Thread: Is being "distinctively anglican" a desirable thing anyway? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027451
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.
I was going to reply on the other thread but it was a bit off topic.
My immediate reaction was "Because the C. of E. is defined by orthopraxy and not orthodoxy" but even that isn't really true any longer - it seems common to not use lectionaries and Common Worship / the BCP in favour of freeform or Roman Catholic Services, even in neighbourhood churches.
What /is/ distinctly Anglican anyway? Is it even desirable to be distinctly Anglican? The ideal seems somewhat tribal.
I think we also overestimate the difference between denominations and factions in the mind, even if the 70s and 80s were the zenith of oecumenism.*
Gareth Hughes on this - http://christhum.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/why-im-an-anglican/
*And thus liturgy at such gatherings seem to be from that epoch - Haugen/Haas/Farrell/Schutte/John L Bell/Taizé. And that's okay and it works.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
It differs in different places. Distinctively Anglican means in western Canada liberal in social outlook, lacking a central authority or pope, to a degree a social club for those with the relevant ethnic heritage, and place to serve for those specifically not allowed within the Roman church. Be cause the mainstream Lutherans share all of this save the specific ethnic derivation - which is becoming less and less relevant anyway as Canadians, and are also liturgical, I suspect if we wait a little while, Anglicans and Lutherans may merge in Canada.
Evenso the RCs, Lutherans, and Anglicans often share all sorts of facilities and services, and quietly violate the restriction from the central RC authorities about some aspects of RC official rules. It would be interesting to do a straw poll of Canadian Anglican, Lutheran and RCs who have taken communion together.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
And this difference from the United Church is...?
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
I think that Anglicanism in England has a distinctiveness that flows from the fact of Establishment and its particular history. From the outside looking in it has traditionally been perceived as benign, unthreatening, cosy and accommodating. Recent internal strife has probably added in the notions of indecisive, faction-ridden and out of touch.
The problem the CofE has always had is how to provide a common spiritual home for its active believers who are sharply divided in their outlook I and a broader population who are generally indifferent but expect its services to be on tap when required. The contortions it goes through to meet these requirements are probably considerably more amusing to outsiders than to insiders.
What seems to be most distinctive about it at the moment is that it largely features as a heavy piece of baggage at the end of the liberal wagon train. It has successively supported contraception, divorce, abortion , female ordination and the legitimacy of same sex relationships but it does so in such a manner as to appear a drag on progress to social liberals while completely alienating social conservatives. The aim of trying to accommodate everyone easily becomes the result of annoying everyone.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As far as the CofE goes - and this might sound daft and obvious but I think it needs stating - there is still something distinctly 'English' about it.
But I know that raises a whole load of issues as to how we recognise and define that.
I've been aghast when I've seen some US Episcopalians online banging on about the Monarchy and about King Charles I - 'King and Martyr' - and so on in a way that would sound very odd indeed to most people who actually live over here ...
I think it is possible to be distinctively Anglican and be an evangelical. The tradition can accommodate that. If Ken, of blessed memory, were still here he would remind us that for much of its history the CofE was largely Calvinistic.
The Wesleys were in a minority with their Arminianism.
And even George Herbert was nowhere near being a Laudian, despite his appropriation as such by some High Church pundits.
Is it possible to be Anglo-Catholic and remain distinctively Anglican? I think so, although I'm sure that Anglo-Papallism isn't at all distinctively Anglican.
'Distinctively Anglican' is a very stretchy definition anyway and can mean any one of a number of things and to describe a number of otherwise incompatible positions.
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
So true. But it's through the cracks that the light gets in. Isn't the church called to be as broken and wounded as Christ's own body? That's the only way it can help others, who are equally broken and wounded. Not by being strong, powerful and unassailable. God help us all if the Anglican church ever gets like that!
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Thank you Chorister - I found that moving and helpful.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
What I regard as being distinctively Anglican:
a commitment to the parish - everyone who lives within our boundaries is welcome to be baptised, married, buried
wealthier churches support poorer ones by the parish share/quota
you are welcome regardless of you belief/lack of belief/stage on your journey
you don't have to come to everything - a minimum of three communions a year, of which one should be Easter
a variety of worship styles but kept in check by the lectionary and prayer book
localism - there is no central authority - each province is part of a federal structure
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
So true. But it's through the cracks that the light gets in. Isn't the church called to be as broken and wounded as Christ's own body? That's the only way it can help others, who are equally broken and wounded. Not by being strong, powerful and unassailable. God help us all if the Anglican church ever gets like that!
That's excellent. This reminds me why I keep one faltering finger nail in touch with Christianity. As one of my old teachers used to say (about work), you don't have to get it right, you have to be in touch.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
scuffleball: What /is/ distinctly Anglican anyway?
Do I have to say it again? The elderly coffee ladies after service. Although 'coffee' is a big word for what they're pouring.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
The truth, as I see it, is this: the ideological employment of spacial metaphors claiming the 'centre' is perpetuated by those who are really interested in power and influence, especially if the occupation of that constructed centre involves defining that centrality over against those who are deemed occupy some kind of constructed margin or fringe or extreme end. However, when facing arguments which lay claim to the centre, I like to take comfort in the fact that Jesus identifies most strongly with the marginalised.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
The truth, as I see it, is this: the ideological employment of spacial metaphors claiming the 'centre' is perpetuated by those who are really interested in power and influence, especially if the occupation of that constructed centre involves defining that centrality over against those who are deemed occupy some kind of constructed margin or fringe or extreme end. However, when facing arguments which lay claim to the centre, I like to take comfort in the fact that Jesus identifies most strongly with the marginalised.
But that's not at all what I am saying - I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics. I am perfectly happy to be outside of the centre, I am not happy for Synod to ignore the views of the majority of laity and clergy and be so unrepresentative.
As for marginalization, it's so not true that those outside the 'centre' are marginalized. The reason extreme voices are being tolerated is because of their power. To suggest that the likes of Anglican Mainstream and Reform are in the same category of oppression to Jesus as the poor and disabled is a gross misuse of Scripture.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
I think in some ways evangelical anglicans can sometimes end up being their own worst enemy. A lot of them seem to have a vision of the church that owes much to the low church tradition of the 19th Century (see http://charlesdickenspage.com/illustrations_web/David_Copperfield/David_Copperfield_01.jpg) when the vicar was commonly addressed as Mr <So-and-So>.
As such they have been disinterested in the church hierarchy to the point of harming themselves as a movement (The Ugley Vicar blog made several posts on this topic a couple of years back, which I link below):
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/and-still-there-is-no-conservative.html
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/whats-really-wrong-with-english.html
I quote for emphasis:
"Connected with points 4 and 5, English Conservative Evangelicals are inconsistent over bishops and episcopacy. For the most part, they treat the episcopate as a joke — something they do not need and which the church would be better off without. Yet they will enthusiastically welcome overseas bishops and fete them as great leaders of the Church when occasion requires it. You cannot be serious players in an episcopal church and disparage the episcopate, which is one reason why Conservative Evangelicals are not serious players."
[ 17. July 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I doubt that the majority of practicing lay Anglicans in the CofE would identify with the agenda and values of the ideological construct called "the centre" which happens to hold ecclesio-political sway in Synod. I suspect that the "majority views" of Synod are in actual fact the minority view across the whole church more generally.
In other words, there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod, but most of those priests have congregations which, numerically speaking, are in the distinct minority in terms of regular and committed worshippers.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
Ah, you mean those ultra-extreme con-evos and anglo-catholics that disagree with you on certain DH issues...
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I doubt that the majority of practicing lay Anglicans in the CofE would identify with the agenda and values of the ideological construct called "the centre" which happens to hold ecclesio-political sway in Synod. I suspect that the "majority views" of Synod are in actual fact the minority view across the whole church more generally.
In other words, there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod, but most of those priests have congregations which, numerically speaking, are in the distinct minority in terms of regular and committed worshippers.
I think it is true that Synod is not representative of the C of E as a whole - but not in the way you describe. Synod is overly packed with "extremists" of all persuasions - Conservative Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and liberals. The arguments that go on in General Synod bear little relation to what the vast majority of the people in the parishes actually think. This was made obvious in the aftermath of the vote on women bishops in 2012. Across the country, parishioners were up in arms at the way that "their" representatives had voted. I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion. Sadly, little has changed since then, as all suggestions of reform of GS have been firmly resisted by Church House.
It is also true that the "centre" (defined as Church House and the central hierarchy) is also unrepresentative of the C of E as a whole. As an organisation, Church House is predominantly conservative and controlling. Hence, their determination to block any attempts to reform GS and make it more accountable to the people in the parishes.
quote:
there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod
This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
To move back to the question of what is "distinctively anglican", I would point to something which is actually being eroded at the moment - the sense of being a family of churches. Ever since George Carey, there has been a strong movement to unify the Anglican Communion by imposing unanimity from on high. At its best the Anglican Communion (and Anglicanism in general) resists such attempts. We are a family of churches who are different and yet committed to one another. And even within dioceses or deaneries, that sense of being a family of churches marks out the best of Anglicanism. We may be different. We may not agree on everything. But we are committed to one another.
Sadly, this is being increasingly lost in the C of E - though not in other places, I have found.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that Daronmedway is right to some extent, that the 'centre' tends to be wherever we ourselves want it to be ie. somewhere near us ... by and large.
But I also think there's a similar dynamic going on with some of those who like to think of themselves on the margins.
'Look at me, I'm on the margins. I'm where the action is ... God has to to dance to my tune ...'
Both tendencies are equally bad and ultimately cancel one another out.
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
To me being distinctively Anglican in a sense means taking the best of the Catholic and Protestant traditions and making them our own. It is pure Biblical and Patristic Catholic Christianity, with no Roman or Eastern additions or Protestant subtractions. It affirms the Real Presence without defining it, and it affirms salvation by faith without neglecting good works. Anglicans worship using a vernacular liturgy adapted to the context of the national church. Communion is given to the laity in both kinds, and real wine is used. Anglicans take the Bible seriously but not literally. They are not unduly influenced by one theologian, and are creedal but not confessional. That is to me the core of Anglican faith and practice.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that Daronmedway is right to some extent, that the 'centre' tends to be wherever we ourselves want it to be ie. somewhere near us ... by and large.
But I also think there's a similar dynamic going on with some of those who like to think of themselves on the margins.
'Look at me, I'm on the margins. I'm where the action is ... God has to to dance to my tune ...'
Both tendencies are equally bad and ultimately cancel one another out.
Precisely. I'm taking issue with the whole use of spacial metaphor with reference to church government and missiology. I take issue with claiming some imaginary "centre" to legitimise one particular vision of Anglicanism over against other "marginal" visions of Anglicanism. I especially object when that "central" vision bears little or no relation to the historical vision of Anglicanism to which the Scriptures and Anglican formularies bear witness.
I see in the spacial claim to centrality within Anglicanism a brand of early stage totalitarianism in which those claiming "the centre" are beginning to invite those deemed to be on the margins either to leave or to submit to the ideological vision of the centre.
In other words, the "central" ideology does not understand itself as just one on a number of valid positions within a wider vision of Anglicanism; it is an expansionistic form of ideological imperialism which is actively seeking to expand its borders. And it does this in two basic ways: subsumption or expulsion, by a process of "listen or leave".
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I can see what you're driving at, daronmedway.
I don't disagree.
It's simply that whatever hegemony there is, that's what it is going to end up doing.
Just suppose there was some kind of HTB-style hegemony (and there is in some quarters) then that would begin to elbow out the alternatives.
Same as if there was an Anglo-Catholic hegemony which claimed to be the 'centre' or a Reform one.
Heck, there's been enough heat generated on these Boards over the years about Sydney Anglicans. Even if a great deal of it was exaggerated - there remained non-Jensenite parishes in the Sydney diocese for instance - there was certainly a case to answer.
I s'pose the interesting dynamic within the Anglican communion at the moment could be that there's a series of competing expansionist empires ... one that sees itself as centrist (or several that see themselves that way) and what you might call the 'extremes' - the Reform types and the charismatics on the one hand and the full-on Anglo-Catholics on the other.
Whether the Communion can survive such centrifugal tensions without fragmenting remains to be seen.
@Try - nice try, Try. I'd go along with that if such an ideal actually existed on the ground. I don't see much evidence of the Anglicanism you depict here.
Where I live you've got dumbed-down, liturgy-lite evangelicalism on the one hand and a kind of vague, woolly, catholic-lite liberalism on the other.
To find the kind of Anglicanism you're talking about would mean heading off into the sticks and worshipping in country parishes outside of the towns.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Gamaliel.
Yes, I agree with you that most, if not all, 'brands' of Anglicanism would like to see an expansion of their own particular vision. That's the nature of conviction in general I think, and not necessarily wrong in itself. For example, HTB are expansionist in their particular vision of Anglicanism.
However, they don't tend to make claims to ideological "centrality" at an institutional level. Rather, they seem to have opted for the exertion relational influence through a combination of political circumspection and a reliance on the persuasiveness of results. This, I think, is what differentiates HTB and charismatics from the more politically minded and confrontational elements within conservative evangelicalism.
[ 18. July 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
Yes, that's what I am saying. At risk of overstatement I'm saying that HTB have the luxury of a very large and influential network of likeminded Anglican and non-Anglican evangelicals and a track record of numerical and organisational success in terms of "getting things done" in terms of evangelisation and church planting and therefore don't have to take the political route in order to get their way.
They are playing the long game. In contrast, however, the centralist agenda is by and large political, and does not have the grass-roots results in terms of successful evangelisation and church planting. They are playing a shorter, more institutional game which, given time, will most likely fizzle out through the natural processes of church decline.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Past experience suggests that it is evangelical models that tend to blow themselves out while the MOTR church continues. It is certainly noticeable out here that it is the Church of Scotland that has survived while the Wee Frees and the Congregationalists, both the subject of massive growth in the 19th century, have disappeared.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
And dare I say neo-colonialist...these are the same folk who were supporting African independence fifty years ago, and now they are trying to impose Western values on the former colonies. Ironic, to say the least...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
And dare I say neo-colonialist...these are the same folk who were supporting African independence fifty years ago, and now they are trying to impose Western values on the former colonies. Ironic, to say the least...
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
Ah, you mean those ultra-extreme con-evos and anglo-catholics that disagree with you on certain DH issues...
No, those who disagree with the vast majority of CoE clergy and laity, but for some reason manage to dominate the conversation.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
[/QUOTE]Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Christ Church, Mayfair is another very conservative evangelical church, where the clergy call themselves Ministers and Elders.
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
If you go to the Reform website then you can put in your postcode and it will bring up churches which are either Reform churches or are linked to the organisation. In my area there is one of each and the linked church has clergy who are members of Reform. I've had minimal contact with the clergy from these churches as they don't go to chapter meetings except when the new bishop came along and he was told how dreadful it was that there were a)bishops and b) a diocese.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
No - and this is what I alluded to in my post. The problem with evangelicals on the conservative end is that they often have a schizophrenic attitude to the hierarchy.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
Right. So why are those Ugandan gay rights activists having to risk their life at all? Do you believe theirs is a majority or minority view amongst Anglicans in Uganda?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The trouble is, daronmedway, that the 'evangelical charismatic aristocracy' - your Nicky Gumbels and New Wine types in the CofE and the Mumfords in the Vineyard and so on - no more occupy the moral highground than the nasty liberals who are trying to expand what they see as the 'centre'.
Given the number of outright lies, half-truths and exaggerations that have been fostered or promulgated by the Gumboids and Mum-sters over the years, I'm surprised anyone takes them seriously.
But money talks ...
Ok, I know that I'm from South Wales and have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to toffee-nosed public school evangelicals and charismatics. I'm an inverted snob. I admit it.
I put two fingers up at Gumbel and twats like J John. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
I say this even though I recognise it to be completely irrational and even though some of my best friends went to Public School and even though some of my wife's family were once involved at St Andrew's Chorleywood.
But there's something about middle-class charismatic Anglican evangelical charismaticism that brings out the worst in me ...
Sure, those who are trying to make a centre out of the liberal agenda come from the same background. The liberal vicar here is a toffee nosed twat in some ways but I still like to go out with him for a pint.
All this puts me in a quandary. A plague on both their houses.
Wild-horses wouldn't drag me anywhere like New Frontiers these days. They're full of shit too.
The problem is, there are equal and opposite piles of supperating shite at the liberal end and all other ways round.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I can very much identify with the public school oligarchy at the heart of Anglican evangelicalism. It annoys me too. Their blinkered view of evangelisation has coloured their ecclesiology rather badly which in turn has led to an overly narrow notion of koinonia which, at its worst, creates a almost wilful blindness to the normal struggles of under-resourced churches which are less favourably placed in terms of social demography.
In this respect I think charismatic and conservative evangelical Anglicans have much to learn about mission in and to working class communities.
And the same holds true for Newfrontiers, which is partly why I think God has kept me in the church of England. In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of English Anglicanism is the somewhat understated, but nevertheless deeply incarnational, commitment to an Anglican "presence in every community". The problem, of course, is that the church can't really agree on what that presence should actually entail.
For evangelicals like me, who are called to minister in areas of social deprivation, that commitment calls for our continuing commitment to classic tenets of evangelicalism like Christocentric conversionism, biblicism, and to and to a greater extend local activism - values which can indeed make us appear unAnglican to our liberal colleagues.
This is mistaken, in my view. It seems to me that the holding of such convictions doesn't necessarily mean that I hold to the same cultural values as the posh boy oligarchy of HTB and New Wine. I may share the same theological convictions as my posh colleagues but I want to see them expressed in ways which HTB types might find rather alien.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:14: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
I have heard a number of evangelical Anglicans say similar things and it always leaves me a little bemused - after all, to what extent is their faith/ministry distinctively Anglican at all? And this even whilst I totally understand that one might have very good fellowship with non-Anglican evangelicals.
This seems to me to embody fairly strongly the quote earlier "being part of an episcopal church while not believing in an episcopate".
It seems the only consistent paths to take are either MLJs or that of the Sidney Anglicans (their tactics, rather than their beliefs), otherwise one can't really complain about being an increasingly ignored rump in the CofE nor can one justify this with some kind of appeal to a remnant suffering - this is mostly self inflicted.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
As others have said, the Reform website will give more information but there are several churches in the Eastbourne-Hastings area.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Past experience suggests that it is evangelical models that tend to blow themselves out while the MOTR church continues. It is certainly noticeable out here that it is the Church of Scotland that has survived while the Wee Frees and the Congregationalists, both the subject of massive growth in the 19th century, have disappeared.
This is a fair point but I think it doesn't properly account for the fact that the church has run out of those lovely Victorian legacies which came, in large part, from evangelical philanthropy. The church is very much living from hand to mouth now and expressions of Anglicanism which lack evangelistic confidence simply will not survive into the next decade unless they can fill their pews with real, live people who give real live money.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Of late, far more avowedly evangelical anglican leaders have sat down in diocesan settings to seriously listen to ....and pray/ worship with ....those of another theological stable to their own.
Which can only help.
The alternative is having folk saying: "i don't even want to sit down and listen to what you have to say "
Which is Never going to help........
Maybe what unites us is really bigger than what we think divides us.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
Right. So why are those Ugandan gay rights activists having to risk their life at all? Do you believe theirs is a majority or minority view amongst Anglicans in Uganda?
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Of course people other than conservatives aggressively promote their points, but those others aren't dominating the particular Dead Horse I was talking about, because the people who are on the opposing side are a minority. That's my whole point - they are a tiny minority within the CoE, why do they get to dominate the debate? My initial quote that started this thread was only talking about this and other Dead Horses.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
I have heard a number of evangelical Anglicans say similar things and it always leaves me a little bemused - after all, to what extent is their faith/ministry distinctively Anglican at all? And this even whilst I totally understand that one might have very good fellowship with non-Anglican evangelicals.
This seems to me to embody fairly strongly the quote earlier "being part of an episcopal church while not believing in an episcopate".
It seems the only consistent paths to take are either MLJs or that of the Sidney Anglicans (their tactics, rather than their beliefs), otherwise one can't really complain about being an increasingly ignored rump in the CofE nor can one justify this with some kind of appeal to a remnant suffering - this is mostly self inflicted.
That's why I said I was committed to Anglican evangelicalism rather than evangelical Anglicanism! My evangelicalism is what defines me, my Anglicanism simply places me within the structures in a particular denomination; a denomination which, I grant, is governed episcopally. However, I don't think that this posture is unAnglican because there is a long heritage of evangelicalism within the Anglican church. In fact, I dare say that the DNA of historic Anglicanism is, in fact, evangelical.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents?
You said:
quote:
I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think you're onto something there, Daronmedway, in terms of the 'incarnational presence' in every community - however we understand that to work out in practice.
I don't see an inconsistency in your position as an evangelical in that respect ...
As far as New Frontiers go, I would hesitate before attributing your decision to remain Anglican and 'prevent' your joining NF to the Almighty - one way or t'other ...
But then, I'm not you, and it's down to you how you see these things.
That said, in some ways I think you'd have found NF rather more prescriptive than it looks from the outside.
I had to chuckle recently when I came across a comment from a 'new church' person (not NF) to the effect that, 'Terry Virgo thinks he's the Archbishop of Canterbury ...'
I'm sure the Archbishop of Canterbury would love, at times, to have the kind of executive and over-weening powers that 'new church' leaders have ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
I have heard a number of evangelical Anglicans say similar things and it always leaves me a little bemused - after all, to what extent is their faith/ministry distinctively Anglican at all?
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
No, Jade's problem is that the Ugandan government isn't blindly doing what Western "liberals" tell them to do.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
That's not distinctively Anglican, that's just identification with the local state church. You could be a Reformed Minister in the dutch bible belt, a Lutheran minister in germany or even a catholic priest in Brazil and all those things would be true.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
chris stiles: a catholic priest in Brazil
They usually minister where they live and in 12 other places.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
That's not distinctively Anglican, that's just identification with the local state church. You could be a Reformed Minister in the dutch bible belt, a Lutheran minister in germany or even a catholic priest in Brazil and all those things would be true.
Precisely. Reformed and Catholic according to the ancient tradition of the church, as Matt Black's signature, quoting John Cosin, puts it.
[ 18. July 2014, 21:26: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
I thought one of the distinctive things about Anglicanism is that being Anglican isn't that important.
What other background would you expect from the author of "Mere Christianity" ?
The Anglicans know that their institution and rites are an accident of history.
Insisting that someone should be distinctively Anglican seems distinctively unAnglican...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
That's not distinctively Anglican, that's just identification with the local state church. You could be a Reformed Minister in the dutch bible belt, a Lutheran minister in germany or even a catholic priest in Brazil and all those things would be true.
Neither, I would have thought. Later in the evening, I may send this to an acquaintance of mine, the curé of a Franco-Ontarian village RC outlet about 40km to the east of here, where he has been ministering for 28 years. While spry and intelligent, he may have trouble understanding that he is both deeply Anglican and the minion of a state church.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
..
Precisely. Reformed and Catholic according to the ancient tradition of the church
.. and yet, going back in this thread you had less in common many other people in your own denomination who were doing everything embodied in the first paragraph, and far more with those from other denominations who - largely - didn't.
Furthermore, the center/fringe terms you were using are defined using none of those things either.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents?
You said:
quote:
I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion.
1. That wasn't Jade. That was me. Get your basic facts right
2. It wasn't "aggressive liberals" ripping into the GS reps. I knew most of the people in the room. They were a mixture of evangelical and MOR laity, none of them normally aggressive or church politic minded. Very ordinary "pewfillers" who were just bloody angry at what had been done in their name.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
The one distinctive thing about Anglicanism is its foundation as the state church of England. Everything else is up for grabs. How 'up for grabs' is well illustrated by the fact that Henry VIII originally founded it to be 'catholic without the Pope', and as soon as Henry died it became Protestant under his son Edward VI, by fiat from the top, not by faith in the individual members. For Elizabeth, after the Marian interruption, it was a political compromise for the peace of the nation, and ever since it has really been somewhat of a mixture. There have been Puritan factions who tried to push it to be more Protestant, and various kinds of 'high-churchy' faction who tried to be more like Rome in various ways, plus a mix of all sorts. For many the church was just a career for younger sons of the middle and upper classes, for others it was a part of English patriotism, providing a 'God on our side' for colonialism not much better than anyone else's.
The balance and exact nature of the factions changes from time to time, often for all kinds of worldly reasons rather than any religious reason - but the only true distinctive is establishment - or of course in most countries now, in a comparatively recent change, former establishment....
According to the 'Articles of Religion' it was clearly intended to be Protestant in beliefs; but it's superficial practices tended towards 'catholic' in the interests of that formal state unity/conformity in religious matters. But the distinctive feature of being 'established', being the state church – that's not a good thing in all kinds of ways.
One of these ways is seen in the example of Uganda, quoted earlier by Jade Constable. Of course a nation with an established church first had Christian standards imposed involuntarily and legalistically on its own population; and of course when it went colonising it imposed those standards on the colonies in such forms as anti-homosexual laws.... That kind of thing is what a state church is for and about.
At the same time, this distinctive of establishment is of course unbiblical, which makes it even worse. As it happens I'm with Jade Constable on this point – 'Con-Evos' should NOT be Anglican, it is inconsistent with their basic stance as Bible-believers.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The one distinctive thing about Anglicanism is its foundation as the state church of England.
I actually don't think that being established is much of a deal OR that distinctive.
For a start, there are other established churches. And you could argue that some of them are more affected by being established than the C of E, because they receive church tax from the state.
I also don't think that being established makes very much difference to the vast majority of the C of E. The "State Church" bits are very small and impact very few. To all intents and purposes, the C of E functions like any other denomination these days. Disestablishment would change very little. The only reason it hasn't been done is that no government wants to waste huge amounts of time on something that will bring zero benefit to them or to anyone, really.
One slightly indirect aspect of being the established church, which DOES make the C of E distinctive, is the way its senior clergy are appointed. The secrecy and use of the old boy network means that the senior figures are almost always going to be safe, conservative people and will be increasingly out of step with the majority of the rest of the C of E. If a disestablished C of E started electing its bishops (as other Anglican provinces do), I think we would see a different C of E.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Jade.
My sincere apologies. I've been using my iPhone to post and I genuinely thought I was replying to Oscar, not you. Sorry about the mix up.
[ 19. July 2014, 07:14: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
We live where we minster. That's deeply Anglican. We understand ourselves to be called to a particular geographical location and the people living in that location; the para-oikos or parish (lit. beside the dwellings). That's deeply Anglican. We have strong sense of the cure of souls as an evangelistic imperative. That's deeply Anglican, or at least it should be.
..
Precisely. Reformed and Catholic according to the ancient tradition of the church
.. and yet, going back in this thread you had less in common many other people in your own denomination who were doing everything embodied in the first paragraph, and far more with those from other denominations who - largely - didn't.
Furthermore, the center/fringe terms you were using are defined using none of those things either.
Yes, that's right. I probably wouldn't have agreed with John Cosin's vision of Anglicanism, but I've always liked the quote.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
I actually don't think that being established is much of a deal OR that distinctive.
For a start, there are other established churches.
Yes, there are other 'established' churches, not all in exactly the Anglican format. Actually if you think about it, being the established church of one particular nation and its former colonies is not only a considerable 'distinctive', it is a very dubious distinctive in Christian terms, in which in Christ there is no Roman, Greek, Englishman etc.
My point was that being 'established' is the only real Anglican distinctive, given the variety in other areas which has always prevailed; and the subsidiary point, in line with the OP, that it's a distinctive that shouldn't be in the first place.
I'm not sure that establishment is so very unimportant these days - just consider the implications that the recent women bishops legislation cannot be implemented till it's gone through some process of Parliamentary approval. OK, in this case it's unlikely that Parliament will reject the arrangement - but potentially they might; should what is supposed to be God's Church be in that position?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What you are saying would be the case, Steve Langton, if the CofE only, or primarily, admitted English people.
The last time I looked there were plenty of people who aren't ethnically English in Anglican churches - particularly in inner-city areas.
As for Establishment as the only real Anglican distinctive and the rest is up for grabs - one could just as easily argue that an Anti-Establishment position is the only genuine Steve Langton distinctive - and everything else is up for grabs.
What else is distinctive about your approach?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
No, Jade's problem is that the Ugandan government isn't blindly doing what Western "liberals" tell them to do.
Uh no, don't put words in my mouth or think you have the right to speak for me. Unless you have proven psychic abilities, you have no idea what I think so button it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
Last time I checked, 'influenced by' didn't equal 'blindly doing what x group says', so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Of course Ugandans have agency and of course they can be homophobic without outside influence, but Ugandans can also campaign for gay rights without outside influence. I was correcting the notion that no African would want LGBT equality without outside liberal influence - when actually in many cases it was there before colonisation.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents?
You said:
quote:
I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion.
Sorry, please link me to where I said this because I don't think I've ever said this. I've never been in that situation before, so I'm puzzled
[ 19. July 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Whoops daronmedway, hadn't seen your correction - that's OK, I was just very confused since the only time I've been in a room with GS representatives, everyone else has agreed with them!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
I actually don't think that being established is much of a deal OR that distinctive.
For a start, there are other established churches.
Yes, there are other 'established' churches, not all in exactly the Anglican format. Actually if you think about it, being the established church of one particular nation and its former colonies is not only a considerable 'distinctive', it is a very dubious distinctive in Christian terms, in which in Christ there is no Roman, Greek, Englishman etc.
My point was that being 'established' is the only real Anglican distinctive, given the variety in other areas which has always prevailed; and the subsidiary point, in line with the OP, that it's a distinctive that shouldn't be in the first place.
I'm not sure that establishment is so very unimportant these days - just consider the implications that the recent women bishops legislation cannot be implemented till it's gone through some process of Parliamentary approval. OK, in this case it's unlikely that Parliament will reject the arrangement - but potentially they might; should what is supposed to be God's Church be in that position?
Actually there aren't other Established churches, at least not in the specific meaning of how the CoE is Established. If it's not legally part of the government, it's not Established, so those churches that do not follow the CoE format (eg the Church in Wales, Church of Scotland, TEC) are not Established at all. 'Established' is a specific term, not just whatever you want it to mean.
Being Established isn't a distinctively Anglican thing - there are many non-Established Anglican churches.
[ 19. July 2014, 11:49: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I understood Oscar to be referring to such churches as the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Norway, not the Church in Wales. The Church of Scotland, to which you refer, is Presbyterian, not Anglican. And the only established Anglican church is the C of E.
AFAIK, the Anglican Church was never the established church of any of the former colonies. There was an attempt to establish it in NSW, but that never got off the ground - although some of the clergy pretended that it had been. There may have been similar unsuccessful attempts elsewhere.
[ 19. July 2014, 12:11: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
No, Jade's problem is that the Ugandan government isn't blindly doing what Western "liberals" tell them to do.
Uh no, don't put words in my mouth or think you have the right to speak for me. Unless you have proven psychic abilities, you have no idea what I think so button it.
I admit I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are criticizing certain African governments for not adopting Western cultural mores and values. Perhaps you could learn to show some respect for other countries' mores and customs (even if you happen to disagree with them) by not using derogatory terms such as 'misogynist' and 'homophobic'. They have the right to decide how to order their own societies, and whether or not to promote the sort of equality agenda which has been voluntarily implemented in the West over the last 50 years - and quite recently in some cases.
Trying to berate and bully them into doing so just because we tell them to equates to cultural imperialism in my books.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was correcting the notion that no African would want LGBT equality without outside liberal influence
No one was claiming those policies had unanimous support in those countries (please point me to the post claiming that). These policies have - whatever you feel about it - popular support though.
So perhaps the Ugandan government would do exactly the same thing even if there wasn't some support from some Western evangelicals.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... those who are trying to make a centre out of the liberal agenda
Going back a bit, you referred to "nasty liberals" and this "liberal agenda" a couple of times in that post. What exactly are you getting at? I may agree, but now I'm outside any official liberal context I'm curious about how it looks from your perspective.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... those who are trying to make a centre out of the liberal agenda
Going back a bit, you referred to "nasty liberals" and this "liberal agenda" a couple of times in that post. What exactly are you getting at? I may agree, but now I'm outside any official liberal context I'm curious about how it looks from your perspective.
If you'll permit me to answer this question as well, I'll describe what I see.
I see the intentional usage of spacial metaphor to establish the liberal vision for the Church of England as inherently "central" to the Anglican identity. This claim to centrality rests on an a priori ideological presupposition that the liberal vision for the church is the inherently "central" position in Anglicanism.
Then, from that constructed "centre" I see an expansionist approach which is seeking to take territory which is legitimately occupied my those now deemed marginal, fringe, at the edge, or extreme by the purveyors of the "centralist" schema. This happens in two main ways: subsumption via an interminable "indaba" listening process or ostracism via the process of and negative propaganda and increasingly strident "invitations to leave".
[ 19. July 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My reference to 'nasty liberals' was, of course, tongue in cheek, Dave Marshall.
I might just as equally refer to 'nasty evangelicals'.
Some liberals are nasty, some evangelicals are nasty. It cuts both ways.
That said, I concur with Daronmedway in his detecting a tactic on the part of some Anglican liberals to claim the 'centre-ground' as their own and to portray more conservative Anglicans - whether on the Catholic or evangelical wings - as somehow outside of the centre-ground of mainstream Anglicanism.
There's always going to be a tension in a broad church like the CofE, with the proponents of whatever view considering theirs to be the quintessentially Anglican one ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AFAIK, the Anglican Church was never the established church of any of the former colonies. There was an attempt to establish it in NSW, but that never got off the ground - although some of the clergy pretended that it had been. There may have been similar unsuccessful attempts elsewhere.
The Anglican Church was established in New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia when they were colonies, and in some cases for a number of years afterward. But perhaps you meant established in former colonies that were no longer colonies. If so, never mind.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There's a risk of disingenuity in all traditions involved here.
I think what Daron is saying is that the liberal types are entitled to their view and standpoint, provided that they are upfront about it being a liberal standpoint and they don't present it as if it is the inalienably centrist middle-ground of mainstream Anglicanism.
I suspect there's a lot of truth in that.
By the same token, there are equal and opposite besetting sins and tendencies we could lay at the door of evangelical Anglicans, Anglo-catholics, MoTR Anglicans and however many shades of Anglican there are ...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
That's precisely what I'm saying and I agree that, in another universe, it could be the anglo-catholics or the evangelicals laying claim to the ideological centre. After all, Anglicanism began essentially evangelical and bumped along that way for some considerable time, then it shifted for a time to anglo-catholicism and is now, at least for a time, dominated - at least politically - by the liberals.
[ 19. July 2014, 14:50: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you'll permit me to answer this question as well, I'll describe what I see.
Thanks. Seriously.
quote:
I see the intentional usage of spacial metaphor to establish the liberal vision for the Church of England as inherently "central" to the Anglican identity.
Where do you see this? Or perhaps better, what makes you interpret what you see in these terms?
quote:
This claim to centrality rests on an a priori ideological presupposition that the liberal vision for the church is the inherently "central" position in Anglicanism.
I haven't noticed any coherent "liberal vision" (more's the pity). But that may be because I haven't been paying much attention.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Does the 'centre' really exist, in the same way as there is no such thing as 'average'? Most people will cluster around what becomes the centre ground, while the outer lines stretch out to encompass those on the peripheries.
If the C of E aims to include all who claim to be Christian in England, this must affect what is perceived as 'distinctively Anglican' in every generation.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what Daron is saying is that the liberal types are entitled to their view and standpoint, provided that they are upfront about it being a liberal standpoint and they don't present it as if it is the inalienably centrist middle-ground of mainstream Anglicanism.
But as you say, everyone's doing it. What no-one seems to be doing is separating consideration of what kind of institution the Church of England needs to be, given its diversity, from their own ideological/theological priorities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's precisely what I'm saying and I agree that, in another universe, it could be the anglo-catholics or the evangelicals laying claim to the ideological centre. After all, Anglicanism began essentially evangelical and bumped along that way for some considerable time, then it shifted for a time to anglo-catholicism and is now, at least for a time, dominated - at least politically - by the liberals.
Liberals are seen as on the way out. Evangelicals are dominating the C of E now.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you'll permit me to answer this question as well, I'll describe what I see.
Thanks. Seriously.
quote:
I see the intentional usage of spacial metaphor to establish the liberal vision for the Church of England as inherently "central" to the Anglican identity.
Where do you see this? Or perhaps better, what makes you interpret what you see in these terms?
I see it in the common language of church officialdom, especially when it comes to looking for 'jobs', for want of a better term. I don't know when the term "central" became the preferred synonym for liberal but I've been seeing it in official church paperwork since the late 1990s, early 2000s. It's always annoyed me because it lays illegitimate claim via special metaphor to a position of power, influence and control. It is a claim to positional entitlement which too few people have thought to question.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I haven't noticed any coherent "liberal vision" (more's the pity). But that may be because I haven't been paying much attention.
The former Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee sets out coherent, positive visions here and here, albeit a while ago.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I understood Oscar to be referring to such churches as the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Norway, not the Church in Wales. The Church of Scotland, to which you refer, is Presbyterian, not Anglican. And the only established Anglican church is the C of E.
Correct. Establishment may be rare, but the C of E is by no means unique in this respect.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the C of E aims to include all who claim to be Christian in England, this must affect what is perceived as 'distinctively Anglican' in every generation.
If the C of E aimed to reflect all Christians in England, then yes. But that's not how it works. In general the Church hierarchy see their role as primarily preservative of past generations' visions of being Christian and being a Church. In each position of responsibility each individual is effectively locked into a role that prevents change happening in that context. So in every generation 'distinctively Anglican' becomes ever more remote from ordinary lived-out Christian faiths.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's precisely what I'm saying and I agree that, in another universe, it could be the anglo-catholics or the evangelicals laying claim to the ideological centre. After all, Anglicanism began essentially evangelical and bumped along that way for some considerable time, then it shifted for a time to anglo-catholicism and is now, at least for a time, dominated - at least politically - by the liberals.
Liberals are seen as on the way out. Evangelicals are dominating the C of E now.
Potentially, yes. And the centrists know it, which is why their rhetoric increasingly includes invitations for evangelicals (and others) to leave, as in the OP.
They've managed to convince themselves and others that the liberal (i.e central) vision is Anglicanism precisely in order to legitimise the ostracism of competing visions which are, in actual fact, theologically, ecclesiologically and historically perfectly Anglican.
Some charismatic-evangelicals (like HTB) appear to have rumbled the centrists and are simply refusing to engage, opting instead to re-imagine, re-vamp and re-double their evangelistic, social engagement and church planting programmes. And it's driving the centrists crazy.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you'll permit me to answer this question as well, I'll describe what I see.
Thanks. Seriously.
quote:
I see the intentional usage of spacial metaphor to establish the liberal vision for the Church of England as inherently "central" to the Anglican identity.
Where do you see this? Or perhaps better, what makes you interpret what you see in these terms?
I see it in the common language of church officialdom, especially when it comes to looking for 'jobs', for want of a better term. I don't know when the term "central" became the preferred synonym for liberal but I've been seeing it in official church paperwork since the late 1990s, early 2000s. It's always annoyed me because it lays illegitimate claim via special metaphor to a position of power, influence and control. It is a claim to positional entitlement which too few people have thought to question.
I don't think you're right, here. "Central" in terms of job adverts doesn't mean "liberal". It means "not evangelical and not anglo-catholic but somewhere in between". And that's clumsy, so "central" is a commonly accepted description.[*] Now some "central" churches are liberal. But by no means all. My last parish was "central" but rather conservative in terms of attitudes to homosexuality and not terribly comfortable with women priests.
And calling oneself "central" is making no claim about seeking power, influence or control. It's not really saying "we're where everyone should be." More often than not, it's saying "we're not this or that." I think you're reading far too much into this word.
I'm not saying that there aren't "central" people who are liberal and who are pushing for a specific agenda. But IME there aren't many of those, and there are far more people from evangelical and anglo-catholic tendencies who are actively pushing agendas. And a lot of people who are actively seeking "liberal" things like SSM and women bishops would not describe themselves as liberal.
(* Another commonly accepted descriptor in job adverts is "open evangelical". This also has its problems. When first used, it tended to mean "evangelicalish but not hardline and open to other traditions". But it has since come to be code for "evangelical and gently charismatic." Such shorthand descriptors are inevitably clumsy. But when you are trying to be brief and succinct in a job advert or CV, their usage is inevitable.)
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I see it in the common language of church officialdom, especially when it comes to looking for 'jobs', for want of a better term. I don't know when the term "central" became the preferred synonym for liberal but I've been seeing it in official church paperwork since the late 1990s, early 2000s.
I saw that somewhere recently, but I'm fairly sure "central" did not mean liberal. From the context, I took it to mean the ability and willingness to work within various local traditions (including catholic, "radical" and evangelical). They didn't want someone who was going impose their theological/ecclesiological preference on every parish.
But alongside that requirement was something like "loyality to the Church of England". I know liberal is a slippery concept, but in the current climate I don't see any indication there of theological liberalism.
[cross-posted]
[ 19. July 2014, 15:55: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The former Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee sets out coherent, positive visions here and here, albeit a while ago.
Yes, as far as they go. The Church lost a good bishop when John Saxbee retired. These days Linda Woodhead seems to address the interesting issues almost in passing.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
No, Jade's problem is that the Ugandan government isn't blindly doing what Western "liberals" tell them to do.
Uh no, don't put words in my mouth or think you have the right to speak for me. Unless you have proven psychic abilities, you have no idea what I think so button it.
I admit I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are criticizing certain African governments for not adopting Western cultural mores and values. Perhaps you could learn to show some respect for other countries' mores and customs (even if you happen to disagree with them) by not using derogatory terms such as 'misogynist' and 'homophobic'. They have the right to decide how to order their own societies, and whether or not to promote the sort of equality agenda which has been voluntarily implemented in the West over the last 50 years - and quite recently in some cases.
Trying to berate and bully them into doing so just because we tell them to equates to cultural imperialism in my books.
Uh no, if you'd actually read my comments you'd see that's the opposite of what I am saying. Homophobia is not an intrinsically African value, no more than believing in LGBT rights is an intrinsically Western value, and it is you who is racist in suggesting that. LGBT rights are actually not something being imposed on Africans by Westerners, rather that homophobia and homophobic laws are something colonialism forced on countries occupied on Westerners - non-heterosexuality and non-binary genders were known and acknowledged and accepted by many former colonies of the West before colonization. An example of this is India - its current anti-homosexuality laws were brought in by the British, and are not inherently Indian in the slightest. Attempts to get rid of these laws, in contrast, are primarily driven by Indian people themselves.
As I have already said, it is deeply racist to suggest that fighting for LGBT rights is a 'liberal Western' value, as if non-Westerners are more inherently homophobic than Westerners. This both others and exoticises homophobia (and hides the homophobia of Western nations) and also erases non-Western non-heterosexual identities.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was correcting the notion that no African would want LGBT equality without outside liberal influence
No one was claiming those policies had unanimous support in those countries (please point me to the post claiming that). These policies have - whatever you feel about it - popular support though.
So perhaps the Ugandan government would do exactly the same thing even if there wasn't some support from some Western evangelicals.
But not without Christian colonialism, surely? Homophobia is not some kind of inherent Ugandan trait. That is what I was trying to say, not that nobody in Uganda actually agrees with those laws.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's precisely what I'm saying and I agree that, in another universe, it could be the anglo-catholics or the evangelicals laying claim to the ideological centre. After all, Anglicanism began essentially evangelical and bumped along that way for some considerable time, then it shifted for a time to anglo-catholicism and is now, at least for a time, dominated - at least politically - by the liberals.
Liberals are seen as on the way out. Evangelicals are dominating the C of E now.
Potentially, yes. And the centrists know it, which is why their rhetoric increasingly includes invitations for evangelicals (and others) to leave, as in the OP.
They've managed to convince themselves and others that the liberal (i.e central) vision is Anglicanism precisely in order to legitimise the ostracism of competing visions which are, in actual fact, theologically, ecclesiologically and historically perfectly Anglican.
Some charismatic-evangelicals (like HTB) appear to have rumbled the centrists and are simply refusing to engage, opting instead to re-imagine, re-vamp and re-double their evangelistic, social engagement and church planting programmes. And it's driving the centrists crazy.
As I have said countless times (but has been ignored), my quote (which was taken out of its context of the particular DH it was discussing) is referring to everyone at the very extremes of the CoE, Anglo-Catholics as well as Evangelicals. I would also not say that the 'centre' (and I have never claimed to be of the centre, and have repeatedly said that I am not) is inherently liberal (though I guess, define liberal). Some liberals may claim so, I am not one of them.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
And I'm saying that your use of the term 'the extremes', with reference to views which you dislike, is an example of spatial metaphor that perhaps belies a degree of complicity with, or maybe just indifference to, the subtleties of the centrist approach to Anglican church politics.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Raptor Eye, I don't think the CofE is setting out its stall to represent 'all Christians' in England.
It would certainly claim to represent a Christian voice to the nation and so on, but that's not to suggest that people in the RC Church or the Methodists, Baptists, New Frontiers or anywhere else aren't doing so in their particular way too.
A belief that the CofE is 'there' for anyone and everyone isn't the same as suggesting that all Christians in England should be CofE ... any more than having a Church of Scotland or a Church In Wles means that there's an expectation that all Christians north of the border or west of Offa's Dyke have to belong or even engage with those particular bodies.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I'm saying that your use of the term 'the extremes', with reference to views which you dislike, is an example of spatial metaphor that perhaps belies a degree of complicity with, or maybe just indifference to, the subtleties of the centrist approach to Anglican church politics.
And I'm saying that, despite people trying to correct you gently, you're talking a load of old bollocks here. Seriously. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about some sort of "liberal agenda" that is making you see all sorts of things that just aren't there.
It seems to me that you are confusing two distinct things:
a) the idea of "central" churches which avoid the extremes. Now I know that you seem unhappy with such terms as "centre" or "extreme" but it is difficult to know how else to talk about these things. There can be no denying that the likes of Reform and Forward in Faith are "extreme" in that they are untypical of the majority of the C of E and that they lurk "on the edges" - avoiding too much involvement with the rest of the C of E. What term would YOU prefer to use for such groups?
b) the "centrist" approach in the C of E hierarchy - whereby the centre (Church House in London and Diocesan Offices around the country) have increasingly attempted to take greater control over parishes and priests.
If you want to discuss the evils of the latter, I'm all on your side. But be aware that those pushing such a "centrist" line are not necessarily liberal. Overall, most are pretty conservative in their views and are just as likely to be evangelical or anglo-catholic as liberal.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I think I have worked out part your problem with terms like "centre".
When discussing colour on the spectrum, we might say that yellow is "central". By that, we don't mean that yellow has more power, or seeks dominance. It is simply in the middle. It isn't at the extremes like infra red or ultra violet.
In C of E terms, "central" means the same thing. On the spectrum of types of church, it is simply in the middle. That's all.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
...an Anti-Establishment position is the only genuine Steve Langton distinctive - and everything else is up for grabs.
What else is distinctive about your approach?
Sorry this reply is a bit belated, I've been out all day and only just got back in. NO, everything else is not 'up for grabs' as far as I'm concerned - you'll recall that on other threads I've supported the general idea of 'Mere Christianity' and I wouldn't want to be distinctive in that area. Just I don't believe 'establishment' and the other 'Christian country' variants found elsewhere are part of that 'Mere Christianity', and I believe that what the NT teaches instead basically precludes Anglican 'establishment' and all the other variants that aim at a 'Christian country' - up to and including the 'Paisley pattern' in NI and the 'Neo-Constantinian' version found in the USA.
AS regards 'establishment in England' as the only Anglican distinctive - come on, it is! All the other things claimed as uniquely Anglican basically spring from that historical fact. 'Everything else up for grabs' - again, being established is pretty much the only constant in Anglicanism, just about everything else is variable depending which Anglican you talk to.
By Gamaliel;
quote:
What you are saying would be the case, Steve Langton, if the CofE only, or primarily, admitted English people.
Sorry, my attempt to curb my natural prolixity left my statement a little limited. Perhaps 'UK citizen' would have covered it better. But the point is that irrespective of the ethnicities nowadays admitted, the Anglican Church IS the established religion of a particular state and that does rather go against the international nature of the Church as described in the NT.
Off out shopping now, may have more to say later.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Except that establishment is neither a constant in Anglicanism (look at the SEC) nor is it unique to Anglicanism.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The point about liberal being regarded as "centre" was a charge levelled at Robert Runcie, who (it was alleged) saw the CofE as spanning a spectrum from evangelical at one end to catholic at the other, with nice sensible liberals occupying the centre ground.
The whole conceit was pretty much delivered the coup de grace by several writers subsequently* who pointed out that by any analysis, the CofE had at least three principal strands historically. They tend to morph into new formulations as time goes by, so don't expect the present day manifestations to agree historically with earlier ones. Nevertheless, a historical analysis alone will bear the thesis out.
But using this approach, you would conclude that the three principal poles within the CofE would what we currently call catholic, evangelical and liberal. Central churchmanship would sit somewhere between these three.
(* the most famous - and a good read - is "The Panther and the Hind" by Aidan Nichols)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Steve Langton, I think you rather missed the point I was making but never mind ...
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
you would conclude that the three principal poles within the CofE would what we currently call catholic, evangelical and liberal. Central churchmanship would sit somewhere between these three.
The difficulty with that is that it struggles to capture the nuänces within that broadstroke painting. Liberals can be evangelical or anglo-catholic or neither. But I agree that a two dimensional spectrum isn't completely satisfactory for describing the breadth of the C of E. As with every image and metaphor, you can use it to a certain degree, as long as you continually say to yourself "but it's not really that simple".
The spectrum metaphor helps in the sense that, as with colours, one part merges into the next and there are no clear boundaries. But once you start to push the metaphor beyond that, I accept that it's going to become inadequate very quickly.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Except that establishment is neither a constant in Anglicanism (look at the SEC) nor is it unique to Anglicanism.
You are working too hard with what I say! Look, 'establishment' is where Anglicanism came from, and I'm well aware for example that most of its provinces are now disestablished or never were technically so; nevertheless being derived from England's established church is 'distinctive' of Anglicanism everywhere as far as I know.
Establishment in general is not unique to Anglicanism; my critique would equally apply to every other church following that undesirable route, including all the 'Christian country' variants mentioned in my last post. Specific Anglican establishment - being the particular church established in England - is of course unique and again bears the criticism I made of it as being in conflict with the Christian internationalism ideal.
My point I think remains - given the variety found in just about every other area of the CofE, establishment is and pretty much always has been its distinctive point. And with that as the distinctive point, it's undesirable.
By Gamaliel;
quote:
@Steve Langton, I think you rather missed the point I was making but never mind ...
Or I saw it but responded to the serious bit rather than the usual Gamaliel teasing?
It was anyway a bit of an instant 'on the go' response as you may have gathered from my remarks about my circumstances at the time....
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
No, the issue is that you're ignorant of the history of the SEC. The SEC is not an offshoot of the CofE. Indeed for many years Episcopalianism was suppressed in Scotland because the established church was Presbyterian and Episcopalianism was associated with Jacobitism. Scottish Episcopalianism has more in common in political terms with English non-conformism than it does with the established CofE.
Were I going to be really pedantic I would point out that US Episcopalianism is derived from the Scottish tradition but that is stretching a point. One could also argue about the degree to which the Anglican churches on the Iberian peninsula owe much to establishment.
[ 19. July 2014, 20:16: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
No, the issue is that you're ignorant of the history of the SEC.
OK, you got me on that one! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I'll check it out. Doesn't really affect my major point about Anglicanism in general as far as I can currently see, though.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think I have worked out part your problem with terms like "centre".
When discussing colour on the spectrum, we might say that yellow is "central". By that, we don't mean that yellow has more power, or seeks dominance. It is simply in the middle. It isn't at the extremes like infra red or ultra violet.
In C of E terms, "central" means the same thing. On the spectrum of types of church, it is simply in the middle. That's all.
I don't think so.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
A quick scan of the Wikipedia article on the SEC tends to confirm my point that interference of state with church is undesirable whatever you call it! Again you seem to be making heavy weather of a point which remains valid despite a few trivial exceptions like the SEC.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
you would conclude that the three principal poles within the CofE would what we currently call catholic, evangelical and liberal. Central churchmanship would sit somewhere between these three.
The difficulty with that is that it struggles to capture the nuänces within that broadstroke painting. Liberals can be evangelical or anglo-catholic or neither. But I agree that a two dimensional spectrum isn't completely satisfactory for describing the breadth of the C of E. As with every image and metaphor, you can use it to a certain degree, as long as you continually say to yourself "but it's not really that simple".
The spectrum metaphor helps in the sense that, as with colours, one part merges into the next and there are no clear boundaries. But once you start to push the metaphor beyond that, I accept that it's going to become inadequate very quickly.
Indeed, Oscar. Like any analogy you can push it too far. And it's never going to capture the downright quirky.
However, it is far more realistic than the straight-line analogy with "centre" somewhere between catholic and evangelical. As you say, using it as you would a Colour Triangle usually works pretty well. And it has the advantage of an underlying theory to it.
(It does actually capture the idea of liberal catholic etc. pretty well, for example).
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
you would conclude that the three principal poles within the CofE would what we currently call catholic, evangelical and liberal. Central churchmanship would sit somewhere between these three.
The difficulty with that is that it struggles to capture the nuänces within that broadstroke painting. Liberals can be evangelical or anglo-catholic or neither. But I agree that a two dimensional spectrum isn't completely satisfactory for describing the breadth of the C of E. As with every image and metaphor, you can use it to a certain degree, as long as you continually say to yourself "but it's not really that simple".
There you go again! Breadth. That's totally one dimensional. Breadth and depth would be two. Honest Ron Bacardi hasn't described a spectrum, he has described a two dimensional triangle the three vertices of which represent liberalism, evangelicalism, and anglo-catholicism. If you added height (charismatic), that would be three dimensions (a pyramid). He then suggests, very in line with your argument, that central churchmanship would sit somewhere near the centre (presumably) of the triangle (or pyramid) thereby representing a sort of compromise position between the three. I would contend that this form of centralism doesn't actually exist.
[ 19. July 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
you would conclude that the three principal poles within the CofE would what we currently call catholic, evangelical and liberal. Central churchmanship would sit somewhere between these three.
The difficulty with that is that it struggles to capture the nuänces within that broadstroke painting. Liberals can be evangelical or anglo-catholic or neither. But I agree that a two dimensional spectrum isn't completely satisfactory for describing the breadth of the C of E. As with every image and metaphor, you can use it to a certain degree, as long as you continually say to yourself "but it's not really that simple".
There you go again! Breadth. That's totally one dimensional. Breadth and depth would be two. Honest Ron Bacardi hasn't described a spectrum, he has described a two dimensional triangle the three vertices of which represent liberalism, evangelicalism, and anglo-catholicism. If you added height (charismatic), that would be three dimensions (a pyramid). He then suggests, very in line with your argument, that central churchmanship would sit somewhere near the centre (presumably) of the triangle (or pyramid) thereby representing a sort of compromise position between the three. I would contend that this form of centralism doesn't actually exist.
Really? You can't have been in many MOTR churches in that case. This form of centralism absolutely exists.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? You can't have been in many MOTR churches in that case. This form of centralism absolutely exists.
You realise every example you can give will magically turn into a form of liberalism as soon as it is mentioned?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Nick Tamen, Thank you for that bit of knowledge. Somehow I had never come across it before, but I'll now tuck it away.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Except that establishment is neither a constant in Anglicanism (look at the SEC) nor is it unique to Anglicanism.
You are working too hard with what I say! Look, 'establishment' is where Anglicanism came from, and I'm well aware for example that most of its provinces are now disestablished or never were technically so; nevertheless being derived from England's established church is 'distinctive' of Anglicanism everywhere as far as I know.
Establishment in general is not unique to Anglicanism; my critique would equally apply to every other church following that undesirable route, including all the 'Christian country' variants mentioned in my last post. Specific Anglican establishment - being the particular church established in England - is of course unique and again bears the criticism I made of it as being in conflict with the Christian internationalism ideal.
My point I think remains - given the variety found in just about every other area of the CofE, establishment is and pretty much always has been its distinctive point. And with that as the distinctive point, it's undesirable.
By Gamaliel;
quote:
@Steve Langton, I think you rather missed the point I was making but never mind ...
Or I saw it but responded to the serious bit rather than the usual Gamaliel teasing?
It was anyway a bit of an instant 'on the go' response as you may have gathered from my remarks about my circumstances at the time....
Um, I think the 'via media' is the distinctive characteristic of Anglicanism, not Establishment. It might be worth listening to Anglicans here.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
MOTR is just another spacial metaphor for "more Anglican than what's in the gutter" whereas MOTR could just as easily be described as "lacking the conviction to be much of anything at all really".
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A quick scan of the Wikipedia article on the SEC tends to confirm my point that interference of state with church is undesirable whatever you call it! Again you seem to be making heavy weather of a point which remains valid despite a few trivial exceptions like the SEC.
We will pass over the degree to which the people of the SEC feel that they might be a trivial exception, but also note that TEC is an offshoot, not only in terms of succession, but liturgically (epiclesis!) and organizationally, of the SEC. While I might think that TEC is theologically trivial, it is not so in terms of energy and presence.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A quick scan of the Wikipedia article on the SEC tends to confirm my point that interference of state with church is undesirable whatever you call it! Again you seem to be making heavy weather of a point which remains valid despite a few trivial exceptions like the SEC.
We will pass over the degree to which the people of the SEC feel that they might be a trivial exception, but also note that TEC is an offshoot, not only in terms of succession, but liturgically (epiclesis!) and organizationally, of the SEC. While I might think that TEC is theologically trivial, it is not so in terms of energy and presence.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Um, I think the 'via media' is the distinctive characteristic of Anglicanism, not Establishment. It might be worth listening to Anglicans here.
Um, I think the 'via media' is the distinctive characteristic of Anglicanism precisely because of its origins as a state established church in which being a 'via media' was important to Lizzie I for political rather than spiritual reasons.
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
We will pass over the degree to which the people of the SEC feel that they might be a trivial exception, but also note that TEC is an offshoot, not only in terms of succession, but liturgically (epiclesis!) and organizationally, of the SEC. While I might think that TEC is theologically trivial, it is not so in terms of energy and presence.
It was a pretty quick check on the SEC; It seemed to me the Wiki article was saying that the SEC was not directly an offshoot of the CofE but was the result of royal attempts to set up an episcopal Scottish church back when England and Scotland were under the same king but had not yet become a fully 'United Kingdom' as is (so far) still the case today. And that later it became even more disconnected from Anglicanism in England because it remained faithful to the Stewart cause. If that's correct then essentially the SEC was originally the same thing as Anglicanism, just in a different organisation of the country/monarchy at the time.
TEC - I hope you mean The Episcopal Church of the USA; again Wiki seems to be saying that this was an original CofE foundation during the Colonial period, and that those who wanted to continue an 'Anglican style' church after the War of Independence first had to separate from the CofE in order to be patriotic Americans, and then had to seek (supposedly valid) ordination of bishops via the by then independent SEC because obviously the state CofE wasn't going to ordain rebels against the King.
I'll agree that neither SEC nor TEC is 'trivial' altogether - but in terms of the point I'm making, that it all goes back to the establishment of the CofE, it's hardly the mega exception that Arethosemyfeet seemed to be implying, and as I said, seems to make my point about the undesirability of establishment, rather than supporting the idea.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The SEC has not been established in any way for over a quarter millennium, so the degree to which that can be ascribed to it as an essential characteristic is on the minimal side. Indeed, a full century of mild persecution would IMHO negate that entirely. But kilometrage may vary.
While I dislike TEC as the abbreviation, that is what it's known as, and it has been for some time-- I still like PECUSA and find that TEC is imperialist, but maybe that's me. Given the diversity of how colonial provinces dealt with establishment and Anglican congregations (Mass No, NH No, RI no, Conn unclear, NY unclear, NJ yes, Penn no, Del unclear, Maryland yes, Virginia yes, NC unclear, SC yes, Georgia yes, Florida unclear), and given the opprobrium and distrust it experienced in the post-independence period, it is perhaps pushing it to ascribe establishment as a characteristic.
In any case, they did not separate from the CoE but were dropped by it, as the Bishop of London (under whose jurisdiction they were) indicated that they were no longer under his care after 1783, when the annoying colonies had their independence recognized. The CoE could not provide bishops as English laws precluded (with drawing and quartering) consecrating without a royal mandate, which could not be had for churches outside the King's jurisdiction--- it had nothing to do with their rebel status, but simply that they were no longer subjects, and the states no longer provinces. I have not looked at the Wiki article but.... I would say that these two churches continue to be a mega-exception.
Establishment is a characteristic of the CoE, but the CoE is not the only way of looking at Anglicanism. Indeed, I would suspect that it is shifting to a marginal spot and we need to look more at the Africans to define Anglicanism. O-- and I agree with Stephen Langton about the undesirability of establishment. It's not that bishops in the Lords is a bad or useless thing, but establishment defuses the energies of a church and identifies it too closely to nationalist sentiments (formerly in Spain, and currently in Greece and Russia for some non-Anglican examples).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Given the diversity of how colonial provinces dealt with establishment and Anglican congregations (Mass No, NH No, RI no, Conn unclear, NY unclear, NJ yes, Penn no, Del unclear, Maryland yes, Virginia yes, NC unclear, SC yes, Georgia yes, Florida unclear), and given the opprobrium and distrust it experienced in the post-independence period, it is perhaps pushing it to ascribe establishment as a characteristic.
As noted upthread, the CoE was established in New York and North Carolina. And yes, you're exactly right—for that reason, at least in North Carolina, it was a number of decades before the Episcopal Church was really back on its feet.
As for Massachusetts, until the 1820s, all residents were required to attend and support through taxes their parish church, but those same residents voted on what the (Protestant) denomination of the parish church was. I think most were Congregational, but some may have been Anglican.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Steve Langton, yes, I was teasing ... but I was also making a serious point.
What I was trying to say was that it would just as invidious to take a reductionist approach to your position as an Anabaptist and suggest that there was nothing distinctive about Anabaptism other than credo-baptism and the separation of church and state.
There is, of course, far more to Anabaptism than that.
What I am suggesting is that there is more to Anglicanism than its history of establishment.
That history is there and has undoubtedly shaped the tone and flavour of Anglicanism in general. No question. You can see that both in the more enthusiastically 'establishment' areas within Anglicanism and among those who might oppose 'establishment' ... because each are either embracing or reacting against it.
In the same way, we could point out inherent features within Anabaptism which are there because of its particularly history and development.
But it would be wrong to suggest that those features are the only distinctives that Anabaptism possesses.
In the same way, I'm suggesting - with the greatest respect - that your understanding of Anglicanism is rather 2-D.
Or even 1-D.
You see the 'Establishment' issue, don't like it (fine, you don't have to) and allow that to colour anything else you might wish to say about it.
If someone were to do the same with Anabaptism, taking one aspect or other than they didn't like, then you'd (rightly) try to put them straight.
That's all we're doing.
Establishment is one facet of the Church of England. It isn't the only one, nor is it the most distinctive. I would argue that the CofE would have something distinctively 'Anglican' about it even if it were Dis-Established tomorrow.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Establishment is one facet of the Church of England. It isn't the only one, nor is it the most distinctive. I would argue that the CofE would have something distinctively 'Anglican' about it even if it were Dis-Established tomorrow.
I know and you know I know, and I know you... Sorry, too much 'Round the Horne' back in the 60s!
And I don't exactly have a 1D approach to Anglicanism - I mean, I hate boy bands... (Sorry again, I'm having that kind of day). The point is rather that the CofE is so varied and multi-dimensional that when looking for something 'distinctively Anglican' establishment (with the things that flow from that rather than from NT Christianity) is pretty much the only one. Even where Anglicanism is already disestablished, in the land of your fathers for example, the distinctives still derive from establishment.
In terms of 'distinctives' it is hard to think of anything much more distinctive than the way the CofE will now have to wait for legislation of an essentially secular Parliament before it can implement the women bishops decision; or the way that Parliament rather than the Church legislated its current position on another DH issue (and I understand imposed the same on the Church in Wales even though that is disestablished!!)
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
I would say that these two churches continue to be a mega-exception.
Their history certainly makes them unusual within the Anglican communion. But the detailed history of the SEC and TEC/PECUSA doesn't make any real difference to the point I'm making - they're both part of the shenanigans that gave us the CofE and are distinctive because of that; they are now within the Anglican communion presumably because they consider themselves distinctively Anglican, and the things that make them so go back to the original Anglican establishment. In the context of the point I'm making they are a trivial exception, no matter how big, impressive and non-trivial they may be in other ways.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Distinctively Anglican is to be both Catholic and Reformed - that is why the SEC considers itself Anglican.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Even where Anglicanism is already disestablished, in the land of your fathers for example, the distinctives still derive from establishment.
Of course. Establishment is bound to have left its mark - perhaps indelibly? - on Anglicanism.
How can it not have done?
But I restate my case ... and yes, I enjoyed your quips about boy bands and so on ...
To say that the legacy of 'establishment' is the only distinctive thing about Anglicanism is like saying that an anti-establishment position is the only distinctive thing about Anabaptism.
Of course there's more to Anabaptism than that.
Ok, you have acknowledged, to some extent, that there's more than 'establishment' when it comes to the CofE ... with the Round the Horne quip. Again, nice one ...
But it's a bit like a stuck record. We all know you don't approve of Establishment and plenty of us are uncomfortable with this, that or the other aspect of it.
So where does it leave us?
Do we all need to become Anabaptists and have our needles stuck in the same groove as yours?
Der-dunk...der-dunk ...der-dunk..der-dunk ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Do we all need to become Anabaptists and have our needles stuck in the same groove as yours?
Obviously the answer is "YES"....
However, the point is really that the Anabaptist 'groove' (we seem to be getting very 60s here) already contains everything worthwhile and not particularly distinctive in Anglicanism. This is because THE distinctive of Anabaptism is to follow the Scriptures - you know, the same ones that the 'XXXIX Articles' say are the Church's authority; that in so doing we are anti-establishment-of-churches is the product of Scripture, not of our own desires.
Anglican 'establishment' is a distinctive which not merely goes beyond but actively contradicts the Scripture, not to mention producing all kinds of bad results which are hard to deal with precisely because of the inappropriate mixture of state and church.
The only thing preventing an Anabaptist style church achieving in practice the good things of Anglicanism (but with less formality) is the disunity which means too many Christians are hived off in cults and sects like the CofE which operate on an unbiblical basis.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Distinctively Anglican is to be both Catholic and Reformed
'Catholic' - depends what you mean by the word - most Anabaptists I know are quite happy with the credal statement of belief in the 'catholic' church - just that to avoid misunderstanding we prefer to translate the word fully into English as 'universal' rather than merely transliterate it. As I understand it pre-Constantine the word meant something on the lines of 'universal/available-to-all-humanity'. By the end of the 4thC CE, as a state religion, 'catholic' it was taking on somewhat the meaning of the related, but very different, idea of 'totalitarianism'.
Early Dutch & German Anabaptists would avoid the word 'catholic' ('gemeinde' in German, I think) in the creed because it had taken on that kind of tone - they still of course believed in the 'catholic Church' in the original sense.
'Reformed' - of course the Reformed Churches perpetuated the RC/Orthodox involvement in the state, so from an Anabaptist viewpoint they aren't quite 'Reformed' enough!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: 'catholic' ('gemeinde' in German, I think)
Katholisch. The word Gemeinde in this context means 'congregation'.
My Dutch church removes the word 'catholic' from the Creed and talks about the 'holy general Christian church' (heilige algemene Christelijke kerk).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
We are challenged by the shifts of the last 20-30 years which mean that the old Lambeth Quadrilateral is only semi-operational and there is less commonality to worship than there once was, so it is getting to be more and more difficult to identify that which is distinctively Anglican-- even B16 was vague on this when he set up the Ordinariates.
What I find curious -- to the point of headscratchingly puzzling-- is that a particular aspect of one Anglican church is being considered to be the primary characteristic of Anglicanism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve Langton, how many times do I have to point this out ...
If we claim to 'follow the scriptures' then we have to acknowledge that what we are really following is our interpretation of the scriptures.
The scriptures have to be interpreted.
That's where the problems start.
If it was all so obvious then we'd all agree and that wouldn't be different flavours of church in the first place.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Coming back to the OP, and whether there is anything desirable about being 'distinctively Anglican' then I'll answer in the way that a friend of mine's father - who was an Anglican vicar - would answer when faced by a theological questions ...
'It depends ...'
My friend - who is far more liberal than me, it has to be said - claims that this is the true 'genius of Anglicanism'.
It all depends on the context. A distinctively Anglican approach can be helpful at times, at other times it can be a positive hindrance.
It depends.
Is a distinctively Anabaptist approach a desirable thing anyway? Yes, I'd say it was.
But again, it depends on the context and the circumstances.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
What I find curious -- to the point of headscratchingly puzzling-- is that a particular aspect of one Anglican church is being considered to be the primary characteristic of Anglicanism.
It helps if you remember that, where Steve Langton is concerned, everything is about establishment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Augustine the Aleut ...
Yes, an interesting conundrum.
I suppose the answer is, 'It depends ...'
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Which is the point I was trying to make, Arethosemyfeet.
Establishment looms higher than Original Sin in Steve Langton's thinking.
Perhaps Establishment was the Original Sin ...
'Now the Serpent was more subtle than all creatures the Lord God had made and he sayeth unto them, "Verily, hath God said that thou shouldst not eat of the Tree of Establishment of Good and Evil?"
And the man and the woman were Established and they were not ashamed, and they saith unto the Serpent, "It depends ..."'
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
It helps if you remember that, where Steve Langton is concerned, everything is about establishment.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Establishment looms higher than Original Sin in Steve Langton's thinking.
First, even on the 'establishment' issue, not just Anglican establishment; there is a wide range of state/church connections/involvements which are also problematical. Anglicanism is just one of the theoretically more extreme versions of the idea and therefore more problematic.
Second, one of my concerns in this area is not just with 'established-or-similar' Christianity. Other religions also do establishment in various ways and generally with similar bad results. Christians who will not give up their own unbiblical establishment are disabling themselves from coping properly with its manifestation in other religions, eg Islam.
Third, Like it or not, sore thumbs stick out! That is, the things that cause problems end up attracting more attention simply because they are problematic and obstructional. In more everyday life I just get on with that 'Mere Christianity' stuff. On the one hand this is mostly easier without being part of an established church; on the other hand, especially in evangelism at the moment, the fact that other people's churches are established or similar means that there can be a lot of unnecessary obstructions just to getting 'Mere Christianity' across - or even getting a hearing!
As pointed out above, Anabaptism (in the broad sense) contains everything Anglicanism does, without one particularly unhelpful extra, which therefore constitutes a rather clear 'Anglican distinctive'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, So Richard Baxter, who first coined the phrase 'Mere Christianity' was essentially Presbyterian - although he was buried in an Anglican church yard ...
And C S Lewis, who popularised the term, was ... hmmm ... let's see ...
An Anabaptist?
I don't have a problem with Anabaptist. I've been a member of a Baptist Church in the past ... a Baptist Union one so one that probably wasn't Anabaptist enough for you, Stephen.
Over another thread, I've alluded to an Imam whose Anglican vicar thread had challenged him about the role of grace in Islam. He had an answer for that, but in what way would this challenge being issued by an Anabaptist been any different to one being issued by an Anglican?
I'm not particularly pro-Establishment but the way you bang on about it as if it is the source of all possible evils it makes me want to change my name by deed poll to Gamaliel Establishment and to change my address to Establishment Villas, Establishment Ville, Establishment Shire ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In theory, Anglicanism has a 'higher' view of the eucharist than Anabaptism, does, although it is certainly possible to find plenty of Zwinglian memorialist Anglicans, of course.
If we wanted to talk about some of the theological issues I think we'd find that there is more that is distinctively Anglican than the 'Establishment' thing - which, strictly speaking, only applies to the Church of England anyway and not to Anglicans in other parts of the world - although they'll certainly have been affected by aspects of that.
I'll accept that, to a certain extent, it is difficult to isolate Anglican 'distinctives' ... it's the sort of thing you 'recognise' but can't always put a finger on.
I s'pose an analogy might be those Pentecostals who used to tell me that they would be able to tell, by subtle cues, whether they were visiting an AoG or an Elim church ... even though someone who wasn't Pentecostal would be hard pressed to tell the difference. The Apostolics were always a bit different to both of those so it would have been easy to spot the variations and distinctives there.
Equally, I'm sure a Grace Baptist could tell the difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Strict and Particular Baptist.
And an Anglo-Catholic could tell whether they were visiting an FiF or an Affirming Catholicism parish.
Reducing Anglican distinctives to the one you most disapprove of is like - as I've said - reducing Anabaptist distinctives to credo-baptism and an anti-establishment stance.
I'm not carrying a particular candle for the Church of England. But your constant harping on and on and on about one facet as if that is the be all and end all is beginning to annoy me intensely.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And an Anglo-Catholic could tell whether they were visiting an FiF or an Affirming Catholicism parish.
Aye, but anyone can spot when the celebrant is female. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Lewis was writing in a somewhat different world, which I do just about remember. And from various things I know he wrote, I'm not sure he would be quite so keen on Anglicanism as a desirable thing in the modern world - he was well aware of the problems of Christendom.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I give up.
C S Lewis would have been an Anabaptist too if he were alive today ...
You'll be telling us that Jesus and the Apostle Paul were Anabaptists next ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Look, we are all aware of the problems of Christendom.
We are all aware of the problems of Establishment.
We are also aware that there are other issues and other problems and not just those two.
Christendom's crumbling. That's partly a good thing, that's also partly a bad thing as a general awareness of Christianity is likely to crumble with it.
It both causes problems and creates opportunities.
Both these things are true at one and the same time.
Get over it already.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
If everyone else was as 'over it' as I am then I wouldn't face so much argument here on the Ship - you'd all be too busy sorting the problems out....
But OK, I'm calling a halt on this one pro tem to let your annoyance levels reduce a bit - and mine after some of the responses I received.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I give up.
C S Lewis would have been an Anabaptist too if he were alive today ...
You'll be telling us that Jesus and the Apostle Paul were Anabaptists next ...
Goes back even further than Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Goes back to John...John the Baptist.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Lewis was writing in a somewhat different world, which I do just about remember. And from various things I know he wrote, I'm not sure he would be quite so keen on Anglicanism as a desirable thing in the modern world - he was well aware of the problems of Christendom.
I honestly think the issues -- in some cases, of genuinely apostate Anglican clergy, which he certainly talked about -- haven't really changed all that much. What Lewis would do if he were here on Earth right now, I don't know.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Indeed, this could be its own thread--or even book--but "what Jack really said" could be well worth looking into. I've noticed he's been, ah, assumed to be "one of us" in particular ways by certain groups whose approach ... seems to me to be very far away from what he actually said and wrote, and if they looked a bit harder at those things, they might like him less. There's a journal I am thinking of whose name rhymes with "Worst Things" in particular...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I honestly think the issues -- in some cases, of genuinely apostate Anglican clergy, which he certainly talked about -- haven't really changed all that much. What Lewis would do if he were here on Earth right now, I don't know.
I think that problem is actually far smaller than it once was, given the tightening of selection procedures and the reduced tendency to see the church as a Respectable career choice among many for the middle class.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? You can't have been in many MOTR churches in that case. This form of centralism absolutely exists.
You realise every example you can give will magically turn into a form of liberalism as soon as it is mentioned?
Maybe. Although I'd more inclined to suggest that many, if not all, local MOTR churches have a history of either evangelicalism or Anglo-Catholicism which has been, or is still in the process of being, diluted by the introduction of liberalism. In this sense, I see centralism as an effect of liberalism on Anglicanism. The missiological convictions of liberalism rest almost entirely on making the church attractive through conformity to the values of wider society, whereas evangelical and Anglo-Catholic missiologies rest other convictions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It'd be nice to think that this was the case, Daronmedway, but whilst it's easy to criticise the liberals for kow-towing to the spirit of the age, I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to find instances of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who do the same - albeit in a different way.
I'd also suggest that 'centrism' goes back beyond ou current categories of evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and liberal.
I s'pose the Latitudinarians of the 17th century were proto-liberal in some ways but even before liberalism in its current form there was a concept of 'centrism' within Anglicanism.
Sure, the Elizabethan 'Via Media' was meant to represent the middle way between Rome and Geneva - but it would be anachronistic, I suggest, to regard the CofE of the 16th, 17th and 18th/19th centuries as offering a straight choice between evangelicalism and 'Catholicism'.
Lancelot Andrewes was mildly Calvinist, for instance. So were many of the Jacobean Divines. They were essentially High Church Calvinists.
Sure, there's long been the tussle between the Arminian and Calvinist tendencies, but even there I wouldn't necessarily see the divide as clear-cut as might appear at first.
I'm still pretty conservative theologically so have sympathy with the view that most MoTR settings would have had a more 'committed' stance at one time or other - but I'm not sure it follows quite so neatly.
Some will long have had a very committed stance about being MoTR ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Steve Langton - we are, of course, pulling your chain.
But can you not see that the stance you are adopting here runs the risk of sounding 'holier than thou'?
'Look, you lot, I'm so enlightened that I've seen through the mask of respectable Establishment Churchianity - unlike you, I've actually done something about it. I've become an Anabaptist in order to sort out the mess unlike you lot who stubbornly remain committed to Constantinian Christianity yadda yadda yadda yadda ...'
Then you wonder why you get some good-natured yet cutting ripostes.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I give up.
C S Lewis would have been an Anabaptist too if he were alive today ...
You'll be telling us that Jesus and the Apostle Paul were Anabaptists next ...
No, I doubt if Lewis would quite be an Anabaptist - but as I said, there's plenty of evidence for his dissatisfaction with 'Christendom' and in a world which contains Ian Paisley and extremist Islam, effectively unknown in his day, I'd expect him to be a lot less happy about his Anglicanism.
As a long-time reader of Lewis I'm well aware that he wasn't simply one of any 'party/faction' - that is the strength of his advocacy of 'Mere Christianity'. But I know that when I read Lewis he makes me think hard - when I disagree with him I know I've been in a real and serious argument.
Me being pedantic - technically Jesus and Paul could not have been 'Anabaptists' as that term requires the intervening history of a 'Constantinian' church practicing unbiblical infant baptism. But on the face of it, they were clearly a lot more like Anabaptists than they were like RC, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic, or the aforesaid Paisley's 'Protestantism'....
If you like, Jesus and Paul came to their 'Anabaptist-like' beliefs fresh, without the problems of having to react against an intervening history in which so many have distorted what they said. When I can I state the ideas positively - when dealing with groups like Anglicans the 'reactive/oppositional' approach is an unfortunate necessity.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But can you not see that the stance you are adopting here runs the risk of sounding 'holier than thou'?
Category mistake - holiness is not in question here, truth is. Remember I'm an Aspie - I don't actually care much how I 'look', but I do care a great deal about what is true. In this case what is true is that the NT (a) does not teach 'establishment' and kindred ideas, and (b) does teach a significantly different and better way for Christians to relate to the world around them. If you can demonstrate otherwise, do it; stop hiding behind evasive remarks like your comments above about
quote:
If we claim to 'follow the scriptures' then we have to acknowledge that what we are really following is our interpretation of the scriptures.
The scriptures have to be interpreted.
Yes, the Scriptures have to be interpreted - so do it. If you disagree with me, come up with scriptural evidence or a clear statement of your other reasons for your beliefs in the matter.
I really did want to take a break from this thread, but your comments haven't really let me.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But can you not see that the stance you are adopting here runs the risk of sounding 'holier than thou'?
Category mistake - holiness is not in question here, truth is. Remember I'm an Aspie - I don't actually care much how I 'look', but I do care a great deal about what is true. In this case what is true is that the NT (a) does not teach 'establishment' and kindred ideas, and (b) does teach a significantly different and better way for Christians to relate to the world around them. If you can demonstrate otherwise, do it; stop hiding behind evasive remarks like your comments above about
quote:
If we claim to 'follow the scriptures' then we have to acknowledge that what we are really following is our interpretation of the scriptures.
The scriptures have to be interpreted.
Yes, the Scriptures have to be interpreted - so do it. If you disagree with me, come up with scriptural evidence or a clear statement of your other reasons for your beliefs in the matter.
I really did want to take a break from this thread, but your comments haven't really let me.
You may not care how you look, but it's still important. Using Asperger's as an excuse to adopt an 'I'm more enlightened than you' stance is not a good way to look.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And an Anglo-Catholic could tell whether they were visiting an FiF or an Affirming Catholicism parish.
Aye, but anyone can spot when the celebrant is female.
I know this was made in jest, but I'm not sure it's always that easy to spot. My last church was AffCath but it wasn't obvious - male priest (only one female priest in the entire town!), thoroughly traditional A-C worship.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
It helps if you remember that, where Steve Langton is concerned, everything is about establishment.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Establishment looms higher than Original Sin in Steve Langton's thinking.
First, even on the 'establishment' issue, not just Anglican establishment; there is a wide range of state/church connections/involvements which are also problematical. Anglicanism is just one of the theoretically more extreme versions of the idea and therefore more problematic.
Second, one of my concerns in this area is not just with 'established-or-similar' Christianity. Other religions also do establishment in various ways and generally with similar bad results. Christians who will not give up their own unbiblical establishment are disabling themselves from coping properly with its manifestation in other religions, eg Islam.
Third, Like it or not, sore thumbs stick out! That is, the things that cause problems end up attracting more attention simply because they are problematic and obstructional. In more everyday life I just get on with that 'Mere Christianity' stuff. On the one hand this is mostly easier without being part of an established church; on the other hand, especially in evangelism at the moment, the fact that other people's churches are established or similar means that there can be a lot of unnecessary obstructions just to getting 'Mere Christianity' across - or even getting a hearing!
As pointed out above, Anabaptism (in the broad sense) contains everything Anglicanism does, without one particularly unhelpful extra, which therefore constitutes a rather clear 'Anglican distinctive'.
Really? Where are the Anglo-Catholic Anabaptist churches?
Anabaptism contains absolutely nothing that appeals to me whatsoever.
Please stop banging on about how Anabaptism is perfect and all other churches are sinful and terrible because they have the temerity to be based on Tradition - it's just old-fashioned anti-Catholic prejudice in a new wrapper.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? You can't have been in many MOTR churches in that case. This form of centralism absolutely exists.
You realise every example you can give will magically turn into a form of liberalism as soon as it is mentioned?
Maybe. Although I'd more inclined to suggest that many, if not all, local MOTR churches have a history of either evangelicalism or Anglo-Catholicism which has been, or is still in the process of being, diluted by the introduction of liberalism. lic missiologies rest other convictions.
That might be true in recent times but over time, say back to the early Victorians, MOTR churches got evangelical or a/c vicars who moved the churchpersonship in their direction.
I have quite as few books which tell the history, in heroic terms, of a Tractarian who pushed a church towards vestments, daily mass, incense etc.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Steve Langton - we are, of course, pulling your chain.
But can you not see that the stance you are adopting here runs the risk of sounding 'holier than thou'?
'Look, you lot, I'm so enlightened that I've seen through the mask of respectable Establishment Churchianity - unlike you, I've actually done something about it. I've become an Anabaptist in order to sort out the mess unlike you lot who stubbornly remain committed to Constantinian Christianity yadda yadda yadda yadda ...'
When the Anabaptists did manage to wrest control from the state, the net result was totalitarianism.
Munster does not bolster your case Steve Langton - it rather destroys it. It's not exactly gracious (although arguably effective) to deal with opposition by nailing their testicles to the town gate.
I'm pretty sure that most Anabaptists would reject the particular expressions that Steve Langton is talking about - tbh a lot of them are pretty indistinguishable from Quakers in their theology if not their silence.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Using Asperger's as an excuse to adopt an 'I'm more enlightened than you' stance is not a good way to look.
I think you are missing the point about how AS works. I am not 'Using Asperger's as an excuse...'; before I knew what AS was I'd have done essentially the same thing, possibly in your and Gamaliel's eyes even more outrageously, because trying to pin down the truth is what I'm trying to do. Because I now know that I have AS, I can now explain to you consciously that you're misjudging what I'm doing. I'm not 'showing off', this is simply a naive aspergic way of doing things - see truth, say truth, not even care about how it looks. Tactless absent-minded professor, not 'look how superior I am'....
Stop making personal comments on motivations I may not actually have, due to AS, and just deal with the issues I raise.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Stephen Langton writes:
quote:
As pointed out above, Anabaptism (in the broad sense) contains everything Anglicanism does, without one particularly unhelpful extra, which therefore constitutes a rather clear 'Anglican distinctive'.
By the logic of this, unless I've quite misunderstood this, Anabaptism is on par with the other non-CoE 38-odd churches of the Anglican Communion??? Suggesting that the other Anglican churches have problematic state entanglements is, I would think, far from the same as establishment. All churches, being largely property-owning corporate bodies, are entangled with the state in registrations, incorporations, etc. I'll bet that most Anabaptist congregations are entangled with the state that way.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Exclamation Mark;
quote:
When the Anabaptists did manage to wrest control from the state, the net result was totalitarianism.
Munster does not bolster your case Steve Langton - it rather destroys it. It's not exactly gracious (although arguably effective) to deal with opposition by nailing their testicles to the town gate.
We have been through this one before on previous threads. The Reformation was quite a chaotic time during which all kinds of things were being tried all over the place. Yes, one group had got the idea of 'rebaptising', so were technically 'Anabaptists', but had not worked out the idea of separating church and state and the resulting pacifism. They did terrible things - but what they did and how they were (also terribly) treated by RCs and Protestants alike had the effect that subsequent Anabaptists did work those issues through and very much rejected the kind of thing seen at Munster, and lived out that belief by suffering terrible persecution - including one group which was executed by Henry VIII's Anglican church.
Menno Simons in particular, the original 'Mennonite' very much went back to the Bible to establish the principles of separation of church and state and of pacifism. But the basic pacifist Anabaptism seems to have existed before Munster among various groups. Munster was an aberration during a chaotic period and has little to do with Anabaptism since.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Really? Where are the Anglo-Catholic Anabaptist churches?
Anglo-Catholicism is part of the 'unhelpful extra', though a forum like this is not the place for a detailed explanation of why.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Please stop banging on about how Anabaptism is perfect and all other churches are sinful and terrible because they have the temerity to be based on Tradition - it's just old-fashioned anti-Catholic prejudice in a new wrapper.
I never said Anabaptism was 'perfect'. Just that as a matter of truth the various (not just Anglican) state/church linked groups are unbiblical and that the results of that unbiblical stuff do tend to be truly terrible - Inquisitions, Crusades, persecution of heretics, the persecution of gays that you've recently been sounding off about, and so on.
'Anti-Catholic prejudice' - I'm not sure it is 'prejudice' to be opposed to people who not only used to burn people at the stake but also had a special punishment for Anabaptists of in effect 'baptising them to death' (execution by drowning). And you're right, I don't think much of Tradition that led people to do things like that which they carried on doing for centuries after the Anabaptists set a far better example by having the temerity (or more accurately courage) to follow the Bible rather than such human traditions.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
You are making an error in assuming that because Catholicism made a grievous error in using force to try and protect the faith that they must be wrong about everything, and likewise that because Anabaptists correctly identified some things the mediaeval church did wrong that they were and are correct about everything. The Bible is not the only source of knowledge about Christianity, and trying to use it as a coherent manual for how to run a church is pointless. The only way to even attempt it is to rip passages from their cultural and historical context and try to apply narrow, specific situations to the whole church for all time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
By the logic of this, unless I've quite misunderstood this, Anabaptism is on par with the other non-CoE 38-odd churches of the Anglican Communion???
Sorry, I was trying to avoid repeating at length points I made earlier. Anglicanism's existence as a mix of the original English state church and lots of 'derived' churches worldwide which are no longer state churches does tend to make the whole issue here a bit confusing. But all these churches, as part of the 'Anglican Communion', have distinctive features which derive from the original Anglican Church and its established status, rather than from the Bible. That 'package' is distinctive Anglicanism and relates to the establishment.
In my original contribution (way back upthread now) I was primarily considering the CofE and the way that here 'at home' there is such variety that 'establishment' pretty much is the only Anglican distinctive.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
You are making an error in assuming that because Catholicism made a grievous error in using force to try and protect the faith that they must be wrong about everything, and likewise that because Anabaptists correctly identified some things the mediaeval church did wrong that they were and are correct about everything. The Bible is not the only source of knowledge about Christianity, and trying to use it as a coherent manual for how to run a church is pointless. The only way to even attempt it is to rip passages from their cultural and historical context and try to apply narrow, specific situations to the whole church for all time.
This needs a much longer answer - I'll try later. But for now, no, historically it didn't quite work like that. The Catholic Church had ended up wrong about all kinds of things, and there's more than a bit of evidence that many Catholics were dissatisfied with its wider faults before the Reformation (eg Erasmus?).
The Reformers pin-pointed the wider fault as being related to a failure to follow the Bible, and took their reforms quite a way; but, partly because they were often state churches, they didn't accept the biblical teaching of separation of church and state and religious voluntarism. The Anabaptists realised that full reform required that the Bible be followed on that too.
I don't assert that the Anabaptists were right about everything. Nor do they - I have an edition of the works of Menno Simons in which one (very) long essay is freely admitted by the Anabaptist publishers to be mistaken. Anabaptists don't do 'popes' or similar.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm sorry Steve, but whilst I'll acknowledge that I do wind you up at times, I can't see how I'm 'preventing' you from taking a break from this thread.
I might just as well say that you are preventing us from having a serious debate about Anglican 'distinctives' by bringing in the Establishment yellow-card at every opportunity.
We know you don't approve of Establishment. Neither do many Anglicans. I don't particularly approve of it either.
All I'm saying is that there is more to Anglicanism than Establishment and whilst I certainly have difficulties with Establishment I don't see how it - in its current form at least - has got the slightest thing to do with a Paisley-style approach to things, still less an Islamic Caliphate one.
You put two and two together and make 45.
And when someone comes along and says, well, what about Anglo-Catholicism ... hasn't that got a voice amongst the broader Anglican scheme of things - you turn around and say, 'Oh no, no, no ... we can't have that either ...'
What is it to you if there are or aren't Anglo-Catholics around?
Are all Christians supposed to be like you?
I'm not being evasive when I remind you of the fact that however we approach the scriptures it involves interpretation. I'm simply stating a fact.
However we approach the scriptures, it involves interpretation.
If it didn't then there'd only be one form of Christian expression because we'd all agree on everything because it was all so obvious that there'd be no room whatsoever for any disagreement in the first place.
Life's not like that.
I really do believe that the Anabaptist witness is important and has something very positive to add.
I'm all for listening to that witness.
What I'm not up for is for constant disruption of play by assertions that there is nothing distinctive about Anglicanism than the Establishment aspect.
ExclamationMark is posting here. He's a Baptist. He's not uncritical of aspects of Anglicanism. Fine. But how would you think he'd feel if I kept suggesting to him that there was nothing distinctive about the Baptists other than credo-baptism - and that's not distinctive anyway because Pentecostals and others also practice credo-baptism - and heck, even the nasty old Erastian and Establishment CofE does too in instances where the candidate hadn't been baptised/christened as an infant.
Or if I then said, 'No, well, actually, it's not credobaptism that is the distinctive feature of the Baptists it's congregational church government.'
But, ooh heck, the Congregationalist have that too. So do the AoG.
So there's nothing distinctive about the Baptists whatsoever. They ought to disband.
I mean, c'mon. Of course there are distinctive aspects about the Baptists other than their particular baptism polity and form of church government.
This is beginning to sound like a 'What have the Romans ever done for us,' thread.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Steve, I think we do know what the Anabaptist position is on these things. We've heard them often enough.
But you seem to be suggesting that 'returning to the Bible' is some kind of simple and straight-forward process.
The Reformers differed among themselves on all sorts of issues and they all claimed Biblical support for their diverse views.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong to refer to the Bible, simply that we shouldn't be surprised that people turn to the Bible for their lead and come up with different conclusions to those we ourselves might reach.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Using Asperger's as an excuse to adopt an 'I'm more enlightened than you' stance is not a good way to look.
I think you are missing the point about how AS works. I am not 'Using Asperger's as an excuse...'; before I knew what AS was I'd have done essentially the same thing, possibly in your and Gamaliel's eyes even more outrageously, because trying to pin down the truth is what I'm trying to do. Because I now know that I have AS, I can now explain to you consciously that you're misjudging what I'm doing. I'm not 'showing off', this is simply a naive aspergic way of doing things - see truth, say truth, not even care about how it looks. Tactless absent-minded professor, not 'look how superior I am'....
Stop making personal comments on motivations I may not actually have, due to AS, and just deal with the issues I raise.
Actually, I am very well-acquainted with AS. People with AS can learn to come across in a less tactless way, it just suggests that you don't want to bother.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Really? Where are the Anglo-Catholic Anabaptist churches?
Anglo-Catholicism is part of the 'unhelpful extra', though a forum like this is not the place for a detailed explanation of why.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Please stop banging on about how Anabaptism is perfect and all other churches are sinful and terrible because they have the temerity to be based on Tradition - it's just old-fashioned anti-Catholic prejudice in a new wrapper.
I never said Anabaptism was 'perfect'. Just that as a matter of truth the various (not just Anglican) state/church linked groups are unbiblical and that the results of that unbiblical stuff do tend to be truly terrible - Inquisitions, Crusades, persecution of heretics, the persecution of gays that you've recently been sounding off about, and so on.
'Anti-Catholic prejudice' - I'm not sure it is 'prejudice' to be opposed to people who not only used to burn people at the stake but also had a special punishment for Anabaptists of in effect 'baptising them to death' (execution by drowning). And you're right, I don't think much of Tradition that led people to do things like that which they carried on doing for centuries after the Anabaptists set a far better example by having the temerity (or more accurately courage) to follow the Bible rather than such human traditions.
If you knew anything about Tradition, you'd know that it is not small-t tradition and has nothing to do with burning people at the stake. Nice of you to ignore the persecution that Catholics suffered, including execution. Anglo-Catholics were jailed on the orders of the mainstream Anglican church. Newsflash - Anabaptism is a human tradition too, and tradition is not the same as Tradition. Plenty of 'Established' Christians have been and are still persecuted, including by execution.
Also, thanks for calling my faith an 'unhelpful extra'.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
By the logic of this, unless I've quite misunderstood this, Anabaptism is on par with the other non-CoE 38-odd churches of the Anglican Communion???
Sorry, I was trying to avoid repeating at length points I made earlier. Anglicanism's existence as a mix of the original English state church and lots of 'derived' churches worldwide which are no longer state churches does tend to make the whole issue here a bit confusing. But all these churches, as part of the 'Anglican Communion', have distinctive features which derive from the original Anglican Church and its established status, rather than from the Bible. That 'package' is distinctive Anglicanism and relates to the establishment.
In my original contribution (way back upthread now) I was primarily considering the CofE and the way that here 'at home' there is such variety that 'establishment' pretty much is the only Anglican distinctive.
I am sorry, Stephen, but this is not that convincing. You write:
quote:
'derived' churches worldwide which are no longer state churches
Well. By my count, 18 of the 39 weren't state churches. Ever. When half of your sample is not pertinent to your argument that this is a characteristic, I think that the argument fades to fail.
`
You further write:
quote:
does tend to make the whole issue here a bit confusing.
Not really. It disproves it/makes it irrelevant.
The only way your argument holds at all is to assume that the BCP, perhaps the common element in Anglicanism (no longer universal, but that's another thread) is essentially the product of establishment. The Anglican Church of Canada, occasionally asked what is meant by being Anglican, puts the Lambeth Quadrilateral on its website as a defining factor. Given that it has been universally used by the churches of the Anglican communion (and remember, the XXXIX are not accepted as authoritative by most Anglican churches), would it not be more useful to address yourself to this less tendentious package? I would have thought that it still give plenty of material for you to work with, while staying out of the swamp of assuming that the CoE and its experience is definitive. I have lots of English friends and I admire their culture, but sometimes the Anglocentricity gets in the way of discussion.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
If you knew anything about Tradition, you'd know that it is not small-t tradition and has nothing to do with burning people at the stake.
So why was the RCC doing those dreadful things - they certainly had no NT basis for it, since as I've pointed out, the NT teaches a very different church/state relationship to that which allows killing heretics?
quote:
Nice of you to ignore the persecution that Catholics suffered, including execution.
I don't exactly ignore it. I didn't mention it because I'm trying to keep my posts short-ish. But I'd also point out it's not easy to feel quite the same about it when the RCC (A) has, even in Vatican II, the 'Christian country' idea which supposedly justified its own persecuting activity, and (B) through most of its history has had powerful states to defend it.
Also, AIUI, in England the persecution of Catholics was at least partly on political grounds due to the threat they posed in terms of rebellion or invasion by foreign Catholic countries (eg, the Spanish Armada) - again, related to the state/church link rather than to NT Christianity.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Anglo-Catholics were jailed on the orders of the mainstream Anglican church.
Which was only possible because Anglicanism is an established church able to have the state apply such penalties to dissenters. Don't blame me for that, I'm the guy who objects to that kind of thing and is trying to change it....
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Newsflash - Anabaptism is a human tradition too, and tradition is not the same as Tradition.
Agreed, which is why Anabaptists don't do 'Popes' and the like - even Menno isn't regarded as any kind of infallible. But the Anabaptist tradition aims to be based on the Scriptures as Word of God, and don't recognise human extras including Tradition.
quote:
Plenty of 'Established' Christians have been and are still persecuted, including by execution.
Yes, true. And I give them full credit for it. But note
First, when they are persecuted by non-Christian governments it is often as much for the threat they pose by the 'Establishment' idea/status as it is for any actually Christian doctrine, and
Second, all too often the persecution of one 'Established' Church has been by another such church - a situation only possible because of the establishment or similar state link.
You are very unlikely to find yourself being persecuted by Anabaptists nowadays....
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Also, thanks for calling my faith an 'unhelpful extra'.
I hope there's a lot more to your faith than the 'unhelpful extra' - though some of what you say does at times give me cause for concern on that point.
AS I said, I'm not going to do a full review of Anglo-Catholicism here but I don't really regard it as a legitimate part of Anglicanism itself, rather a quite late (19th Century Newman etc) addition-to/distortion-of Anglicanism, and somewhat of a muddle at that.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Jade Constable, Steve Langdon,
Do not assume personal motivations, and do not junior host. Assumptions may be wrong, and the hosts do not need help keeping order.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So why was the RCC doing those dreadful things - they certainly had no NT basis for it, since as I've pointed out, the NT teaches a very different church/state relationship to that which allows killing heretics?
I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. If you start from a position that says that the consequence of believing wrongly is that you will be punished in hell for all eternity then if you can prevent that eternal punishment by inflicting a finite amount of temporal suffering then why wouldn't you? And if you can prevent the spread of these quite literally damning ideas then, again, why wouldn't you? It's no different, in principle, from quarantining an area with an outbreak of a virulent infection or amputating a limb to prevent the death of the person to whom it is attached. The idea of a state that steps in and safeguards religious pluralism is not one found in the New Testament, and that is what would be required to prevent this mindset being implemented.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
I am sorry, Stephen, but this is not that convincing. You write:
quote:
'derived' churches worldwide which are no longer state churches
Well. By my count, 18 of the 39 weren't state churches. Ever. When half of your sample is not pertinent to your argument that this is a characteristic, I think that the argument fades to fail.
For some reason a phrase about 'lies, damned lies and statistics' is coming to mind....
18 of the 39 presumably were state churches; I'm guessing because I don't consider it important enough to do an exhaustive check, but would it be the case that a large number of the rest were not formally established where they were, but were there because they were the state church of England as a colonial power?? In which case their 'non-established' status was a bit nominal, wasn't it?
I don't think that affects my basic point, however at least as regards the CofE itself. You probably do have a point internationally where I don't claim great knowledge.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral has some claim to be distinctive for Anglicanism internationally; but unless the 'Historic Episcopate' means the NT version, rather than the Anglican version, the first and fourth are somewhat contradictory. The continuance of the unbiblical version of episcopacy seems historically to have a considerable connection with being a state church....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
The idea of a state that steps in and safeguards religious pluralism is not one found in the New Testament, and that is what would be required to prevent this mindset being implemented.
No, the idea of a "state that steps in and safeguards religious pluralism" is not found in the NT.
BUT, (at risk of raising the spectres of fallacious Scotsmen) people of that mindset would not be acting in a truly Christian manner because what the NT DOES teach is that alternative kind of relationship between church and world which Anabaptists follow, in which Christians neither have nor claim the power to persecute in such a way about other people's beliefs.
The point being that since the RCC can't have got that mindset from the NT - and if it doesn't come from 'Tradition', as Jade Constable stated, then where is it from? Your account implies a kind of logic that once the RCC (or other churches with similar beliefs) had gone outside the NT by forming some kind of 'Christian country', they'd also feel free to do the persecuting thing. But, which is what I'm asking Jade, where does that whole package of error come from? Not the Scripture I know, not the Tradition Jade knows - so what the (probably literally) hell happened?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Gwai,sorry.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
I am sorry, Stephen, but this is not that convincing. You write:
quote:
'derived' churches worldwide which are no longer state churches
Well. By my count, 18 of the 39 weren't state churches. Ever. When half of your sample is not pertinent to your argument that this is a characteristic, I think that the argument fades to fail.
For some reason a phrase about 'lies, damned lies and statistics' is coming to mind....
18 of the 39 presumably were state churches; I'm guessing because I don't consider it important enough to do an exhaustive check, but would it be the case that a large number of the rest were not formally established where they were, but were there because they were the state church of England as a colonial power?? In which case their 'non-established' status was a bit nominal, wasn't it?
I don't think that affects my basic point, however at least as regards the CofE itself. You probably do have a point internationally where I don't claim great knowledge.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral has some claim to be distinctive for Anglicanism internationally; but unless the 'Historic Episcopate' means the NT version, rather than the Anglican version, the first and fourth are somewhat contradictory. The continuance of the unbiblical version of episcopacy seems historically to have a considerable connection with being a state church....
The 18 included those which were either clearly formerly state churches as colonial possessions in whole (Ireland, Wales, Oz) or in part (Canada, West Indies, South Africa). The others were clearly not- Rwanda, the southern Cone, Congo, Central America, Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. etc.
Whether or not one counts the Anglican episcopacy as a biblical version or not is clearly a point-of-view question. In much, if not most, of the Anglican world, bishops and their ministry does not seem to have an historical connexion with the notion of a state church.
However, I must return to my basic point which is that you have assumed, for some reason, that the CoE is definitive in terms of determining the nature of Anglicanism. To be blunt in language, you are tarring Anglicanism with the brush of the CoE. This may seem natural in England, but on the rest of the planet, we are simply puzzled or perplexed.
The reformation period was a long time ago and while the CoE may still be influential, it's now marginal and, if several of the African primates had not been such fools, the presence of over 350 African diocesans at Lambeth would have made that very apparent.
As I had occasion to remark to a Conservative canvasser at my door, who was trying to defend cuts to the Census and Statistics Canada, numbers and statistics are simply tools by which we try to describe the reality about us.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The logic I outlined is not dependant on the state, though obviously it's safer for the perpetrators to act if they have state backing. It's the same sort of logic that motivates every violent fanatic - the ends justify the means. Nor is such logic an inevitable consequence of establishment, indeed the Elizabethan settlement specifically required only orthopraxis, not orthodoxy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
The idea of a state that steps in and safeguards religious pluralism is not one found in the New Testament, and that is what would be required to prevent this mindset being implemented.
No, the idea of a "state that steps in and safeguards religious pluralism" is not found in the NT.
BUT, (at risk of raising the spectres of fallacious Scotsmen) people of that mindset would not be acting in a truly Christian manner because what the NT DOES teach is that alternative kind of relationship between church and world which Anabaptists follow, in which Christians neither have nor claim the power to persecute in such a way about other people's beliefs.
The point being that since the RCC can't have got that mindset from the NT - and if it doesn't come from 'Tradition', as Jade Constable stated, then where is it from? Your account implies a kind of logic that once the RCC (or other churches with similar beliefs) had gone outside the NT by forming some kind of 'Christian country', they'd also feel free to do the persecuting thing. But, which is what I'm asking Jade, where does that whole package of error come from? Not the Scripture I know, not the Tradition Jade knows - so what the (probably literally) hell happened?
Simply put, political power. I think you misunderstand capital-T Tradition - it's not the same as small-t tradition, but is what the Church has found to be true, that may not be in the Bible. So, things like various Marian traditions, views on the afterlife etc are Tradition. It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, much less persecuting others.
So yeah, it's not good for one group of people to have a huge amount of political power - but this goes for all groups. While Anabaptists are unlikely to persecute anybody, you could apply that to the huge amount of social power Anabaptist clergy have over the laity in Amish and some Mennonite communities in North America. I would say that wanting excess power is a human trait (part of 'total depravity') rather than part of any one religion.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by safeguarding religious pluralism, but I am a Christian and certainly want my government to safeguard religious pluralism. To me that's an important part of freedom of religion - it has to be actively protected.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also, seriously? Not considering Anglo-Catholicism as a legitimate part of Anglicanism? That is pretty much just repeating the 19th century arguments against the Oxford Movement. I don't see why something being recent means it's not legitimate - could you explain Steve Langton? It's an important part of faith for many Anglicans, I think it's unfair to just say that they're not 'real' Anglicans - particularly when you're not an Anglican and view Anglicanism as less than ideal in the first place.
[ 21. July 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
The 18 included those which were either clearly formerly state churches as colonial possessions in whole (Ireland, Wales, Oz) or in part (Canada, West Indies, South Africa).
Thanks for the clarification. And I guess I am guilty of taking a too Anglo-centric attitude myself on this one. I'll try harder next time.
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
Whether or not one counts the Anglican episcopacy as a biblical version or not is clearly a point-of-view question.
There seem to be rather dramatic differences, given that the NT clearly identifies 'presbyteroi/priests' and 'episkopoi/bishops' as the same office,which is not true in (should I say 'most of'?) Anglicanism.
by Augustine the Aleut;
quote:
In much, if not most, of the Anglican world, bishops and their ministry does not seem to have an historical connexion with the notion of a state church.
It very much seems that the continuance of 'catholic-style' bishops in a founded-as-more-or-less-Protestant church was at the wish of the royal founders Henry/Edward/Elizabeth and 'no bishop no king' James. Hard to see no connection between that and the being-a-state-church thing; even in the cases of the SEC and TEC, discussed a bit back, the 'state church' was important in how things originally came about, just that there was a separate SEC because England and Scotland were separate countries under one king. Other Anglican bodies overseas may have more circuitous histories in the issue.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Did I hear you right?
You are the guy who is trying to prevent Established churches from persecuting people?
Listen, you've got no more chance of being persecuted by an Anglican these days than you are by an Anabaptist or even a Roman Catholic.
But I'll let you get back to your one-man crusade to draw us all from the error of our ways ...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Listen, you've got no more chance of being persecuted by an Anglican these days than you are by an Anabaptist or even a Roman Catholic.
Unless you're gay and live in Uganda, of course. But then the Anglican Church in Uganda is not established.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Simply put, political power.
OK, but why wasn't the church opposing that power?
by Jade Constable;
quote:
you could apply that to the huge amount of social power Anabaptist clergy have over the laity in Amish and some Mennonite communities in North America.
And just the other week a friend was describing the huge 'social power' of RC clergy in Manchester in her youth. At least with Anabaptists there won't be the power of the state added so that you risk imprisonment or judicial murder by the state on behalf of the church. (It might also be noted that other voluntary bodies like sporting associations exercise considerable power in their own ranks - but so long as they're voluntary and you can leave, problems with that are also the exception rather than the rule. If I want to race in the under-1600cc banger race, I shouldn't turn up in a 3.4 litre Jag!)
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I am not entirely sure what you mean by safeguarding religious pluralism,
This was in response to Arethosemyfeet earlier. Yes, I too would hope for a government that protects religious freedom - but we don't always get what we want due to worldly people exercising worldly power. The Constantinian and subsequent state churches, including Anglicanism till far too recently, tended to fall into the temptation of setting up a totalitarian church which persecuted dissent by state power, fought religious wars in the name of Jesus, etc.
The NT teaches a different kind of church/state relationship in which we are supposed to live as 'resident aliens' risking persecution, and not think we are serving God by compulsion of others.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I don't see why something being recent means it's not legitimate - could you explain, Steve Langton?
No, recency on its own doesn't mean illegitimate. Neither of course does it guarantee legitimacy! I simply don't think Newman & Co made their case that Anglo-Catholic was a legitimate development from Anglicanism as founded - a point Newman himself seems to have effectively conceded by his eventual secession to Rome.
If ideally evangelicals should leave the CofE over the establishment issue (and a few others), I think it's also the case that Anglo-Catholics should admit they aren't 'as originally intended' either. Of course there wouldn't be much left... (and as I recall, you aren't an establishment fan yourself, though your objections don't seem to be my biblical objections)
On the tradition thing - I've little difficulty with the 6th of the 39 Articles, on Holy Scripture.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Did I hear you right?
You are the guy who is trying to prevent Established churches from persecuting people?
[Confused]
Listen, you've got no more chance of being persecuted by an Anglican these days than you are by an Anabaptist or even a Roman Catholic.
Read my original context please; Jade and I were discussing past persecution, I was just pointing out that complaints about that don't really belong in my in-tray....
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Unless you're gay and live in Uganda, of course. But then the Anglican Church in Uganda is not established.
As I read it the Anglicans in Uganda may not be established but are the relic of the state church of a colonial power, and there are still apparently a few such Anglican relics which have state church type attitudes.
And NO, they definitely shouldn't be involved in the government persecuting gays, even if they believe gay to be sinful.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I did read your original context. I was yanking your chain again.
I must stop that.
But it is tempting at times.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not without Christian colonialism, surely? Homophobia is not some kind of inherent Ugandan trait. That is what I was trying to say, not that nobody in Uganda actually agrees with those laws.
It's largely irrelevant what the origins of their belief are, the fact is that that's what they believe. Societies change in all sorts of directions over time.
Your line of argument seems to serve no purpose other than either denying them agency or trying to blame a particular trait on a group you don't like. You were also arguing against a position no one in this thread actually took.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Gareth Hughes article, (highlighted in the opening post) originally gave me great hope for this thread......
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I did read your original context. I was yanking your chain again.
I must stop that.
Yes you must.
Again.
Also, stop accusing people of crusading.
/hosting
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not without Christian colonialism, surely? Homophobia is not some kind of inherent Ugandan trait. That is what I was trying to say, not that nobody in Uganda actually agrees with those laws.
It's largely irrelevant what the origins of their belief are, the fact is that that's what they believe. Societies change in all sorts of directions over time.
Your line of argument seems to serve no purpose other than either denying them agency or trying to blame a particular trait on a group you don't like. You were also arguing against a position no one in this thread actually took.
I'm doing neither of those things, and it was initially in response to Holy Smoke and the idea that anti-homophobia is a purely liberal Western value.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Simply put, political power.
OK, but why wasn't the church opposing that power?
by Jade Constable;
quote:
you could apply that to the huge amount of social power Anabaptist clergy have over the laity in Amish and some Mennonite communities in North America.
And just the other week a friend was describing the huge 'social power' of RC clergy in Manchester in her youth. At least with Anabaptists there won't be the power of the state added so that you risk imprisonment or judicial murder by the state on behalf of the church. (It might also be noted that other voluntary bodies like sporting associations exercise considerable power in their own ranks - but so long as they're voluntary and you can leave, problems with that are also the exception rather than the rule. If I want to race in the under-1600cc banger race, I shouldn't turn up in a 3.4 litre Jag!)
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I am not entirely sure what you mean by safeguarding religious pluralism,
This was in response to Arethosemyfeet earlier. Yes, I too would hope for a government that protects religious freedom - but we don't always get what we want due to worldly people exercising worldly power. The Constantinian and subsequent state churches, including Anglicanism till far too recently, tended to fall into the temptation of setting up a totalitarian church which persecuted dissent by state power, fought religious wars in the name of Jesus, etc.
The NT teaches a different kind of church/state relationship in which we are supposed to live as 'resident aliens' risking persecution, and not think we are serving God by compulsion of others.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I don't see why something being recent means it's not legitimate - could you explain, Steve Langton?
No, recency on its own doesn't mean illegitimate. Neither of course does it guarantee legitimacy! I simply don't think Newman & Co made their case that Anglo-Catholic was a legitimate development from Anglicanism as founded - a point Newman himself seems to have effectively conceded by his eventual secession to Rome.
If ideally evangelicals should leave the CofE over the establishment issue (and a few others), I think it's also the case that Anglo-Catholics should admit they aren't 'as originally intended' either. Of course there wouldn't be much left... (and as I recall, you aren't an establishment fan yourself, though your objections don't seem to be my biblical objections)
On the tradition thing - I've little difficulty with the 6th of the 39 Articles, on Holy Scripture.
I think Establishment is the only thing keeping some evangelicals in the CoE. Obviously Anglo-Catholics weren't 'as originally intended', but so what? It doesn't mean we're not real Anglicans, it's just that the purpose of Anglicanism has changed over time. Again, I don't really think you as a non-Anglican are in a position to decide who is a 'real' Anglican. Anglo-Catholicism is clearly a big part of Anglican expression nowadays, why is that not enough?
I'd rather not have Establishment, but I frankly can't get that worked up about it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
I think Establishment is the only thing keeping some evangelicals in the CoE.
Sadly I'd have to agree, especially at the Reformed/Calvinistic end, where as a 'second generation' reformer, Calvin never really considered an Anabaptist-type option. Perhaps you might consider that a reason to support disestablishment...
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Obviously Anglo-Catholics weren't 'as originally intended', but so what? It doesn't mean we're not real Anglicans, it's just that the purpose of Anglicanism has changed over time.
Purpose and nature I would feel. Hmmm!
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Again, I don't really think you as a non-Anglican are in a position to decide who is a 'real' Anglican.
Trouble with an established church is, it's everybody's business in the society where the church is established.
From my own post;
by Jade Constable;
Simply put, political power.
SL: OK, but why wasn't the church opposing that power?
That's rather a question about the Tradition thing - I'm really interested in your answer. Why didn't the church's Tradition as well as the Scriptures tell them to oppose the political power rather than join with it in persecution etc?
[code]
[ 22. July 2014, 04:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Well...in an attempt to get this thread back to being about the OP and not another one over the wonders of the Anabaptist tradition...let's try this. The difficulty seems to be in defining what it means to be distinctly Anglican. The closes thing Anglicans have to a confession is the 39 Articles. I wonder how many of the 39 those of us who self identify as Anglican actually accept. Perhaps, in seeing where our beliefs converge, we can get some idea on what is distinctly Anglican.
I'll start.
Articles Believed:1-13,15,16,23,26,27,30,32,38,39
Articles Rejected: 21,22,24,25,28,35
Articles Iffy On: 14,17-20,29,31,33,34,36,37
So, I accept 22 of the articles and am open to 10 more while only rejecting 6. Of course, you can guess my churchmanship by which articles I accept and reject. I'm surprised I agree with as many of them as I do.
Articles of Religion
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I sort of agree, Beeswax Altar. I tried to leave the thread earlier but was inveigled back by that Gamaliel fellow yanking my chain or some such. I'll retire properly now so long as Gamaliel leaves my chain alone.
Though I might make a brief appearance, as a former Anglican, to let you know how many of the 39 Articles I accept despite being an Anabaptist ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
OK, my list of how I get on with the 39 Articles;
ACCEPT; 1,2,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,25,28,29,30,32,33. Total 23
IFFY;
3,8,9,13,19,20,23,24,26,27,34,38. Total 11
REJECT; 35,36,37,39. Total 4
I was surprised myself by how acceptable I found even the iffy ones. 27, 'Of Baptism' was mostly acceptable, just not the last sentence on infant baptism, for example. Again 24, speaking in an understandable tongue, my reservation is not about, say, using Latin in the liturgy but about the possibility of true Spirit-given glossolalia.
An interesting exercise!! Thanks, Beeswax Altar!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Accept: 1-26, 28-35, 39
Iffy: 27, 36, 37
Reject: None
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, there we have it.
Daronmedway is the only true Anglican here because he accepts all 39 Articles.
Bingo! We have a jack-pot!
It also turns out that in rejecting only 4, as opposed to Beeswax Altar's 6, Steve Langton is even more of an Anglican than Beeswax is ...
When I have time, I'll tot up how many I agree with and how many I'm iffy about. It may turn out that I'm the least Anglican of all ...
(I'm yanking my own chain here, not Steve's)
I accept the Hostly rebuke. I have been teasing Steve Langton over much. I don't think I've been crusading though. I'm not pro-Establishment nor am I anti-Anabaptist. If I'm crusading about anything it's against single-issue posts.
But I can see that in crusading against those, my own can fall into the same trap.
Peace be to all. I may be back later once I've reminded myself what's in the 39 Articles. I can remember some of them ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or at least, Daronmedway is iffy about only 3 ...
I'm counting iffy as not implying outright rejection.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Umm... the SEC doesn't accept the 39 Articles. Indeed one of the reasons the SEC rejected the Anglican covenant was the attempt to make the articles normative.
Personally I'm not sure about 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 25, 28, 35, 37 and 39. It's possible that I've not fully understood them all, but then of the ones I accept I probably disagree with their framers about them.
[ 22. July 2014, 08:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
For that matter ordained persons in the C of E are obliged to hold the Christian faith which is "revealed in scripture, set forth in the Catholic Creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness". There is no obligation to subscribe to all 39 Articles without reservation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think I've been crusading though.
The hostly warning was against accusing others of crusading, which you explicitly did.
/hosting
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I can't enter into any discussion about what is distinctively Anglican or whether any of these things are right or wrong,good or bad.However it seems to me that we all see these things through the prism of our own cultural and cultual understanding.
SL sees the Catholic Church as an institution which burned people at the stake.Although he doesn't like the state connections of the CofE he is understanding of the persecution of RCs carried out for 250 years in the British Isles.
The penalty for being an RC priest was to be dragged through the streets with one's feet tied to a hurdle,head and hands bumping along the ground,then to be hanged,cut down before dead,and disembowelled alive before being chopped up into four separate pieces.
This is not to forget the disgraceful treatment of Catholics in Ireland over many centuries.
It's not only the RC church which has a bad record.
In Presbyterian Scotland there were relatively few 'Protestant' martyrs before the Reformation,about 12, and one Catholic martyr after the Reformation.There were many martyrs to 'prelacy' referring to the ongoing bloody disputes between the supporters of Presbyterianism and Epicopacy (prelacy).In addition we should not forget the hundreds of women burned at the stake in Presbyterian Scotland for supposedly selling their souls to the devil.
The 'social power' of Catholic priests, which presumably SL,wants to condemn ,
could be mirrored in the clergy or leaders of many groups,religious and otherwise,who cling together to protect themselves from what they see as a hostile outside world.
I do think that there is an anglocentric viewpoint generally in the CofE,just as there is in the political life of England,but to me that is just a part of life.
Nowadays as Christians we should realize that we are not perfect.If we think that we are trying in small ways to do God's will,can we not recognise that in others also ?.Our religious communities,just like our nations may be divided in history,langage and culture but we have to do our best,to bring people together and try not to classify people too much by what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by daronmedway;
quote:
Accept: 1-26, 28-35, 39
Iffy: 27, 36, 37
Reject: None
err... What happened to 38, 'Of Christian men's goods....'?
Interesting that his 'iffy' list includes two of my four rejections - given my current Anabaptism I'm curious why he is iffy about 27, 'Of Baptism'?
Gildas, I know that modern Anglicanism has long given up insisting on full subscription to the 39 Articles - nevertheless Beeswax Altar's challenge does seem an interesting test/examination of where Anglicanism now is, compared to its beginning, so perhaps people could carry on with it. And indeed perhaps share some of their reasons for iffyness/rejection of Articles. As a non-Anglican I'll keep out of it unless someone expresses curiosity about my iffy/reject list.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Forthview;
quote:
SL sees the Catholic Church as an institution which burned people at the stake.
I'm not quite that 1D about it. Nevertheless it did happen, as did drowning of Anabaptists for their particular 'heresy'. I am essentially equally appalled by persecution OF Catholics.
by Forthview;
quote:
The 'social power' of Catholic priests, which presumably SL,wants to condemn ,
could be mirrored in the clergy or leaders of many groups,religious and otherwise,who cling together to protect themselves from what they see as a hostile outside world.
My friend who brought that up in a house-group meeting wasn't very happy about it as she remembered it; I was mentioning it with a similar attitude,I think, to yourself - pointing out in the original context that leaders perhaps being a little too powerful was not exclusively an Amish fault.
by Forthview;
quote:
This is not to forget the disgraceful treatment of Catholics in Ireland over many centuries.
I don't forget it; on the contrary it was discontent with the conduct of NI Protestants like Ian Paisley which led me to personally re-invent what I later realised was the Anabaptist wheel!
by Forthview;
quote:
we have to do our best,to bring people together and try not to classify people too much by what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
With you on this one; but sometimes, as with Anglican 'establishment', the problem that caused the past deeds still has just a bit too much present existence, practical effect, and even potential for nasty resurgence. My concern has been that such relics of the past should not be papered over but properly cleaned out.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok. It's a fair cop. I was teasing but I did overstep the mark and I did accuse Steve Langton of crusading.
For which I unequivocably apologise.
I'll do my own litmus test on the 39 Articles later on and also desist from teasing Steve Langton.
On the Augean Stables thing about carry-overs from past Erastian excesses - such as Paisleyite stances in Northern Ireland etc - then yes, I think I've got more common ground on this issue than I may have Steve Langton reason to believe.
And there are current cases to answer in terms of Erastian attitudes on the part of the Orthodox in Russia and elsewhere.
I'm not indifferent to these concerns. It's simply that in seeking to resolve/address some of them, Anabaptism creates other problems. They're a different set of problems, but they're still problems.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok. It's a fair cop. I was teasing but I did overstep the mark and I did accuse Steve Langton of crusading.
For which I unequivocably apologise.
I'll do my own litmus test on the 39 Articles later on and also desist from teasing Steve Langton.
On the Augean Stables thing about carry-overs from past Erastian excesses - such as Paisleyite stances in Northern Ireland etc - then yes, I think I've got more common ground on this issue than I may have Steve Langton reason to believe.
And there are current cases to answer in terms of Erastian attitudes on the part of the Orthodox in Russia and elsewhere.
I'm not indifferent to these concerns. It's simply that in seeking to resolve/address some of them, Anabaptism creates other problems. They're a different set of problems, but they're still problems.
To paraphrase the orginal Host warning, you will stop that. There is only so far luck can be pushed before it runs out. You are rapidly heading towards that point. Which would be a shame.
Tubbs
Member Admin
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I am currently reading Backpacking Through the Anglican Communion. After a chapter on growing up in Massachusetts followed by undergraduate studies in Nova Scotia, the third chapter looks at his experience as a young mission work in South Africa. A good short read, less than 200 pages.
http://jessezink.com/2013/05/03/backpacking-through-the-anglican-communion-a-search-for-unity/
[ 22. July 2014, 12:02: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm doing neither of those things
So how do you want this to be read?
"But not without Christian colonialism, surely? Homophobia is not some kind of inherent Ugandan trait."
That all support for these laws stems from Christian colonialism?
That most support for these laws stems from Christian colonialism?
Because by extension most Ugandans ended up believing these values because ..?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Steve L many thanks for your generous reply to my comments.
You have talked about the importance of 'Truth'
For 50 years now I have kept in my head the wise words ascribed to Augustine of Hippo
Non intratur in veritatem,nisi per caritatem.
(Truth can only be obtained through love )
It is relatively easy to shout out and let others know that we have the 'Truth. What is much more difficult is to show love to our fellow human
beings,especially to those who do not share our knowledge and understanding of the 'Truth'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I consider myself duly warned.
I will desist.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm doing neither of those things
So how do you want this to be read?
"But not without Christian colonialism, surely? Homophobia is not some kind of inherent Ugandan trait."
That all support for these laws stems from Christian colonialism?
That most support for these laws stems from Christian colonialism?
Because by extension most Ugandans ended up believing these values because ..?
Sorry - I was unclear, and meant to emphasise the 'homophobia is not an inherently Ugandan trait' part. It's not to say that Ugandans can't also be homophobic, just saying that the 'naturally homophobic Africans v nasty Western liberals' thing doesn't exist.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by daronmedway;
quote:
Accept: 1-26, 28-35, 39
Iffy: 27, 36, 37
Reject: None
err... What happened to 38, 'Of Christian men's goods....'?
Interesting that his 'iffy' list includes two of my four rejections - given my current Anabaptism I'm curious why he is iffy about 27, 'Of Baptism'?
Oops. I'm good with 38 too.
As for 27, I've got strong reservations about Infant Baptism generally, and certainly Infant Baptism as it is currently practiced in the majority of Church of England churches.
36 because I don't think the consecration or ordination of a three-fold order of bishops, priests and deacons can be found in scripture.
37 because I would favour disestablishment.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I am iffy on 9 (would tend to go with the Orthodox stance on original sin), 13 and 22. Would reject 33, 37 and 38.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also turns out that in rejecting only 4, as opposed to Beeswax Altar's 6, Steve Langton is even more of an Anglican than Beeswax is ...
It would appear so. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Playing the Articles game:
I can probably assent to all bar one of them - the only ones that I would be performing gymnastics mentally on to an extent are:
25 & 28, (and then really only in terms of justifying reservation/Benediction/exposition/elevation and transubstantiation.
31 I agree with as written, but think they were barking up the tree of a 16th century problem with catechism more than anything, so I'd assent to it to the letter....
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Forthview; I'm again basically with you on the need for love in truth. Perhaps somewhat in reaction to what seemed vague, wishy-washy and sometimes downright dodgy use of the concept of love in the liberal theology I recall from my youth in the 1960s, and indeed in the secular world of that era, I do tend to go for a rather tough and hard-edged version of what love is about.
Also I try very hard to not be too harsh when dealing with non-Christians in everyday life; in a grown-up forum like this I think it's appropriate to be that bit blunter and more direct.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not indifferent to these concerns. It's simply that in seeking to resolve/address some of them, Anabaptism creates other problems. They're a different set of problems, but they're still problems.
See what you mean. Honestly! In my current experience the traditional Anabaptists, along with 'camp followers' like myself, are actually dealing with a lot of the problems that worry you - cleansing the stables as per your metaphor. The more mainstream denominations seem much more complacent about their problems. I hope you might find that fair comment?
Daronmedway; thanks for your response. Just for the record I'm 'good on 38' on the understanding that I'm not one of the Anabaptists who insist on total community of goods, and still less on forcing such an idea on others.
I think the Article is originally aimed at the Munster aberration, which did involve a 'compulsory communism'; I don't have a great problem with groups like the Hutterites who operate as 'common purse' communities but of course with no intention of imposing that outside of their own fellow-believers.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Playing the Articles game:
I can probably assent to all bar one of them - the only ones that I would be performing gymnastics mentally on to an extent are:
25 & 28, (and then really only in terms of justifying reservation/Benediction/exposition/elevation and transubstantiation.
31 I agree with as written, but think they were barking up the tree of a 16th century problem with catechism more than anything, so I'd assent to it to the letter....
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
That was roughly where I was. I don't think you can find transubstantiation in Holy Writ but neither do I think that it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament. But I really can't get round Article 22 at all.
Article 25 is a bit odd, inasmuch as I like to see what I am doing, and therefore need to gaze upon the sacrament from time to time, and have not yet worked out how to get the sacrament from the altar to the altar rail without carrying it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Playing the Articles game:
I can probably assent to all bar one of them - the only ones that I would be performing gymnastics mentally on to an extent are:
25 & 28, (and then really only in terms of justifying reservation/Benediction/exposition/elevation and transubstantiation.
31 I agree with as written, but think they were barking up the tree of a 16th century problem with catechism more than anything, so I'd assent to it to the letter....
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
I could assent to all of the iffy ones and some of the rejected ones if I did the mental gymnastics. Instead, I went with original intent as best as I could remember without looking it up. I'm Episcopalian so the 39 Articles are in no way authoritative. I'm thankful for that. However, I do think they represent what the Anglicanism of the Elizabethean Settlement was intended to be.
I'm not surprised Daronmeadway accepts all of the 39 Articles with a few reservations. His theology is closest to classical Anglicanism. Being an Anglo-Catholic, I don't agree with all of it. However, I paid attention to the lectures and did the reading in church history. The notion that Anglicanism was intended to be all vague and fluffy is simply wrong. To walk the middle way is not to say that everybody is walking on the same road or all roads lead to the same place.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Playing the Articles game:
I can probably assent to all bar one of them - the only ones that I would be performing gymnastics mentally on to an extent are:
25 & 28, (and then really only in terms of justifying reservation/Benediction/exposition/elevation and transubstantiation.
31 I agree with as written, but think they were barking up the tree of a 16th century problem with catechism more than anything, so I'd assent to it to the letter....
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
That was roughly where I was. I don't think you can find transubstantiation in Holy Writ but neither do I think that it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament. But I really can't get round Article 22 at all.
Article 25 is a bit odd, inasmuch as I like to see what I am doing, and therefore need to gaze upon the sacrament from time to time, and have not yet worked out how to get the sacrament from the altar to the altar rail without carrying it.
I'm unsure if you're completely joking, but in case you're not, I think that 25's more about exposition and benediction specifically rather than having to preside at the altar blindfolded (and presumably administering to blindfolded congregants).
Although competency in that is something I'd like to see taught to CofE Ordinands.
And possibly on YouTube.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Playing the Articles game:
I can probably assent to all bar one of them - the only ones that I would be performing gymnastics mentally on to an extent are:
25 & 28, (and then really only in terms of justifying reservation/Benediction/exposition/elevation and transubstantiation.
31 I agree with as written, but think they were barking up the tree of a 16th century problem with catechism more than anything, so I'd assent to it to the letter....
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
I could assent to all of the iffy ones and some of the rejected ones if I did the mental gymnastics. Instead, I went with original intent as best as I could remember without looking it up. I'm Episcopalian so the 39 Articles are in no way authoritative. I'm thankful for that. However, I do think they represent what the Anglicanism of the Elizabethean Settlement was intended to be.
I'm not surprised Daronmeadway accepts all of the 39 Articles with a few reservations. His theology is closest to classical Anglicanism. Being an Anglo-Catholic, I don't agree with all of it. However, I paid attention to the lectures and did the reading in church history. The notion that Anglicanism was intended to be all vague and fluffy is simply wrong. To walk the middle way is not to say that everybody is walking on the same road or all roads lead to the same place.
I agree with you completely (somewhat in shock at that! ).
Despite Anglo-Catholicism (maybe more A-C tendencies than the full thing....?) I tend to agree with 25 rather a lot - with the caveat that I do understand that for others, exposition and benediction is using the Sacrament; I feel that perhaps Cranmer didn't quite get the emotions which go with exposition and benediction, which are hard to explain I would imagine. However, the Eucharist is at its heart a meal, and as nice as some food may look, looking at the food isn't a substitute for eating it and it's not what it was made for.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Forthview; I'm again basically with you on the need for love in truth. Perhaps somewhat in reaction to what seemed vague, wishy-washy and sometimes downright dodgy use of the concept of love in the liberal theology I recall from my youth in the 1960s, and indeed in the secular world of that era, I do tend to go for a rather tough and hard-edged version of what love is about.
Also I try very hard to not be too harsh when dealing with non-Christians in everyday life; in a grown-up forum like this I think it's appropriate to be that bit blunter and more direct.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not indifferent to these concerns. It's simply that in seeking to resolve/address some of them, Anabaptism creates other problems. They're a different set of problems, but they're still problems.
See what you mean. Honestly! In my current experience the traditional Anabaptists, along with 'camp followers' like myself, are actually dealing with a lot of the problems that worry you - cleansing the stables as per your metaphor. The more mainstream denominations seem much more complacent about their problems. I hope you might find that fair comment?
Daronmedway; thanks for your response. Just for the record I'm 'good on 38' on the understanding that I'm not one of the Anabaptists who insist on total community of goods, and still less on forcing such an idea on others.
I think the Article is originally aimed at the Munster aberration, which did involve a 'compulsory communism'; I don't have a great problem with groups like the Hutterites who operate as 'common purse' communities but of course with no intention of imposing that outside of their own fellow-believers.
I hope this doesn't come across as off-topic (I think it is relevant though), but what is your stance on a 'common purse' within the Church or Christian communities? Do you see the NT as saying this is a thing to be adopted?
I ask because I hadn't read that Article before and was somewhat surprised at such an explicit reference to Anabaptists (I knew that Anabaptists were persecuted by pretty much everyone but didn't know they were numerous enough to be considered such a threat by this point). I'm also rather surprised that Establishment is such a sticking point for you, but not a community of goods - I think Scripture as a whole is far more interested in a community of goods than Establishment, since communitarianism (note, not communism!) is part of very-much-Established OT Israel as well as the early Christian community. Certainly, the common purse is one of the things that I think 'traditional' Anabaptists definitely have right.
I don't believe in any kind of compulsory common purse (like I think the Jesus Army has) but I do think that a community of goods is broadly endorsed by Scripture, and I think that 38 is out of place for a list of Articles that has clearly tried to go with Scripture in other ways (except for 37, I would say and I think you would agree there!). I would say that it's simply a hangover from feudalism, and the Articles being written by those in power.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
True, but if you're AC, then you're not looking at food - you're venerating the consecrated Host.
I can totally see why that doesn't cut it for some Anglicans, but the sort of people who go in for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are probably the last people to boil it down to "looking at food."
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
True, but if you're AC, then you're not looking at food - you're venerating the consecrated Host.
I can totally see why that doesn't cut it for some Anglicans, but the sort of people who go in for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are probably the last people to boil it down to "looking at food."
But it's still a meal, and eating is what it's for - exposition and benediction is like using a table as a chair, IMO.
I didn't mean the food metaphor literally (I meant it more as using it for what it's meant for), and would consider myself A-C - but for everyone but those believing in transubstantiation, it is food as well as having the Real Presence. It is meant for literally eating.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
True, but if you're AC, then you're not looking at food - you're venerating the consecrated Host.
I can totally see why that doesn't cut it for some Anglicans, but the sort of people who go in for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are probably the last people to boil it down to "looking at food."
But it's still a meal, and eating is what it's for - exposition and benediction is like using a table as a chair, IMO.
I would consider myself A-C - but for everyone but those believing in transubstantiation, it is food as well as having the Real Presence. It is meant for literally eating.
edited as I did mean it literally, typing two things at once sorry
Also sorry for ballsing up that editing!
[ 22. July 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The only one that I really struggle with (and that because it seems to have none of the loopholes with which the others were written), is 22.
I have no issue with 22, it's one of the most sensible article there. 23, on the other hand is a bugger for nonconformists like me. I have administered communion and I know some who have baptised others, when none of us are officially licensed as a vicar (though we do subscribe to the priesthood of all believers).
Though of any articles in the CofE, I think the one I struggle most with is the definite article. The Church of England. While it may be the official denomination, it does have the effect of marginalising others.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As I'm English, I'm a bit puzzled how a person can be Anglican or even want to be, without accepting that Anglicanism is primarily Christianity in the English, as distinct from Italian, Scottish, Swiss, German, Russian, Greek or whatever, mode.
I can see that in a country where everyone comes from somewhere else, the Christians among that everyone will have brought their mode of Christianity with them. I can see also, that there is a tension between whether one sticks resolutely to the ways of the old country, or whether a country develops a mode of Christianity for itself. Having done the latter, though, what I really don't see is why one should then expect the old country to take on the new mode and the changes one has adopted.
When it comes to the 39 Articles, I can't see how one can say 'I'm a true Anglican but they don't apply to me'. That seems very odd, unless perhaps it is seen as part of inculturating Christianity for the English into Christianity for the not-English.
When one says one disagrees with an Article, is one saying 'I disagree with everything it says' or 'there's something in it which is slightly different from what I believe'. If, for example, one says one disagrees with Article 28, is one saying one thinks the Lord's Supper "is only a sign of the love Christians ought to have among themselves .... " or, "... that Transubstantiation ... can be proved by Holy Writ ... " or that 'I believe the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in a way that is outside the scope of the Articles'?
As it happens, the only ones I have any problem with are 21 and 39. 21 is very much bound in with the situation in the C16. I'm not sure how one would apply it to now. In 39, I am reassured by the word 'prohibit' rather than 'forbid' or 'require' but it does still strike me as odd that we expect people to swear oaths on a book that clearly tells us not to do so.
I'm really puzzled by those that have numbered 31 among those they have a problem with. These days, aren't even those who have a high sacrificial understanding of the Mass keen to stress that in the Eucharist they are uniting with Christ's "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world" rather than somehow creating a new calvary here in July 2014?
Incidentally, although the only reference to Pelagianism is in article 9, to me there's a noticeable thread of confounding Pelgian habits of thought that runs on through 10-14.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Well, I'm English, but I don't see Anglicanism as being inherently English - but then I don't really believe in different countries having different inherent traits in that sense.
Anglicanism, including the 39 Articles, were born out of a particular place in history and a particular political stance within that place in history. Therefore, they may not apply to modern Anglicans in the same way. Obviously Anglo-Catholics will be uncomfortable with some, as Anglo-Catholicism was just not a thing then! Obviously those on the non-statist left, such as myself, will be uncomfortable with 37 and 38, because the concept of the equal distribution of wealth and equality of station was just not on the radar for people like Cranmer. Anglicanism is much more diverse in terms of members' backgrounds, identity etc nowadays, which will obviously have an impact.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Though I might make a brief appearance, as a former Anglican, to let you know how many of the 39 Articles I accept despite being an Anabaptist
Okay on most of them except 28 - which defines mostly by denying rather than affirming (but see below), and the Erastian bits of 36 and 37.
In general there is a huge overlap between the articles and various other confessions and statements of faith including the BoC, HC, WCF etc.
So one could probably - in some ways - more easily assent to them as a conservative Lutheran or Presbyterian than as - say an Anglo-Catholic.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As I'm English, I'm a bit puzzled how a person can be Anglican or even want to be, without accepting that Anglicanism is primarily Christianity in the English, as distinct from Italian, Scottish, Swiss, German, Russian, Greek or whatever, mode.
Episcopalianism is Scottish. The Scottish Prayer Book (for all that it was known as "Laud's Book") was written by the Scottish Bishops. Certainly there are similarities between English Christianity and Scottish Christianity, as one would expect of two adjacent nations with a common heritage and a border that has been distinctly movable. That is why the Episcopal Church of Scotland, as it then was, felt able to be part of the Anglican Communion when it was formed. The SEC, like the CofE, sees itself as being the continuation of the ancient faith in these islands. That shared history doesn't mean the SEC has to accept or agree with everything the CofE has done. The 39 articles are specific to the Church of England, and if denial of the authority of the Bishop of Rome in England is to have any meaning, so must the denial of the authority of Archbishop of Canterbury in Scotland.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
... what is your stance on a 'common purse' within the Church or Christian communities? Do you see the NT as saying this is a thing to be adopted?
As I said in my response to Daronmedway, this article was almost certainly aimed at the Anabaptists of Munster/North Germany/North Holland during the Reformation. At that stage things in the Reformation were pretty fluid and a group arose which had developed a doctrine of 'believer-baptism', but either still believed in the Constantinian state-church idea, or possibly were convinced they were in the 'end times' and facing an imminent Armageddon. Whatever, they raised an army and took over quite a large tract of northern Germany/Holland centred on the city of Munster. Eventually they were defeated by the local rulers in a scenario reminiscent of Waco in Texas a few years ago, though on a larger scale and without modern weaponry.
Before their defeat they had introduced what amounted to compulsory communism with respect to possessions, and also polygyny. The effects were somewhat disorderly (!) and reminiscent of Stalinism or the China of late Maoism. As I said, that is what the Article is probably rejecting, and I would also reject that kind of thing.
Up to that point in the Reformation there had been both pacifist and non-pacifist Anabaptists - as I said, things were generally pretty fluid and it wasn't only the Anabaptists who had diverse ideas like that among them. After Munster Continental Anabaptism became almost exclusively pacifist, though a slightly separate tradition developed in England where Baptists were involved in the Civil War, and that tradition was also exported to the US where Southern Baptists can be very hawkish.
The original Menno of 'Mennonite' apparently lost a brother in the Munster episode, albeit at one of their other centres, 'Oldcastle' in Holland. This led him to reconsider jumping ship from RC to Protestant, as in his eyes all three parties in Munster had been unsatisfactory to say the least! His asking the question whether Christians were meant to treat each other in such ways led to him becoming the leading theologian of the pacifist Anabaptists which, as Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites are the modern survivors of that tradition, all of whom reject the Munsterite non-pacifism.
Of these only the Hutterites have an absolute 'common purse' policy in their 'colonies' - and of course belonging to their colonies is voluntary. Amish and Mennonites respect private property but expect much practical sharing.
Biblically Acts certainly speaks of the early Jerusalem Christian community having everything in common; but note that when Ananias and Sapphira tried to avoid this the problem was not that they held back - Peter said explicitly it was theirs all along and they could do as they wished with it - but that they lied, in an attempt to 'show off' their generosity but keep a large portion back secretly.
Practically a common purse really only works on a small scale local level in a community that really know each other and can discuss what is done with the money - the larger scale it gets the more difficult it tends to become.
The original Article is just about fine with me as an assertion of voluntary communitarianism; I suspect the writers of the Article were worried about the idea, which was probably held by the Munsterites, of applying such communism by force on a national scale. It was an Article I had to think seriously about!!
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
When it comes to the 39 Articles, I can't see how one can say 'I'm a true Anglican but they don't apply to me'. That seems very odd, unless perhaps it is seen as part of inculturating Christianity for the English into Christianity for the not-English.
I call myself an Anglican because TEC is a member of the Anglican Communion. If being Anglican means subscribing to all 39 Articles, then I'm not an Anglican. Like I said, the 39 Articles represent classical Anglicanism and if anything represents something distinctly Anglican it is the 39 Articles. However, Anglo-Catholicism is also something distinct. I identify as an Anglo-Catholic. By some definitions that makes me an Anglican and by others it doesn't. I'm OK with that. I don't care that much really. I'll only care if I'm elected bishop and don't receive an invitation to Lambeth. What other opportunity will I get to have tea with the Queen?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Steve Langton (sorry, didn't want to quote such a big piece of text, but thanks for the info!) I read it as a much more general fear of communitarianism - mostly because it was written by people on the side of the monarch and the wealthy, who wouldn't really want to share their wealth! It's also near enough to the previous feudal system for there to be collective folk memories of that - groups like the Levellers and Diggers have yet to start up, and there's not really any kind of popular leftist group yet. Rebellions (eg the Pilgrimage of Grace) in recent times are firmly setting themselves under the authority of a monarch.
Like, I don't doubt that the Munster rebellion was forefront in their mind, but I also think that in light of Article 38, they're not going to command obedience to the monarch but also be fine with sharing the wealth!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, what should the Church of England call itself, TheAlethiophile?
'A Church of England?'
If another Alethiophile came on board, would you have to change you name to 'AnAlethiophile'?
I'll now do the 39 Article test to see if I'm actually an Anglican or something else without realising it ...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: I'll now do the 39 Article test to see if I'm actually an Anglican or something else without realising it ...
Is that online?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Thanks, Jade Constable. As I said 38 was an Article that made me think, and for precisely the reasons you suggest. I decided in the end to go with it 'as written' in a sense of would this look OK to me in a 'Baptistish' confession of faith. But, yes, I too think the Anglican hierarchy were concerned about 'protecting the rich' a good deal more than they should have been....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What are you suggesting? That I am a dissembler ... that I am different online to how I am offline?
Such calumny ...
But I'll let you be the judge from my list (warning, some appear more than once:
Agree: 1 - 4; 6 - 8; 10 - 12; 14 - 16, 18, 20 (yes, sort of), 24, 25 (except ...), 26 (oh, go on then), 27 (yes, but); 28 (but I do believe in some form of Real Presence, but not transubstantiation), 29 - 31, 33, 34, 35 (?), 36 (?), 37-39.
Iffy:
5 - I tend towards the Orthodox view of the filioque clause.
6. Yes, but ...
9. I tend towards the Orthodox view of Original Sin these days.
13. I don't see pre-faith works as salvific, but can't see why they should always be 'repugnant' to God - see Cornelius in Acts 10. It's not an issue for me. Doing good is doing good, whoever does it, saint or sinner.
17. Not sure on the predestination/freewill thing these days. I don't lose any sleep over it either.
19. Not sure. Rome has erred. Not sure I'd want to be so adamant about some of the others.
20. Yes, sort of ...
21. Not sure. I like the Councils ...
22. Purgatory certainly against that. Not sure about icons - I like icons.
23. Depends on the context. Fine if you're non-conformist.
25. Ok - but I'm open to there being more than 2 sacraments. Wouldn't die in a ditch over it.
27. Not sure. Both/and?
33. In theory, yes, in practice ...?
35. Don''t know. I haven't read all the Homilies. I'm sure they're ok ...
So, allowing for the double counts I agree with around 30 of them and am iffy to a greater or lesser extent about the others - but don't completely reject them either.
As I have some in both the agree and iffy categories that makes me a 'double minded man who will not receive anything from the Lord.'
Sounds about right ...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: What are you suggesting? That I am a dissembler ... that I am different online to how I am offline?
Such calumny ...
Don't worry, I was just wandering if I could take the test somewhere myself without going through the task of looking things up
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I remember enough from history courses etc and stage in Reformation history when the Articles were being formulated to be able to pronounce that Steve Langton is unequivocally right in saying that Article 38 is aimed directly at the excesses and horrors of Munster and is not making any other more subtle political point.
Bearing in mind what we've seen of the imposition by force in the C20 on an unwilling public of collectivisation, Stalinism etc. few people, with the possible exception of the Revds Conrad Noel and Hewlett Johnson will have either disagreed or have had any serious reason to disagree with Article 38.
Most people these days would likewise be uneasy at the imposing of the highest ideals of Christian ethics and commitment on unwilling citizens by compulsion.
It does not preclude the voluntary sharing and holding in common of riches and goods.
Following on from the modern Anabaptist position on establishment, involvement with the state etc., I would also have thought it was next to impossible for a modern Anabaptist to advocate what Article 38 is condemning.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It surprises me that nearly everybody on both (all?) sides of this argument seems to accept that 'Anglicanism' is a product of the 16th century Reformation.
Surely the basis of any understanding of the nature of the C of E is that it is continuous with the Church that existed in England from the time of the first missionaries. That is of course the basis for Anglo-catholic claims, but it is equally classical Anglicanism as implied by the title page of the BCP 'the rites and ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England'
Nobody denies that the Reformation imposed some vast changes on the Church in this country, but it has been evolving from the earliest days until now, and it is perverse to try and fix one point in that evolution as definitive.
I accept Steve Langton's claim that Anglicanism elsewhere (with the partial exceptions of Scotland and the USA) derives largely from the C of E and hence, whether or not it is 'established' anywhere else, the character of those churches reflects something of the English experience. But that doesn't mean that 'authentic Anglicanism' can be defined by a snapshot of the Reformation period frozen in time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Angloid;
quote:
But that doesn't mean that 'authentic Anglicanism' can be defined by a snapshot of the Reformation period frozen in time.
I'm not sure such a snapshot is entirely possible, as the Church clearly evolved and changed considerably between Henry VIII's non-papal national Catholic Church and the post-Cromwellian Stewart restoration, and arguably further again even beyond the 1688 'Revolution' with William of Orange. On the other hand, the '39 Articles' were clearly intended to 'freeze' the church in doctrinal terms and it was many years before there was much relaxation about them, and they were still in the BCP as long as it was widely used in the CofE.
OK, I'm not Anglican, I'll leave it to the Anglicans to decide the relevance....
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I remember enough from history courses etc and stage in Reformation history when the Articles were being formulated to be able to pronounce that Steve Langton is unequivocally right in saying that Article 38 is aimed directly at the excesses and horrors of Munster and is not making any other more subtle political point.
Bearing in mind what we've seen of the imposition by force in the C20 on an unwilling public of collectivisation, Stalinism etc. few people, with the possible exception of the Revds Conrad Noel and Hewlett Johnson will have either disagreed or have had any serious reason to disagree with Article 38.
Most people these days would likewise be uneasy at the imposing of the highest ideals of Christian ethics and commitment on unwilling citizens by compulsion.
It does not preclude the voluntary sharing and holding in common of riches and goods.
Following on from the modern Anabaptist position on establishment, involvement with the state etc., I would also have thought it was next to impossible for a modern Anabaptist to advocate what Article 38 is condemning.
Article 38 is still a product of its time, and I can still reject it for not being applicable now, and still (I believe) not in keeping with the general thrust of Scripture regarding economics. Even if I didn't reject it, I'm not sure it should be in a document that tries to define Anglicanism when certain strands of Anglicanism (usually Anglo-Catholicism) have been very much connected to left-wing beliefs.
Re modern Anabaptism and the Munster rebellion, not all variants of socialism are state-based. Social anarchism (eg anarcho-syndicalism)would be perfectly compatible with a more forceful interpretation of Anabaptist life, and indeed Anabaptists can be considered part of Christian anarchism (albeit a non-forced version!) which is broadly a leftwing type of anarchism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It surprises me that nearly everybody on both (all?) sides of this argument seems to accept that 'Anglicanism' is a product of the 16th century Reformation.
Surely the basis of any understanding of the nature of the C of E is that it is continuous with the Church that existed in England from the time of the first missionaries. That is of course the basis for Anglo-catholic claims, but it is equally classical Anglicanism as implied by the title page of the BCP 'the rites and ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England'
Nobody denies that the Reformation imposed some vast changes on the Church in this country, but it has been evolving from the earliest days until now, and it is perverse to try and fix one point in that evolution as definitive.
I accept Steve Langton's claim that Anglicanism elsewhere (with the partial exceptions of Scotland and the USA) derives largely from the C of E and hence, whether or not it is 'established' anywhere else, the character of those churches reflects something of the English experience. But that doesn't mean that 'authentic Anglicanism' can be defined by a snapshot of the Reformation period frozen in time.
I don't think Anglicanism is a product of the 16th century Reformation (I like your hint towards other Reformations ), I think the 39 Articles are. I do not think that they define modern Anglicanism in the same way that they defined Anglicanism at the birth of the Established CoE, although as I've said there's actually very little I would personally reject. The issue is the diversity of modern Anglicanism - I think the Nicene Creed would be enough of a doctrinal basis nowadays.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The generally accepted doctrinal basis these days is the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Angloid;
quote:
Surely the basis of any understanding of the nature of the C of E is that it is continuous with the Church that existed in England from the time of the first missionaries.
And they were...?
There is a fairly continuous history of Christianity in (strictly speaking Britain rather than) England back to the Roman Empire, even if you discount some of the more fanciful stuff like Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury. The 'Romano-British' were nominally 'Christianised' as a result of the 'Constantinian' shift before the Empire abandoned Britain to the 'barbarian' Anglo-Saxons etc.
Of course 'Christian' Celts fighting off pagan invaders were not doing a lot of missionary work among the invaders (another of the problems of the 'state church' concept!); so arguably the 'English' (actually a right mix of Germanic and Scandinavians) were evangelised by the papal/RC missionaries like Augustine of Canterbury.
So do you want the CofE to think itself continuous with the somewhat independent Celts or the RC Anglo-Saxon group - and in either case, as a state church not continuous with the earliest form of Christianity in these islands?
Constant evolution indeed - but not all of it good in NT terms??
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Article 38 is still a product of its time, and I can still reject it for not being applicable now, and still (I believe) not in keeping with the general thrust of Scripture regarding economics.
As I said, I found 38 marginal and went with it 'as written' while recognising that the original composers had intentions a bit beyond 'the letter'.
For what it's worth, the major current Mennonite Confession says this;
quote:
"The first church in Jerusalem put Jubilee into practice by preaching the gospel, healing the sick, and sharing possessions. Other early churches shared financially with those in need.
As stewards of God's earth, we are called to care for the earth and to bring rest and renewal to the land and everything that lives on it. As stewards of money and possessions, we are to live simply, practice mutual aid within the church, uphold economic justice, and give generouslyand cheerfully. .. We cannot be true servants of God and let our lives be ruled by desire for wealth.
This is practised, of course, in the context of Mennonite separation of Church and State. It is therefore something the church and its members accept voluntarily and it is not sought to impose it on the state and on non-Mennonites, only to persuade.
(the Confession can be consulted online, downloaded {though not I think for free} or purchased as a booklet or on Kindle. It usually comes with 'prooftexts' and commentaries. Google up "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective")
by Jade Constable;
quote:
The issue is the diversity of modern Anglicanism - I think the Nicene Creed would be enough of a doctrinal basis nowadays.
More or less with you on that one; would perhaps even prefer the earlier "Apostle's Creed" - but we might interpret 'holy catholic church' a bit differently.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If we are looking at it in terms of a tactile succession, then we could argue that the Church of England can trace itself back to St Augustine of Canterbury and his mission to the Anglo-Saxons in 597AD.
The independent 'Celtic Churches' were descended from the indigenous British Church which existed in these islands from ... who knows when? The 3rd century probably.
St Alban is said to have been the first martyr in Britain and there were also early martyrs such as Julius and Aaron - who are variously connected with either Chester or Caerleon - both called 'The City of the Legions' so it's hard to establish which one was meant.
There was certainly a Christian presence in these islands before the Constantinian settlement. Three British bishops attended a Church Council (not an Ecumenical one) in 312AD and it's suggested that they may have come from London, Exeter and Lincoln.
The Christians who were present in Britain prior to the Papal mission of 597AD eventually conformed - often reluctantly - to Roman practice following the Synod of Whitby. Although it's interesting to note that the contentious issues were external observances such as the date of Easter (the Britons followed the Eastern date) and the style of monastic tonsure - rather than doctrinal differences.
There'd been outbreaks of Pelagianism in Britain - Pelagius was British of course. St Germanus of Auxerre (or St Garmon in Welsh) twice visited Britain in the early/mid 5th century (after Roman rule) to combat this heresy and may have visited the shrine of St Alban (although is difficult to establish for sure).
At any rate, as far as 'tactile succession' goes you can trace things through from St Augustine of Canterbury to the Reformation and beyond. Although the RCs, of course, would see the Reformation as bringing about a split in that succession thereby rendering subsequent Anglican orders invalid.
Some of the Orthodox, of course, and the Copts too, will sometimes claim that the indigenous Celtic Churches were in communion with them.
This is moonshine. There were links between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Celtic Fringe, but the British/Celtic churches were based on a monastic rather than episcopal pattern - with abbots effectively playing the role of bishops.
They weren't formally in communion with the Orthodox jurisdictions as such, although there were certainly influences from the East on Celtic monasticism.
St David (5th century) is said to have gone on pilgrimage to Rome.
King Alfred of the West Saxons certainly spent time in Rome as a boy. The Anglo-Saxon Church looked to the Pope as the Western Patriarch.
Of course, Papal ties and influence increased after the Norman Conquest but suggestions that they didn't exist before that time - which is what I've heard some people say - are completely false.
Of course, none of that makes any difference if you are committed to an Anabaptist stance because apostolic succession in either tactile or belief terms then becomes irrelevant.
Although it is interesting - and often amusing - to see how some Anabaptists/Baptists/Brethren types have tried to establish an alternative apostolic succession through fringe groups and breakaway sects such as the Waldensians etc.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Oh NO! I've gone and started another wild tangent...
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Of course, none of that makes any difference if you are committed to an Anabaptist stance because apostolic succession in either tactile or belief terms then becomes irrelevant.
Although it is interesting - and often amusing - to see how some Anabaptists/Baptists/Brethren types have tried to establish an alternative apostolic succession through fringe groups and breakaway sects such as the Waldensians etc.
Agreed that formal succession is irrelevant to the Anabaptist idea that fidelity to Scripture matters more than such 'lines of authority'. I don't care who laid hands on you if your beliefs conflict with Scripture....
I don't think Anabaptists regard groups like the Waldensians as anything like an apostolic succession - simply as precursors, in the same way that Protestants regard people like Wycliffe as precursors.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
True, but if you're AC, then you're not looking at food - you're venerating the consecrated Host.
I can totally see why that doesn't cut it for some Anglicans, but the sort of people who go in for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are probably the last people to boil it down to "looking at food."
But it's still a meal, and eating is what it's for - exposition and benediction is like using a table as a chair, IMO.
I didn't mean the food metaphor literally (I meant it more as using it for what it's meant for), and would consider myself A-C - but for everyone but those believing in transubstantiation, it is food as well as having the Real Presence. It is meant for literally eating.
People arrange food so that it looks appetising and increases our desire.
Exposition and Benediction increases our desire and hunger for God, thereby strengthenng our devotion and love.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
True, but if you're AC, then you're not looking at food - you're venerating the consecrated Host.
I can totally see why that doesn't cut it for some Anglicans, but the sort of people who go in for Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament are probably the last people to boil it down to "looking at food."
But it's still a meal, and eating is what it's for - exposition and benediction is like using a table as a chair, IMO.
I didn't mean the food metaphor literally (I meant it more as using it for what it's meant for), and would consider myself A-C - but for everyone but those believing in transubstantiation, it is food as well as having the Real Presence. It is meant for literally eating.
People arrange food so that it looks appetising and increases our desire.
Exposition and Benediction increases our desire and hunger for God, thereby strengthenng our devotion and love.
But looking at food is still not the point of food. I personally get no benefit from exposition and benediction, it's an optional extra - just as arranging food so it looks nice is an optional extra.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't think Anabaptists regard groups like the Waldensians as anything like an apostolic succession - simply as precursors, in the same way that Protestants regard people like Wycliffe as precursors.
Technically, yes. In practice, though, it's a form of 'alternative' apostolic succession.
What they're saying is, 'Look, we weren't the first to have these kind of ideas, there was this, that and the other group ...'
It becomes like a 'ghost' or parallel apostolic succession - not in the same way as the convoluted and rather train-spotting style ecclesiasial genealogies of the various 'episcopi vagantes' but it's essentially trying to establish a similar precedent.
What apostolic succession means, in 'High Church' circles is more than simple tactile lineage. It's also about the transmission of the faith from one generation to the next.
What these parallel Protestant attempts to show some kind of precedence and lineage are all about is an attempt to show that their own views aren't novel but actually go back a fair bit.
I've read enough of this sort of material to suss what they're trying to do.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
What these parallel Protestant attempts to show some kind of precedence and lineage are all about is an attempt to show that their own views aren't novel but actually go back a fair bit.
Yes - and why is that any kind of problem? As opposed to 'apostolic succession' claiming an actual - but questionable - transmission of authority? If there is truth to Protestant or Anabaptist claims it's not remotely surprising that there are precursors and like-minded people around even in, remember, a hostile environment.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes - and why is that any kind of problem? As opposed to 'apostolic succession' claiming an actual - but questionable - transmission of authority? If there is truth to Protestant or Anabaptist claims it's not remotely surprising that there are precursors and like-minded people around even in, remember, a hostile environment.
I think the problem is that they're largely clutching at straws. It's a little bit like those who try to claim that early Christianity accepted equal marriage - they pick out one off incidents and extrapolate in a way that simply doesn't support the argument. Without wanting to touch the Dead Horse, it is possible to argue equal marriage from scriptural principles and reason, but the argument from tradition is a non-starter in this case.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
I think the problem is that they're largely clutching at straws.
The Waldensians would be quite a large straw. I'm not really making a big thing of this myself - more wondering why Gamaliel would compare recognising the existence of a few precursors of Anabaptism to the very different concept of 'apostolic succession'. Of course Anabaptists are interested in those precursors - but as I said, what's the big problem?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's not a 'big problem' - but it is something that Anabaptists, Restorationists and other 'ists' do.
I think you are taking me a tad too literally.
I am not saying that the Anabaptist or more general restorationist attempts to find precedents is exactly the same as the traditional view of apostolic succession.
What I said was that is a parallel or analogous initiative.
If you read the writings of the sub-apostolic fathers you'll see that they are keen to legitimise themselves and churches in their purlieu by reference to succession from earlier times.
One of the ways that 'orthodox' Christianity attempted to demonstrate its legitimacy back then was by reference to apostolic foundations. There were other criteria but this was among them.
There is a parallel thing going on among Baptists, Anabaptists and others. Not in a direct, 'tactile' sense, but in the sense of establishing precedents and antecedents, however indirect.
Of course, this can go wobbly on both sides. People concocting all manner of far-fetched spiritual genealogies on the one hand, or else citing clearly heretical groups as precursors on the other.
You've only got to read E H Broadbent's 'The Pilgrim Church' to find plenty of howlers and examples of the latter.
If anything is anti-Rome or anti-Establishment he hails it as a precursor - irrespective of how whacky it is.
I'd certainly see the Waldensians as a larger straw than others. But there is a lot of straw clutching going on in restorationist style circles.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0