|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglicanism in the Commonwealth.
|
liberte
Apprentice
# 17538
|
Posted
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.
I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously.
As a whole the church was doctrinally conservative Protestant and Evangelical, but strictly adhered to the Prayer Book (even used KJV English), and was middle in terms of liturgy (no crucifix and surplice/stole only but congregation cross-signs and genuflects). Not sure if they believe in baptismal regeneration or their views on Communion, but they certainly hold onto some "Real Presence" belief.
I get the feeling that I do not see such type of Anglicanism in UK, Australia etc. I've heard that either you're Evangelical and (sometimes ultra) low-church, or liberal and high-church (Anglo-Catholics being an exception). Is this claim true? And if yes, why do you think this is so?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
Welcome liberte - if you wish to introduce formally there is a thread pinned at the top of All Saints for this very purpose. Otherwise settle in and have fun.
I can't give any real sort of answer to your question as I haven't been an Anglican for Quite A Long Time but somebody may be along to answer sometime but I think what you describe is a bit like low to middle Broad Church.
eta: per your request in the welcome thread I am shifting this to Ecclesiantics, where you are far more likely to get an answer to your particular points.
WW
All Saints Host
[ 01. February 2013, 02:24: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
I'm from a Commonwealth country.
That's a broad category, too broad, in fact. Canada and Australia are both in the Commonwealth, as are Nigeria and South Africa, but the Nigerian church is Low while the South African one is High. Old Commonwealth vs. New Commonwealth, etc.
Would you please be more specific?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I live in a Commonwealth. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
liberte
Apprentice
# 17538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
I'm from a Commonwealth country.
That's a broad category, too broad, in fact. Canada and Australia are both in the Commonwealth, as are Nigeria and South Africa, but the Nigerian church is Low while the South African one is High. Old Commonwealth vs. New Commonwealth, etc.
Would you please be more specific?
How about UK and Australia? I'm from Singapore btw. It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In my country for example I think only a handful of parishes even use the BCP, and the liturgical service is usually early, unpopular, and attended by mostly old folks while the contemporary praise and worship service is heavily attended but is not very different from free-flow evangelical services you see in the average non-denom church.
[ 01. February 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: liberte ]
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I would say across the former British Empire (from which those dastardly Americans ungraciously defected ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) there are as many changes of mater cantuar as there are colours in a rainbow - and I don't mean ROYGBIV but every intermediate shade as well. Forget fifty shades of grey: we produce an infinite shading of light.
Most are represented on these boards, though our most Arminian of Brethren have managed to get themselves expelled, not for their theology but for their attempts to crusade. They are mainly from Sydney.
There - that's for starters. And don't be confused by South Africa - there's two Anglican churches there. Oh I suppose there are in OZ, too, though one remains tiny.
Zappa, checking in: modern chazzie-wearing father-calling gospel-processing anglo-evo-carflic-(neo)orthodox.
[ 01. February 2013, 03:16: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.
Welcome liberte.
[ 01. February 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
How about UK and Australia? I'm from Singapore btw. It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
Good to know about Singapore.
I had no idea what Singapore got up to. I live in Canada and I'm not Anglican, I just have lots of Anglican friends and you can't spend any time here on the Ship without learning about all the infinite variations of Anglicanism.
Where's PD when you need him? PD, +PD, you're wanted in Eccles!
+Name around here means the person is a bishop. PD is a Shipmate and a Bishop in one of the continuing Anglican churches in the US, not The Episcopal Church which is the "official" Anglican church, the one that gets invited to Lambeth Conferences.
I was referring to the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in my previous post, which ++Desmond Tutu belongs to (++ means Archbishop), which is very Anglo-Catholic.
In some countries, Canada and the US are excellent examples, the Anglican/Episcopal Church is more "liturgical" because the low, informal evangelical sort of person is better served by other churches and vise-verse Anglicans use liturgy and the Prayer Book as a distinctive identity marker and way to stand out in the row of churches on the street (literally).
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
Interestingly, as I've probably said before on these boards, NZ is low-liberal, either mainly charismatic without liturgy, or sort of BCP without adornment (even when BCP has morphed into NZ's 1980s Prayer Book the liturgical form is still Cranmer on Mogadon). Surplice and scarf are often to be seen there, especially in the Māori churches. In OZ, outside the Sydney influenced dioceses, where neither a vestment nor a prayer book dare make an appearance these days, it's mainly Chazzie and post-Vatican Anglican, and I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
I would really like to see "High Church" and "Anglo Catholic" defined in contradistinction to each other, though. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Good afternoon liberte, and welcome to the Ship.
As others have said, the Anglican Communion is a very diverse ship, just as it is likely that individual Provinces (regional sections, often based on countries) are diverse. That is one of the great joys and blessings - as well as pains and sorrows - of being Anglican.
Here in Australia, there are to be found all shades of Anglicanism, and definitely individual communities can host different shades within them. The BCP is not used as much as it might or ought, but the vast majority of Anglican parishes would use the authorised books of worship, either An Austrralian Prayer Book or the older A Prayer Book for Australia. This is definitely true of open evangelical churches I have attended.
Here in Diocese of Sydney the Archbishop's since the 1970s have tried to encourage clergy (not always with great success)to make use of either the national prayer books or, more lately, the diocesan services. The latter are viewed by the diocese as being more in keeping with the theology of the BCP (such, as they see it, a strict notion of baptismal regeneration and the Cranmerian understanding of the Eucharist, oops, Lord's Supper, as a memorial in the Genevan sense of the word) than what they view as elements contrary to reformed Protestant faith found in AAPB and APBA.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
My Venerable shipmate - unfortunately you weren't at Christ Church St Laurence the other night for the induction of Fr Daniel as the new rector - there were cassocks on everyone, and a mix of surplices and cottas on top! All with white stoles, of course!
Mind you, it was great visual theatre for the Diocese - especially the Local Mission Director (full choir dress) to see a raft of female priests in procession with him - from the Dioceses of Newcastle, Bathurst and even further afield.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.
I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...
liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the
Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)
The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.
Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.
I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
liberte
Apprentice
# 17538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.
I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...
liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the
Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)
The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.
Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.
I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.
*
Rob, I went to the Reformed Episcopal church.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Zappa, in its strict sense "high church" refers to ecclesiology and not liturgy. A High Churchman has a high ecclesiology, and retains traditional liturgy, episcopal polity (including a commitment to obedience to episcopal authority), and (in places where the church is established) favors its continued establishment.
"Anglo-Catholic" refers to a theological and liturgical orientation which is continuous with that of the church catholic. Anglo-Catholics generally agree with many RC doctrines and liturgical emphases, though with the rise of Affirming Catholicism this is less predictably so. Liturgically, Anglo-Catholics range from strict Prayer Book Catholics who will not add a single word to the BCP ordo all the way to Anglo-Papalists who use the Roman Missal instead of the BCP. Theologically, they can range from complete assent to the RC catechisms to neo-Christianity.
It's possible to be a High Churchman without being an Anglo-Catholic. Traditionalists who celebrate at the north end of the altar in surplice, scarf & Canterbury cap, scrupulously observing the BCP's rubrics, are High Churchmen but not A-Cs. Similarly, the Ritualists of the late 19th century were Anglo-Catholics, but their wilful disobedience of their bishops on matters liturgical demonstrate clearly that they were not High Churchmen.
There's a lot that can be added to the above, I'm sure, and I welcome others doing so or correcting my factual errors. I happen to feel the distinction between high churchmanship and Anglo-Catholicism worth keeping, and I admit to cringing a bit when the terms are confused.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
The REC does in fact have an intercommunion relationship with ACNA. And I've said it before, but I'll say it again : that the sole requirement of Anglicanism is communion with the see of Canterbury is rather sadly minimal. Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by liberte:
Hi everyone! This is my 1st post here.
I'm from a Commonwealth country. I visited a traditional Anglican church when I was studying abroad in the USA. Loved the worship and the congregation tremendously ...
liberte, It may well be that you happened upon a an "Anglican" spin-off of The Episcopal Church in the USA. There are many such, most notably the
Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)
The worship style and general tone of the parish church you mention could well be one of their's.
Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.
I'm just wondering what you really did encounter here in the USA.
.
Rob, I went to the Reformed Episcopal church.
I think it's great that you found a church that you liked so well in the USA. In the latter part of the 19th cen, the Reformed Episcopal Church was one of the very first spin-offs from The Episcopal Church. Baptismal regeneration, a non-essential episcopate and low view of the Eucharist were all part of their theology. They have always been a small, very Evangelical - and very low church - group until the last several decades. In the old day you might have said they were Episcopalian in passing. Just a pinch of it. Now you will see all sorts of high church REC ceremonial in practice. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The REC has recently become a quasi-member of some sort of ACNA, but none of it is really Anglican in the strict sense of being part of the Anglican Communion. They call it Anglican, and it can feel Anglican, especially on the local level.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's possible to be a High Churchman without being an Anglo-Catholic. Traditionalists who ... scrupulously observing the BCP's rubrics, are High Churchmen but not A-Cs. Similarly, the Ritualists of the late 19th century were Anglo-Catholics, but their wilful disobedience of their bishops on matters liturgical demonstrate clearly that they were not High Churchmen.
This depends on what you mean by liturgical - is it purely the form or was it the ornaments? From your post about surplice it would seem the ornaments.
So, whilst true on the disobediance of Bishops front, the Ornaments Rubrics are open for interpretation on what it did and did not allow where some ritualists would be able to make a valid argument that the Chasuable etc. were not banned, but enforced by the rubric.
Since the original refers to the second year of Edward VI's reign, it would be anyone who did not follow that rule who was disobeying the BCP, and established cremonies of the church. The implication would be that the alb and chasuable for the celebrant (along with girdle, amice and stole - by implication as they always accompany the alb and chasuable.)
It is from the survey of Church goods in 1552, and the old service books from the period, which we draw upon for knowledge of what was and what was not in use in 1548 (being the second year of Edward VI reign) and so no Church and minister is without Altar and candlesticks, cross and coverings, the Eucharistic Vestments (Chasuable etc.) Albs and Tunicles and the Cope.
If anything your 'high-Church' surpliced priest was wilfully ignoring the established ceremonies of the Church, and doesn't deserve the title 'High-Church' since they, although in line with their Bishops (can I call Bishops ignorant?) they were not inline with the ritual requirements, as laid down, of the Church of England which the traditions of which outrank the Bishops who can err, as they did in this case by wilfully disobeying, and perpetuating the disobediance, the established ceremonies and customs of the Church.
Or that's how the argument goes...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Liberte:
quote:
It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Liberte:
quote:
It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.
Until recently, this tradition was also widespread in England. It's not that unusual now transposed into Common Worship.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Not to confuse you unduly, I must hasten to add that ACNA is Anglican only in style and feel but not in fact. ACNA, or the other "traditional" spin-offs of The Episcopal Church are not a constituent members of of the Anglican Communion. In the USA, only The Episcopal Church is a member of the Communion recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the other juridical instruments.
I don't disagree, but I wonder if we're eventually going to have to learn to live with different flavors of Anglican just as the Lutherans live with many flavors of Lutheran. Not saying we should learn to live like that, but wondering if we might have to at some point.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Indeed. There are at least two ways of being 'Anglican'. The one that most of us traditionally think of is by being a member of the Anglican Communion. The other, I imagine that espooused by the ACNA etc, is deriving your faith, ecclesiology, worship practices, etc in some sense from the Church of England and in acknowledging that inheritance from the CofE as the defining element of who you are as a church.
I think we have to recognise that both of these are legitimate uses of the term 'Anglican'- though I am firmly Anglican in the first sense.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Generally in terms of the Commonwealth, I was told that churchmanship depends on which missionary society was dominant in the country in the 19th century:
If a country was evangelized by the Church Missionary Army, it would be low-church and evangelical.
If a country was evangelized by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, it would be high church.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Liberte:
quote:
It's just I have not heard of liturgical AND evangelical Anglican churches outside of the US.
In Ireland for a very long time time 'evangelical' stood for by the book BCP, with a high standard of preaching and a personal concentration on a high standard of Biblical studies embracing modern criticism, all layered over with a very strong social conscience. That's changing - in my own personal opinion, for the worse.
That is the United Church of Canada in a nutshell. That's what most lay people want, what most ministers aim to provide and what our divinity schools are geared to train for.
My congregation really aims for that, it's what people remember from when we were kids and it's what we want for our kids.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If a country was evangelized by the Church Missionary Army, it would be low-church and evangelical.
If a country was evangelized by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, it would be high church.
And if by the UMCA (Universities Mission to Central Africa) it would be stratospheric!
Broadly true I think, Anglican_Brat. But more so of Africa than the predominantly white-expatriate countries like Australia and Canada. Incidentally, the Church Army and the Church Mission(ary) Society are two distinct organisations. I'm not sure if the former had much presence in the 'colonies'.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.
Welcome liberte.
Except for some reason, Jamaica.
My theory is that if the prevailing Christianity is one way, Anglicans tend to be the other - Liverpool and Ireland - protestant. South Africa and Cornwall - catholic.
Wales is an obvious exception.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Church Army
Decided to investigate a bit and it is intriguing. The Church Army is solidly UK based probably English based but...
There is Church Army Africa which is very clearly a sister organisation to the Church Army (the give away is not just what they say but their training college is called "Carlile" which given the one in the UK is "Wilson Carlile" seems to be pretty confirmatory). So without doubt there was some spread to the former colonies. Not sure how or when.
Colour of Anglicanism
Not as simple, in east Lancashire both the population and the Anglican churches are historically very Protestant and low. My impression is that Anglican gets higher as it gets closer to Liverpool.
Oh Anglicanism in South Africa was predominantly the new English settler religion. As such it is priveledged religion of the business community. The missionaries were of course largely Dutch Reformed. The dominant form there is Reformed whether you are white or black. Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.
Jengie
[ 01. February 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
An exception in the sense that the CinW is mixed. My impression is that we're a little bit higher on the whole than the CofE, or rather that we have slightly fewer Evangelicals, but that may just be the circles I move in.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.
Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
My theory is that if the prevailing Christianity is one way, Anglicans tend to be the other - Liverpool and Ireland - protestant. South Africa and Cornwall - catholic.
Wales is an obvious exception.
It's not as simple as that in the case of Liverpool. The first bishop Charles Ryle was a ferocious protestant who was appointed by Disraeli against the wishes of his Liberal and Tractarian rival (and native scouser) Gladstone. It was he as much as any other trend which set the tone for the predominantly evangelical character of the diocese. Interestingly the strong influence of (Roman) Catholicism in the area makes the average non-church or fringe Anglican much more familiar with Catholic terminology and culture, hence low-church (usually but not always male) clergy are often addressed as Father.
I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Oh Anglicanism in South Africa was predominantly the new English settler religion. As such it is priveledged religion of the business community.
There is an interesting chapter in Essays Catholic and Radical (published in 1983) by John Davies about Anglicanism in South Africa. Basically he sees this as taking two forms; one, the religion of the white settlers, being to a greater or lesser extent conventional Anglicanism with most of the trappings of catholic worship; and two, the more full-blooded catholicism of the black communities. The political involvement leading to the Church's courageous stand against apartheid sprung from the latter, albeit with the leadership of many whites such as Trevor Huddleston and Ambrose Reeves; later of course from Desmond Tutu and others. The Community of the Resurrection, with its Christian Socialist roots, was deeply involved in that struggle.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
An exception in the sense that the CinW is mixed.
If by "mixed" you mean each of the evangelical, anglo-catholic, and liberal tendencies is well-represented, than that's true of England of course. You will find at least one of each of those three inds of parishes in any large town.
I think of Australia is "mixed" as well, though if we can go by what people say online here they tend to split by diocese rather than by parish within diocese, which isn't the case in England. There are in a sense "Anglo Catholic" dioceses in England - Chischester is the obvious example, as well as "LIberal" ones - such as Southwark - but they always have a significant minority of parishes of the other tendencies, and I don't think there are any majority evangelical dioceses in England.
Again going by what is said here, Anglicans in New Zealand seem to be almost uniformly theologically liberal and liturgically low church, and in Canada liberal and MOTR. The USA, because of its size, is more mixed, and like Australia but unlike England there seems to be some tendency fo diocese to sort by churchmanship, but evangelicals seem much less significant there than in the Church of England - to us the overwhelming majority of them look like what we'd call Liberal Catholic.
Nigeria (which of course has the largest Anglican church attendence of any country in the world) tends to the prayer-book evangelical, as does Sierra Leone. Its that CMS influence again. Anglicanism in East Africa is almost entirely charismatic-evangelical, with a few Anglo-Catholic enclaves in Tanzania.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglican immigrants from the formerly British possessions in the Caribbean seem to be uniformly Anglocatholic, or at least Very High Church.
Welcome liberte.
Except for some reason, Jamaica.
Not around my little Anglocatholic shack. We've got folk from many of the West Indian islands, not the least number of them being from Jamaica and Barbados.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.
Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.
Sorry but that dog don't hunt. I can find plenty of Episcopalian/Continuer literature on the interwebz that state no sacraments and no bishops(as defined by them) equals no church. My favorite is the tract by Grafton that theorizes the possibility of memorialist types falling out of heaven itself because they refrained from received the Real Presence at their local Episcopalian shack during their time on earth. I don't mind. I don't believe in papering over real doctrinal differences. You can't complain if it is reciprocated. What I object to is the name calling.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I live in a Commonwealth.
Me too! though sadly not longer attached to the "real" one.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.
Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.
But I'm making sweeping generalizations.
As regards the Province of the West Indies, having the joy of worshiping for many years with Anglicans from that region, I get the impression that they can move between traditions without all the suspicion there can be in the UK. However Jamaica is definitely not so 'Igh Church as the rest at least in its clergy.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.
The Church in Wales varies quite considerably by diocese. In Llandaff which is the diocese local to me, the tradition has been quite Anglo-Catholic (certainly many of Anglican colleagues would dispute the suggestion they weren't noticeably catholic!).
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't understand why Wales is an 'exception'. Can you explain, VB? But your theory would work in the case of Scotland.
Because the prevailing non-Anglicanism in Wales is protestant, and the C of W, although not noticeably evangelical, is not very noticeably catholic, as far as I can tell.
Is that mainly because the C in W is largely rural, and rural Anglican churches are almost by necessity MOTR? I gather that urban South Wales is much more Anglo-catholic.
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
And rural Wales is what I know best.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.
I don't know for certain, obviously, but I would guess that the vast majority of evangelical clergy wear a surplice (and scarf if not stole) at early morning communion services. At later 'family' services - even if they are communion - maybe not so much. Though I have celebrated and preached in a cross-section of evangelical parishes locally, always robed, and never been given the impression that this was unusual.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I haven't seen a cassock or surplice, except on an organist, for 30 years.
We wear them at our rather evangelical CofE church. I'd guesstimate - obviously I haven't counted them all, though I have been to many - that maybe half of evangelical Anglican churches in England have vicars in robes these days, which is a lot more than a couple of decades ago.
I don't know for certain, obviously, but I would guess that the vast majority of evangelical clergy wear a surplice (and scarf if not stole) at early morning communion services. At later 'family' services - even if they are communion - maybe not so much. Though I have celebrated and preached in a cross-section of evangelical parishes locally, always robed, and never been given the impression that this was unusual.
This is my experience too. In my previous church there was no kind of robing up after early morning Communion, not even for later Communion services - but surplice and scarf (emphatically NOT a stole at this church) was worn for the 8.45 services. However my (open) evo uni chaplain always wears a stole over his clerical shirt for our fortnightly lunchtime said Communion, so I think it's a particular type of evangelicalism which avoids robes at all costs.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.
My sons are his great-great-great-great grandsons. But they are Anglican, not Presby, as he was.* I shared Christmas and January with many (almost countless!) of his descendants. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
*Oh, alright, Scottish Congregationalist.
[ 02. February 2013, 06:30: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Of course there were English missionaries such as Moffat.
My sons are his great-great-great-great grandsons. But they are Anglican, not Presby, as he was.* I shared Christmas and January with many (almost countless!) of his descendants.
*Oh, alright, Scottish Congregationalist.
Hmm. Perhaps to an Anglican there wouldn't be much difference between a Scottish congregationalist and a presbyterian - well, they're both not Anglican, after all. But look at Elisabeth Murray's biography of James Murray, the progenitor of the 'New English Dictionary' which spawned the Oxford family of dictionaries. She shows tells how her grandfather was brought up a congregationalist in the Scottish borders in the nineteenth century. It is immediately clear that dissenters in Scotland were no better treated by the religious establishment at that time than were their confreres south of the border.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Except there is no evidence that Moffat was a Scottish Congregationalist. It looks as if he was a Scot who on coming to England found his home amongst non-conformist congregations, this is a very common phenomena in English Congregationalism. He would not be the only Presbyterian to find a home in Congregationalism by any stretch of the imagination.
This is not to diminish Scottish Congregationalism which is a honourable tradition that I have a lot of time for. It is just not the same as English Congregationalism by a long way. The Scots Congregationalist defined themselves against Presbyterianism; the English Congregationalist defined themselves against Anglicanism.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Oh well, according to the Campbellites I'm not Christian either. Pffft.
What's sad is using a derogatory term.
Sorry, PJ--I don't mean to gore your personal ox, but the Church-of-Christers who would unchurch me (and anyone else not committed to their particular restoration movement) deserve the derogation.
Sorry but that dog don't hunt. I can find plenty of Episcopalian/Continuer literature on the interwebz that state no sacraments and no bishops(as defined by them) equals no church. My favorite is the tract by Grafton that theorizes the possibility of memorialist types falling out of heaven itself because they refrained from received the Real Presence at their local Episcopalian shack during their time on earth. I don't mind. I don't believe in papering over real doctrinal differences. You can't complain if it is reciprocated. What I object to is the name calling.
Apologies for the tangent, but I'm just trying to get some clarification from Prester John. Two points: I had thought that "Campbellite" was an old 19th Century term that was not necessarily derogatory, but is archaic? Second, I thought that both the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ were historically included in the "Campbellite" designation, since they originated in the same restorationist movement, but diverged later into two separate streams with somewhat similar praxis but with rather different theologies (Disciples are largely liberal protestants and very nondoctrinal in some respects), whilst the Churches of Christ are theologically conservative, more conservative in worship praxis as well, and potentially rather more orthodox than the Disciples of Christ.
Prester John, do you consider the above to be essentially correct, or would you see it differently? Again, apologies for the tangent.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Apologies for the tangent, but I'm just trying to get some clarification from Prester John. Two points: I had thought that "Campbellite" was an old 19th Century term that was not necessarily derogatory, but is archaic? Second, I thought that both the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ were historically included in the "Campbellite" designation, since they originated in the same restorationist movement, but diverged later into two separate streams with somewhat similar praxis but with rather different theologies (Disciples are largely liberal protestants and very nondoctrinal in some respects), whilst the Churches of Christ are theologically conservative, more conservative in worship praxis as well, and potentially rather more orthodox than the Disciples of Christ.
Prester John, do you consider the above to be essentially correct, or would you see it differently? Again, apologies for the tangent. [/QB]
Concerning the term "Campbellite", whenever I have seen it's usage in 19th and 20th century literature it has always been negative. It doesn't seem to be commonly used now, except maybe in an ironic manner by some members of the movement. In the 19th Century those within the movement commonly referred to themselves as "Disciples" or "Christians" and occassionally as "Refomers".
You are correct in that both groups had been labeled such but there were actually three streams. The first divergence concerned ecclesiology and, as you noted, worship praxis. This split first started in the 1840's and was formally recognized by 1906. This gave rise to the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ. The second split occurred within the Disciples of Christ. This divergence was caused by controversies over open membership,ie. allowing the unimmersed to be considered full-fledged members of a congregation, concern the influence of Higher Criticism in church supported universities and yet another disagreement over ecclesiology. This split first started in the 1920's and is usually considered to have been completed by 1968. This resulted in the Disciples of Christ which, as you've noted, are usually looked on as a liberal, mainline denomination and the Christian Church/Churches of Christ who are usually viewed as conservative yet much more influenced by the evangelical movement than the Churches of Christ.
As for the orthodoxy of each, I'm not exactly an unbiased observer but I would consider the Disciples of Christ to be much more open to what I would consider unorthodox beliefs. Hope that helps.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And rural Wales is what I know best.
Although Scotland and Ireland are pretty rural, as well.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And rural Wales is what I know best.
Ah yes. And I know best urban south Wales- specifically, the diocese of Llandaff. (Rhondda deanery is, I believe, pretty strongly Evangelical, though.)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cornish High
Apprentice
# 17202
|
Posted
I can assure Albertus that the Rhondda Deanery contains not one evangelical parish. They are all, save one more MOTR place, either trad or lib Catholic. The neatest evo parish is a few miles south at Pontypridd .
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
