Posted on 12/13/2006 6:14:41 PM PST by sionnsar
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. What would be the purpose of bringing all the Anglican churches together? A consolidation of power and finances for those folks running it?
What else drives it?
I've talked a bit with Anglicans in other provinces at it seem clear that the desire for unity remains with the laity. And at least some clergy too.
It's likely true that there are those who would like to see the reunification so that they could be the ones running it, but that's not the only reason. The end goal is a new (reformed?) North American Anglican church, a member in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
My opinion should be given very little weight since I'm not in that denomination and don't have the history of what's going on other than what I read here or in the lousy newspaper I still pay for.
I don't want to get into doctrinal matters myself tonight, but the justification for unification being a bigger and better database as suggested in the article struck me as odd.
That couldn't have been a motivator 40 years ago, so the reason seemed quite secular to me. There were other reasons offered, but that one jumped out at me.
Maybe Sir Elton John can be moved to write a song endorsing this......t
Ha. I missed the database element on my scan of the article. It's a really small element. However, some of the other "lesser motivations" are real -- it's very hard for the splintered Anglican groups to provide such as common health insurance, for example, things that were normal in the Episcopal church.
Historically, the Anglican (Episcopal) Communion has been about the "biggest tent" of the original Protestant denominations. At the time of its founding, Anglicans were anything from Presbyterian-sympathizing Calvinists (Puritans)(the Westminster Confession of Faith, founding document of Presbyterianism, after all was an Anglican document, created in London) to people with "low church" (later Methodist) sympathies, to virtual Roman Catholics. The state Church of England included them all.
From the beginning though these were very orthodox Christians....who compromised primarily on form--while keeping a solid (but flexible) reformed protestant base. The 39 Articles are a firmly Calvinist/reformed Protestant document...but more general and flexible (and short!) than other Calvinist confessions (like Westminster).
The REAL "via media," which the liberals like to toss around today, was about flexibility and moderation WITHIN orthodox Christian categories--not between conservative and liberal theologies (which did not exist 400 years ago). Anglican C. S. Lewis' phrase "mere Christianity" shows the traditional Anglican ideal.
Every Christian desires a reunification of a PURE church, as Jesus prayed in His High Priestly prayer in John...as in the West our dissolution from one Church is less than 500 years old. Most are not willing to give away the return to the bible gained in the reformation....which is why we won't go with the liberals, nor (yet) will we go back to Roman Catholicism--both systems depart from scripture as the final authority (interestingly).
There are over 30 different (usually very small) Anglican associated denominations in the USA. Each one was started for different reasons--many are called part of "continuing Anglicanism" which has regarded TEC (and by extension, usually Canterbury too) too far gone to be in communion with. If a new very orthodox Anglican denomination formed...in full comminion with worldwide Anglicanism (unlike most of the 30 little denominations) some of these small denominations may join. Worldwide, the Anglican church (2nd largest single Christian denomination on the globe) is overwelmingly very orthodox and bible based--due primarily to the former British colonies' mission churches.
TEC is generally (with good reason) to (naturally) die on the vine, within a generation or so. Considering the decline in membership of ECUSA in the last 30 years, that's a very real posibility. When Christianity ceases to be faithful to the basics, as TEC has, it ceases to be compelling...besides ceasing to be Christian.
We would argue that the 39 Articles were not a firmly Calvinist / reformed Protestant document but rather a carefully crafted compromise that can be interpreted in a manner that could be sold to both Catholics and Puritans.
Although this is a viewpoint claimed by many Protestants, Catholics would say that there was never a difference between Protestants and Catholics in a view of scripture as the final authority. The difference (this is a crude simplification of some very complex issues)was rather between private interpretation (protestant) vs. ecclesial interpretation - the triad of scripture, tradition and reason (catholic/orthodox).
The Articles are general enough that Reformed and Anglo-Catholics could (and still can) abide by them. However...arguably, 16th Century Catholics (like most 16th Century Christians actually) were more predestinarian than modern Catholics (and generally, modern Christians of all types) tend to be.
The popular use of "Calvinist" today usually is shorthand for predestinarian, and the 39 Articles definitely are that.
Hooker's so-called 3 legged stool (or triad as you called it) was never that. (It is claimed to be by a lot by revisionists in Anglican circles now though, actually). I've read the quote where that idea came from, and clearly Hooker saw a priority...with scripture as the final authority, reason as secondary, and tradition in third place. This view arguably was also held by the Reformers...and is not a contradiction to their understanding of sola scriptura (which refered in 16th Century minds as final, unarguable authority, not solo authority).
Magisterial/Confessional protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed, and Anglicans) have always maintained it was the Church which had the responsibility of interpretation--hence the various confessions--hammered out and agreed to by highly qualified scholars in the church (not private interpretation)--which explain and detail what they aggreed in community as biblical doctrine.
I've recently taken a seminary course in Creeds, and it is fascinating how very much the historic Protestant creeds agree on...probably upwards of 95% between Lutheran and Reformed, and 98%+ between the various (many) Reformed creeds.
Me-and-my-Bible-alone Christianity is pretty well uniquely an American phenomina, and has been (and continues to be) on the fringes of Christianity--even Protestant Christianity. Even those groups (take Baptists for example) who claim to follow it....really don't tolerate private interpretation very far at all, their doctrines are developed (and interpreted) by their church scholars acting in community as well.
Let a bible study in a baptist church say they've come to understand the bible alows infant baptism....and those who say that won't be in their baptist church very long! So private interpretation of any great consequence in practice is very rarely tolerated by any group.
One of the wonders of all the various splintered Protestant groups, among the evangelical brand anyway, is the remarkable uniformity of belief--among groups who have no connection to each other in any sort of formal way.
It should help mission activity. Church planting is an area where coordination is vital. Whether there is full union or just agreement to coordiate efforts, folks shouldn't be stepping on each other's toes.
Seminary support is another area where there are economies of scale.
Finally, unity of the body should be an aspirational goal for all Christians.
"triad" = posting too late at night after a long day.
You make some excellent points. Interestingly, I have seen similar points get flamed by the staunch Calvinists on the "Reformed" threads. (These are particularly active around All Souls Day when they celebrate the disunification of the Church!)
"Worldwide, the Anglican church (2nd largest single Christian denomination on the globe) is overwelmingly very orthodox and bible based--due primarily to the former British colonies' mission churches."
Third largest.
"This view arguably was also held by the Reformers...and is not a contradiction to their understanding of sola scriptura (which refered in 16th Century minds as final, unarguable authority, not solo authority).
Magisterial/Confessional protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed, and Anglicans) have always maintained it was the Church which had the responsibility of interpretation--hence the various confessions--hammered out and agreed to by highly qualified scholars in the church (not private interpretation)--which explain and detail what they aggreed in community as biblical doctrine."
Now there's an interesting fact! You guys ought to join us Orthodox and the Catholics in the lists when the Calvinists and their fellow travelers go on their sola scriptura tears here on FR! They are particularly active right now. :)
The operative distinction is around negative or double predestination.
The orthodox Anglican churches of various jurisdictions cannot be stitched together from the top down. They must grow together from the bottom up. Otherwise we risk becoming another ECUSA. This will take time- perhaps many years, but it is the only way to move forward.
Right now, the orthodox Anglicans in America are under a wide variety of jurisdictions. We should view this as a great blessing. This enables us to learn to do joint ministry together (college, prison, youth camps, clergy support, etc.) without bludgeoning each other with ecclesiastical and diocesan politics.
I guess that makes myself and a lot of others I know (who are very conservative Presbyterian....and infralapsarian) negative predestinarian.
Since the Eastern Orthodox comprise of national Churches--with slightly different polities in each, that is why I listed Anglicans as 2nd. Depending on how you define a denomination or communion, you are correct. There are more Eastern Orthodox Christians than Anglican.
Still, the "sun never sets" empire of the British, was used mightily by God to build a huge communion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.