Church Society Responds to Roman Initiative

Hear, Hear!

Amen…..it is the failure of the Leadership of Anglicanism that have lead to all this.

A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.

This seems to be a rather harsh way to invite the Anglo-Catholics not to leave the Church of England (and, by extension, the Anglican Communion): telling them that they’re interpretation of the “faith once delivered” is “unbiblical” and “unscriptural” and “contrary to the Bible.”

Yikes.

Agreed, Diezba (#3), but on the other hand this public statement wasn’t aimed at Anglo-Catholics.  My hunch is that the Council of the Church Society simply takes it for granted that no Anglican of catholic sensibilities or theology would pay any attention whatsoever to such a one-sidedly Protestant group.  And they’d have good reason for assuming that.  Why should an Anglo-Catholic care what the Church Society thinks??

Hey, at least, they didn’t say something like “Good riddance; you nver were real Anglicans anyway.”

David Handy+

Oops, that’s “never” as in you never were real Anglicans.

But lest I be misunderstood, I think it’s actually very important that Protestant Anglicans and Catholic Anglicans (and those of us who cliam to be both) try to build more bridges instead of remaining safely enscounced behind our own walls.  I was being somewhat facetious.

David Handy+
3-D Christian: evangelical, catholic, and charismatic

Hmmm, in many ways I’ve often thought the existence of the Church of England itself was a failure of the orthodox to respond to the liberalism of their day.  Boy, that turns my head around just thinking about it!

KTF!...mrb

The existence of the Church of England is God’s blessing upon us and millions of others across the world who have had the Gospel preached to us and to them over the last 400 years by its priests and missionaries.  In all the misery of the moment it is easy to forget that it is also thanks to that that the United States exists and you are not all part of a Spanish-speaking colony.  Without the Church of England, the wars with Spain, the Elizabethan privateers and adventurers, the thirteen colonies and all the subsequent history, none of it would have happened.

Pageantmaster, no. 7:

Not necessarily. There’s a good chance that if Elizabeth had decided to keep the Catholic Church in England, there wouldn’t have been war with Spain, and the English colonies would have simply been Catholic instead of Anglican. In fact, it might even be the case that we’d be the Dominion of British North America, set up like Australia as an independent realm with the Queen in charge as the Queen of North America (à la the current “Queen of Canada” or “Queen of Australia”).

Of course, I’m also an Anglophile (what Anglican—Catholic or Church of England—isn’t!), so my Anglophilia may be affecting my historical judgment.

Diezba,

Part of the reason for Henry VIII’s break with Rome was that both France and Spain were trying to use the Vatican to make England a vassal state to one of those “superpowers” of that era.  I would agree with Pageantmaster, that had the RCC returned permanently in England the Americas would have not remained under England.  They would probably have been divided up between Spain and France with the English Colonies going to whichever state ruled over England.

Diezba wrote:

This seems to be a rather harsh way to invite the Anglo-Catholics not to leave the Church of England (and, by extension, the Anglican Communion): telling them that they’re interpretation of the “faith once delivered” is “unbiblical” and “unscriptural” and “contrary to the Bible.”

Actually they are not telling Anglo-Catholics “that their interpretation of the ‘faith once delivered’ is unbiblical,” etc.  They are telling Anglo-Catholics that ROME’S interpretation of the faith once delivered is unbiblical and is in contrast to what Anglican formularies have always taught etc.—which is perhaps a warning that some Anglo-Catholics need to hear.

One of the common misunderstandings of this whole matter (especially among evangelical and reformed Anglicans) is the assumption that Anglo-Catholic beliefs are in complete agreement with Roman Catholic beliefs at every point and that, therefore, the acceptance of Rome’s offer by Anglo-Catholics is a “slam dunk.”  While some Anglo-Catholics who have a greater sympathy for Rome and Roman Catholic beliefs may find this offer attractive, it is by no means the case that all Anglo-Catholics are inclined in this direction.

Robert S. Munday+

Ditto Robert S Munday [10]. I am astounded that some people could read such a statement as an attack on Anglo-Catholicism. All the statement did was point out what the Church of England’s own formularies say. That the Church of Rome has unbiblical beliefs and practices is fairly central to the Anglican position. If we didn’t believe that then Anglicanism wouldn’t exist.

#10 Dean Munday, thank you for that educative comment.

#8 Diesba

Not necessarily. There’s a good chance that if Elizabeth had decided to keep the Catholic Church in England, there wouldn’t have been war with Spain, and the English colonies would have simply been Catholic instead of Anglican. In fact, it might even be the case that we’d be the Dominion of British North America, set up like Australia as an independent realm with the Queen in charge as the Queen of North America (à la the current “Queen of Canada” or “Queen of Australia”).

I am inclined to agree with BillB that the realpolitik of the time would not have permitted England to have either a powerful navy or American Colonies; I don’t think the Spanish would have permitted that.

The only way it might have happened would have been if Elizabeth 1 married Philip of Spain and converted.  But then the rest: the English Civil War, parliamentary democracy, freedom, trade, Empire, and all the rest would not have happened….and you would still be speaking Spanish.

But then being English may affecting my historical judgment

The statement is of course an attack on Anglo-Catholicism and Anglo-Catholics in spite of Dean Munday’s extraordinarily benign interpretation. Any statement which begins “According to its own doctrinal standards and history, the Church of England’s true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England’s submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone” is saying that Anglicanism is catholic only in the sense of its being “universal” - a point, by the way, which is certainly open to challenge. A church proclaiming itself Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical in capital letters while also saying it is “catholic” in lower case is saying that its historic legacy covers only the time since Halloween 1517. And the statement says that rather emphatically.

I have very little confidence that in the days, months, and years ahead that the already fragile coalition between “Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical” Anglicans and “catholic” Anglicans will hold. Already the Reformers have begun to make it very clear by this statement and others like it that Anglicans who regard themselves as upper-case “Catholics” are not welcome in the brave new world of Anglicanism.

Well obviously then, if I’m an Anglo Catholic, that must mean that I’m “not welcome” in the ACNA, doesn’t it?  Funny, since I don’t feel unwelcome.  I guess that since my bishop is an Anglo Catholic, then he must be “unwelcome,” too!  Or how about Bishop Iker?  Is he “unwelcome,” as well?  I think not.

#13 Dan Crawford, I am not sure that is the case, in England at any rate.  Church Society put the case concentrating on the Reformed point of view, which is good because we here quite a lot of the Catholic case, particularly here including from lots and lots of Catholics.  It has been quite noticeable at a number of events I have been to that both Church Society and FiF members have been present.  And if that is an unstable mix, well it just reflects the Anglican mix, and one which ACNA managed to agree to come together as.  All of which suggests to me that the Anglican mix is not quite as unstable as people tell us it is.

“All of which suggests to me that the Anglican mix is not quite as unstable as people tell us it is.”  True, and I suggest that the instability comes from the wishful thinking of those who are anti-ACNA.

This is the response the whole Anglican Communion was waiting for. A superb statement.

Cennydd and Pageantmaster, my concern arises because I do support ACNA and I do want to see it succeed. I do not regard statements like the Church Society’s at all helpful, and when joined with other statements emanating from “Protestant, Reformed, Evangelicals” and groups associated with them, they represent an attitude that will inevitably become problematic when all the back-slapping ceases.

I am with Dan on this one.  The statement was unnecessary (in fact) and is unhelpful (in tone and content) to preserving the big tent for which ACNA is striving.

RE: “A church proclaiming itself Protestant, Reformed, and Evangelical in capital letters while also saying it is “catholic” in lower case is saying that its historic legacy covers only the time since Halloween 1517.”

Well, I imagine that their use of the lower case word “catholic” came out of a desire not to confuse others by a pretense of being RC or AngloCatholic.

And of course, Protestants believe that their beliefs were the beliefs of the church universal before Rome mucked it up.  I understand that that’s not the belief of AngloCatholics.  But shouldn’t we all be honest about where we stand so that ecumenism and true dialogue may occur?

And of course, Protestants believe that their beliefs were the beliefs of the church universal before Rome mucked it up.  I understand that that’s not the belief of AngloCatholics.

Uh, Sarah, some of us Anglo-Catholics also believe Rome mucked it up (or, at least departed from essential catholicity), otherwise we would be Roman Catholics and not Anglo-Catholics. 

In contrast to the Church Society, I would argue that catholic means far more than universal.  According to the Vincentian Canon, the Catholic Faith is recognized by the criteria of universality, antiquity, and consent—i.e., the faith of the apostles and ecumenical councils preserved by the undivided church:

We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

In contrast to Roman Catholics, I would argue that Rome has departed “from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed.”  And I have no trouble maintaining, as Article XIX does:

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

The problem some of us Anglo-Catholics are having is that some evangelical and reformed types don’t want to let us be Anglicans if we are catholic, and some Roman Catholics (and those with Roman sympathies) don’t want to let us be catholics if we are Anglican.

Dear ToAllTheWorld,
Doesnt the 39 articles give you access to a high view of the church and the sacraments? So whats the problem, mate? How are reformed types not letting you be anglican?

RE: “The problem some of us Anglo-Catholics are having is that some evangelical and reformed types don’t want to let us be Anglicans if we are catholic . . . “

I will let you be Anglican [she squeaked!]  ; > )

But there’s good news—I’ve been informed that I’m not Reformed.  Looks like I’m with you.  We’ll have to settle all of the issues that I have with the AngloCatholic ordo salutis, efficacy of the sacraments, nature of the priesthood, definition of the church, etc, etc, my way—but my way I am assured by those who know, is not Reformed.  So we’ll all be happy together!

; > )

“As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”

Whenever we drag out Article XIX against the Romans and the Orthodox, we Anglicans never seem to acknowledge that to be consistent we must admit that Canterbury and Geneva have erred “not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” Unless of course, we think that Canterbury and Geneva have not erred.

What Dan said…

While I realize that any short statement is limited by its need for brevity, this phrase is so obviously hyperbolic that it would be just plain silly if it were not offensive:

it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome

As Matt has elsewhere said about the Reformation’s five solas, there are essential disagreements between the RCC and those whose understanding is colored by the reformation. This does lead to various different conclusions - for instance Mary was, according to Scripture, the Theotokos, but Scripture has no reference to immaculate conception or the assumption - a clear difference between the church as a whole and the RCC. However, one should be cautious to say that any Christian body “does not embrace any of the teachings” of the Church of Rome. Even a brief study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would show that we hold many of the same teachings (often based on the same references to scripture and the early church) and many of our commonly held beliefs are essential to the Christian faith.

Dan and rreed (#24 & #25),  Absolutely, I would agree that Canterbury and Geneva have erred and still do err (Canterbury in spades these days!).  Article XXI, which is commonly omitted from the 39 Articles today “because it is partly of a local and civil nature,” nevertheless contains this very helpful statement:

...forasmuch as they [General Councils] be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.

The point is that all churches can and do err, which is why we all have some reforming to do and some baggage to lay aside if we are going to attain the unity for which our Lord prayed—a unity which may only truly be realized, as the Collect for the Feast of Richard Hooker says, “not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth.”

This, again, is the heart of my concern over the Vatican’s offer:  Some are so eager to embrace this opportunity for unity that they are overlooking errors that need to be rectified.  And if unity under the See of Rome is achieved at the expense of truth, it reduces the likelihood that Rome’s errors will ever be addressed.  Therefore, whatever unity is achieved can never be the unity for which Christ prayed, if it is not unity in the Truth.

Thanks to Dean Munday (#10, 21) for his calm and irenic comments in support of a genuinely Anglican but non-Roman form of Catholic Christianity.  I think I understand Dan Crawford’s fears about whether the new ACNA will be able to keep both its evangelical majority and its Anglo-Catholic minority together over the long haul, especially in light of the fact that the giant FCA provinces supporting the ACNA are overwhelmingly low church and evangelical (Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya, along with smaller Rwanda and the Sydney archdiocese).

But nonetheless, I personally remain quite optimistic on that score.  Time will tell, but initial signs are quite promising, I think. 

Just look at the province of Tanzania, which is split almost 50-50 between the evangelical former CMS dioceses in the northern part of that country and the catholic former USPG dioceses in the southern part.  As long as the white Anglo missionaries were in charge, these churchmanship differences loomed very large indeed and there was great friction bdtween the two halves, but after the Africans took over, those conflicts have dramatically lessened.  Indigenous leaders weren’t so committed to rehashing inherited disputes from the West/Global North, and more worried about rallying together against Islam and pagan animism, etc.

What happened in Tanzania can happen here in North America.  After all, two dimensions are inherently better than one (and three are even better than two).  I continue to fervently maintain that it’s much better to be BOTH evangelical and catholic than to be either one by itself.  And it’s better yet to be Protestant and Catholic and Pentecostal all at the same time.

David Handy+
Proudly 3-D: evangelical, catholic, and charismatic

David (#28), I understand and share Dan Crawford’s concerns also, to a certain extent.  If we let egos, spiritual pride in our various churchmanships, and sinful human natures get in the way, we could derail something beautiful that I believe orthodox Anglicans can (by God’s grace) achieve. 

I am also concerned that, if too many Anglo-Catholics become enamored by the offer of unity with Rome, they can seriously weaken the efforts at building an orthodox Anglican witness.  I am particularly concerned by the sentiment that is starting to rear its head among some Evangelicals who seem to think that the departure of Anglo-Catholics from the Anglican scene would be a welcome development (“let ‘em go—good riddance!”).

I have long believed that (for the genuine unity of faithful Christians) Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics need to work out their differences—to arrive at what is genuinely biblical and truly catholic (in the Vincentian sense) and unite around it. 

If we can have ecumenical conversations with Christians of other traditions, it is scandalous that high-church and low-church Anglicans can’t come to agreement in matters of faith with each other!!!  My hope is that FCA, ACNA, and continued conversations around the principles of GAFCON might be the beginning of such a rapprochement.  I believe that all faithful Anglicans need to pray earnestly about this.

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

Amen, Dr. Munday (#29).  So be it!

David Handy+

I read Dean Munday’s #27, 29 and 30 with agreement, joy and tears! 

What welcome words of truth.  Amen to all! 

May we all, His Church, individually and corporately, strive and lay down our lives to be One in Spirit and in Truth through the Word of Life and the Way of Love.
Amen.

If we can have ecumenical conversations with Christians of other traditions, it is scandalous that high-church and low-church Anglicans can’t come to agreement in matters of faith with each other!!!  My hope is that FCA, ACNA, and continued conversations around the principles of GAFCON might be the beginning of such a rapprochement.  I believe that all faithful Anglicans need to pray earnestly about this.

Amen and amen to this-You jacked that one into the centerfield bleachers Dean!

During the entire conflict with seditious revisionism, some Anglicans seem to suspend their capacity to reason. For example, Anglicanism is the antithesis of Romanism. Read again the Articles. You cannot swim the Tiber with your Anglicanism intact. period. You simply become Roman with a more gracefull Mass.

Another mind numbing example: Schism is worse than heresy. Inexplicable. Delusional.

How about the Bishops of Mizz Kate’s Council of Advice who unanimously ( including +MacPhereson?) aceeded to the mugging and deposing of +Keith Ackerman? This is a saintly decent man of God, yet these people endorsed the DBB/KJS fantasm that he had resigned his orders. I’d hate to be in their $500 loafers when Gabriel blows his trumpet. It’l be too late then to reinstate +Keith and give him back his health insurance.

What is worth preserving in the Anglican Communion?  Surely not the ‘catholic unity’ of people who believe wholly different things about its foundational documents, or do not believe in them at all. 

I say let some swim the Tiber.  Let others march off to Geneva with the 1662 BCP to form a new church in communion with other Protestant Reformed churches.  And leave the rest of quasi-evangelical Anglicana (example: ACNA) stewing in their own ecumenical juices. 

The fact is that Anglicans who have a particular belief system worth preserving have no reason other than sentiment (and perhaps property) to stay in a Communion where anarchy and heresy reign under leaders who have misplaced ambitions to build a big ecumenical tent.

29—

“I have long believed that (for the genuine unity of faithful Christians) Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics need to work out their differences—to arrive at what is genuinely biblical and truly catholic (in the Vincentian sense) and unite around it.”

Agreed. In my judgement, this is one of the reasons that Christ Church’s Plano’s decision to go forward with female ordination was tragic.

#33 Gee, Aaytch, that’s so…  so… so Christian of you…

Aaytch, yours is exactly the spirit that I hope does not prevail.

But rabbit and oscewidee, the disintegration of the Anglican Communion has already begun.  I’m just an observer. 

A bunch of Anglican ships sailed too close to the Roman coast, and the Pope decided to capture them (for their own good).  You can hardly blame him. Anglicans were acting like Catholics and had clearly abandoned their confession and prayer book (1662 BCP and 39 Articles).  He saw a denomination in disarray and anarchy, and did precisely what the Africans were hoping to do for Americans after the TEC debacles of 2003; offer refugees a lifeboat and tell them to get in. 

For Reformed Anglicans, it looked for a fleeting moment like GAFCON might be their lifeboat, but that ship still lies at anchor.  Meanwhile, an unruly Anglican mob jumped out of the burning TEC into ACNA, but then refused to return the Articles and the 1662 BCP to their places of honor (as some of us thought they had promised).

These are the days of Noah.

I’m just an observer.

Aytch [#37]: No, you’re an observer who has repeatedly displayed malicious pleasure in Anglican disintegration.

Yes, well I suppose Noah took malicious pleasure in his day as well.  Not, but you see my point.  What does the Lord say about “double-minded men, unstable in all their ways” who will allow only their lips to approve the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP?

Irenaeus, if Anglicanism is to be so double-minded, then is it not better for some to escape to Rome and some to escape to Geneva, or wherever… and leave the rest to His terrible Judgement?  Again, these are the days of Noah.

Again, these are the days of Noah.—Aytch [#39]

And you sound like Screwtape having a jolly good time of it.

Aaytch, I fear you’ll find that those who chortle with yoU are the ones one the outside of the ark. But, God has promised that the days of Noah will not return.

No, these are the days when men will say, “Let us make bricks and harden them with fire. This will make us famous and keep us from being scattered all over the world.”

Mr. Rabbit, I do not admit to chortling over Anglicanism’s double-mindedness about the Articles and salvation theology.  I merely say that to hear such a confession would be a good thing.  Unfortunately, it seems that most of its leaders believe double-mindedness is Anglicanism’s virtue. 

It sure is a funny looking ark you’re building.  You’d do better to build it according to the singular design of the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP, without any of the alternative suggestions and re-designs sent to you from the Screwtapes in Rome, Antioch and Babylon.

I see that Mr. Aaytch is an invector of catholic taste.  Rome, Antioch and Babylon indeed.

A bunch of Anglican ships sailed too close to the Roman coast, and the Pope decided to capture them (for their own good).

Accepting a defecting ship with open arms is not capturing.  No one is forcing anyone to join with Rome.

RE: “You’d do better to build it according to the singular design of the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP, without any of the alternative suggestions and re-designs sent to you from the Screwtapes in Rome, Antioch and Babylon.”

Absolutely—or Geneva either.

RE: “The fact is that Anglicans who have a particular belief system worth preserving have no reason other than sentiment (and perhaps property) to stay in a Communion where anarchy and heresy reign under leaders who have misplaced ambitions to build a big ecumenical tent.”

Nonsense.  A silly thing to say—but then that’s Aaytch for you.  Full of anger at traditional Anglicans who are remaining within TEC.

RE: “Let others march off to Geneva with the 1662 BCP to form a new church in communion with other Protestant Reformed churches.”

Yes—it worked so well for the REC too.

RE: “And you sound like Screwtape having a jolly good time of it.”

Mmmm . . . I think it’s more like bitterness, myself.  Aaytch right now on this thread is simply trolling—and my theory is that trolls are always bitter, but in addition are looking to try to share the bitterness by stirring up an angry response in response.  I expect the bitterness has something to do with the fact that—once again—Aaytch’s theology forces him to be “on the outside looking in” of pretty much most Anglican options.

I would suggest further that there is an amazingly teensy number of people willing to share that theology of his.

Wonder why that is?

What Sarah said.

Again, there’s no chortling or bitterness over here.  I could care less what the double-minded Williams has to say about Anglican identity, and most of the time neither does anyone else.  It’s interesting that you belittle Williams for every kind of double-mindedness except in the area of theology. 

I am surely on the outside looking in.  No argument on that one.  But what I am looking into is “Anglican” only by way of a label that is slapped onto it.  It is a meaningless term unless you’re talking about tradition, style or culture.  With the 39 Articles and 1662 BCP discarded, there is no such thing as an “Anglican theology”.  It’s just an empty vessel into which everyone pours their own meaning(s).  I really think that you’re upset only because someone has pointed out that you don’t care whether Anglicanism even has a singular theological identity.

As for who is REALLY on the inside, it has to be that person who receives the documents of Anglicanism without reservation; who builds intentionally with those plans and NOT those from elsewhere… as I think the Jerusalem Declaration promised.  I confess that I have much to learn about the Anglican theology explained in the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP, but I’m not simply going my own way as I see others doing.  Anglican ecumenism today is the process of uniting only in superficial matters, and going your own way theologically while blessing another as he goes his way.  Is it any wonder that such a church is ridiculed by every faction on the inside and the outside as lacking seriousness?

NO, #39, Aytch,

THESE are the days of ELIJAH…and God expects the Church, this fatherless, priestless, godless generation, laity and ordained, male and female, all who are called by HIS NAME, all who will, to come to HIM, to return to HIM, to listen to HIM and hear and heed HIS WORD and act as Malachi 4:5-6 commands:

“behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers (parents and church fathers/leaders) to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

Throughout Malachi shows the displeasure and anger of the LORD toward unfaithful priests who do not teach truth and live holy lives and toward husbands and fathers who do not act as holy priests (as Christ) in their homes. 

The LORD was angry.  HE had watched them defile HOLY worship and priesthood of the home and temple.  HE had watched them throw away the healthy stable family and society HE had designed to be a witness to the pagan world about HIS nature, a the revelation of HOLY TRUTH, LOVE and LIFE.  The LORD was both grieved and angry that HIS people would throw away their inheritance, the joy of communion with HIM through worship and holiness of life. 

Grieved and angry that HIS people would not value living in HIS image, walked away from the shelter of HIS protection and not remember the beauty and peace and freedom of living in HIS Presence and following HIS ways. 

Instead they turned away from the LORD to disobey Him and give themselves to the world, flesh and devil, producing bondage to sin, obsession, compulsion, depression, misery, disease, destruction, despair, death - eternal death and separation from the LORD of Life.

In order to emphasize the importance of this word to HIS priestly and domestic shepherds and to help them comprehend the depth of HIS indignition, grief, pain, and anger, after Malachi spoke the Word of the Lord, God was silent and did not speak to Israel again through a prophet for over 400 years. 

....until He spoke to literal shepherds in a field…the words of New Life, Good Will, Peace on Earth, Joy, return and reunion with God for those who will hear Him and become a Kingdom of Priests before our God.

Over and over in Scripture, Israel forgot God, polluted themselves with pagan worship, immorality and intermarriage with pagan nations.  Or they would fall on hard times, face an overwhelming enemy and forget to believe God and instead seek help by making alliances with ungodly rulers who betrayed them. 

This always angered GOD and Israel suffered the consequences of her misdeeds.  GOD always allowed the Assyrians and Babylonians to arise and discipline them. 

We are in much the same place as Israel was in Malachi. 
We have forgotten the wisdom of God’s design for families and the church. We have forgotten The Cross of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Truth, Love and Life, God’s plan of salvation, sanctification and evangelism. 
We have allowed the legalized murder of 51 million innocent infants. 
We have condoned sexual immorality and engaged in idolatry. 
We have not truly repented.  Most of the Church is silent and complicit.
We have become dehumanized by our actions, promiscuity, adultery, apathy, abandonment, abuse, addiction, abortion, divided our and our children’s hearts, minds, loyalties through unfaithfulness and divorce, eroded in our integrity with greed and compromise, our lives with compulsions, addictions, obsessions. 
We are a nation in despair, depressed, suicidal, willing to kill the innocent, weak, disabled and elderly, the inconvenient for the sake of our autonomy, economy, expediency. 

Judgment always begins with the household of faith.  (I Peter 4:17)  GOD holds the Church, the new Israel, responsible for the ills and evils she allows to enter her camp.  We who claim HIS Name are responsible for projecting HIS character: His Holy Truth, Love and Life to our society.  Yet, we, the Church, have disregarded and do not live HIS Word.  Like Israel, if we are to save our nation, we must rediscover the Book of GOD’s Word, Commandments, Moral Law and repent and return to HIM with our whole hearts.  II Chronicles 7:14 speaks to the disobedient people of God.  I hope we will listen.

Aaytch, I agree that Anglicanism sometimes manifests characteristics of the “double-minded man.”  That has been true since before the Elizabethan Settlement. 

But it seems that your solution to the problem of the “double minded man” is to split the body in two as well.  I would rather try to keep the body whole and try to cure the double-minded man of his double-mindedness.

I am not talking about “big tent” ecumenism but unity in the Truth.  And if we take Jesus’ prayer in John 17 seriously, that is what we all should be praying for.  Seeing part of Anglicanism go off to Rome and part go off to Geneva is hardly an answer to that prayer. 

It seems to me that ACNA is strongly committed to honoring the Articles of Religion and the 1662 BCP tradition.  The founding documents of ACNA and those of GAFCON certainly indicate that this is their intention.  Considering that ACNA has only been organized since June 25 and that the leadership has no papal authority to impose solutions, they must win the hearts and minds of the membership to unity around these principles.  And it seems to me that they are trying to do this in a patient but firmly persistent way.

Given the diversity of the groups that have come together to form ACNA and the willfulness that affects the hearts of those who inhabit any church, the task of leading orthodox Anglicans toward a unified future is a task not unlike leading unruly Israel through the wilderness to the Promised Land (just to add another Old Testament allusion to the many others on this thread). 

If you believe that the direction of ACNA is not sufficiently in line with the Articles or the 1662 BCP, I am sure the leadership would welcome any constructive comments.  But we must always be wary lest, in expressing our disagreements with any who are in leadership, we manifest the malevolent spirit of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16).

Couldn’t help but chuckle a little as I read the opening to this. No caps for Catholic but for all the rest? The pot calling the kettle black maybe? The extremes go in both directions. An Anglo-Calvinist is just as confused and mislead as an Anglo-Papist in my opinion. At the end of the day if it’s not what the Church has always been, then it just isn’t the real deal.
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est

Toalltheworld:
If you look at their constitutions, GAFCON has a fairly weak commitment to the Articles of Religion and the 1662 BCP tradition.  ACNA’s commitment is even weaker, due to the great influence from both AngloCatholics and liberals.  This has been discussed at great length at AnglicansAblaze and elsewhere.  The TEC/ACNA split was only the first stage in the weeding process.  Hopefully there’s much more to come.

What is NOT going on here is rejoicing in evil.  Each type of orthodoxy (Roman, Eastern, and Reformed) is finally getting the kick in the pants it needs to realign, thanks in part to El Papa.  Meanwhile, open ecumenicals (most of ACNA) will be left with modernist liturgies that inevitably lead back toward liberalism, a reputation for soft doctrine, and various artifacts of Anglican culture that are undifferentiated from TEC. 

Even if some of us stop wearing the “Anglican” label, and it turns into a Christian epithet, a worse possible outcome for “the Kingdom” is to continue building with incompatible visions.  This must cease.

#34 - Actually CCP has announced now that they will not go forward with their intended purported ordination of a female.

#51,  You are excessively confident in your opinions, but I do not ‘get a witness’ to what you are saying about ACNA, GAFCON or FCA.  The same kind of scornful assessment could have been placed on that scraggly bunch of weak-willed, self-aggrandizing, unfaithful, unqualified disciples Jesus chose. 
Peter, an unschooled fisherman, to be a teacher and shepherd.  John, the youngest, to be the guardian of His Mother, Ikon of the Church.  Paul, zealous enemy of the Gospel, was chosen to take that same Gospel to the Gentile world. Jesus called a tax collector, delivered a harlot, talked with a Samaritan woman of ill repute, ate with sinners, healed lepers, preached to the poor, and so on.  It is as though our LORD chose the least, weakest, most ridiculous candidates to call, wash, teach and use. 
ACNA and the Jerusalem movement have flaws as do all Christians…but humble awareness of that, combined with the power of THE Holy Spirit, much can be done for the GLORY of GOD.  It’s when we seek our own glory and our own way, that we fail.
Your words are so full of judgment and anger.  Has someone in one of the groups hurt you?  Underneath anger is usually pain, fear and unforgiveness for yourself or someone close, dead or alive, or from something that happened at school, church, sports, etc. when you were a child. 

Ask the LORD to show you why you are angry.  Ask someone to pray with you.  Ask the LORD to heal you.

(Believe me, I’ve had a lot of anger over this church mess and these issues hit a major nerve of my family background issues.)

I endorse the comments of Floridian at #53.

The documents of Gafcon seem quite strong to me in biblical terms, in particular the Jerusalem Declaration.

I agree that the ACNA documents seem to have been somewhat watered down, but ACNA is now under worldwide scrutiny and I doubt that it will ever be permitted to deviate too far from orthodoxy. There are too many within it who know they can appeal to orthodox Primates, if ACNA leadership try any tricks (not that I am suggesting they would).

Indeed, some like Diocese of Fort Worth have maintained their oversight by a foreign primate even after joining ACNA: +++Venables’ biblical orthodoxy is unimpeachable, so Fort Worth will be protected against any creeping liberalism.

As a Sydney Anglican and a calvinist, I am very happy to be joined in communion with a diverse range of orthodox American Anglicans, including the Nigerian mission group, REC, Dean Munday, +Iker and many others of all stripes.

MichaelA, 
In the light of your comments, surely the ACNA has a plan for oversight, transparency and accountability to advise and protect against creeping liberalism and other kinds of misdeeds.

Every Province and every level of the Church should have oversight for protection of leadership, doctrine, practice and finances in order to receive advice, support and correction if necessary and, most importantly, avoid many temptations that befall leaders who have power without the protections of transparency and accountability.

Opacity of leadership is dangerous and is possibly the Achilles heel of the bishop hierarchical system.  Lack of oversight and transparency allows financial and sexual abuse, pastoral, political, doctrinal and spiritual error and departures and all kinds of misdoings among leaders and church agencies without fear of removal and reprisal. This has placed leaders, laity and clergy, in the path of temptation and allowed them to go radical and to cover up wrongdoing with impunity.  Besides the public examples in the Episcopal and Catholic churches, I have known particular instances of this happening in the UMC as well.

[52] Posted by via orthodoxy “#34 - Actually CCP has announced now that they will not go forward with their intended purported ordination of a female. “

Can you provide a link please?  I tried to Google without success.

Floridian at #55,

I am not sure what you are asking. If you want information on the processes and constitution of ACNA, I am sure there are people who can give you chapter and verse better than I can - here in Australia!

My questions are as much rhetorical as practical.  I have been in and seen a lot of church and leadership failures due to lack of accountability and transparency. 

After we have all invested so much prayer, anguish, material and spiritual hopes into ACNA, it is important that she succeed, benefit from the lessons of the past and protect herself from all temptation and attack from within and without, at all levels of leadership.

RE: “Again, there’s no chortling or bitterness over here.”

Heh—of course, of course.

RE: “I am surely on the outside looking in.  No argument on that one.”

Oh I know and knew—and it shows.

RE: “But what I am looking into is “Anglican” only by way of a label that is slapped onto it.  It is a meaningless term unless you’re talking about tradition, style or culture.”

Yawn.

RE: “. . . Is it any wonder that such a church is ridiculed by every faction on the inside and the outside as lacking seriousness?”

Well, if it’s ridiculed by the likes of Aaytch, we should be thrilled.  Certainly not disheartened.

But you know, Aaytch . . . since you’re consistently merely trolling on these threads, I’m issuing a warning.  You’re welcome to find your own blog where all the folks like you and with your particular theology hang out.  But you’re not welcome to troll over here.  You can either cease and comment like a civilized person without the bitterness and rancor, or you can move on.  Take your pick.

Sarah,  I don’t even know what you mean by “trolling”.  I am not a big commenter on SF… perhaps a dozen posts per year (??).  I enjoy the occasional posting of pure theology but I’m not sure I’ve ever commented.  I am following this thread because the Church Society statement was a fairly good one, touching upon theological issues I care about.  Unfortunately, there’s not much to read on SF after I eliminate the postings about sex, money, property, and TEC. Once a church’s conversation is dominated by matters such as these, you know that its connection to orthodoxy is long gone.  To me, it’s been more revealing lately to watch and to comment upon the efforts of ACNA and its priests as they angle for the attention of the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church, and the “emergent” (mostly Arminian) Church, all the while distancing themselves from Anglican principles laid out in the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP.  This last sentence is the essence of what you think violates the “Comment Policy” of SF.  Am I right?  As for personal demeanor, I have never insulted anyone or attacked them personally (to my knowledge).  I have made what I consider to be polite but firm comments, hopefully well explained and documented, about issues that are directly related to the thread’s subject. 

Perhaps you would find more satisfaction in contacting me privately if you disagree, and in fact most people here would probably say that a disagreement handled privately is preferable to one that is handled publicly.

MichaelA.  I’m curious as to whether you, an Australian, are aware of the fact that at the highest levels of ACNA, priests and bishops occasionally (or more than occasionally ??) take their congregations to the Eucharist without a confession of sin?  This is a permitted practice in the 1979 BCP and they take advantage of it all the time.  Anyway, as one who confesses to being a Calvinistic Anglican, I wonder whether you consider it to be within the bounds of orthodoxy.  Is it a huge infraction, a mild infraction or is it something that we Calvinists should welcome since it draws us closer to other “valid” branches of Christendom?  As a Calvinist, I assume you agree with me that its entirely unacceptable to come to the Lord’s table without washing. 

I can hear it now… officials of SF saying that it is mean-spirited to point such things out.

I have long thought that a contributary factor to the problems in the Communion are the distancing there has been worldwide from the liturgy of my youth and its theology which is summed up in the 1662 prayer book and 39 Articles.  It has been a revelation to me to go back and rediscover them and in doing so the answers to much of the controversy: such things as referring back to scripture for those things we are to beleive; not requiring to be believed as necessary to salvation those things which cannot be proved by scripture; and not construing one part of scripture as antithetical to another.  If my experience is anything to go by I expect this is true of many other Anglicans.  Even at the Anglo-Catholic end Newman went back to the Articles in order to explain how he believed that the Catholic understandings he wished to bring in were compatible with them.  I would recommend that people go back to the foundational documents of Anglicanism which show how the faith we have received from the Bible has been understood by our church.

Aaytch may have discovered that too, but it is also important that one is careful in how one expresses that in writing as it can be misunderstood, and beating people over the head with it is not necessarily the most productive way of getting one’s message across.  There is certainly a place for the reformed message in these threads.

There is a complaint that Anglicans have no magisterium, as the Roman Catholic Church has, to safeguard the faith.  Cranmer and his successors gave us something in its place, foundational documents where you will find our theology clearly expounded and a help with issues as they arise if we will care to go back to it.  All there as a free gift from our Reformed and Catholic forbears.

I remember a short while ago a long vituperative thread about how David Virtue had not responded to years and years of repeated private requests to act in a more professional manner, thus warranting as a last resort SF’s public rebuke.  Ironically, I myself have NEVER been contacted by SF privately.

#61 Aaytch - I am not sure that is a productive line to take with MichaelA.  One could equally say:
“MichaelA.  I’m curious as to whether you, an Australian, are aware of the fact that at the highest levels of your church it is proposed to take your congregations to the Eucharist without priests and bishops?”

#63 I am not sure with comments like that that you are doing either yourself or the cause of prayer book orthodoxy any favors.  Will you reconsider?

“MichaelA.  I’m curious as to whether you, an Australian, are aware of the fact that at the highest levels of ACNA, priests and bishops occasionally (or more than occasionally ??) take their congregations to the Eucharist without a confession of sin?”

Oh, do you mean a corporate confession? I would assume that anyone familiar with the 79 book would recognize this as permissible under the rubrics during certain seasons.

“This is a permitted practice in the 1979 BCP and they take advantage of it all the time.”

Yes.

“Anyway, as one who confesses to being a Calvinistic Anglican, I wonder whether you consider it to be within the bounds of orthodoxy.”

Hmmm…can you show me in holy scripture where a corporate liturgical confession is required prior to recieving communion. Certainly there is the command to be at peace with God and with one another and that requires a confession of sin. But where do you get the idea that this must be liturgical and corporate? And unless you can prove, scripturally, that it must be so you have no authority or legitimate biblical warrant to impose it on anyone else as some sort or measure for orthodoxy…unless of course you are a ritualist more than a Calvinist, then, of course, I understand.

“Is it a huge infraction, a mild infraction or is it something that we Calvinists should welcome since it draws us closer to other “valid” branches of Christendom?”

A liturgical corporate confession is good and I think important and we use the one from the 28 book. But, again, any idea that it is somehow essential to orthodox Christianity needs to be established scripturally.

“As a Calvinist, I assume you agree with me that its entirely unacceptable to come to the Lord’s table without washing.”

Of course. But again, where on earth do you get the idea that “washing” is necessarily equated with a corporate liturgical confession.

“I can hear it now… officials of SF saying that it is mean-spirited to point such things out.”

heh…no, not “mean spirited”, just revealing.

Hi Aaytch,

The private correspondance with the blogger in question was a matter of courtesy not necessity. Those who sin publicly should be rebuked publicly…and those who break our comment policy publicly, will be rebuked publicly once and then banned.

You seem intent on that.

Hi Aaytch,

Now having reviewed Sarah’s warning to you, I see that you have simply ignored her. That means I will have to remove your posting priveleges. So after this post, which will be the last word, you are no longer a commenter on SF.

“To me, it’s been more revealing lately to watch and to comment upon the efforts of ACNA and its priests as they angle for the attention of…”

more revealing is the maliciousness with which you choose to characterise these actions. The idea that the ACNA would seek ecumenical relationships as well as recognition from her own fellow Anglicans is not at all disturbing unless of course, you happen to bitterly resent the ACNA and for that reason choose to attribute the worst possible motives for her actions.

“...the Anglican Communion”

OF course. The ACNA would like to be recognized by as many provinces as possible. Which is perfectly understandable.

“...the Roman Catholic Church”

The ACNA would like to have normal ecumenical relationships with the RCC…which is also perfectly understandable unless you are Jack Chick.

“...The Eastern Orthodox Church”

ditto

“and the “emergent” (mostly Arminian) Church…” what are you talking about? What emergent church leaders?

Do you mean the Calvinist Mark Driscol? Are you simply too ignorant of the movement to be able to distinguish between heretics like McClaren and Bell and solid Reformed pastors like Driscol and Chandler…

“all the while distancing themselves from Anglican principles laid out in the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP.”

So strange, Aaytch, that Reformed Anglicans like JI Packer and Bishop Rodgers, and of course the Archdiocese of Sydney seem to have no problem with the ACNA.

Maybe they are not as smart as you?

Aaytch, assuming you’re still posting on this blog by the time I get this posted, I am puzzled by what you mean by the suggestion in 61 that Calvinist Anglicans more than other Anglicans should object to eucharists without a general public confession of sin.  I would have thought elsewise. Evangelicals might well believe that a private prayer of confession in lieu of the public prayer is fully sufficient before God. Whereas some high Anglicans believe, or used to believe, that the confession was necessary as a prelude to the subsequent absolution by a priest, which is necessary because it is actually effective, and that without it communicants go in with unforgiven sins. (Indeed some would go so gar as to say that only through absolution by a priest may sins be forgiven, in the ordinary course of things.) Whereas evangelicals believe that the absolution is merely declaratory of God’s always-willing forgiveness of repented sin (the approach represented more clearly in the wording of the absolution at morning prayer). So your comment seems to me inconsistent with your hyper-evangelicalism.

Isn’t a confession of sin built into the Lord’s Prayer?

Bill Cool #26, I think you misread the Church Society statement, especially when you cut out the key phrase in the line you quote from it.

it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome

Those doctrines of Rome’s which all orthodox Christians would affirm are simply Christian doctrines, not those which characterize the Church of Rome.

If the Church of England did embrace doctrines unique to Rome, those doctrines would not be unique to Rome.  It isn’t hyperbole but tautology.

#52 Sorry for not seeing yours earlier Bo. This was from Virtue on 11/5. 

CHRIST CHURCH PLANO will delay ordaining women, VOL has learned. The Rev. David Roseberry has decided that the issue of ordaining women is too divisive of an issue to be decided by individual churches, so he will put a hold on ordaining women until the AMiA “community” (it was unclear which community this is,) decides on a community-wide basis. In practice, this amounts to an indefinite hold on ordaining women at Christ Church. A source told VOL that although this is not the outcome many had hoped for, it at least buys some time.

Yikes—I go out to the gym and Aaytch is already banned.

RE: ” I enjoy the occasional posting of pure theology but I’m not sure I’ve ever commented.”

44 times, Aaytch—you commented 44 times.

RE: “This last sentence is the essence of what you think violates the “Comment Policy” of SF.  Am I right?”

Nope—when people troll they get warned, then banned.

RE: “officials of SF saying that it is mean-spirited to point such things out. . . . “

On the contrary—I and many many others have pointed out many things that we find objectionable to ACNA—and TEC and Rome and lots of other denomination.

That’s quite different from trolling, which you may learn more about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

In Aaytch’s defense, he’s lost Anglicanism—or what he believes to be Anglicanism—as a viable group in the US.  He can’t go to ACNA and he can’t remain in TEC and he can’t approve of the Continuing groups, and AMiA is too liberal and non-Reformed.

Ironically—most ironically—that may well end up being me years from now.  I want to assure everyone that I won’t be trolling blogs bitterly bringing up how none of those groups are “Anglican”.  I’ll simply move on to other churches—and be happy.

[comment deleted—off topic on SF commenting policy; commenter banned at his own request]

RE: “Sarah has yapped at me before without thinking it through.”

Nope—always thought it through, and stand by any warnings I gave, though you may not have appreciated the warnings or approved of them.

RE: “If you are going to make this type of ruling on who can post and who can’t, add me to the list of the banned . . . “

Will do.

RE: ” . . . please, please stop sending every post from this blog to my email.”

Good news—the banned don’t get email from SF.  ;> )  Of course, every email points out that you have an opportunity to “manage” your email from SF by refusing it.  Thankfully no need now for you to take care of that.