are on their own as far as human help.
The statutory sanctioning of these myths its constitution and canons are not the only obstacles to the participation of historic Anglicanism’s adherents in the Anglican Church in North America. However, it is a major barrier to their involvement.
One way to reduce or eliminate this barrier would be to incorporate the following provisions as an article of the ACNA constitution.
ARTICLE XVI: RECOGNITION OF DIVERGENT OPINIONS IN THE PROVINCE
The Anglican Church in North America recognizes and acknowledges that Anglicans have been historically been divided over a number of doctrines explicitly stated or implied in the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America and the canons adopted thereunder. Without prejudice to those who maintain such doctrinal beliefs the policy of the Anglican Church in North America shall be as follows:
1. Nothing in this constitution or the canons adopted thereunder or in the constitution and canons of any diocese or other judicatory united with Anglican Church in North America or in the governing documents of any congregation thereof shall be construed to bar any individual, clergy or lay, any congregation, or group of congregations from membership in the ACNA, and in the case of individuals from not only membership but also office in the ACNA and its constituent dioceses and congregations on the basis that they cannot subscribe unreservedly to the Fundamental Declarations of the Anglican Church in North America and the other doctrinal provisions of this constitution and the canons adopted thereunder.
2. Nothing in this constitution or the canons adopted thereunder or in the constitution and canons of any diocese or other judicatory united with Anglican Church in North America or in the governing documents of any congregation thereof shall be construed to prohibit such individuals, congregations, or groups of congregations from teaching any doctrine different from the doctrines explicitly stated or implied in this constitution or the canons adopted thereunder and from putting such doctrine into practice.
3. Nothing in this constitution or the canons adopted thereunder shall be construed to prohibit such groups of congregations from forming non-geographic dioceses or other judicatories on the basis of affinity and uniting with the Anglican Church in North America or to prohibit such groups of congregations from banding together for common mission or forming distinct jurisdictions as the sub-provincial level.
4. Nothing in this constitution or the canons adopted thereunder shall be prohibit such groups of congregations from developing, adopting, using, and revising alternative rites and forms to any Book of Common Prayer or liturgy adopted by the Province; provided that such alternative rites and forms conform with the doctrinal provisions of Section 5 (1)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv), and (v) below.
5. (1) Wherever in the provisions of the constitution and canons of this Province, the constitution and canons of its constituent dioceses and other judicatories, and the governing documents of the congregations thereof subscription to the Fundamental Declarations set forth in this constitution is required, those for whom such subscription is required may substitute in its place a signed written declaration stating:
(i) They hold the Christian faith as uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and professed by the Christian Church from primitive times, and in particular, as set forth in the Catholic Creeds and the Formularies of the reformed Church of England;
(ii) They receive all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the Word of God written and the ultimate Rule and Standard of Faith and Life of the Church, given by the inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation;
(iii) They recognize the threefold ministry of deacon, presbyter, and bishop as the historical norm of the reformed Church of England;
(iv) They affirm that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and sexual relations outside that context is sinful in God’s eyes;
(v) They are determined by the help of God to uphold and preserve the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord has commanded in his Holy Word, and as the reformed Church of England has received and set forth in her Formularies; and to transmit the same unimpaired to their posterity.
(2) Such declaration shall be consider to fulfill the subscription requirement of the aforesaid provisions.
By adopting such an article, the Anglican Church in North America would clearly demonstrate a commitment to a genuine comprehensiveness that makes room in the ACNA for all conservative Anglicans.
13 comments:
I agree that the adoption of these proposals would remove many of the obstacles that stand between ACNA and Reformed Anglicans. However, I wonder whether Reformed Anglicans would feel any compunction to join such a loosely defined provincial organization whose cause of existence is merely of a traditional, aesthetic and cultural nature rather than of Faith and doctrine. Would it not make more sense for Reformed Anglicans to bind themselves with other Reformed Christians who share the same understanding of Faith and doctrine, yet differ in matters of tradition, aesthetics and culture? Moreover, there is a presumption in your proposal that subscribing Anglicans will all share the same Faith, but that would prove to be a false assumption if Anglo-Catholics and "three stream" Anglicans see its doctrinal provisions as non-binding... which is highly likely.
In other words, should Reformed Anglicans want to join ACNA on the singular justification that they are "welcomed"? If ACNA's structure were federated rather than hierarchical, would that be sufficient reason for joining?
I don't think it's possible for ACNA to now become a federated structure, so it's hardly worth thinking about. For one, that would be anathema to Anglo-Catholics. I find myself thinking that the only thing ACNA might offer Reformed Anglicans is a kind of "ordinariate" within ACNA. Ask yourself this: what would Cranmer do?
aaytch,
You pose the rhetorical question "What would Cranmer do?"
What Cranmer did was to reform the church from within the church. He did not start a new church as the Roman Catholics claim. Cranmer saw the reforms that he introduced as returning the church to the beliefs of the primitive church.
Cranmer's support of the break with the papacy was consistant with his efforts to reform the English Church. In Cranmer's understanding of the primitive church the pope was simply the bishop of the church in Rome. He was one of a number of bishops with no right to claim primacy, much less supremacy over the other bishops.
The problem with your proposal is that you would relinquish the definition of Anglicanism to the Anglo-Catholics and the "three streams-one river" folks rather than work to restore its Protestant and Reformed character. Without realizing it you are allying yourself with those who call for a new concept of Anglicanism. You yourself have admitted that you prefer not to use the terms "Anglican" and "Anglicanism."
Essentially you want to start a new church, one that fits with the particular Reformed principles that you embrace, uses a liturgy based on the Anglican Prayer Book, and has close ties to the more conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America.
Cranmer, while he worked to reform the English Church, also sought to preserve continuity with the past. He did not start a new church. He had correspondence with the Continental Reformers because he saw them as doing the same thing.
What you propose would create a Reformed church but it would not be an Anglican Reformed church nor would stand in the Anglican Reformed tradition. I suspect that it would over time become another conservative non-liturgical Presbyterian church. There is a strong anti-liturgical tendency in North American Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The popularity of contemporary worship in these churches reinforces this tendency. Contemporary worship is non-liturgical.
Cranmer was a reformer. He was not a seperatist. He imprisoned the Anabaptists who were seperatists.
One cannot reform a church from outside it. One must establish a witness against unreformed Catholic doctrine and practice within the church. At the same time it makes sense for pastoral and strategic reasons to establish an ecclesial body to enfold congregations that for reasons of conscience cannot become a part of that witness. This body, however, should be an Anglican Reformed body that embodies the Protestant and Reformed character of historic Anglicanism.
Cranmer also lived in 16th century England. We live in 21st North America. We are faced with a quite different set of challenges.
The question is not "What would Cranmer do?" Rather "What are we going to do and to what end?"
Even if we conclude the establishment of an Anglican Reformed body is our only option, we must make sure that it is clear to everybody that we were left with no other choice. The Anglican Church in North America repeatedly refused to make room for congregations and clergy adhereing to historic Anglicanism except at the expense of their theological convictions. It must be clear to all that the ACNA is not willing to make a place for authentic historic Anglicanism in its teaching and life. Your proposal would not accomplish that.
The fact is Robin that nobody of our persuasion is working inside ACNA, not even you. We are all outsiders. Indeed, that is the premise of your article. If we are not outsiders, then the "welcome mat" which leads your article has no meaning.
The point behind the rhetorical question about Cranmer is that if he had been offered an opportunity to establish a federated branch of the Roman church, one that would delegate to Rome only as much as it wished, he would not have taken the deal. For him, any attachment to that misbelieving church would have been anathema.
I must now ask rhetorically what the apostle Paul might say to this notion that we must hang onto the Anglican name and tradition. He would say (I paraphrase from 1 Corintians 1)... "Christ did not send me to preach Anglicanism, but the gospel, and that not with an eloquent Anglican tongue, lest the cross of Christ should be robbed of its power."
The battle for the "Anglican" label is over. Precisely because I'm not attached to it, I do not care whether Anglo-Catholics run off with ownership of the "Anglican" definition. I see no reason to drag Christ into the muddy mire with the "Anglican" label that is already sullied and shredded beyond recognition or possibility of recovery.
I see what you mean about there being a "strong anti-liturgical tendency" in some Reformed circles, but your observation is really just a cursory and unperceiving glance. Even if it were true that the liturgical tradition of the Reformed churches is entirely gone, that would be no reason not to want to replant it there. And it will be far easier to replant the liturgical tradition in the soil of Reformed faith than it would be to replant Reformed faith in the soil of disbelief.
I agree totally with your last point, that we must make it plain to everybody that we are left, by ACNA, with no other choice. That is precisely what they have done.
Hudson
aaytch,
The problem is that the leaders of the ACNA have not clearly left Anglicans upholding the tenets of historic Anglicanism with no other choice. In fact, they have been very cagey. I suspect that they would be quite happy for the adherents of historic Anglicanism to do something like you propose. This way they would not have to do anything and therefore show their hand.
There are a number of conservative Reformed denominations in North America. Some do have liturgical traditions although by and large most have succumbed to anti-liturgical tendencies. What is the point of establishing another one of them? I do not think that a new liturgical Reformed denomination would get very far in bringing about a revival of interest in liturgy in US Presbyterian and Reformed denominations even in those with a liturgical tradition. Most liturgical-leaning pastors in these denominations end up leaving.
In the nineteenth century Evangelical Episcopalians accepted the Tractarian Episcopalian reinterpretation of the American Prayer Book. When they were unsuccessful in revising the American Prayer Book, they left the ProtestantEpiscopal Church and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church. They adopted their own Prayer Book. 138 years later the REC is using the 1928 American Prayer Book, which is decidely High Church and Anglo-Catholic. They left the Protestant Episcopal Church without an Evangelical wing. The consequences of their departure are still being worked out in the Anglican Church in North America as well as The Episcopal Church.
There was a similar misinterpretation of the English Prayer Book and some Evangelicals were urging their fellow Evangelicals to leave the Church of England and form a new evangelical denomination. One group did and formed the Free Church of England, which like the REC experienced very slow growth.
Bishop J.C. Ryle, on the other hand, urged his fellow Evangelicals not to leave the Church of England. To this day the Church of England has an Evangelical wing. In weighing our options we need to consider the lessons of history.
I have enough contacts with people in the ACNA that I am not willing to write off that entire body as not preaching the gospel. I do not believe that we can make that kind of generalization.
J. C. Ryle's advice to his fellow Evangelicals was that they should staying in the Church of England until it became impossible to preach the gospel. That has not happened yet in the Church of England. It has not happened yet in the Anglican Church in North America. Some ACNA pastors may preach sacraments and good works but others preach salvation by grace by faith in Jesus Christ.
This part of the ACNA need to be strengthened. For this reason I champion a two-pronged approach.
Well, I am not going to go through every disagreement I have. However, I believe I should note at least a few.
Anglican's recognition of 7 Sacraments has to do with the separation of them. The 2 dominical ones Baptism and the Eucharist as "generally" needed for salvation. These are the ones from the Gospel (as stated in the 39 Articles) The other 5 known as the Minor ones aren't needed for salvation, but did not have same order as the 2 dominical ones and the minor ones can be modified or changed as the Church desires. And these are "states of life allowed". again see the 39 Articles.
Also the Sacraments are not mere "tokens" they are signs of Grace that God bestows upon us. see the 39 articles again.
Your claim about baptismal regeneration. See the Authorized Version of the Bible (known as the King James): Titus 3:5-7
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life
Myth 6 - Well, I would look at Articles 19,20, 23, and 24. Makes the point that a Deacons, Priests, and Bishops must called and lawfully sent out. looking at 1549 and 1662 prayer book it states "Receive the Holy Ghost...etc" This looks an awful like Succession and right Doctrine. This isn't either or. It is exclusive and logical statement. you must have both to make it true.
Also referencing another Rubric from another service you have denied in other posts but use it here to benefit your position. So you can't be both can you use rubrics from other services or not?
I find your logic flawed. Based on your logic you would need to start your own church, but that still doesn't jive with your logic.
George,
Philip Edgcombe Hughes' The Theology of the English Reformers addresses the position of the Reformers on the sacraments, which is the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles. They rejected the Roman Catholic sacramental system.
The Scriptural passage to which you refer, Titus 3:5-7, over which New Testament scholars are divided as to what it means. John Dunn points out that the phrase "the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" is an idiomatic way of describing the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. In the Bible water and the Holy Spirit are often coupled together in what is a reference to the Holy Spirit and not baptism.
You will have to show where I actually specifically contradict myself by quoting the passage with a link to the larger text. You cannot simply assert that I contradict myself. You must clearly demonstrate that I do.
You are reading meanings into the Articles that cannot be read out of them. The Articles say nothing about apostolic succession.
Because the the consecrating bishop prays for the Holy Spirit, which is what he is doing when he says, "Receive the Holy Ghost...," it does not follow that the Ordinal teaches the Roman Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. Hague and others have addressed the use of this particular form in the Ordinal.
All of your arguments reflect the Anglo-Catholic reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal. Charles Henry Hamilton Wright and Charles Neil's A Protestant Dictionary, Charles P. McIlvaine's Oxford Divinity Compared with That of the Romish and Anglican Churches, Dyson Hague's The Protestantism of the Prayer Book, Charles Neil and J. M. Willoughby's The Tutorial Prayer Book, and other works point out how the Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologues misinterpreted the Articles and the Prayer Book in their attemptto give them "a Catholic sense."
At the Church Society web site you will a substantial collection of articles, tracts, and books refuting your assertions and articulating the doctrinal positions of historic Anglicanism as opposed to those of Tractarianism and Anglo-Catholicism.
The historical evidence supports my basic assertion that what I identify in my articles as myths are indeed myths.
I will retract the comment about contradiction. The posting I thought I remembered reading was not the right one. And since I can't find it. I apologize for the characterization.
As far the succession, I am offering the Hooker perspective. It looks a lot like succession, and it is not explicit in the Articles or the Bible. However, The Church of England sought to maintain the Episcopate with both parts. Bishops laying of hands, the "Receive the Holy Ghost..", and pronouncing they charged with teaching the Gospel and right doctrine.
To have one and not the other is deficient. Roman Catholics suggest all you need is Succession. This easily leads to heretically teaching. Clergy are sinners just like us so if they begin teaching things contrary to Gods word the Church is bound to depose them. No amount the of assurance of Succession makes what they teach true.
and the other is just teaching the Gospel and right doctorine. However, the Articles explicitly state you must be called and sent out by the Church to administer the Sacraments and teach the Gospel. You could be teaching right doctrine and the Gospel accurately, but were not lawfully granted that to do this by the Church. The person is going contrary to what the Articles state and the Prayer book Ordinal.
George,
Remember that the Thirty-Nine Articles are Erastian on Church-state relations. This has bearing upon the meaning of Article XXIII.
This article is directed against the sixteenth century Anabaptist practice of individuals appointing themselves preachers of congregations solely on the basis of what they believed was a call from God.
The Articles adopt the position of the Continental Reformed Churches other than Geneva. In these Churches the magistrate had "public authority to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard." In the case of the Church of England the magistrate is the Her Majesty the Queen as the supreme governor of the Church. The bishops are ministers of the Crown. The authority that they exercise is delegated.
As much as Anglicans might hope that Reformed Churches would be as obstinate in their refusal to appreciate liturgical worship as they are to appreciate the theology of Sovereign Grace, it is simply not true. Here's just one example from my reading of today: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/responses-to-lane-and-others-on-recovering-reformed-worship/ I think you will find among the most Reformed of the Reformed, if you look, a palatable sense of humility concerning their own tradition and a longing to rediscover liturgy, even if they might not say it in just those words.
I challenge you to try to make your case against the Reformed with examples of the most Reformed rather than the least Reformed. I don't think you can do it.
aaytch,
I do not have time for challenges. In any event why would I want to make a case against the Reformed. You are not making sense to me.
I recognized a number of years ago after repeatedly trying to interest my former rector in planting a new church that God given me the passion for church planting, not him.
How is this applicable to this discussion? God may have given you a passion for starting a new Reformed denomination, not me. God may have given you a vision to reintroduce liturgy to existing Reformed denominations, not me.
I have shared with you where I sense God is prompting me to focus my efforts. I do not sense any prompting to go in the direction that you believe that he is prompting you. It is not what he has drawn to my attention.
As I see things, it is not a question of whether your ideas have merit but whether the particular venture that you are proposing is one God is prompting me to undertake. I do not sense that he is. I sense that he has other things for me to do. God usually gives us a passion for those things that he wishes us to undertake. We can urge others to undertake a venture but if the passion is not there, we are likely urging the wrong people as was my experience with my former rector.
I have a number of interests and passions but none of them are relate to what you ar proposing--the formation of a new Reformed denomination. My interests and passions are related to the reviving and strengthening of the Anglican Reformed tradition in existing Anglican bodies and the banding together of Anglican Reformed congregations and clergy for common mission, including the planting of Anglican Reformed congregations, in and outside existing Anglican bodies.
"Forming a new Reformed denomination" is not something that I ever espoused specifically. If I had, then perhaps my position would be made of straw.
That being said, I was thinking about your illustration of J.C. Ryle, how he stuck to the CofE when his colleagues were leaving it for other Reformed churches. Yet I feel that if he were here today, he would find it extremely uncomfortable to remain in the CofE, or in the official "Anglican Communion", or in ACNA. There comes a point at which Anglican doctrinal pluralism just goes too far.
I won't respond in this thread again. You can have the last word if you want it.
Post a Comment