homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is the Church of England Doomed? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is the Church of England Doomed?
aig
Shipmate
# 429

 - Posted      Profile for aig     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it is doomed - I'm going down with the ship. (The Captain is the last person to leave the ship - if the Captain should pass you on his way to the lifeboat - you assume the Rank of Captain).

--------------------
That's not how we do it here.......

Posts: 464 | From: the middle bit at the bottom slightly to the right | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS to my last post - on re-reading it seems pretty negative. There are danger signs, but as others have pointed out in most places the CofE plods on much the same as ever. Maybe Cosmo (God bless him) has got a London-centred view on it... large 'successful' Jensenite churches are pretty rare in this part of the country and most of our local evangelicals are happy to be part of the same show as the rest of us. Common Worship - despite the flak it gets from all sorts of quarters - has the potential to be a unifying factor.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The question that reoccurs is why is the Cathedral tradition held to be classic Anglicanism - and the efforts of Alphaites not. And why should the Alphaites be excluded from being Cathedral Deans - or is the claim about the CofE being a 'broad church' hiding a 'glass ceiling' if your face doesn't fit (Wescott House yes, St Stephens or Wycliffe never?)

That said I would like to hope John Irvine has the sense to leave the existing services alone, and merely add additional things like this Cathedral praise. On the other hand there is a logic which says the whole existance of an eclectic cathedral congregation cuts across another classical Anglican tradition of the parish [Wink]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Non-sacramental, non-liturgical American-influenced evangelicalism is rapidly taking over large swathes of the Cof E.
Via Sydney, where it has been through a 30 year filtration process... (speaking of things within the CofE) [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942

 - Posted      Profile for Ms Byronic   Author's homepage         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think the Church of England is doomed - I certainly hope it isn't. I think all true Christians of whatever denomination would agree with the sentiments I have just expressed.

The CofE is as we all know a broad church made up of many parts, three main factions - Anglo Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical.

All three factions bring gifts and insights to the CofE and the greater body of Christ but the tensions are showing.

My own gripe with the dear old CofE (long may she carry on) is her doctrinal fuzziness - particularly on moral issues.

I feel that moves in the last couple of decades to allow re'marriage' of divorcees in churches has been severely detrimental to members of the Anglican communion, to the detriment of children and contrary to gospel teaching.

This more than anything has resulted in a falling away from Anglicanism - paradoxically such measures were supposed to bring Anglicanism in line with contemporary society but have done nothing to stem the the loss of bums on seats (or should that be pews?).

Its not hard to imagine why. I feel that people like a standard to live up to; they want a church with inviolable principles.

Who can have faith in a church without principles, a community without courage?

This is the quandary contemporary Anglicanism must look squarely in the face.

I hope the Anglican Church meets that challenge in the future - it is my conviction that Anglicanism has a lot to offer.

The gradual extinction of the Church of England would be a tragedy for all Christians.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:
Non-sacramental, non-liturgical American-influenced evangelicalism is rapidly taking over large swathes of the Cof E.
Via Sydney, where it has been through a 30 year filtration process... (speaking of things within the CofE) [Roll Eyes]
Or via Toronto & John Wimber - themselves strongly influenced by the British Restoration churches (mostly made of ex-Anglicans!) and Anglican charismatics, who were themselves influenced by...

I blame St. Francis personally [Smile]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The OP raises interesting questions and anyone who takes their commitment to the Church (as imperfectly expressed in the backwater that is the CofE) seriously needs to think carefully about them.

However, equally a lot of presuppositions underlying the OP have to be considered in some detail. A lot of things are assumed which demand critical reflection, and many a question has been left begging.

Firstly, the phrase "classical Anglicanism" has been used. To put it bluntly – which one? At what point can we say that such a thing emerges?

The first port of call would probably be Hooker's work at the end of the 16th Century, but that in itself creates a problem - as demonstrated by +Sykes, one of the strong themes in Hooker is the freedom of the Church to model itself in manners that are appropriate to the particular time and place (a point which agrees with the Articles). Fine though he is, appealing to Hooker does not help us very much (especially as he is explicitly opposed to the ordination of women, and Anglicanism as a world-wide phenomenon is in a process of receiving women’s ordination.).

Another source could be the notion that Anglicanism is that which is set out in the Prayer Book, the Articles and the Ordinal. In fact, this was the formal, official position for most of the CofE's history (and recognition of this is demanded from all its Ordained ministers).

But it would be fair to say that, especially with regard to the Articles, these were honoured more often in the breach. The Prayer Book and Articles contain statements which the CofE has never rescinded and to which assent is required by clergy at ordination (and one section of the 1662 Act of Uniformity remains in force as part of the law of England as opposed to just Canon Law: it refers to the need for preachers in all chapels and churches only to preach doctrines consistent with the Church’s formularies – the heading to the section reads: “Assent to the thirty-nine articles”....). Amongst these are statements specifically and unambiguously excluding practices that are tolerated and encouraged. The combination of Prayer Book, Articles and Ordinal has far more claim to “classical Anglicanism” than any inventions of the mid-19th century (be they Anglo-Catholicism or Jensenite “heirs of the reformation” or whatever).

So where is this "classical Anglicanism" and did it ever exist? Perhaps Gwyn A. Williams’ next historical study should be entitled “When Was Anglicanism”. There are many groups which claim to be heirs of Anglicanism – today’s Evangelicals, the Evangelicals of the 18th and 19th century, the Anglo-Catholics, the Prayer Book Society, and there are countless groups ranging from the Non-Jurors to the Church of England (Continuing)TM who have maintained that they are the rightful Anglicans. (No! I am Spartacus!”). It would be fair to say that the Anglicanism of the period 1688-1850 has as much, if not more, claim to be “classical Anglicanism” than anything at Margaret Street or Sussex Gardens or our cathedrals. And claims of returning to “historic” or “classical Anglicanism” are as problematic as claims to return to the primitive or NT Church – it’s like trying to hit a moving target from a speeding vehicle with bad suspension and using a catapult.

Operated by me.

Blindfolded.

With my arms tied behind my back.

And facing the wrong way.

It is also necessary to lose the parochial nature of such a discussion - the CofE and "Anglicanism" are not coterminous. This is brought out sharply in the current controversy regarding ++Jensen. The divisions within Sydney diocese lie along a historical stress-point inherent in Anglicanism. Sydney was Anglicanised from two different directions - the CofE, and then mostly by the so-called "catholic" wing (given that the Church itself is “catholic”, can any part of it be more or less so than any other?), and the C of Ireland, which would probably be regarded as more "Protestant" (presumably because of the historical and cultural situation it found itself developing within Ireland ). Even in that one diocese there are competing forms of "Anglicanism". Unless someone is seriously suggesting that the English version is the purer form, the only conclusion available is that “Anglicanism” has at its heart difference and dialectic, not unity and uniformity (and given its origins, formed by a Catholic King wishing to assert his authority and a Protestant Archbishop with his own views on the nature of the Church, this is not surprising). When we further consider the wide spectrum of what it is to be Anglican, we are left unable to define "classical Anglicanism" at all, and that rather than being some everlasting ontological thing in itself, "Anglicanism" refers to what Anglicans have not only done in the past but what they are doing now.. Christianity, as +Stevenson said, is not a set of ideas but rather something that happens to people, and as Byrne has rightly stated, people are strange. Many people simply do not experience Christianity in the Anglican Church as “episcopal, sacramental and dignified”. To embrace Anglicanism, therefore, is to embrace ambiguity, contradiction, conflict and change.

The second point where more thought is needed is in realising what the Church (and, therefore, Churches such as the CofE) is actually for.

One thing it is not for is self-preservation. The Church, like all of creation, is entirely contingent. As ++Ramsay (in his rather patchy "The Gospel and the Catholic Church") pointed out, the Church's mission and work exists within the context of the Passion. Talk about things being "doomed" or "slipping" is missing the point.

Perhaps it was when I was ill or something, but a few months ago I found myself agreeing with a comment made by +Ebbsfleet on the whingin- sorry, Letters page of the News of the Church. He pointed out that the orders of the Church, and the Church itself aare not there for their own benefit, but rather about the bringing into existence of a state of affairs when things like orders would be no longer necessary. The Church is about leading people to that position where they are able to be before God face to face.

Not much of this will happen this side of the Judgement, to be sure, but when a Church forgets this point it is in danger of panicking its members into thinking that the continuation of the institution is the mission, whereas in reality the mission is for the Church and its members to die to self, so that it may live to God. A Church that does not grasp this principle is itself doomed to introspection. This, of course, will mean the letting go of many that are precious (and so being over-precious about things is a sign that something has gone badly wrong) – but that has always been part of the deal, and that part of the New Covenant is non-negotiable.

A parish church of my acquaintance was killed recently. It was made redundant and is being totally re-ordered to create a new centre which will include a chapel. Why? Because the Victorian inner city parish model (and the Roman parish-system which underlay it) simply didn't work there anymore, and the mission of this particular corner of Christendom is best expressed in serving the community in which it stands, not demanding that the community conforms to the church’s expectations. A Church - local or national - that is not prepared to consider its own destruction for the good of the gospel as a serious option, is not in tune with that gospel. Now, that process will be painful - if will either involve the acrimonious, spiteful disintegration of a church, or it could mean people having to take the gospel seriously for themselves and knuckling down to the realisation that the second commandment of Our Lord actually applies to us as well as our “enemies” within the Body of Christ. It’s interesting to note the corollary between rigidity of ecclesiastical polity and the high level of bile and vindictiveness aimed at spiritual siblings.

(As an aside, it’s worth noting here the odd use of the word “dignified” in the description of what the CofE should be according to the OP. This illustrates the discordance between a lot of church activity and the actual story and teaching of Our Lord – human “dignity” isn’t really anything to do with the gospel at all. Being nailed to a piece of wood, all the while shouting at God as to why the fuck you’ve been abandoned, is not dignified. Neither is the sight of a father running down the road to embrace his errant son. The pursuit of “dignity” is not open to the Christian. And it doesn’t sit all that well with the only legitimate justifications for Anglo-Catholic worship – that it is fun. Amusingly, this demand for both “dignity” and “fun” conjures up images of a rather Pooterish church, or a Chapman-like army major protesting that “no-one likes a joke more than I do – except perhaps my wife....and some of her friends. In fact, quite a lot of people enjoy a joke more than I do.”)

We come now to a related aspect – the notion of the CofE being "episcopal" and the integrity of the threefold order of ministry.

Many people - from +Ignatius to ++Ramsay - have asserted the role of the bishop as a uniting and authoritative point within the Church. The word "asserted" is deliberately used, as no-one has actually come up with a coherent argument as to why the bishop should be regarded thus to the exclusion of other models.

Consider episcopacy on its own first. +Ignatius, heroic martyr, is one of the earliest person whose views on episcopacy as such we have outside the NT (the other is Clement of Rome). He is very clear about certain things - a church should be united with its bishop; only the Eucharist celebrated with and by the bishop are valid; a bishop (in his analogous schemata) is like God.

The problem with all of his argument is that it leaves one with the nagging thought in the back of the mind that, in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "he would say that, wouldn't he?" He was, after all, a bishop himself. He can hardly have missed the self-serving nature of the arguments he was putting forward. Not wishing to disparage the bravery of a man who was, quite literally, following his Lord to death, he was nonetheless not only encouraging the Churches to which he wrote to exalt their bishops - he was asserting himself as a bishop as well.

There is, perhaps, another way of reading him: Is he exalting the office of bishops, or is he exalting the particular bishops he has met? It's quite clear that he was deeply moved by the affection shown to him by +Onesimus of Ephesus and +Damas of Magnesia-on-the-Meander. Would he have been so eloquent on the power and authority of the episcopal seat had he met +Hoadley of Bangor, +Antoine of Sens, ++Jensen or +Carlisle? Do his assertions only really apply in the context of a fruitful relationship between bishop and church?

++Ramsay seeks to draw an historical link between +Ignatius and Paul, seeing Paul's assertion of the right to call the Church in Corinth to task as evidence of a recognised outside authority which sat above the local church. What ++Ramsay fails to do is put this incident in the context of Paul's entire work. The same Paul who said to the Corinthians that he had a right to correct their errors also asserted to the Galatians that even if he, Paul, came to them preaching to them something different to what they had previously heard, they were to ignore him. Clearly, the proclamation for Paul is superior to the proclaimer and is not dependent on however high an "office" he holds – the gospel’s effect is not ex opere operantis as any good Anglican will know, and that is just as true in application to a created office as to a particular person.

What ++Ramsay utterly fails to realise is that the "oversight" that Paul claims over the Corinthians derives not from his appointment (either by Christ or by the tacit acceptance of the Jerusalem Church) but from Paul's own contact with the Corinthian church, as its founder and first nurturer. His claim to oversight comes out of that relationship, not out of formal office-holding.

The second issue regarding episcopacy is its symbolic function as a unifier and carrier of tradition within a diocese. Again, this is asserted, but it is not clear how other models could not operate to the same end. It is acknowledged that the bishop has been invested with such a role - but, as we all know, the value of investments can go down as well as up. To divorce the office from the relational matrix in which it emerges is not only bad theology, it also undermines ++Ramsay’s claim that the episcopacy, in and of itself, expresses the gospel. It does not. It can, and many will know of exceptional bishops in whom one can see this happening. But there is a big difference between “can” and “must”.

The episcopacy, to be sure, acted within the pre-Constantinian Church as a focal point for unity - and this makes perfect sense in a persecuted community living its mission with little public knowledge of what it actually stood for (it's worth noting the level of secrecy about its rites and some of its beliefs that existed, even after its legitimisation).

However, does this mean that episcopacy must always be the one and only instrument? Once the Christian life becomes a matter of public domain, or education means that more people can access sources and materials and participate in debate, does not the authority, even implicitly, shift to another place? There are even explicit shifts of this authority - the majority of the activities of the earliest bishops (preaching, eucharistic presidency, pastoral care) have long since shifted to the presbyters, deacons, readers, canon theologians, liturgists and others. The bishops in the Church of England itself have undergone an extraordinary change in their roles and powers - for some 130 years before, say, +Longley of Ripon bishops didn't really actually do that much in England (they were pretty much primus inter pares), but with the industrial revolution they grew more in stature and power. Yet, since 1920, the CofE has not been an episcopally governed Church at all, but rather one governed by Assembly and Synod.

It's interesting to note that those who hold a high view of episcopacy are very often choosy about which bishops they respect and consider "sound". After all, is there any evidence that ++Jensen has had his episcopal charism withdrawn? Have his opponents considered that, however distasteful and divisive, his views are part of the Holy Spirit's provocation of the Church into new, better ways of thinking? It is, after all, a prophet’s job to be deliberately provocative.

Underlying the insistence that a church should be "episcopal" in the sense espoused are two rather sad truths – that some of the clergy don’t really trust congregations to be grown up enough to look after themselves and are suspicious of any notion of the divine economy operating without them. Perhaps, along with the restoration of fine 14th century liturgical practice, some of the 14th century distrust of the laity has come in as well (although, note the complaints in some quarters about that fine 14th century practice of clerical nepotism!). This is a pity – after all, the Church is meant to be the minister of God’s abundant, overflowing grace, not the custodian of a weapons depository.

Finally on this point, there is the wrongheaded thinking that just because you have people called bishops that you are the inheritors of the true Church - this clearly isn't true. What the CofE has is a feudal class-system which has people called "bishops" at the top. When it finally allows its real overseers (i.e. it's parish priests, chaplains and other presbyters) to do their job, then, and only then, will it be able to call itself "episcopal" in any meaningful sense. Likewise, it has to wake up to the fact that everyone (apart from maybe the Society of Friends) has people carrying out overseeing functions. Just because the President of the Northern Connexion of the Presbyterian Church of Wales or the Moderator of Northern Synod aren't called "bishop" does not mean they don't carry out formal and proper oversight of ministers and congregations and can properly ordain persons to the ministry. Most definitely persons are called by God to exercise a pastoral and teaching ministry overseeing numerous other persons – does this mean it has to be a quasi-feudal, constitutional model of “Lord Bishops”?

Now we turn to the other two orders.. Those people in the CofE's officially called “Deacons” are any such thing. The diaconal roles in the CofE are being carried out by Pastoral Assistants, Churchwardens, members of PCC's, cleaners, caterers and all the people who chip in with the practical needs of the local community. Let's not forget, the diaconate were initially the distributors of food, not trainee priests. The CofE tacitly acknowledges that the diaconate isn’t a “clerical” role at all by allowing the un-ordained to act as Deacon in the Liturgy. And the roles of “Priest” and “Presbyter” are not coterminous either (it is only by philological accident that English-speakers think they are – they are quite distinct concepts, as can be seen in languages where there the two labels have no linguistic connection – e.g. presbuteros, hieros; henadur, offeiriad). The CofE's claim to be expressing the historic threefold order is a legal fiction, just like the fiction of their being a reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus (everybody knows that there are no reasonable people, male or female, in Clapham).

The OP takes great pains to indicate that it is not attacking Evangelicals. Whether consciously or not, the contents of that post undermine this claim. In polite but firm terms, the OP rubbishes certain expressions of the Church by its very choice of words. Such rhetoric is of course fine at Deb Soc, where effect will always count for more than respect, but is hardly conducive to a proper consideration of these matters.

Consider the words used to describe the alternative to the “episcopal, sacramental, dignified” Church:

"Non-sacramental": it’s unclear precisely what this is meant to mean (it suggests that the writer is as confused by its meaning as Uberpastor Jensen). It can mean at least five things, none of which are complementary:

(a) That those who do not follow the OPer’s opinions do not recognise the Sacraments. Of course, notwithstanding arguments over their number, no-one bar the Society of Friends and the Salvation Army (and the latter only to avoid dissention and division with other Christians, therefore it can be said that Army does indeed recognise the sacraments – it just doesn’t practice them itself) really holds such a position. Just because you don’t celebrate a sacrament every day or in a funny dress, it does not mean you don’t recognise the sacraments.

(b) That those who do not follow the OPer’s opinions do not have sacraments. Again this is untrue - just because you don’t call something a “sacrament” doesn’t mean you don’t have one. “Sacrament” is an arbitrary human word given to the recognition that a particular practice can, however incomprehensibly, allow frail human beings to encounter and participate in the life of God. The word as such does not matter (after all, the Church’s concept of “sacrament” is very different from the source of that word in Latin military oath-taking, and it doesn’t even begin to properly translate “musterion”.)

(c) That those who do not follow the OPer’s opinions reject and despise the sacraments. This may be true of ++Jensen (whose understanding of “sacrament” is so deficient that it cannot be taken as a serious comment on the subject), but can hardly be said to be true of many faithful Evangelical, Presbyterian, Reformed and other Christians.

(d) That those who do not follow the OPer’s opinions do not approach the sacraments properly. Of course, this is a judgment call – how does one measure reverence? As Our Lord told S. Peter, whether S. John is a faithful follower is really none of his business – Follow thou me.

(e) Most disturbingly of all, that by being “non-sacramental”, those who do not follow the OPer’s opinions not only do not possess the recognised means by which God’s grace enters a human life, they therefore cannot receive that grace. This is untrue both for the obvious reason that God’s grace is not limited by any human institution, and also because it fails to understand that though the Church may decree a limit on the number of sacraments at a certain point in its history, it does so failing to realise that “sacrament” (as defined above) can easily be used to describe the reading of the scriptures (corporately and individually), the ordering of the Church’s year in seasons, the marking of saints’ days, the saying of the office or the myriad other ways in which the earliest Christians found themselves in God’s presence.

"Pentecostal": I was standing in my usual sub-diaconal place, singing along to the final hymn (which, bizarrely turned out to be “Shine Jesus Shine” – which reminds me of the story of the Roman Catholic Bishops’ conference that was held in London about three years ago. Said song was used, and a translator helpfully explained its meaning to a Portuguese Bishop, who is reported to have responded, “I don’t understand – why would anyone want to polish Jesus?”). The day had been special – a fine procession round the church for Candlemas, brimming with joy, everyone holding lights, Fr Tom asperging everything in sight. The visiting Dean’s sermon had opened up the gospel, giving us glimpses of the glorious, unshakeable love He has for us. Fr Tom (with Bp David, who we have borrowed from Africa for the year) led us in the celebration of God’s saving acts in the world, and we came together to share in the heavenly banquet. God’s presence filled the place, and we stood there in the sanctuary, grinning with pleasure of it. As the song progressed, the predominantly black congregation broke into rhythmic clapping, and the overwhelming sense of being genuinely, serenely happy in the presence of God filled the place. Terribly Pentecostal, I know, and all so dreadfully non-U and unacceptable in some parts. But “unAnglican”?

“Congregational”: it is unclear why accountability to the people over whom a person has a degree of power is so terribly bad. And why this criticism does not equally apply to the “congregational” behaviour of a church that has passed resolutions A, B or C.

"Sect": given that, sociologically, Anglo-Catholicism itself is a sect, it seems odd that such a word should be fired off in this context.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Errrr ... ummm ... I think I'm with Dyfrig on this one (although not convinced that priests/presbyters are not conterminous). But then again, I would be, wouldn't I? [Big Grin]

I can understand the concerns of the OP though.

As a point of information to Ken. The British restorationist scene did have numbers of ex-Anglicans in it ... but I wouldn't have said they were in the majority. Certainly not when it came to leadership. Essentially, restorationism was an amalgam of old-time Pentecostalism and independent evangelicalism (Brethren mostly) turned charismatic with some Baptist and old-fashioned 'holiness movement' influences thrown in. There wasn't much particularly 'Anglican' about it and the influence it exerted on Anglicanism itself were minimal - apart from a few songs. Wimber and the Vineyard, and Ichthus too, were different and exerted much more of an influence. The restorationists were initially sniffy about Wimber precisely because of his propensity to work with Anglicans and other historic denominations. This didn't fit their ecclesiology. God had finished with the Anglicans. Period. [Disappointed]

Gradually, the restorationists themselves became largely Wimberised.

At the risk of another tangent, it's always struck me that at the same time that traditionalists like Cosmo (to whom respect is due [Not worthy!] ) are bemoaning the decline of liturgy and propriety the independent free-churches are themselves becoming more liturgical. Is it my imagination but aren't the Methodist and URCs more obviously liturgical than they used to be? You'll also find snippets of liturgies in Baptist churches where I've seen whole chunks of Anglican eucharistic liturgy lifted from its context with alacrity. We are all spiritual magpies ... [Wink] .

Although I'm not an Anglican (although I think I'm a closet one at times) I retain the not uncommon 'nonconformist' sense of having some kind of stake in it. I too wouldn't like to see it go down the plug-hole. I too like cathedral services. And rural parish ones. I've often said that I hope the good Lord keeps a corner in heaven as some kind of Anglican theme-park complete with a choir singing 'The day thou gavest ...' as the setting sun slants through the stained glass. Some hope ...

Mind you. If we wake up on 'the other side' after some out-of-body death-bed experience and hear the strains of 'Shine Jesus Shine' we'll know that we've ended up in ... ahem ... the other place ... [Devil]

Gamaliel

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow Dyfrig, what a post. Alot of food for thought.

Sometimes I get so discouraged though about this whole matter. I think, well, if that's the way it is, why bother.

But there is a lot more than historical accidence or validation that keeps me in the CofE. One of those is a fine liturgy. Another is the "traditional" aspects of a service. A third is that, if the Anglican church really is not sufficient I can't see my home being anywhere else. If the first two should be chucked out the window (which ++Jensen is in the process of doing - whom, since your comment above, I love with my heart and soul, and seek to obey obsequiously [Big Grin] ), I really cannot see the third happening. Both Rome and Constantinople are too far away for me.

I understand and share Cosmo's grief that certain elements that are "Anglican" - like the BCP, like liturgy - are disappearing. Because we value those things. Not all of us have the capability of being the dynamite you are, Dyfrig, or of thinking as dynamically. I guess we cope with change differently, and we cope with different kinds of change in different ways.

I still think there is great hope in a catholicly Anglican view of the world. Great potential for expression of the gospel in the world. I do not think it is a dinosaur awaiting extinction. Nor do I think that it needs to be "put down"(euthanised).

But in a diocese, in a communion which as a whole is turning to an expression, a theological perspective which I find stifling and life-killing, it is hard to see that there is hope for the different expressions of Anglicanism...

You are right about the historical venom different branches within the CofE have had for each other, the internecine war. Rather than unity at all costs - which is what the Jensens preach ("agree with me or go to hell (literally)"), if we could only recognise the validity of each other's positions, and respect each other regardless of belief, maybe this flatulent uebermutter of the Anglican Church might stand a chance at survival... Then again, mutual respect probably would lead to more compromise, more fuzziness and refusal to state even in broad terms what we actually believe. I don't know whether this is a good thing or not; there are many things I don't want to define as articles of my belief.

The alternative is for all the factions to split off. In this case, it would indeed be the end of the church of England: no particular split-off group could legitimately call itself the only surviving "true" Anglican Church. Maybe you are right, Dyfrig. Maybe we just need to let the whole edifice crumble.

If it crumbles though, I think I would find myself at a complete loss. I don't have one inch of the "home group" type Christian in me, I would feel bereft of any historical ties to the church of past ages. It is this situation I think Cosmo is lamenting, not so much the decline of Anglo-Catholicism, but the prospect that something we find invigorating and helpful might very well disappear...

In the end who really gives a flying fuck? I am almost at the point of turning my back on the church in utter despair.

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dyfrig - thank you. Much food for thought. And we shouldn't be too disturbed about the end -- if indeed that is likely - of a particularly culturally conditioned mode of being a christian. Authentic response to the gospel is all that matters. In this post-modern age (aka pick'n'mix) there will always be a place for 'traditional anglicanism' however that is defined, and the theological or liturgical thought police are on a loser. But the worry is that certain dogmatic trends (Jensen eg) would like to pretend that there is only one truth and if that gets hold in more dioceses than Sydney we'll have problems. I can't see it happening though.
Pedant mode engaged:
quote:
from +Ignatius to ++Ramsay -
it seems more often than not that the surname of the best ABC last century is misspelt - it is RAMSEY. Hope we don't have problems in future with Williams.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm feeling optimistic. I don't believe the Church of England is doomed at all.

But I do think it might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy if all the Anglican Christians go around saying it is!

I like the Church of England. Long may it continue and do good things......... [Not worthy!]

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
Authentic response to the gospel is all that matters.

Forgive me (I've had a heavy dinner party and I'm just not up to responding to Dyfrig's points yet - tomorrow perhaps if I feel able to read all of it without printing it off) but I don't know what this means. It reminds me of Fr Colin Stephenson's story of going to a priest for confession and, for penance, being told to 'make yourself a living sacrifice'. Stephenson didn't know what this meant, went to another priest, and that priest said 'Nonsense. Say three Hail Marys'.

So what does angloid mean? No doubt it means something profound and sensible but I simply don't know the difference between authentic and non-authentic. I just try to get on with it, even when it all seems to be collapsing as it does now (and, before you as, no, that doesn't mean my little bit of things, but on a wider set up). And yet I have a horrible feeling that there would be many people who would regard me and what I do as 'non-authentic'.

What do you mean?

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spong

Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518

 - Posted      Profile for Spong     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I simply don't know the difference between authentic and non-authentic. I just try to get on with it, even when it all seems to be collapsing as it does now (and, before you as, no, that doesn't mean my little bit of things, but on a wider set up). And yet I have a horrible feeling that there would be many people who would regard me and what I do as 'non-authentic'.

Well I certainly wouldn't be one of them. 'Just trying to get on with it' is about as good a definition of authentic as you can get, I suspect.

Inauthentic is you trying to lead a worship group in endless rounds of 'Jesus, I just love you Lord'. Inauthentic is me proposing that we use the English Missal.

So long as there are people in the CofE for whom High Church worship is authentic, it will remain. The number of churches in which it is practised will wax and wane as it always has.......

--------------------
Spong

The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams

Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cosmo writes
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by angloid:
Authentic response to the gospel is all that matters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgive me (I've had a heavy dinner party and I'm just not up to responding to Dyfrig's points yet - tomorrow perhaps if I feel able to read all of it without printing it off) but I don't know what this means. It reminds me of Fr Colin Stephenson's story of going to a priest for confession and, for penance, being told to 'make yourself a living sacrifice'. Stephenson didn't know what this meant, went to another priest, and that priest said 'Nonsense. Say three Hail Marys'.
So what does angloid mean?

and angloid replieth:
Sorry Cosmo, my brain was slightly woolier than usual (and that's saying something) after not a dinner party but a single handed attempt to drain my wine cellar. Thank you for your gem of practical catholic wisdom.
But what I mean is not that any response to the gospel, any religious tradition is as good as another, but that honesty, sincerity, yes authenticity, is a prerequisite before all else. What is worrying in the CofE is not loony evangelicals (and before a hostly reprimand, I don't for the moment suggest that most or even many evangelicals are loony) or any other eccentric tendency, but the lack of nerve that others display when faced by what seems like 'success'. For example, people who think their parish must have an Alpha course, because it's the flavour of the month and not because they believe in it; or those who ditch weekly parish communion for 'all-age worship' just because everyone else seems to be doing it. It's the bandwagon factor that the good Fr Stephenson (and doubtless the good Fr Cosmo) would avoid like the plague. (Clichés are taking over so it's time to go to bed.)

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dyfrig:

[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

I do not use those smilies lightly.

I think I agree with almost everything ytou wrote there, though I need to read it again to be sure. Twice.

It is by far the most optimistic posting so far here. And maybe the most optimistic point in it:

quote:

So where is this "classical Anglicanism" and did it ever exist? Perhaps Gwyn A. Williams? next historical study should be entitled ?When Was Anglicanism?.

I look forward to reading it in heaven - they do allow communists in, though I think he will have been surprised to find himself there. Or rather I look forward to hearing Gwyn Alf read it himself.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, this thread is not going to be allowed to die.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kalagiya
Apprentice
# 3622

 - Posted      Profile for Kalagiya         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's take the REALLY long view. Fast forward say, a thousand years into the future. Are there still Christians (surely yes) and if so, what kind? What are they doing?

To me, one of the most promising indicators that a religion will be around a thousand years in the future is that it's been around that long already. So we can expect the Orthodox to still be around, and probably, still be doing more or less the same thing as they do now. Athos will still have monks, even if they happen to be Martians instead of Greeks. Roman Catholicism will also surely still be here, and still have a sacramental form of worship, though any future pope might make radical changes to theology and praxis. Demographically, it's hard to imagine Catholicism not remaining the single largest religion on the planet.

State Protestant churches (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians) depend on populations which are currently aging and increasingly likely to drift away from their traditional churches. Possibly the Church of England can find a new immigrant "market" for its services, as seems to have happened in America, but the long-term brand-loyalty of the new believers is difficult to evaluate. Probably most of the Americans see Episcopalianism as roughly interchangeable with many similar churches.

Churches are somewhat more likely to disappear than to merge, though so I suspect the distinctions between Oriental, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and/or state Protestant churches (not to speak of the more informal ones) are here permanently--even if some members do break away and form an "Anglican Rite Catholic" tradition or whatnot. Many churches could just linger on forever, stagnant but still alive, like the Coptics today or the Quakers tomorrow. Most likely of all is the emergence of new denominations, probably including several from the Anglican fold. As the church changes, dissidents will surely continue to leave it for churches they see as more traditional, whether Catholic or Protestant (or perhaps in the future, Orthodox).

The "rising stars" of the moment are the charismatic, evangelical, Mormon, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, and African prophetic movements. But who knows what time will do to them. Their traditions may lack the "staying-power" of the older traditions--meaning that the beliefs are more fluid, and the believers more likely to move on to something else. It's easy to get followers during times of freedom, but can they survive underground, if necessary? Do they have what it takes, whatever that may be, to pull through a holocaust? Probably the Mormons and Witnesses do, and the rest remain to be seen.

The last few decades has seen greater internationalization of the major religions. For example, Muslims everywhere are now influenced by "fundamentalist" Arab theology. Similarly, Christian churches are less and less tied to specific national cultures, and are more international. This could be good or bad. Sometimes it results in a "lowest common denominator" approach (just religious feeling, or an appeal to the heated emotions of the moment), but it can also mean a return to tradition and core theology. (Which is what "fundamentalism" is really supposed to be.)

I doubt that "niche marketing"--different churches for different ethnicities, subcultures, languages, even ages--will prevail over more universal formulations, for the simple reason that the niches are unreliable. We grow too old for the hip teenage church for raving bikers, ethnicities intermarry etc., subcultures come and go. The churches which have a fairly clear idea as to what they stand for (and for extra credit, have it be at least halfway intelligent), which can transcend these things, are more likely to survive and thrive. This does not seem to describe the Anglicans as a communion, which exists primarily thanks to a steadily-dwindling institutional inertia.

Posts: 8 | From: varies | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A thousand years?

I can't even begin to imagine.

I could make silly guesses about 100 years though.

If current trends continue I'd expect that Chinese churches would be the fastest growing & most active, & that African churches would be be numerically huge but a little stale and stagnant.

A very large proportion of Christians - probably larger than now - will be in new-ish denominations. The RCs will still be the largest denomination, but probably no longer an actual majority. Orthodox will be more prominent than they are now.

The Church of England will most likely still exist, though a lot smaller than it is now, will most likely be largely a black church, concentrated in urban areas in the South of England, have a largely part-time ministry, and be in a loose organisational unity with the Church of Scotland, the Methodists, what is now the URC, and possibly some new churches. It will be effectively disestablished, though there will probably be enough legal fudge around to claim that it is still established if that makes you feel happy about it.

There will still be Anglo-Catholics within it, they will still be a vocal minority, and will still be a road to Rome for some individuals (though not whole congregations). The chances are there will still be flying bishops. Probably Methodist & Calvinist ones as well as Anglo-Catholic ones. It is possible that the whole idea of dioceses or parishes being defined geographically will have gone.

On a world scale the member churches of the Anglican Communion will be part of an emerging group of Protestant Episcopal churches in full communion with each other, others will include the Methodists & Lutherans and possibly even some Presbyterians, as well as a number of African and American churches from a Pentecostal tradition. Hoever, as a proportion of the total number of Christians in the world, all those put together will likely be smaller than they are now.

Reunion between Rome and the Protestants will look even less likely than it does now.

In large areas of the world most Christians will be members of short-lived independent churches, and both the Roman Catholics and the mainstream Protestants will be less significant than now. I'd expect this to be the case in both north and south America, and possibly most of East Asia as well. It might also happen in Russia if the Orthodox church becomes too identified with the state.

There will have been almost no change in the present boundaries between Islam and Christianity. Almost no local people will have become Christians in mainly Islamic societies (except, just possibly, Turkey and central Asia), though Christian minorities will persist in Egypt, Pakistan & Indonesia. The Arab & Syrian churches will have almost entirely ceased to exist in their homeland but will continue as English-speaking churches in other parts of the world, probably having united with English-speaking descendants of the Greek and Russian churches.

Similarly, Muslim minorites will continue in Europe but have little impact on their neighbours.

The Muslim societies of Europe including Turkey (almost certainly), Iran (probably) and maybe even North Africa, will have become almost entirely secularised, and will be in effect ex-Muslim cultures, indistinguishable from their ex-Christian neighbours, except that they will celebrate Eid ul-Fitr as well as Christmas. On the other hand, militant Islam will still exist in much of Africa and Asia.

South and East Africa, Korea, probably large parts of China, and possibly Japan, will be more visibly Christian than Europe and North America, and the centre of gravity of world Christianity will be moving to China.

But this is not crystal-ball gazing, or even informed guesswork, it is simple extrapolation, and therefore probably rubbish.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[bump]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is the Church of England thread doomed? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636

 - Posted      Profile for fatprophet   Email fatprophet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, Ken that is quite a prediction about the future of christianity. I do love this kind of futurology stuff (it makes me think I can have a handle on history after I am long dead).

My own particular pronouncement is that 200 years from now a new synechristic neo-pagan religion will have arisen in the west and that Christianity will have virtually died out in Europe but be still alive and well in some increasingly politically and economically dominant third world nations.

Doom? If you are a christian in any protestant or catholic denomination in the West ask for whom the bell tolls - for it also tolls for thee.

--------------------
FAT PROPHET

Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I'd rather have neo-paganism than the neo-Victoriana which passes for Christianity in some 'third world' countries...which, if they are going to be economically or politically successful,may well have abandoned some of this in any case.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, because having sex with anyone or anything is a primary cause of economic growth...

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hugal
Shipmate
# 2734

 - Posted      Profile for Hugal   Email Hugal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have read most but not all of the thread as I am on my lunch break, so I have to post. As a Christian who has attended several different denoms' I am of the opinion that a litergy is what you make it. Can there really be a differnce between a church that follows a written service pattern and one that follows an unwritten, but never the less, strict service pattern. In some churches I have attended if you move the block of worship from the beginig of the service people get really upset. Is this attitude any differnt than wanting to stick to a littergy.

My church is an experiment set up by the Bishop of Wilsden in Lodon. We run like a non-conformist church, our service is fairly free in style and we pay for our own Vicar and his staff, and all our own repairs ect, as well as regularly giving to local charities and causes. We take no money from the CofE but pay our quota. Most oddly we an extra parochial place ie our ministry is to the whole of the area of Acton and not just one parish. Some may find this devicsive but we work strongly with those churchs Anglcan and others who are willing to work with us.

I promise I will get to my point. Yes the church of England as it was is dying but as our church suggests it is perhaps going to re-generate Dr Who like into something the same but different. So long as we can have an understanding of other ways within our own denom's does it matter which we go for. If the Phoenix classic Anglicanism is dying then let us look forward to what let us look forward to bird that rises from the ashes.
Hugal

--------------------
I have never done this trick in these trousers before.

Posts: 1887 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Daily bump.

Eleven days have elapsed since Dyfrig offered a substantial rebuttal to Cosmo's assertions, and still no response.

Maybe he's sick?

Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I only have one thing to offer as the OP is outside my remit.

Many established churches (including the Orthodox ones) will have to face the issue as to whether it continues to be desirable and/or possible to act as a sort of spiritual welfare State to the whole nation when such nations are not recognisably Christian (by adherence) any more.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now, now, Dave - let's not hurry the man. He's probably still working on the final draft of his apologia for Anglo-Catholicism which he has promised on so many occasions.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying, "Let's kill the CofE". What I am saying is, "Be prepared to give these transient things up for the gospel." That includes liturgy, music, establishment, honour, power, money - everything.

An example: the sticking point (in the English Covenant debates, the Scottish proposals and the last round of Welsh discussions (including the Cardiff episcopacy scuppered by panicky Anglicans)) is whether and how to acknowledge that other churches' ministration are "valid" - people are going to have to bite the bullet and ask themselves whether they put more weight on either the evidence of God's gracious work or whether a body has used the right words for the last two- of four-hundred years.

Kenneth - stop nicking my ideas about increased numbers of bishops. That's copyright. (btw, the Council of Hartford in the 680s said that the Church in England should look to increase the number of bishops to accommodate increases in population).

Angloid - I am shocked. You will no longer be welcome at meeting of the Alternative Service Book (Third Eucharistic Prayer) (Penitential Material in the BCP Position) (Second Prayer of Humble Access) (Altered by Licence of the Bishop to Include the Acclamations From the Missa Normativa) (It's Ramsay with an "A", You Bastards) Society. I've already cancelled your standing order. You will have to return the goat, of course. By Friday, please, and leave it with Mrs Stapleton – she’s expecting you.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
What I am saying is, "Be prepared to give these transient things up for the gospel." That includes liturgy, music, establishment, honour, power, money - everything.

Everything??? Even the lovely purple robes? [Waterworks]

As painful as it is to me to admit, you are right. If we cling to the details in the long term, for their own sake, then we must ask ourselves why we do so.

[tangential legal question]
Is the "man on the Clapham omnibus" a more colorful expression used for United States' law's archetypical "reasonable person" construct for assessing negligent behavior and other such things?
[/off tangent]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
JL ; who mentioned anything to do with sex?

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
David is quite correct in being concerned for my health but one struggles on. The main reason I haven't responded to Dyfrig's post is that, frankly, it's too long to read and answer on a computer. By the way, I would challenge his assertion about treating these boards as debating societies. I don't think that these boards, by their very nature (and that includes the Purgatory board), can be anything other than a form of debating society. Their format doesn't sit with long, closely argued academic debate. Anyway, my OP wasn't meant to be anything else than an OP to provoke comment and debate. It wasn't meant as a preamble to a D.Phil thesis.

So, I cannot respond to Dyfrig's tome point by point (I certainly don't intend spending my day off that way). But a couple of reflections on what he has to say.

I quite agree that defining 'classical anglicanism' is tricky. For want of anything better let us start with the Lambeth Quadrilateral and leave it at that. The LQ consists of: scripture, episcopacy, reason and tradition. That seems fair enough to me.

In the same way, the Church of England (and thus, by extension, the rest of Anglican Communion) has inherited a particular ecclesiological standpoint on the nature and methodology of the threefold ministry and of the ministry of a bishop in particular. That is one part of the LQ. That tradition has remained over the years and is part of the historic formularies of the Church. That suggests that whilst tradition does not mean a vehicle for no change, it does suggests that the tradition of episcopacy we have received would have to be turned on its head to follow the model for episcopacy (and thus ministerial priesthood and the diaconate) encouraged by Dyfrig. Reason and scripture might argue varying points of view. I would contend that one of the marks of the Church is that major shifts in thology and ecclesiology can only be achieved with overwheming consent. Thus it might be that in the future a whole differnt view of Anglicanism, including the nature of the ordained ministry, might be acclaimed. I would argue that this would mean the Church of England could no longer regard itself as part of the Church Catholic (let's not worry for the moment about how other members of that Church regard us) as it would have fundamentally shifted from its present position.

What is the Church for? I would say that the Church is the Body of Christ and that it is the worshipping community of all believers. In this way we cannot be prepared to 'give up everything for the gospel' because who would decide what is the Gospel in the first place, and who could decide what we we can give up or retain? Or do we think that the early church served a purpose and now theological and liturgical anarchy is quite acceptable?

In this way we can only give up the liturgical and sacramental life of the church as she has defined it if we are prepared to give up the recognition of ourselves as a united community of worshippers. And that is where dignity and recognisiblity comes into it. Some parts of the Church of England have jetisoned a recognisible, corporate liturgy for what is perceived as an individualistic, purposely 'non-religious' form of worship that has no rules or doctrine except the New Testament (Selected Highlights Version). Yes, they come together in a building but what happens at these worship meetings is not supposed to be formal or constricting (as it happens they are often as formal and constrained, if not more so, that a Tridentine High Mass but let's not go there for the moment). Now that is fine if you want to be part of a deliberately non-denominational 'House Group-style' congregation that decides its own vaues and beliefs and priorities. But if that group is part of the Anglican Communion it must be bound by certain boundaries (admittedly very wide). And it is this that concerns me most. To be part of a communion means that there must be areas of overlap. That can embrace a High Mass at St Mary's Bourne St just as it can embrace a Worship Group at St Luke's Swanwick. But it does mean they have to have some areas of unity, even if it is as small
as having the same readings in each church on a Sunday. Even that has been lost.

Lastly my concern is that whilst Dyfrig's post is very much post-modernist in its style and thought many of the churches that worry me most are driven not by the post-modernism they often proclaim (which is often merely a smokescreen for a post post-modern fundamentalism or scriptural inerrancy) but driven by a proclaimation of what they are not. They are not 'catholic'. They are not 'religious'. They are not 'old-fashioned'. They are not worried about old notions of doctrine or ecclesiology. They are not Anglican, indeed they are not 'a church' but 'church'. Rather they are just them. And that's fine but it isn't Anglicanism as I understand it to be.

Cosmo (returning to his bed of pain)

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reading Dyfrig's post I reminded of Abp. Robert Runcie who many years ago ruminated in the Church times that ...

(1) Oh what a difference there would be if we really believed in the resuurection. (This was in the context of his phil-Orthodoxy).
(2) The CofE's vocation in the scheme of things might be to "die." (By which I think he meant what Dyfrig meant).

A few decades later what does point no. 2 mean? If your sister churches are to remain in dialogue with you how will know whom to talk to?

I do not ask these questions contentiously. One of the bugbears in ecumenism between Anglicanism and Rome/Orthodoxy as Dom Aidan Nicholls pointed out in "The Panther and the Hind" revolves around WHICH Anglicanism we are talking to. Dyfrig seems to be saying something similar ... but I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying Dyfrig so please put me right if I am wrong.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Merseymike, perhaps you could enlighten me as to the meaning of:
quote:
I think I'd rather have neo-paganism than the neo-Victoriana which passes for Christianity in some 'third world' countries...which, if they are going to be economically or politically successful,may well have abandoned some of this in any case.
If it wasn't a reference to sexual ethics (a subject you're hardly loath to bring up at every opportunity,) what was it? The enormous popularity in the Third World of bloomers, penny-farthing bicycles and lace?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pre-liberal theology in general. My differences with that way of thinking go far further than sexual ethics.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Care to define "pre-liberal theology"?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And there I was thinking that liberal theology was essentially a product of the 19th century...

I wish people would stop using "Victorian" as if it meant "late medieval".

As in "Victorian times, when they used to send little children down the mines"

No, sweetpea. Victorian times were when we stopped sending little children down the mines.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Merseymike and Jesuitical Lad, I'm struggling to see how your discussion on neo-paganism, neo-Victoriana and pre-liberalism is related to the doom, or otherwise, of the CofE. May I suggest that someone starts a new thread if you want it to continue.

Alan
Purgatory host

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, but Ken, you forget that the Victorians had yet to be emancipated from the ghastly Traditional Sexual Morality - you know, the Talibanesque insistence that sexual acts might be about more than just self-gratification.

Thus, they were thoroughly Illiberal and Not A Nice Bunch. Notwithstanding the end of child labour, etc.

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan,

Sure! (And apologies, hadn't seen your message. All unrelated references to the horrors of Victorian morality on this thread will now cease.)

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
What I am saying is, "Be prepared to give these transient things up for the gospel." That includes liturgy, music, establishment, honour, power, money - everything.

Everything??? Even the lovely purple robes? [Waterworks]

As painful as it is to me to admit, you are right. If we cling to the details in the long term, for their own sake, then we must ask ourselves why we do so.


I am sceptical - in my experience people who demand that we give up such things usually dislike them themselves. So it is yet another case of religious intolerance. Who sets the agenda for what is essential and what is detail, anyway?

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Who sets the agenda for what is essential and what is detail, anyway?

Obviously the bishops in an episcopally governed church..... [Big Grin]

That at least in the thoery of the CofE - of course in practice it has been a presbyterially governed church, with parishes run effectively independently of 'episcopal' input. One of my hobby horses is that a majority of incumbents should be bishops, leaving the title of priest for the ministry currently identified as 'Ordained Local Ministry'; at least then we might be really 'Catholic' in our structures.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about giving up Biblical literalism ? Or even the Bible itself, considering the hate that is justified by some using it?

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
.... which has just given me an idea for a new thread. [Wink]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That at least in the thoery of the CofE - of course in practice it has been a presbyterially governed church, with parishes run effectively independently of 'episcopal' input.

100% correct.

Incumbents with freehold ran churches - it is (or was) in practice a presbyterian system. When they didn't, then things fell on the churchwardens (or nowadays the PCC) - who one might even be tempted to describe as the elected elders of the congregation. Bishops are the 3rd fallback, usually called in only when incumbent can't congregation can't agree.

If I was in a bad mood - which I am because it is the morning and I haven't had my 2 litres of tea yet - I'd say that the whole Anglo-Catholic movement boils down to a plot to impose on the CofE an alien, novel, superstitious, and mechanical, doctrine of Apostolic Succession, invented by Roman Catholics in a desperate attempt to frighten Protestants with hell-fire, and which if properly understood and believed would lead straight back to Rome - as Newman found.

And that that doctrine also leads to novel (for Anglicanism) ideas of bishops as the rulers, or leaders, or managers, or bosses, or princes of the church. That's not episcopacy - that's prelacy. And it is foreign to the Church of England.

Properly understood, episcopacy, the ministry of loving oversight, would be quite compatible with the essentially local and presbyterian nature of the Church of England. We are a connexional church, not a heirarchical one.

Which is why we jolly well will reunite with the Methodists one of these fine days. And we'll have real bishops, overseers and pastors we elect for ourselves, not prelatical princelings in palaces appointed by the Prime Minister. And maybe the Church of Scotland will join in too. (Or maybe not - any church they get involved with averages a schism a decade...)

[Devil]

Now I will post this and make myself a cup of tea in order to reboot my brain and apologise in advance to all Anglo Catholics who are fine and lovely people and build very nice church buildings - it's just a pity so many of them get to be bishops.... No! I didn't say that, they make lovely bishops, bishops should wear albs more often, it looks good on them, we want more bearded bishops.

Bearded bishops and bendy buses! England shall rise again!

<sound of fat man ducking>

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
What is the Church for? I would say that the Church is the Body of Christ and that it is the worshipping community of all believers. In this way we cannot be prepared to 'give up everything for the gospel' because who would decide what is the Gospel in the first place, and who could decide what we we can give up or retain? Or do we think that the early church served a purpose and now theological and liturgical anarchy is quite acceptable?
emphasis mine

If there are a lot of people in the CofE who don't know what the Gospel is, it may very well be doomed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I mean by that is that it was the Church that decided what the Gospels were in the firt place and which ones were to go within the canon of scripture. It is also the Church that has worked out Christian doctrine and dogma and it is the Church that gives us the guidance we need to try to work the christian faith into our lives.

What we are in danger of is having a church in which everything is valid and everything is acceptable; a church which throws in front of us a whole series of books and sayings and practices and thoughts and feelings and then says to us 'There you go. You can sort it out for yourself. Don't look to us for guidance because that would mean telling you what to think or believe. Much better to let you flounder in the morass of modern thought'. Then what happens is that a whole grou within the Church ecognise that ordinary honest people want some kind of leadership and assistance and they provide that by an unswerving adherance to the 'plain truth of scripture'. It's no wonder those churches are thriving as they offer certainty and can point to page in a book to prove it.

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is the sound of a fat man ducking anyway, ken? Do buttons pop off? Does elastic snap? Are there creaks and groans?

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Cosmo - you asked profound questions that demanded careful replies - do not complain when people take the topic as seriously as you do. You posted hoping for a response - do not whine when you get one. You know the rules of Purgatory - don't huff and puff so much when your ideas are challenged. Spare me the faux indignation - your lack of patience with the medium is not my problem.

Now, to the detail… [Razz]

quote:

I quite agree that defining 'classical Anglicanism' is tricky. For want of anything better let us start with the Lambeth Quadrilateral and leave it at that.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

The C-LQ is a good place to start, but by the very nature of Anglicanism, we cannot "leave it at that". Anglicans worshipped for 350 years before the C-LQ was promulgated (and that, probably, in response to the flexing of Italian muscle after Vat I) and is as provisional as any other statement.

It's a good framework - organisations need to know within which boundaries they can operate; so for now we shall agree and start at the C-LQ, but with the proviso (which of course applies to any discussion) that starting there is just as arbitrary as starting with Hooker or the "Believing in the Church" report.

We shall start with your summary:The [C-]LQ consists of: scripture, episcopacy, reason and tradition. and we shall return to this later.

You then say:
quote:
… the Church of England … has inherited a particular ecclesiological standpoint on the nature and methodology of the threefold ministry and of the ministry of a bishop in particular…That tradition has remained over the years and is part of the historic formularies of the Church. That suggests that whilst tradition does not mean a vehicle for no change, it does suggests that the tradition of episcopacy we have received would have to be turned on its head to follow the model for episcopacy (and thus ministerial priesthood and the diaconate) encouraged by Dyfrig.

The key mistake here is "inherited". The Church of England has not "inherited" this - it has appropriated it. It didn't fall out of the sky whilst no-one was looking - the Church of England (because it had to prove that Rome had no authority within the realm) consciously sought to express itself in a particular way.

The problem, as I and Ken have demonstrated, is that the formularies adopted and appropriated cannot necessarily be equated with the "tradition" of the episcopacy and three-fold order, because those things as expressed in the CofE are very different from what many Christians through the ages would understand it.

The idea of the Diaconate being the one-year period before priesting would be incomprehensible to many Christians at certain points in history. The concept of an "episkopos" running a vast diocese where he'd be lucky if he saw all his parishioners or indeed having charge of anything more than the urban area where he lived seems totally perverse from the perspective of, say, 300 CE.

And we still have this problem of words. There's a very good case that the URC model of Moderator - Minister - Church Related Community Worker has more legitimacy as an expression of the "three-fold" order under episcopacy as the sham we have in the Church of England.

We may say we are episcopal and have three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. I'm sure many of us actually believe we are episcopal and have a three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. The point is - are actually episcopal and in possession of a three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. It's a bit like the claim to "Catholicity" - the only people who say that Anglicanism is "Catholic" and has the "Apostolic Succession" are the Anglicans themselves. Saying something doesn't always make it so.

Is there a rule against turning things on their heads? Given that heaven and earth will pass away, I'd suggest that turning challenging potential erroneous ideas about the episcopacy was pretty low on the Richter scale.

quote:

Reason and scripture might argue varying points of view.

And they do. The question therefore arises as to how one balances the four parts of the C-LQ. Clearly, you favour giving Tradition a special place over against the others - almost a veto. That is questionable.

The thing with the C-LQ is precisely that it is a quadrilateral. It is four sides to an area within which Anglicans accept they can operate. What it is not is a system whereby one limb takes precedent over the other. They are, if you will, the four touch-lines of the pitch upon which Anglicanism is played.

Those who opt for an overly "inerrantist" approach to Scripture fail in this regard by playing too close to that line, and sometimes stepping over it. Likewise, those whose primary loyalty is to Tradition will be just as guilty of imbalance and drifting into their own forms of fundamentalism if they do not take the Scriptures, Reason and the (properly understood) Episcopacy into account (well said Ken, btw). Why that sort of fundamentalism is more acceptable than the "biblicist" type is beyond me.

quote:

I would contend that one of the marks of the Church is that major shifts in theology and ecclesiology can only be achieved with overwhelming consent.

Cosmo, some while back you boasted to me in conversation (rather perversely) that you posted with "skill and knowledge". I have to say that on the basis of the above statement you barely score 50%.

Any student of the NT, the earliest Christians, the Councils or indeed any period in the Church's history who can come out with this statement simply hasn't been paying attention. Consensus theology is like consensus government - let us know when it happens. The statement also suggests an Anglican who seems to have temporarily forgotten how the CofE came into existence in the first place, and is as much in denial about his origins as those whom he criticises.

quote:

Thus it might be that in the future a whole different view of Anglicanism, including the nature of the ordained ministry, might be acclaimed.

Indeed - and there is no reason why it could not claim the name "Anglicanism".

quote:

I would argue that this would mean the Church of England could no longer regard itself as part of the Church Catholic (let's not worry for the moment about how other members of that Church regard us) as it would have fundamentally shifted from its present position.

Two very profound assumptions there, my boy.

Firstly that the current position of the Church of England is actually within the Church Catholic. Rome certainly doesn't think so, and officially neither does Orthodoxy (I don't know how much "official" standing the Ecu. Pat's 1921 statement on the succession via Matthew Parker actually has.) After all, we only are "Catholic" because we say we are - and then we snipe at the Methodists for not being so.

Secondly, you have a particular view of the Church Catholic, defined almost entirely, it seems, by reference to liturgy and the names given to its officers. A view that is, IMNSVHO, incorrect. "Where the Spirit is, there is the Church" (that's the other half of Irenaeus' dictum that people usually forget to quote.)

At bottom, this approach (coupled with views on "non-sacramentality") requires a person to believe that persons who worship outside an episcopal structure have neither the means to receive God's grace nor have they the Spirit - i.e. to believe that Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed and Pentecostals are not Christians at all.

quote:

What is the Church for? I would say that the Church is the Body of Christ and that it is the worshipping community of all believers.

Correct. A statement with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

quote:

In this way we cannot be prepared to 'give up everything for the gospel' because who would decide what is the Gospel in the first place, and who could decide what we can give up or retain?

You appear to be suggesting that the episcopacy and the three-fold order are the only methods by which God can ensure that his people remember what the Christian proclamation is about. Is that right?

quote:

Or do we think that the early church served a purpose and now theological and liturgical anarchy is quite acceptable?

You clearly don't know much about the early church (which one, by the way? The Johannine community? The one that produced the Didache? Or perhaps Cyprian's contemporaries? Or maybe Augustine's? Or perhaps Innocent I's? The "Jewish" Church that flourished till 135? The emerging Latin church after 180 onwards? The one where state legitimacy encouraged the imposition of uniformity?)

quote:

In this way we can only give up the liturgical and sacramental life of the church as she has defined it if we are prepared to give up the recognition of ourselves as a united community of worshippers.

Wrong. The recognition of ourselves as a united community of worshippers precedes its expression in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.

quote:

And that is where dignity and recognisiblity comes into it.

The basics of Christian worship can be recognise in most churches - adoration of God, reading the Scriptures, prayers for the world, sharing in the actions Our Lord commanded us: Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, even Pentecostal. To pretend that this is not so is just bloody-minded. "Recognition" is as much dependent on the attitude and charity of the observer as of that observed. Soon after I read Dix for the first time I spotted all his points about shape - at a Eucharist celebrated according to the rubrics of the URC. See my previous post for my comments on "dignity".

quote:

Some parts of the Church of England have jettisoned a recognisable, corporate liturgy for what is perceived as an individualistic, purposely 'non-religious' form of worship that has no rules or doctrine except the New Testament (Selected Highlights Version).

You're right to an extent. There is too much of the "what's in this for me" aspect in much contemporary worship.

The problem lies in the fact that true "liturgy" must be just that - it must belong to the people who do it. It's interesting to compare the prefaces to Common Worship and Common Order (CofS). The former imposes its patterns, the latter offers it to the Church.

This is where the Church of England misses a trick - it and many of its clergy fail to understand that, no matter how hard you beat someone over the head with the missal, if they cannot make those liturgies their own, they will not benefit from them.

"Lent, Holy Week & Easter" acknowledges this - the experimentation must continue in real places of worship, not on committees (and, by definition, experimentation requires the freedom to make mistakes).

What appears to concern you most is not that there is no truth being proclaimed, but rather that this truth isn't being proclaimed from a particular place, which for you is the right place, i.e. the episcopacy as you understand it, and in a strong and manly way. But given the highly ambiguous nature of the original proclamation (Markan Secret and the shorter ending and all that, this again seems to be missing the point.

quote:

Yes, they come together in a building but what happens at these worship meetings is not supposed to be formal or constricting (as it happens they are often as formal and constrained, if not more so, that a Tridentine High Mass but let's not go there for the moment).

Oh, I know exactly what you mean - the Elim in Aber had exactly the same service every week for three years, as far as I can tell.

quote:

Now that is fine if you want to be part of a deliberately non-denominational 'House Group-style' congregation that decides its own values and beliefs and priorities. But [not] if that group is part of the Anglican Communion it must be bound by certain boundaries (admittedly very wide).

What if the Anglican Communion (I notice you have slightly widened the goal-posts at this point) either officially or by implication through its actions, sanctions the inclusion within its boundaries of such activities?

quote:
And it is this that concerns me most. To be part of a communion means that there must be areas of overlap. That can embrace a High Mass at St Mary's Bourne St just as it can embrace a Worship Group at St Luke's Swanwick. But it does mean they have to have some areas of unity, even if it is as small
as having the same readings in each church on a Sunday. Even that has been lost.

Spot on, Papa C. It is my firmly held belief that Churches that have signed up to RCL (including the URC and the PCW) should use it. The shared experience of Christians around the world in encountering God through the proclamation of the Word can only help to foster unity. I am not overly keen on the "preacher chooses the text" approach.

I notice that you have become a little more liberal on your views about "worship groups" - are you becoming more tolerant of what is and what isn't allowed in your old age?

quote:
Lastly my concern is that whilst Dyfrig's post is very much post-modernist in its style and thought
You've flummoxed me there, old boy - since when is preferring Bradshaw over Dix a definition of "post-modern"?

quote:
many of the churches that worry me most are driven not by the post-modernism they often proclaim … but driven by a proclaimation of what they are not.
Too true. Much Reformed theology is hampered by an obsessive need to see clear blue water between them and Rome, which I think means that it is not prepared to rethink its positions on some issues which desperately need thought, for fear of making it look like people died in vain for those positions. But then, that's not just a Reformed problem.

My particular bugbears with Reformed theology is its misconception of what "Election" and "Predestination" actually mean in a Jewish religious context, and its obsession with empty crosses in church - the cross wasn't empty, people; that's the point.)

quote:
And that's fine but it isn't Anglicanism as I understand it to be. (emphasis mine)
Aye, there's the rub… [Big Grin] What we're actually dealing with here is not some disinterested concern with the state of the Church (after all, God doesn't actually need me or Cosmo or indeed anyone else on these boards). What we are actually talking about is people and their self-identity, their self-worth and self-preservation, people who have invested a lot of emotional energy in a particular world-view and when it is threatened by perceived "enemies" or challenged by God, there will always be this fierce reaction. Each one of us must go through this, and each one of us must work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Something like this happened to me just after I embraced Anglicanism. In the run up to my Confirmation, I had settled in my mind that Anglicanism was the right place because of it expression of the historic faith and that it's orders meant it had preserved something that other expressions of Christianity in England had not. Over a few months, I had to relearn again that this is sort of bigotry is just plain untrue. And not only is it untrue, but it is propagated as truth by people who should know better - which makes it a lie.

Now to Chorister - ouch! But you are right: I've talked the talk. How do I apply this to myself? Well, here's a list of the things that are precious to me and define me, but that I know I have to be prepared to let go of:

robes, particularly the alb and that rather fetching tunicle I wear during the penitential season

censing of the sanctuary, especially in the extravagant way Bp David does it

processions

my preference for the New English Hymnal

bowing and genuflecting

standing in front of the crucifix before going dowstairs to get robed up as a preparation for worship

crossing myself

a need to see a definitive and ordered shape to worship

my rather obscurantist interest in the Fathers

my desire to read the NT in Greek

enjoying being up at the front

the rather pretty silver chalice we have

the pleasing effect of church architecture

books

money

I'm sure there's more to the list. How about you?

[broken code fixed. twice]

[ 21. February 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: frin ]

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Dyfrig

Since you asked ...

quote:
(I don't know how much "official" standing the Ecu. Pat's 1921 statement on the succession via Matthew Parker actually has.)
Then little, now none. We don't see the succession as mechanical ... neither did Anglicanism (much) until Apostolicae Curae except in the atypical realms of Anglo-Catholicism ... does my bum look big in this? Make your own mind up my dear!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Dyfrig, but your last post to me seems like spiritual masochism - at best giving up all those things would lead to a Pyrrhic victory. If we all have to give up our own equivalents of your list we need a better reason than you are able to give us. The way forward in Christ cannot be to mutilate ourselves thus. Your solution seems to me not to be a necessary paring down to essentials, but a recipe for losing ourselves completely. Christianity is not an brutally ascetic cult, but a completely enfleshed, incarnate, messy and real affair for real, messy, diverse human beings. You must know that Christ speaks to us through such things as you claim must be sacrificed. Whatever the solution is (try defining the problem first, though ...) it has to be a human one.

Sorry, but that's my insight.

CB

CB

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Cosmo - you asked profound questions that demanded careful replies - do not complain when people take the topic as seriously as you do. You posted hoping for a response - do not whine when you get one. You know the rules of Purgatory - don't huff and puff so much when your ideas are challenged. Spare me the faux indignation - your lack of patience with the medium is not my problem.

Now, to the detail… [Razz]

quote:

I quite agree that defining 'classical Anglicanism' is tricky. For want of anything better let us start with the Lambeth Quadrilateral and leave it at that.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

The C-LQ is a good place to start, but by the very nature of Anglicanism, we cannot "leave it at that". Anglicans worshipped for 350 years before the C-LQ was promulgated (and that, probably, in response to the flexing of Italian muscle after Vat I) and is as provisional as any other statement.

It's a good framework - organisations need to know within which boundaries they can operate; so for now we shall agree and start at the C-LQ, but with the proviso (which of course applies to any discussion) that starting there is just as arbitrary as starting with Hooker or the "Believing in the Church" report.

We shall start with your summary:The [C-]LQ consists of: scripture, episcopacy, reason and tradition. and we shall return to this later.

You then say:
quote:
… the Church of England … has inherited a particular ecclesiological standpoint on the nature and methodology of the threefold ministry and of the ministry of a bishop in particular…That tradition has remained over the years and is part of the historic formularies of the Church. That suggests that whilst tradition does not mean a vehicle for no change, it does suggests that the tradition of episcopacy we have received would have to be turned on its head to follow the model for episcopacy (and thus ministerial priesthood and the diaconate) encouraged by Dyfrig.

The key mistake here is "inherited". The Church of England has not "inherited" this - it has appropriated it. It didn't fall out of the sky whilst no-one was looking - the Church of England (because it had to prove that Rome had no authority within the realm) consciously sought to express itself in a particular way.

The problem, as I and Ken have demonstrated, is that the formularies adopted and appropriated cannot necessarily be equated with the "tradition" of the episcopacy and three-fold order, because those things as expressed in the CofE are very different from what many Christians through the ages would understand it.

The idea of the Diaconate being the one-year period before priesting would be incomprehensible to many Christians at certain points in history. The concept of an "episkopos" running a vast diocese where he'd be lucky if he saw all his parishioners or indeed having charge of anything more than the urban area where he lived seems totally perverse from the perspective of, say, 300 CE.

And we still have this problem of words. There's a very good case that the URC model of Moderator - Minister - Church Related Community Worker has more legitimacy as an expression of the "three-fold" order under episcopacy as the sham we have in the Church of England.

We may say we are episcopal and have three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. I'm sure many of us actually believe we are episcopal and have a three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. The point is - are actually episcopal and in possession of a three-fold order in the "traditional" sense. It's a bit like the claim to "Catholicity" - the only people who say that Anglicanism is "Catholic" and has the "Apostolic Succession" are the Anglicans themselves. Saying something doesn't always make it so.

Is there a rule against turning things on their heads? Given that heaven and earth will pass away, I'd suggest that turning challenging potential erroneous ideas about the episcopacy was pretty low on the Richter scale.

quote:

Reason and scripture might argue varying points of view.

And they do. The question therefore arises as to how one balances the four parts of the C-LQ. Clearly, you favour giving Tradition a special place over against the others - almost a veto. That is questionable.

The thing with the C-LQ is precisely that it is a quadrilateral. It is four sides to an area within which Anglicans accept they can operate. What it is not is a system whereby one limb takes precedent over the other. They are, if you will, the four touch-lines of the pitch upon which Anglicanism is played.

Those who opt for an overly "inerrantist" approach to Scripture fail in this regard by playing too close to that line, and sometimes stepping over it. Likewise, those whose primary loyalty is to Tradition will be just as guilty of imbalance and drifting into their own forms of fundamentalism if they do not take the Scriptures, Reason and the (properly understood) Episcopacy into account (well said Ken, btw). Why that sort of fundamentalism is more acceptable than the "biblicist" type is beyond me.

quote:

I would contend that one of the marks of the Church is that major shifts in theology and ecclesiology can only be achieved with overwhelming consent.

Cosmo, some while back you boasted to me in conversation (rather perversely) that you posted with "skill and knowledge". I have to say that on the basis of the above statement you barely score 50%.

Any student of the NT, the earliest Christians, the Councils or indeed any period in the Church's history who can come out with this statement simply hasn't been paying attention. Consensus theology is like consensus government - let us know when it happens. The statement also suggests an Anglican who seems to have temporarily forgotten how the CofE came into existence in the first place, and is as much in denial about his origins as those whom he criticises.

quote:

Thus it might be that in the future a whole different view of Anglicanism, including the nature of the ordained ministry, might be acclaimed.

Indeed - and there is no reason why it could not claim the name "Anglicanism".

quote:

I would argue that this would mean the Church of England could no longer regard itself as part of the Church Catholic (let's not worry for the moment about how other members of that Church regard us) as it would have fundamentally shifted from its present position.

Two very profound assumptions there, my boy.

Firstly that the current position of the Church of England is actually within the Church Catholic. Rome certainly doesn't think so, and officially neither does Orthodoxy (I don't know how much "official" standing the Ecu. Pat's 1921 statement on the succession via Matthew Parker actually has.) After all, we only are "Catholic" because we say we are - and then we snipe at the Methodists for not being so.

Secondly, you have a particular view of the Church Catholic, defined almost entirely, it seems, by reference to liturgy and the names given to its officers. A view that is, IMNSVHO, incorrect. "Where the Spirit is, there is the Church" (that's the other half of Irenaeus' dictum that people usually forget to quote.)

At bottom, this approach (coupled with views on "non-sacramentality") requires a person to believe that persons who worship outside an episcopal structure have neither the means to receive God's grace nor have they the Spirit - i.e. to believe that Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed and Pentecostals are not Christians at all.

quote:

What is the Church for? I would say that the Church is the Body of Christ and that it is the worshipping community of all believers.

Correct. A statement with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

quote:

In this way we cannot be prepared to 'give up everything for the gospel' because who would decide what is the Gospel in the first place, and who could decide what we can give up or retain?

You appear to be suggesting that the episcopacy and the three-fold order are the only methods by which God can ensure that his people remember what the Christian proclamation is about. Is that right?

quote:

Or do we think that the early church served a purpose and now theological and liturgical anarchy is quite acceptable?

You clearly don't know much about the early church (which one, by the way? The Johannine community? The one that produced the Didache? Or perhaps Cyprian's contemporaries? Or maybe Augustine's? Or perhaps Innocent I's? The "Jewish" Church that flourished till 135? The emerging Latin church after 180 onwards? The one where state legitimacy encouraged the imposition of uniformity?)

quote:

In this way we can only give up the liturgical and sacramental life of the church as she has defined it if we are prepared to give up the recognition of ourselves as a united community of worshippers.

Wrong. The recognition of ourselves as a united community of worshippers precedes its expression in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.

quote:

And that is where dignity and recognisiblity comes into it.

The basics of Christian worship can be recognise in most churches - adoration of God, reading the Scriptures, prayers for the world, sharing in the actions Our Lord commanded us: Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, even Pentecostal. To pretend that this is not so is just bloody-minded. "Recognition" is as much dependent on the attitude and charity of the observer as of that observed. Soon after I read Dix for the first time I spotted all his points about shape - at a Eucharist celebrated according to the rubrics of the URC. See my previous post for my comments on "dignity".

quote:

Some parts of the Church of England have jettisoned a recognisable, corporate liturgy for what is perceived as an individualistic, purposely 'non-religious' form of worship that has no rules or doctrine except the New Testament (Selected Highlights Version).

You're right to an extent. There is too much of the "what's in this for me" aspect in much contemporary worship.

The problem lies in the fact that true "liturgy" must be just that - it must belong to the people who do it. It's interesting to compare the prefaces to Common Worship and Common Order (CofS). The former imposes its patterns, the latter offers it to the Church.

This is where the Church of England misses a trick - it and many of its clergy fail to understand that, no matter how hard you beat someone over the head with the missal, if they cannot make those liturgies their own, they will not benefit from them.

"Lent, Holy Week & Easter" acknowledges this - the experimentation must continue in real places of worship, not on committees (and, by definition, experimentation requires the freedom to make mistakes).

What appears to concern you most is not that there is no truth being proclaimed, but rather that this truth isn't being proclaimed from a particular place, which for you is the right place, i.e. the episcopacy as you understand it, and in a strong and manly way. But given the highly ambiguous nature of the original proclamation (Markan Secret and the shorter ending and all that, this again seems to be missing the point.

quote:

Yes, they come together in a building but what happens at these worship meetings is not supposed to be formal or constricting (as it happens they are often as formal and constrained, if not more so, that a Tridentine High Mass but let's not go there for the moment).

Oh, I know exactly what you mean - the Elim in Aber had exactly the same service every week for three years, as far as I can tell.

quote:

Now that is fine if you want to be part of a deliberately non-denominational 'House Group-style' congregation that decides its own values and beliefs and priorities. But [not] if that group is part of the Anglican Communion it must be bound by certain boundaries (admittedly very wide).

What if the Anglican Communion (I notice you have slightly widened the goal-posts at this point) either officially or by implication through its actions, sanctions the inclusion within its boundaries of such activities?

quote:
And it is this that concerns me most. To be part of a communion means that there must be areas of overlap. That can embrace a High Mass at St Mary's Bourne St just as it can embrace a Worship Group at St Luke's Swanwick. But it does mean they have to have some areas of unity, even if it is as small
as having the same readings in each church on a Sunday. Even that has been lost.

Spot on, Papa C. It is my firmly held belief that Churches that have signed up to RCL (including the URC and the PCW) should use it. The shared experience of Christians around the world in encountering God through the proclamation of the Word can only help to foster unity. I am not overly keen on the "preacher chooses the text" approach.

I notice that you have become a little more liberal on your views about "worship groups" - are you becoming more tolerant of what is and what isn't allowed in your old age?

quote:
Lastly my concern is that whilst Dyfrig's post is very much post-modernist in its style and thought
You've flummoxed me there, old boy - since when is preferring Bradshaw over Dix a definition of "post-modern"?

quote:
many of the churches that worry me most are driven not by the post-modernism they often proclaim … but driven by a proclaimation of what they are not.
Too true. Much Reformed theology is hampered by an obsessive need to see clear blue water between them and Rome, which I think means that it is not prepared to rethink its positions on some issues which desperately need thought, for fear of making it look like people died in vain for those positions. But then, that's not just a Reformed problem.

My particular bugbears with Reformed theology is its misconception of what "Election" and "Predestination" actually mean in a Jewish religious context, and its obsession with empty crosses in church - the cross wasn't empty, people; that's the point.)

quote:
And that's fine but it isn't Anglicanism as I understand it to be. (emphasis mine)
Aye, there's the rub… [Big Grin] What we're actually dealing with here is not some disinterested concern with the state of the Church (after all, God doesn't actually need me or Cosmo or indeed anyone else on these boards). What we are actually talking about is people and their self-identity, their self-worth and self-preservation, people who have invested a lot of emotional energy in a particular world-view and when it is threatened by perceived "enemies" or challenged by God, there will always be this fierce reaction. Each one of us must go through this, and each one of us must work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Something like this happened to me just after I embraced Anglicanism. In the run up to my Confirmation, I had settled in my mind that Anglicanism was the right place because of it expression of the historic faith and that it's orders meant it had preserved something that other expressions of Christianity in England had not. Over a few months, I had to relearn again that this is sort of bigotry is just plain untrue. And not only is it untrue, but it is propagated as truth by people who should know better - which makes it a lie.

Now to Chorister - ouch! But you are right: I've talked the talk. How do I apply this to myself? Well, here's a list of the things that are precious to me and define me, but that I know I have to be prepared to let go of:

robes, particularly the alb and that rather fetching tunicle I wear during the penitential season

censing of the sanctuary, especially in the extravagant way Bp David does it

processions

my preference for the New English Hymnal

bowing and genuflecting

standing in front of the crucifix before going dowstairs to get robed up as a preparation for worship

crossing myself

a need to see a definitive and ordered shape to worship

my rather obscurantist interest in the Fathers

my desire to read the NT in Greek

enjoying being up at the front

the rather pretty silver chalice we have

the pleasing effect of church architecture

books

money

I'm sure there's more to the list. How about you?

[broken code fixed. twice]

Can you see what it is yet?

Frankly, I can't be bothered to wade through all that and make comments on all the relevant and irrelevant bits and try to work out computer code to quote more bits. Life is too short. I would say that my previous post in reply wasn't written in faux indignation. Merely weariness and truth. I don't think these boards are anything other than a form of debating chamber and I only posted my OP to create comment and debate; not a Cosmo question and answer session (my name is not Gregory).

Let us agree to differ on these subjects.

You think that the notion of episcopacy within the Church of England and the rest of the Church Catholic that I hold is incorrect or should be changed. OK. That's very nice. If you would care to set yourself up in a new Church of England Lite (neo-episcopal branch) as a 'bishop' there's lovely. Although of course you would not be able to wear the tat and I don't see the point of being a bishop unless you can wear tha gremial. But fine. You think episcopacy is one thing. I (and the definition as provided by the church) think another. Jolly good.

Two. You would be happy to give up everything external to the gospel. You are either a fool to think so or one specifically chosen by God to think so. For most of the things you mention (except your need to stand in front of the crucifix before divine service and, as you have the intelligence, to read the Church Fathers) are not essential to salvation. But, for the rest of us poor unfortunate souls not so fortunate as you, we need those things as pointers on the way. We need them to keep us going when, as Nunc Dimittis so fiercely reminds us, God can seem a very long way away.

By the way, concerning your wish to see the externals cut down, I think you should read Barchester Towers again. Very salutary for us all.

Good night, Mr Slope.

Cosmo

Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools