Posted on 05/21/2005 3:50:03 PM PDT by sionnsar
[Something to annoy just about everyone here -- myself included. --sionnsar]
With the transfer of some of my friends to the Roman Catholic Church and others to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and still others to the CEC and PCA and perhaps to come, some to the Methodist and Lutheran Churches, where they are free standing, I thought it good to indicate some reasons why I do not think it wise to make moves that place oneself outside the Christian Faith as it is expressed in the classic Anglican Formularies, or to put it another way, to be at odds with the Scripture rightly interpreted and applied. (How's that for a claim. Why not!) None of this is meant to deny the positive things that could be said.
With Regard to Rome:
There is the matter of devotion to our Lord's Mother. I believe that the new Pope is a bit less on the Marian side than was John Paul II. Popular piety in Rome is a far cry from the official teaching of Rome regarding the one whom we all rightly call "Blessed" .
But even of the more restrained official teaching I have the gravest of doubts. Several of the Marian dogmas seem to me to be in direct contradiction to Scripture. In addition I have the following weighty concerns:
1. the relation of the Papal authority to declare dogma and the proper authority of Scripture.
2. the nature of the relation between Justification by grace through faith and the place of works of sanctification,
3. the efficacy of the sacraments and their right use in faith. I am not confident that any of these have ever been stated in Rome in a satisfactory biblical sense.
Much of the above seems to me to apply to the Eastern Orthodox tradition in its several branches. One would need to replace the authority of the Pope with the ecclesiastical authority of Ecumenical Councils.
I do believe in the Scriptural promise of the indefectability of the Church but that does not write a blank check to any particular Council or particular denomination of the divided visible institutions of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. Both visible Churches and Councils must be checked by their agreement with Scripture. And in regard to that, one cannot simply hand off the responsibility to make that judgment even where there is 2000 years of tradition.
Though I would want to add that one must be very thoughtful about the weight of that tradition. One honors one's Father and Mother but does not grant them infallibility.The inevitable exercise of individual judgment cannot be avoided, it is part of the human constitution and in the last day we will be asked about how we have exercised it.
I am not certain as to where the teaching of the CEC has gone so I must not comment about them, except to say that given their rush to the top of the liturgical candle stick I find in myself a need to be assured that they have remained within the reformed catholicism of the Reformation tradition, ala the 39 Articles.
Lutherans seem to me to be allergic to the sanctifying work of the Spirit and somewhat unreformed in some of their sacramental teaching. This leads them to some oddities in their Christology. I have the greatest respect for the Missouri Synod but would find it impossible to sign on to the entire Book of Concord. That requirement has rendered it impossible for them to break bread with any other Communion including any other Lutheran bodies.
Methodists generally seem to me come short on the depth of sin and the sovereignty and priority of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and hence they ignore or distort the mystery of election.
I'll admit Election must be left a mystery and that in Scripture Election is addressed to the faithful as a call to assurance and holiness. We are to preach the Gospel to all; we have no mandate to be election inspectors.
From the outside, the PCA seems in good shape regarding doctrine on the whole but is lacking liturgically and is given in places to inordinate discipline on very secondary matters about which differing exegesis can reasonably be held.
There seems to be a tendency to rationalism in the Reformed tradition that needs careful watching lest it triumph over the grace of the Gospel and patience of Christ with us all. It is instructive that the Articles introduce the Scriptures first as "Sufficient for Salvation ". We need to keep the emphasis there and for sinners such as I that means a heavy dose of justification is foundational and central.
In the continuing Anglican Tradition I worry about an inordinate concern for "apostolic orders" which cannot be shown to be apostolic by biblical exegesis. I do not mean to deny that the historic Episcopate and the Presbyters and Deacons ordained in that line are not good for the Church or raised up by the work of the Holy Spirit from early days.
Nor do I deny that this ancient order should be commended to all when it is exercised in faith and in accord with Apostolic Teaching found in Scripture ( the emphasis of the Pastoral Epistles), I just don't think that when such ministers in "apostolic order" depart from the Apostolic Faith they do much good and in fact they do a great deal of harm.
I think it odd to limit the efficacy of the sacraments to those in which these "apostolic"ministers preside as if all Christian Churches did not have the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist even when their ordained ministers are not in historic succession.
I note the Lambeth Conferences never limit "Church" to those with historic orders. The Articles do not either. In fact they seem to intentionally avoid giving that impression. In short such a limitation is not a classical Anglican thing to do. I do not believe it is a biblical thing to do.
Well, now that I have irritated almost all of my friends, and comforted the few cohorts I have left, I just wanted to emphasize that I am a happy Anglican in the classic style and am counting on a realignment of the Anglican Communion along the classic lines. I invite all and sundry to help that happen and to be part of it.
I assume first, that all three streams can and will be included and second, that there will be room for Anglicans that do not agree with all of my opinions stated above. I do trust however that all will need to adhere to the 39 Articles and the theology expressed in the 1662 BCP and Ordinal, being convinced that they are Scriptural. If we do not have that standard, given the amazing results of exegesis and odd hermeneutical practices that we have today, we would soon be back in the mess that ECUSA is in today.
The Rt. Rev. John Rodgers is a bishop in the Anglican Mission in America. He lives in Ambridge, PA
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. "Opportunity for Catholic & Orthodox rebuttal" ping
Not a rebuttal of you or your intent, just of the article: Let us be followers of the Way, without too much regard for any human document.
"human" = purely human
Catholic bishops have stated (in a joint declaration with Lutheran bishops) that the Salvation has always been an unmerited gift of grace through faith in our Lord. They acknowledge that there are still differences in some doctrinal areas, but that there is more agreement than dispute.
I was at one of those pre-meetings. Plthplthplthplth.
What about the rest of us?
From the outside, the PCA seems in good shape regarding doctrine on the whole but is lacking liturgically
He has this part pegged. Of course, a good Presbyterian is not supposed to be too liturgical, but rather regulative in worship style. There are a few PCA churches which tend toward liturgical, but you have to look for them. Most of them are trending evangelical in worship style.
and is given in places to inordinate discipline on very secondary matters about which differing exegesis can reasonably be held.
If you don't hold the line on secondary issues, you soon are having to fight for discipline on the major issues. So I'm not sure we don't have this right. You will generally find more flexibility in Presbyteries dominated by large urban areas than in those where there has been a smaller influx of outsiders. (There might also be room to quibble about whether something is secondary or primary).
So I don't see much here which should offend PCA types. He seems to generally have it correct, whether that is taken as a positive or a negative.
You're already pinged. Or if somebody's just wandered in, flail away anyway. *\;-)
But classical Anglicanism, while it represents a sort of "third way" vis a vis liturgy and a few other things, is and was solidly Protestant in theology. To ask it to be otherwise is to push for a wholesale transformation of Anglicanism. It isn't that Orthodox wouldn't welcome such a transformation, it is rather that I have a hard time criticizing someone who wants to keep Anglicanism as it is.
+John is one of the reasons I am proud to serve in the AMiA.
"There seems to be a tendency to rationalism in the Reformed tradition that needs careful watching lest it triumph over the grace of the Gospel and patience of Christ with us all."
As someone who grew up in the hard-core Calvinist Reformed tradition, this is something that really is true.
I remarked recently to a Roman Catholic that when I was exploring Catholicism many years ago, I found the rationalist scholastic approach quite familiar. The specifics of belief are of course quite different at many points, but the process of theology is similarly rationalist.
The Collect for August 15 in the Book of Common Prayer strongly implies the truth of the Assumption:
"O God, who has taken to thyself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy incarnate son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of thine eternal kingdom ..."
There is nothing in the 39 Articles against most of the Marian dogmas, such as the Assumption, or her perpetual Virginity. Article XV does stand in contrast to the Immaculate Conception, and Article XXII against her intercession.
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.