Mobile Site

« Home | <$BlogPreviousItemTitle$> » 

Thursday, August 09, 2007 

Requirements for Anglican Communion

Reading: Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied
Enjoying: beautiful SoCal weather
Listening: MuteMath's self titled album

William G. Witt wonders whether communion with Canterbury really is necessary to be considered an Anglican. Contrary to a recent statement made by Archbishop Rowan, Witt concludes otherwise. From the article:
If one actually reads Cranmer or Jewel or Hooker et al, it becomes quite clear that (as they broke with Rome) they would have had no hesitation to break with Canterbury should Canterbury break with the doctrines and practices which encapsulate the gospel--because the identity of Anglicanism does not lie in communion with an historic see, but in doctrines and practices that adhere to the gospel.
What is more, Witt argues that aforementioned "doctrines and practices" probably did include sexual ethics, which early Anglicans mentioned in passing to defend themselves against charges of antinomianism or practices of adiaphora (which, by the way, were wedding rings, not the sexuality of your spouse).

I wonder what our Peruvian Anglican Nigel would think of all of this? He has written on concerns touching this before. What say you, Nigel? Is Mr. Witt going in the right direction? (Are you back yet?!) People want to know!

(HT: Dr. Koyzis)

Tags
[Anglican] | [theology]

Labels:

Well, it surely is an interesting question, and an interesting article. Of course, part of the question is, "What does it mean to be Anglican?" ("Anglican", as a term for the communion, does seem to stem from the 19th century ritualists trying to establish a common ecclesiological thread from sub-apostolic times).

If we define "Anglicanism", rather than having an ecclesiological connection with the established Church of England, but instead as a theological stream stemming from Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Davenant, Hall, Ussher, Donne, Andrewes, etc., and finding its confessional locus in the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion, then communion with Canterbury is clearly accidental to the Anglican identity. And clearly, such thinkers as Witt mentions saw unity with Canterbury as simply a pragmatic, rathern than an essential, symbol of unity. If Canterbury has abandoned either the symbols (which it has not) or the doctrine expressed by those symbols (which it effectively has), then faithful Anglicans, to remain truly Anglican, must ironically enough separate themselves from a Babylonian Antichrist masquerading in English vestments.

However, at the same time, I'm also coming more to the conclusion that unity with the faithful Anglican communion is important to having an Anglican identity. I applaud the efforts of the REC, APA, and other splinter groups to reintegrate themselves with the worldwide communion. Anglicanism is not an idealistic theory that some random group can hold to and call themselves "Anglican" (in the same way that "Baptist," "Methodist," or perhaps even "Reformed" groups can). Union with our brethren around the world is, I think, an important part of Anglicanism's continued attempts at demonstrating its biblical catholicity, and if we're not going to be in union with Canterbury, true Anglicanism will still be inscribed by a visible unity which is biblical, evangelical, and catholic in nature.

So, to summarize in answer to your question: if Anglicanism is not to be some nominal ecclesiological union with the see of Canterbury, and in line with the thinking of classic Anglican thinkers, I think that Witt is right on in arguing that true Anglicanism may well be parting company with the Church of England and will be right deserving of its continued title of the Anglican Communion.

P.D: I am back in Southern California! Great weather, we're having, really ...

Splendid thoughts. Thanks for your time and insight. Might we hope to find out more of the Anglican church in South America soon on your blog?

Thanks again...

Quote:
Anglicanism is not an idealistic theory that some random group can hold to and call themselves "Anglican" (in the same way that "Baptist," "Methodist," or perhaps even "Reformed" groups can). Union with our brethren around the world is, I think, an important part of Anglicanism's continued attempts at demonstrating its biblical catholicity, and if we're not going to be in union with Canterbury, true Anglicanism will still be inscribed by a visible unity which is biblical, evangelical, and catholic in nature.

I think that is an interesting observation, and one that some younger Reformed are looking for: a way to capture a true catholicity while maintaining distinctives. You mention Reformed and Baptist as being more idealogical; is that in contrast to the more geographical, historical and cultural Anglicanism? If so, what can we learn from Anglicans? What would you exhort your Reformed brothers and sisters towards?

Thanks for your follow-up questions!

Well, I think that both Anglicans and the Reformed value visible unity and value doctrinal orthodoxy. However, traditionally one of the cultural traits that has characterized Reformed and Presbyterian denominations I think has been a quicker willingness to separate and split themselves due to doctrinal variance on a very nuanced plane of debate, whereas Anglicanism has tried to maintain ecclesiastical unity despite, at times, overwhelming disagreements about some core issues. In some ways, it is a matter of the weight which one places on doctrinal conformity versus institutional unity (or conformity), and I think that each side could learn a better balance from the other.

The Reformed, perhaps often resigning themselves to being content with the mystical, invisible unity in Christ of the Church militant, have tolerated significant structural, or institutional, divisions between their visible communions. However, this has the effect, I believe, of weakening both the body of Christ and her visible witness in and to the world.

Speaking as an outsider, despite the admitted differences between denominations like the OPC and the PCA, they subscribe to the confessional standards and they use essentially the same polity. I don't think that it is sufficiently catholic to get together for NAPARC conferencesa or joint OPC-PCA picnics: what good reason can there be for these branches of Christ's visible church to be separated? Unity between these factions (I know it's a strong word) must be pursued, I think, despite the admitted distinctives and nuances of each group of churches. After all, Christ never prayed that his followers maintain their Puritan distinctives or classy contemporary worship: he prayed that they might be one, as he and his Father are one. And catholicity begins with one's neighbors, then extends outward. Greater connections between Reformed and Presbyterian churches around the world would, I think, be helped and strengthened by a truly united Reformed front.

I admit that beyond the confessional Reformed borders, it will be more difficult to achieve unity, but it is what we must pray for. Lutheran cristology and episcopal polity are much bigger barriers to visible unity than anything that those inside Reformed or Presbyterian churches will have to face among themselves, so I think it behooves those traditionally Reformed churches to first come together in unity, and then perhaps by the grace of God we can finish tackling the other communions coming out of the Magisterial Reformation.

But I cannot end this without a bit of self-critique as well: as I said, there are two sides to the coin, and the Anglican ethos might need a bit of tweaking in the other direction. As Anglicans, we need to see our identity much more closely identified with a common kerygma (proclamation), and not just a common table, and we need to strengthen the force of our ecclesiastical discipline as well as unity. We must be both more ready and more willing to think critically and biblically about our doctrine and practice, and to exercise discipline within our churches in order to maintain the Pure and Lively Doctrine of Christ. After all, a genuine unity is a unity centered around Christ, through his Gospel, and in his Spirit, and not our own grit and determination! In this sense, we Anglicans have a lot to learn from our Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran brethren!

So, I don't know if this is exactly what you were looking for, but I think in particular Reformed Christians can apply what they believe about the Church to what they actually see in the Church, and be willing to make uncomfortable sacrifices at times in the fine details in order not to be guilty of some following Kuyper, and some following Beza, and some following R. Scott Clark, rather than all being united in Christ.

I think Nigel made the key comment when he said:

Greater connections between Reformed and Presbyterian churches around the world would, I think, be helped and strengthened by a truly united Reformed front.

And what better way to have a truly "united Reformed front" than by joining the United Reformed Churches!

Well said Nigel! :-)

This is a great discussion. I don't know much of anything about Anglicanism, other than its formation and the early Eucharistic disputes, etc. So my comments are pretty ignorant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that fellas like Cranmer may be good historical examples for how to go about the unity you guys are talking about, even though his motives may have been more political than anything else. But I'll leave that as an aside.
It seems to me, Nigel, that when you said the Reformed Church needs to "be willing to make uncomfortable sacrifices at times in the fine details in order not to be guilty of some following Kuyper, and some following Beza, and some following R. Scott Clark, rather than all being united in Christ," you may have missed something that makes the issue a little more complicated. I assume that in citing those names you are echoing the Corinthian disputes (even if you weren't, I think my point is still valid), where some followed Paul, others Apollos and others Cephas. But the issue in Reformed churches is not identical. No schismatic is pitting the Apostles or the earliest preachers of the Gospel against themselves. None of Machen's warrior children say that they follow this mouth-piece of Christ because he's better than that mouth-piece. In reminding the Corinthians that all such disputing was in vain because they were all in Christ, Paul also asserts his own authority given to him by Christ. Neither Beza, Kuyper nor Clark have that authority. Moreover, unless we want to follow Tubingen, there were no differences between the proclamation offered by Paul, Cephas and Apollos. But there are real differences offered by Beza, Kuyper and Clark, though not in the essentials of course.
Considering the historical progression of doctrine, the blatant individualism of the west and the separation of Church and State in America, I'm not convinced that unity can look a lot different than it does without some cataclysmic upheaval in our society. Though that doesn't mean we shouldn't push toward it, even slowly.

Two things quickly:

@Nigel ~
Is this example with Bishop Spong going to the Anglican church in Australia an example of more needed discipline? What does catholicity look like here?

@Ben ~
I need some clarifying. What did Tubingen do? How does the differences of Paul, Apollos, etc., differ from Kuyper, Van Til, Clark etc? Given the cultural climate you cite, what is the cataclysmic upheaval and how do we push toward it (albeit ever so slowly)?

Thanks to the both of you.

Sorry Nigel,
I meant this example.

Tubingen pitted Peter against Paul. Baur used Hegel's thesis/antithesis/synthesis historiography or philosophy or whatever you want to call it and thought he found a huge Hellenizing tendency in Paul.
What I was trying to say was that no one is taking issue or dividing over the early proclaimers of the Gospel (not even Nicea!), like the Corinthians were. We are taking issue over some of the content they preached, but that isn't the same thing.
I'm not saying we don't have oodles to learn about unity from the Corinthian correspondence. The difference between us and them is that none of our poster-boys are vested with apostolic authority. Doesn't that seem like a huge difference? Their poster-boys were saying the same thing; ours aren't. It seems to me that the only way to apply the Corinthian dispute and make it have a one-to-one correspondence with our times is to follow Tubingen and say that their poster-boys were actually saying different things. Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure about pushing toward and upheaval per se. I think some kind of economic/political upheaval would change the way we look at things. On the other hand, maybe a change in outlook would cause an upheaval. The "outlook" I'm talking about changing is pretty obvious (individualism, separatism, etc.), but I just wanted to emphasize that the situation is maybe more complicated and deeply rooted than you guys might have been making it out to be.

Post a Comment
|

Transplanted from the artic blight of Minnesota to the sunny paradise of SoCal, I am attending school and learning to say "dude." I like to think of myself as equal parts surf rash, Batman, heavy metal, Levinas, poetic license, and reformational. Other than creating blund blogs, I enjoy reading, sporting, and socializing with serious and funny people.
My profile



Web Blog

About

Email:

FAQ - Author|Site
Upcoming Events |30 Boxes|
blund Frappr Places
Looking for Poem|Eliot information?

Thunder Sites

Thunder Mobile
Thunder Photo Album
Thunder Media
Thunder Frappr Map
Thunder Directory



Popular and Favorite Posts
Liturgical Bingo: BBC
Updated Video Roundup
Levinas and the Inner Demons

Categories

under construction

Recent Posts



How does Rowling and the "Harry Potter" series stack up against Tolkien and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy?
Rowling is the new dreamweaver. She is reigniting literature and fantasy as we know it.
Tolkien is the undisputed favorite. We have not yet seen a match for his philogistic skill.
This is apples and oranges. You might as well compare ping pong with Halo. Two different animals.
Rowling wins, but only by one quidditch goal.
Tolkien still stands, but only barely.
  
pollcode.com free polls






Firefox 2