I wonder how much the Catholics understand, however, that the Anglo-Catholics who might be the ones most naturally tempted towards Catholicism are not really where the present dissent stems from.

But of course simply to ask the Anglicans to make a decision of this nature is to illustrate a lack of understanding of the nature of Anglicanism.

Those baby-machines sure are dumb. Very good of Ruth Gledhill to educate that dimwit Cardinal.

There is more information in the original article. In particular:

“We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible. We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis.”

We educated folk know that pushing decision-making back is the best course of action. At least until the slower members of the communion have caught up with the “new thing”.

We can hope and pray that ++Rowan Williams has gotten the message loud and clear and returns to Lambeth ready to totally revise the Lambeth Conference to meet the crisis in Anglicanism head on instead of the let’s feel good about oourselves navel gazing sessions now planned for what may very well be the last opportunity for the Anglican Communion to deal with its falling apart into factions.

Where does it belong?’ he said. ‘Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

This of course begs the question as to whether the doctrine of the RCC as in stands today has any recognizable connection to the first millenium church absent anachronistic RC readings of the early church fathers.  But then, that argument is at the heart of the Protestant-Catholic divide.

The basic assertion is correct, however.  A church cannot remain half-slave and half-free.  It must become one or the other.

carl

I think it very telling that the Cardinal mentions the Orthodox church as a contrast to the Protestant one in this context.  Obviously then he is not telling Anglicans they must choose whether to embrace Catholic doctrine.  Instead I believe, in light of Pope Benedict’s remarks regarding “prophetic actions”, he is saying that the Anglican Communion must decide if it is going to be true to its own teachings and traditions or sway which everway the cultural winds blow.

Is the Anglican Communion going to be anchored by Scripture and their articles of faith or is doctrine going to up for a vote every few years?

I made the decision by leaving for the Presbyterians.  And my reasoning was probably similar to the first of them:  I could not stay in a church with a spiritually corrupt hierarchy headed by people I cannot even see as being Christians (I’m referring to the Episcopal Organization, not the RCC).

’Catholic for all the truths of God;
Protestant against all the errors of man.’

This slogan always sounded good to me.  Identifying our errors must remain an on-going task, but the phrase continues to work.  I think this slogan reaches for the best of both the 1st and 16th centuries, recognizing the Perfection of our Lord in His Churh and the Fallen Nature of us members in it.  I always thought of it as explaining the term ‘via media.’

The Cardinal needs to add a third category to the options for the AC: the 21st century new thing.  Some bishops dislike the 16th century faith as much as the first century faith.  The 16th century was still pre-modern, and (most of?) the reformers were really trying to revive 1st century faith.

Cardinal Kasper:  Are you Protestant or Catholic?
ABC Williams:  Yes.
KJS: I need a bigger box.
Bp Iker: CATHOLIC!
Gene Robinson: Either way, I’m a victim!  See my bullet-proof vest?

We educated folk know that pushing decision-making back is the best course of action. At least until the slower members of the communion have caught up with the “new thing”.

Would you say my church is slower? http://www.fwepiscopal.org/st.timothy/index.html

Cardinal Kasper:  Are you Protestant or Catholic?
ABC Williams:  Yes.
KJS: I need a bigger box.
Bp Iker: CATHOLIC!
Gene Robinson: Either way, I’m a victim!  See my bullet-proof vest?
Gene Robinson: My husband has a matching vesting - it is too cute

I wonder if the Cardinal really understands that the crisis in the AC revolves not around the issue of Catholic/Orthodox vs Protestantism but rather if the AC to be Christian at all.

Marcia, #7, your comment is brilliant!  And yes I agree that the current difficulties of Anglicanism are not a result of differences between Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals, but between the two and revisionist pseudo-Christian humanism.

I wonder if the Cardinal really understands that the crisis in the AC revolves not around the issue of Catholic/Orthodox vs Protestantism but rather if the AC to be Christian at all.

To be blunt, the apostasy of PEcUSA is just modern Protestant trends taken to their logical extreme.

This does not mean that all Protestants are apostate, nor does it mean that “catholic” (in the sense that includes Romans, Orthodox, and anglocatholics) equals “Roman Catholic.” Nor does it mean that many of the “Protestant reforms” to the corruptions and abuses of late medieval Roman Catholicism (which, itself, was about a century overdue for its usual every-century-and-a-half internal reforms) weren’t absolutely necessary.

What it does mean is that, once you take the “Protestant” approach of divorcing Scripture from Tradition and the Church—once any position or interpretation (be it accepting remarriage after divorce, the ordination of women, homosexual marriages, etc) is acceptable (regardless of what the Creeds, Councils, and the undivided Church consistently taught, practiced and preached) provided that by some convoluted connection to or tangential interpretations of “sola Scriptura” you can justify it—then you’re on that slippery slope, sliding toward PEcUSA (if you’re liturgical) or the UCC (if you’re not).

So, frankly, I think the Cardinal understands precisely what the challenge to Anglicanism is—whether it wishes to reaffirm its devotion to the “one holy catholic and apostolic” Church & faith of Scripture and the Creeds, or if it wishes to follow other Protestant denominations in their varying degrees of abandonment of the same.

pax,
LP

The crisis in the Communion is testing Anglicanism as “reformed catholicism” and exposing its flaws.

Kasper has devoted a lot of his life to the ecumenical movement and to attempts at rapprochement with Anglicanism.  He still looks to Canterbury, as it is difficult for a Catholic not to look towards a historically Catholic See in hopes that it might not be forever lost to the Church.  But in the background is the TAC, who have petitioned Rome for admittance as a sui juris church, all of whose bishops have signed a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Kasper is against this; he is a liberal Catholic, he is more in tune with liberalizing Protestants than with traditionalist Catholics or Anglo Catholics....but not THAT liberalizing, really now Rowan, you folks are spoiling everything.  Pope Benedict is very favorable towards the TAC and I am guessing is pressuring Kasper.  So I think you do hear Benedict behind Kasper saying-Is it the faith once delivered folks, or is it this new thing Protestantism has become?  I know that opposition does not sit well with folks here, who identify with Reformation Protestantism, not this new thing that Protestantism has become.  But I think the point of view set forth by LP above is where this is coming from.
Susan Peterson

Good luck with getting an answer to that one! It’s been argued about fiercely within the Church of England since at the latest the 1620s.

Cardinal Kasper, both I and my wife were raised as Papists. You can mark this day on the calendar, I and my household are decidedly Protestant, by the Grace of God.

Cardinal Newman was correct: it all flows in one of two directions: Catholic or Unitarian.  TEC is simply following the logic of the Protestant Revolution: every man his own pope.

To be blunt, the apostasy of PEcUSA is just modern Protestant trends taken to their logical extreme.

To be sharp, the bishop does not frame the question in terms of ‘modern Protestant trends.’

‘Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?’ he said. ‘Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century?

TEC does not fall into either of these categories.  Therefore, to invite the Christian to choose between them, is to invite them out of TEC’s apostate culture.  For that matter, it’s also an invitation for nominal Christians within the RCC and EO.

No Anglicanum. You are either loving Christ and obedient to his Word or you are a rebel. Being Catholic or Protestant has nothing to do with it.

I think that was rather Newman’s point, Mr. Kennedy.

And Calvin’s

Of course, as a Protestant, I think the question is a false dichotomy anyway.  ; > )

re 22, it’s not clear to me to what extent Calvin is a Calvinist, but regarding historical trends it does seem to me that at least some forms of calvinism led to unitarianism ala the argument in Tertium Quid’s post, from which I extract:

Thus, if you look at the history of Calvinism in several countries, it follows a pattern: zeal for the written Word of God, attempted conversion of life and practice to scriptural standards, renunciation of sacraments and tradition, open rebellion against all bishops, predestination to the nth degree, vigorous debate about the meaning of scriptures, debilitating debate about church governance, debate re how to measure the regeneracy of “cradle Christians,” weakening of the 3rd and 4th generations, development of “Calvinism-light”, e.g., Harvard in the 18th century and Yale in the 19th, schisms, revivals, and increased focus on the individual as the rational discerner of the truths of God.

tdunbar #24, on the other hand, consider the Catholic side which hightens the role of the church and church tradition.  You can have a renegade church decide that it has the final word on interpretation of Scripture, ie: what it says is correct and all who belong to the church have to go along with the hierarchy.  Clergy and laity who do not go along with what the hierarchy says are then persecuted, even if their beliefs are Biblically sound; in other words, today’s ECUSA.  What I am trying to say here is that either tradition can be perverted by Satan to lead people away from Christ.

tdunbar.

I’m not sure I would want, if I were in your place, to trace the trajectory of thought and say, oh well Calvinism leads to liberalism because for every liberal protestant body or person to whom you point, I can also point to a heretic body or a heretic who calls himself or herself “catholic”.

It is just as erroneus to say that all protestantism leads to Schleiermacher as it is to say all Catholicism leads to Hans Kung or Affirming Catholicism.

Nor would I, in your position point to nation states. For just as we Calvinists have been embarrassed by the Netherlands etc...you Catholics have France.

Nor would I point to protestant schools as “proof” that protestantism leads to liberalism any more than a protestant can point to “catholic” Jesuit colleges and say the same or to some “catholic” seminaries and say Catholicism leads to pederasty.

Matt,
Certainly arguments about historic trends are fraught with difficulties and call for charity on all sides. I take the core of Tertium Quid’s argument to be that an anti-sacramental theology does not adequately “remember the poor” and will have unfortunate historical consequences.

The “Anglicans must decide” is misrepresented if it is posed, for example, as “Choose Calvin or Chrysostom.” Rather, it is “Are you closer to Calvin or to Chrysostom?”

We had an interesting discussion in our adult Sunday school class about why each of us became Episcopal.  Almost without exception, those who came from a Protestant background spoke of the connection to the historic (i.e., early) Church and the liturgy.  Those from a Catholic background spoke of the emphasis on Scripture and a relationship with Jesus.  If we could figure out a way to do it right, we should not have to choose.  That having been said, this discussion was a lead-in to reading the excellent book “The Anglican Spirit” by Michael Ramsey.  Many times in that book you could see the early seeds of our current dilemma.  But I, for one, am still praying for a reformed Anglicanism which preserves both aspects of our heritage.

Baby Blue has given the wisest answer yet to Kasper’s question and she has also diagnosed the root of the conflicts and cancers in each and every one of the expressions of Christ’s Body whether Orthodox, Catholic, Charismatic and Protestant. 

Her whole article points to the most important center and the true altar of the Church, the Cross and to the only true sacrifice left - crucifixion of the old man and resurrection, rebirth of the new man of the Spirit. (Romans 2: 25-29; Galatians 6:12-15)

For all the fractals of His Church from the global/macrocosm to the personal/microcosm and all levels of leadership - when the essential things (Luke 10:42; John 3:3-21) are not done, the church gets very sick and dies… this is the reality - plain truth no matter how pretty and symbolic the liturgy and the vestments or how correct the theology.

Before Jesus ascended, HE built HIS church symbolically and literally.  A careful reading of Scripture shows that He gave us the blueprint with the essential components and structures of HIS church. 
First: the Revelation of His Lordship (Peter, Mt of Transfiguration)
Second: First Love Devotion (He gave Mary, Ikon of the Church, to John the Disciple who loved him),
Third: (and only after the first two foundational and guiding essentials) comes teaching, doctrine, shepherding (confession, correcting, healing, washing, deliverance, building up), and leadership/governance, (Peter, seaside) Note the Lord’s question to Peter ‘Do you love me?’
Fourth: the fruit of mature faith produces mission and growth (Saul road to Damascus)

When the church, clergy and laity do not partake possess, ignore or neglect the essentials, the result is a false (feigned) faith, a distortion of the Christian life and of the church. 

All the churches have covered the essentials look pretty good on paper and ‘their documents are in order’, but in the field (in the parishes, local leadership and in the homes, in marriages and child-rearing) they are in a BIG MESS. 

Studies have shown there is no statistical difference (in occurence of physical and sexual abuse, addiction)between the churched and unchurched.  Statistics are sobering but people are not.  Most of the adults and half the pastors in the US are addicted to something, either internet porn or a substance. 

Face it, the Church is a in critical situation.  We must rediscover our first love, the love of Jesus Christ and from Him receive the grace, strength, wisdom and courage (2 Corinthians 12:9) to get cleaned up or forget the Wedding and the Bridegroom....well, forgetting the Bridegroom or not knowing Him is the reason for the mess in the first place.

It’s not the Catholics’ Church, not the Pope’s, not the Orthodox’s, not the Anglicans, Rowan Williams’ (THANKS BE TO GOD!) and it aint the majority of voters at UMC or TEC GenCon’s (DOUBLE THANKS BE TO GOD!), nor is it Lewis Crew’s ( a million THANKS BE TO GOD!!!) nor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, nor the Wiccans, Druids, Pantheists no matter whether they are in the majority or a protected and pampered minority.

The Church belongs to Christ alone.

I would commend to you all Robert Munday’s commentary over on his blog:
http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2008/05/protestant-or-catholic-anglicans-must.html
TJ

I have to admit that I chuckled when I read the article on Kasper’s comments.  Surely he knows Anglicanism better than he here let’s on.  At least I hope so.  I cannot believe that he believes anyone is going to heed his counsel.  I suspect, rather, that he is publicly preparing the way for changes in Catholic ecumenical policy. 

Kasper has already warned over the past two years of the dangers to the ecumenical partnership between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.  In the 60s and 70s the Catholic Church saw its ecumenical relationship with the Anglican Communion as of the highest importance, second only to its relationship with Orthodoxy.  Anglicanism really seemed to have a commitment to catholic essentials and really seemed to desire the restoration of eucharistic unity with the Bishop of Rome, grounded upon these essentials.  But of course all of that has changed.  Anglicanism is not what it was forty years ago.  It has become a decidedly Protestant denomination, with some congregations and dioceses moving in an evangelical-Reformed direction and others moving in a revisionist direction.  As a result, the See of Canterbury is no longer able to function as an office of unity within the Anglican Communion. 

I think that Catholic ecumenists are ever so slowly beginning to recognize that the changes that have occurred are irreversible.  Moreover, the Catholic Church no longer seems willing to dilute catholic essentials just for the sake of camaraderie (see Cardinal Dulles’s article ”Saving Ecumenism From Itself”).

Adding my two cents, I think this is bit of false choice, the problem in Anglicanism is between Christian and not Christian. Frankly many of the enemy are not Christians by any Biblical or classical definition,Protestant or Catholic. What needs to happen is divorce, there is no way in hell the church of Bishop Spong,Desmond Tutu,Jenny Te Paa,Don Cupit,Susan Russel,Bishop Andrus,Schori,Affirming Catholicism,David Griffin and Process Theology,The New Zealand Prayer Book,Bishop Pike,Bishop Righter,and JAT Robinson and many other heretics can or should be forced into unity with the real Christians of Anglicanism be they Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic.

Now I am Anglo-Catholic of Forward in Faith type and am firmly committed to that position and don’t like some types Calvanism (Calvin himself is far more interesting,if read) and prefer Evangelicalism that is Armininian or Wesleyan, as I am a one time Methodist. I see my former Armininism, easily blending with my Anglo-Catholic faith. I have to say I have had some of the same thoughts poster #24 has had. I worry that some Calvanist theology can and does lead to athiesm or even unitarian,deism, fair or not I have had similar thoughts and seem that there is maybe some historical precedence. As far as the Reformation I admire the Lutheran Churches of Scandanavia in their one-time,conservatism in retaining a lot of the Catholic faith,while junking some questionable stuff and look to people like the non-jurors as heros. I when I see church history ,I see the church being more Catholic from the beginning, and find some Protestant radicalism deeply disturbing and wrong, and a fools errand.I see the attempt at purging the church of all “popish corruption” as a poison far more toxic then the disease and one that dishonest and ahistorical to boot.(I am a big fan of Jaroslav Pelikan)I see the Puritians and the followers of Cromwell as vicious extremist, trying to create a utopian,fantasy church and see the Anglican rebuff as entirely correct and reasonable.I think the Via Media is an honest way between the enshrinement of late medieval Catholic ideas at Trent and the radical continential reformers, who where dealing in toxic snake oil. One Reform theologian he should be much more widely read is Phillip Schaff, and his Mercersburg theology, should be of much use for Anglicans. He is reformed and yet very conservative about retaining the linkages with the past and having a strong sacramental theology, while reformed. A fatal flaw of many Protestant theologies is the arrogant,at times ill founded and thorough going ,a-historicism. I think one point where Anglican theologians should always start is the Patristic Fathers. My understanding of the Catholic faith is two Testaments,Three Creeds and Seven Councils. I think Rome has innovated beyond those boundaries and so a “Reformed Catholicism” set around those boundaries is valid and is a valid identity and understanding for and of Anglicanism.

O ne thing I really am worried about is some Anglican Evangelicals, right now, being friendly to Rick Warren and getting away from the Prayer Book and moving into a generic, post-denominational kind of Evangelicalism,with praise songs and overhead projectors. I would think that horrible and tragedy.A fight over this type of stuff is going on right now in the Lutheran Church,Missouri Synod, and I think the traditionalist are more right , then the innovators.

O ne thing I really am worried about is some Anglican Evangelicals, right now, being friendly to Rick Warren and getting away from the Prayer Book and moving into a generic, post-denominational kind of Evangelicalism

I’ve said before that I see 3 “centers of gravity” around which the disintegrating Anglican world will reconsolidate: anglocatholics, angloprotestants and angloapostates. Each of these three “centers” may or may not survive.

The “anglocatholic” center (and that will include some of today’s “evangelicals” as well… e.g. possibly some of the APA or even AMiA parishes) will be those who take the “Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Seven Councils” approach you mention—i.e. will be those who respect the truth that Tradition has an authority greater than the individual or contemporary culture and second only to Scripture. That while Scripture contains “all things that are necessary to salvation”, Tradition provides a normative interpretation of that authoritative Scripture and a guide to acceptable practices and beliefs within the rubric “orthodoxy”.

Angloaposate is, of course, today’s PEcUSA—which will be unitarian at best, actively anti-Christian at worst, differing from other “non-Christian christianities” only in being liturgical, and survive only as long as the funds last from the sold-off properties and endowments suborned or stolen from the heritage of past generations of actual Christian Anglicans.

And I think you rightly diagnose what the “angloprotestant” center will be—i.e. the “generic, post-denominational kind of Evangelicalism, with praise songs and overhead projectors” that has a more and more amorphous theology—increasingly removed not only from any sort of orthodoxy or catholicism, but even from the “refored” or “Protestant” thought of the actual 16th century reformers (Anglican, Lutheran, even Calvinist or Anabaptist)—and which ultimately becomes basically a “liturgical Bible Church” with a different theology preached in every parish and an institutional unity based on administration rather than a shared sacramental theology or a consistent body of doctrine.

Of course, as things stand now, there’s a wide range of variance between the vertices of that triangle… but I think that, increasingly, that’s where the historical trends are pushing everyone, now that there’s less and less reason to try to maintain the farce of any sort of meaningful unity or communion between those three incompatible belief systems.

pax,
LP

Father Kimel, thanks for your assessmemt, and the link to Cardinal Dulles’ article.

Simply choose Jesus!

"O ne thing I really am worried about is some Anglican Evangelicals, right now, being friendly to Rick Warren and getting away from the Prayer Book and moving into a generic, post-denominational kind of Evangelicalism,with praise songs and overhead projectors. I would think that horrible and tragedy.”

I understand your concern in this, but I am an evangelical Anglican who is committed to using the prayerbook and to using some “praise songs and overhead projectors.” A commitment to the prayerbook does not mean we cannot incorporate new songs and new technology into our worship of God. I also do not see this conflicting with a high view of Tradition (councils, creeds, etc) in the interpretation of Scripture.

Is there a danger that we will slip off into “liturgical, Bible churches.” Yes, but we don’t have to. This issue, imho, is not the incoporation of new technology (remember the introduction of the organ into worship was highly contentious at one time). The issue for “anglo-protestants” is to hold each other accountable to retaining a commintment to “reformers of the 16th Century.

With all due respect for my brothers and sisters on the other side of the Tiber, this does not help in the least.

Right now the Anglican Communion at all levels, from the See of Canterbury to national churches to dioceses to parishes to individual members, has to decide whether or not we are Christians, and if we are how exactly we are to reflect that in an organization that is in the process of tearing itself apart.  The last thing we need is for honest Evangelicals to be told that they have to accept Roman Catholic authorities, or for honest Anglo-Catholics to be told that they need to adopt Protestant teachings.

If it were up to me we would tell the good Cardinal that we’ve got more than enough problems to deal with right now, and we will respond to him when we are ready to.

Wolverine

Top Ten Reasons Why I went Anglican
(with apologies to Alan Farhi)

10. The Baby-Dedication liturgy is older than modern renditions.

9.  Cool threads, dig?

8.  My wife and I can celebrate the Lord’s Supper, at the same time, and in the same place.

7.  Being this close to those Anglo-Catholics, scandalizes the Truly Reformed.

6.  Being this close to those Evangelicals, scandalizes the Truly Catholic.

5.  It’s compatible with our child’s DNA. 

4.  Life is more fun, with knuckle bandages.

3.  Because I can both hear the church bell, and be within a yard of Hell.

2.  Imputed Righteousness.. healing… church calendar.... etc:  One-stop shopping!

1.  I’ve always needed a stronger father figure.

I wonder why overhead projectors and solid gospel theology must always be juxtiposed!  My orthodox parish has three Rite I morning services where communion is celebrated and the Gospel is preached every single Sunday, accompanied by our amazing choir.  Then on Sunday evening the band comes out to play.  We still offer Rite I prayers and Communion and solid Gospel preaching.  Our worship leader is very careful to include scripturally sound music and mixes in old gospel favorites with contemporary christian songs.  I will admit that we don’t use power point, but that is more a function of our facility rather than rabid opposition to the form.  I like (and attend) both style services, but I find that the evening service can be less intimidating to newcomers to our church and to the liturgy in general.

I suspect that where the Gospel is absent, no great music or liturgy will save a church and where the Gospel is present and preached, it can survive the occasional drum solo.

Re Wolverine’s comment: “If it were up to me we would tell the good Cardinal that we’ve got more than enough problems to deal with right now, and we will respond to him
when we are ready to.”

In actuality, BOTH sides of the Tiber, Bosporus, Rhine, and Thames need a lot of clean up and work, more in what is practiced than what is written.  On paper and theory, the churches are fairly credible members of the Body, but in practice the Church is in disarray and conflict.  Now, when you get to TEC and the ACoC, we have a rapidly metasticizing cancer for sure.  The CoE is a slow growing cancer in high denial, but a cancer nonetheless.
May the Lord pierce through the denial gripping the whole Body, send conviction of sin and revival.  Help us all to truly come to Jesus.

"I have decided to follow Jesus .... no turning back, no turning back.” Pre-millenial, double predestination, post-tribulation, 7 sacraments, 2 sacraments......who cares?

Dear DaveG,
“I have decided to follow Jesus .... no turning back, no turning back.” Pre-millenial, double predestination, post-tribulation, 7 sacraments, 2 sacraments......who cares? “
This is the issue: “I,I,I I..have decided.”
It is not about you or me, but about Jesus. You have decided to be Protestat, congratulations, but don’t fool youself that you have answered the good Cardinal’s question.
“I have decided to follow Jesus .... no turning back, no turning back.” Pre-millenial, double predestination, post-tribulation, 7 sacraments, 2 sacraments......who cares?

I don’t intend to answer the “good Cardinal’s” question, Hookemhooker.  It is not a question that I feel any need to address.  If others do, God bless them in their labors.  (PS an Arminian Protestant to boot)

"Protestant or Catholic: Anglicans Must Decide”

Is Abp. Williams listening? Does he care?

If he cares, does he care enough to reconsider a course of action that (whatever his subjective intent) looks a lot like a cynical sort of dithering?

Gosh, DavidG, when you said, I, I, I, I,” it was obvious you were Arminian,, spare us redundant information.

I’m with 33 on the danger of Rick Warren enamored, evangelical hyper-protestant tendencies I see predominating in the reasserter movement outside the three Anglo-Catholic diocese of Ft. Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy. LP’s description of the “Angloprotestant Center” is brilliant. There seems to be a little understanding of, and distain for, traditional liturgy, the symbolism of traditional churchmanship, and what are generally referred to as the Anglican distinctives.  Even confirmands are not being taught anything about Anglicanism - how we came about, what we do and why, and our history.  Liturgical (minimal) congregational Bible churches about sums it up for these “Anglican” churches.

OK Hookemhooker
I will change the song.  “My mother decided that I would follow Jesus.” Is that catholic enough for you?
Or how about, “I was predestined to follow Jesus?” Don’t want to leave out any of the threads.

How about “Praise God for His mercy HE has called me to follow Him, led me by His prevenient grace despite my Mommy, me ,Adam, and Eve.

"Praise God for His mercy HE has called me to follow Him, led me by His prevenient grace despite my Mommy, me ,Adam, and Eve.”
Also true my friend and brother.

Amen, Let us all rejoice!

Around the world, there is increasing unity between Roman Catholics and evangelical orthodox Protestants. The “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” proclamation, and subsequent statements by the same leaders, is a good summary of the common ground that brings us together. I am solidly Protestant; however, I find much more in common with my faithful Roman Catholic friends than I do with the leaders in our mainline Protestant denominations. It’s not even close.

Plenty of revisionists like the smells and bells of Roman Catholicism That is hardly a basis for reconciliation. Frankly, I think the revisionists would like nothing better than another ten-year, futile dialogue about reconciliation with Rome. The mere dialogue with Rome gives the revisionists credibility they don’t deserve.

We don’t need the Pope, or any pope, to address TEC’s pan-sexual agenda, or the debate over the divinity of Christ, or other issues that are simply resolved through faith and a resulting acceptance of the Plain Meaning of Scripture.  We keep looking for a human solution, a trick, to address what is simply sin and disbelief.

The further context for the Cardinal’s comments is most interesting to me.  Irenaeus asks if Archbishop Rowan Williams is listening, and I wonder, too; the Cardinal is certainly addressing the Archbishop’s invitation to Lambeth with a certain rebuff. (Isn’t the Cardinal wondering if his attendance would be justified? Surely it’s a very strong hint to ++Rowan.) Here’s the part of the article I reference (from the Catholic Herald):

“Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.”

I am also bearing in mind the fact that Cardinal Kasper has been openly hostile to the TAC request to be received into the RC Church.  But I don’t see why this request should not have pleased him.  (These are surely Anglicans who have decided whether they are more Catholic or Protestant.)

Why not start an ecumenical movement at the “local” level among Christian communities, and then work upwards.  Things tend to always get bogged down (and broken) when the leadership of each “branch” thinks they have the way. It has not proved productive in how many years?

We don’t need the Pope, or any pope, to address TEC’s pan-sexual agenda, or the debate over the divinity of Christ, or other issues that are simply resolved through Faith and a resulting acceptance of the Plain Meaning of Scripture.

I’m sorry but I think this reflects a significant misunderstanding of the Magisterium (which is the real issue, not the Pope) and it blinks at reality.

Not sure why the good Cardinal does not read the 39 articles and decide for himself.  They are clear in the content and intent.  That some have intentially misread them and remained in the TEC is no reason to miss the clear teaching of the 39 articles.

But we have always (until now) allowed diversity of interpretation.  The REC left over this allowed diversity as have some catholic groups.

I am sure that there will be at least two if not more denominations that arise out of the dust realignment.  For better or worse!

I don’t think that the 39 Articles are much of a guide to what TEC believes - as long ago as 1981, I had a priest tell me that they were merely “historical documents.” I don’t think they are any barometer of what TEC as a whole believes. What do they say about them in the Church of England?

I don’t think we should accept the good cardinal’s premise. Are the early church and the Reformation really mutually exclusive alternatives? There are differences, this is true. However, the Reformers were at pains to show that they were not introducing novelty but calling the church to be true to the Scriptures in the way its earliest leaders were attempting to be. Witness the extensive quotation from the Fathers in Luther, Calvin, and the others. The choice is not between the orthodox doctrine and practice of the first few centuries and the divergence from this in the sixteenth century. Rather, the choice is between faithfulness to the plain teaching of Scripture (something the early church and the Reformation both aspired to) and attempts to justify becoming just an insipid and sacralised version of the corrupt world around us. The only relief from the distress the cardinal’s statements cause is the fact that he does put people like the Archbishop of Canterbury in an even more awkward position. Personally supportive of the gay lobby and committed to a long term strategy of wearing down opposition to it, he also longs for closer relations with the Roman Catholic Church. And it must be dawning on him, after all he is very bright, that he can’t have both.

About the 39 Articles of Religion in the present Church of England--

Here is the reference to them in the _Canons of the Church of England_ (6th ed., Church House Publishing, 2000):
“The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” (Canon A5)

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/canons/whole.pdf

http://chriswatsonlee.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/the-thirty-nine-articles-today/

Do the English observe their canons better than Episcopalians do?

"Not sure why the good Cardinal does not read the 39 articles and decide for himself” [#56]

How exactly do the Thirty-Nine Article crimp the style of ECUSA’s revisionist rulers?

I imagine the Cardinal is more conversant in the 39 Articles than most TEC bishops, although we might assume he would prefer we filter them through the lens of Newman’s Tract 90.  Which, I might point out, almost 1/2 of TEC did prior to the 1970s when a substantial portion of Anglo Catholics left, followed by more every year since. 
It seems that every time TEC does anything, it displays either ignorance of, or contempt for, catholicism.  The very basis of which is that decisions cannot be made indivually, and in haste.

I have found that theology is not a primary motivation in choosing a new congregation after leaving TEC.  More often it is friendships and maybe WO.  Adult Education consists of how to make the coffee and an Alpha program if you are really lucky.  How many pew-sitters could tell you the difference in Sacramental theology or even identify who Calvin and Luther were?  I don’t think most will see the two positions as either/or unless you toss in WO.

Yesterday my students and I finished an entire semester of studying Contemporary Theology. We began with Schleiermacher and Barth, then covered everyone from Brunner, Bonhoeffer, the Niebuhrs, the Catholic Resourcement movement (DeLubac, Congar, Danielou), Orthodoxy (Bulgakof, Schmemann, Lossky), post-Vatican II theology (Rahner, Lonergan, von Balthasar), theology of hope/revelation history (Moltmann, Pannenberg) post-Liberalism (Lindbeck, Hauerwas), Evangelicals (Packer, Henry),(post-conservative)Evangelicals (N.T. Wright, Vanhoozer), “Scientific” theology (T. F. Torrance, Alister McGrath).  We finished with Anglican theology--Ramsey and Sykes. All of these fairly clearly lined up with Barth.

On the other side, we studied Bultmann, Tillich, process theology, feminist theology, liberation theology.  All of these fairly clearly lined up on the other side--with Schleiermacher.

It really didn’t matter whether the thinker was Protestant (Barth or Tillich) or Catholic (Balthasar or Schussler Fiorenza).  The clear issue of division had nothing to do with which side of the Reformation divide one was on.

The answer to Cardinal Kasper’s question is that every one of the thinkers we studied chose both the first millennium and the sixteenth century--whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, whether Barthian or Schleiermachian.  But the clear divide was whether one sided with Barth or Schleiermacher, not whether with Luther or Trent.  And whether one aligned with Barth or with Schleiermacher determined how one read the first millennium and the Reformation, and what one took from both.

How exactly do the Thirty-Nine Article crimp the style of ECUSA’s revisionist rulers?

I would say that art. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 31, 33 and 34 would definitely crimp the style of ECUSA’s revisionist rulers, insofar as each one is directly contrary to some aspect of the “new thing.”

The 39 Articles only don’t crimp because they are completely ignored.

talithajd nailed it in post #40.  Especially in the last sentence.  Well said!!!!!!!!

Dr. Witt, Would you please clarify the differences between the theologies of Barth and Schleiermacher?

I am also bearing in mind the fact that Cardinal Kasper has been openly hostile to the TAC request to be received into the RC Church.  But I don’t see why this request should not have pleased him.  (These are surely Anglicans who have decided whether they are more Catholic or Protestant.

I don’t pretend to know what I’m talking about, but some thoughts on why that might be the case:
1) TAC probably wants to keep its current married bishops.  Even the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox don’t let bishops marry.
2) TAC probably wants to keep its current liturgy (1928, and maybe some Anglican Missal) almost entirely intact, while the current Anglican Use liturgy is very much in the model of the 1979 and Novus Ordo liturgy that lots of Continuing Anglicans desdain.
3) Since the Catholics already HAVE a Western Rite and a strong presence in England, they probably don’t see a pressing need for a large scale Anglican uniate self governing church.  The attitude of much of their leadership is probably along the lines of “If you really want to be Roman Catholic, go to your nearest Roman Catholic parish.  If you are holding out just because you want to say thee and thou and have your own married bishops, you probably aren’t serious.”
4) An Anglican Uniate church under Rome could be seen as a rival to the current Roman Catholic Church in strongly Anglican areas such as England.

Floridian #67,

I’ve come to conclude that in most theological crises the issue of division actually turns out to be how one answers some fairly straightforward question, although it often takes theologians decades to figure out what that crucial issue is.

During the Arian crisis, Athanasius identified the crucial issue with whether Christ was Creator or creature.  During the Nestorian crisis, Cyril identified the crucial issue with whether Christ was truly God become human or a human being in whom God was especially present, i.e., God become man or a God-filled man.

During the current crisis I have become convinced that the issue has to do with Christology.  Is the person and work of Jesus Christ constitutive of a salvation I can find nowhere else, or rather is the person and work of Jesus Christ illustrative of a salvation I can find elsewhere as well or even perhaps everywhere? 

I think that Barth realized that this was the crucial issue with Liberal Protestantism.  This was the issue addressed by the Barmen Confession.  Throughout the twentieth and now the beginning of the twenty-first century, how one answers this question determines on which side of the divide we stand.

"Do the English observe their canons better than Episcopalians do?”

Ha! That I don’t know.

”. . . we might assume he would prefer we filter them [the 29 Articles] through the lens of Newman’s Tract 90.”

But then what could the Cardinal have against the TAC petition for admittance into the RC Church?

Oops!  That should be 39 Articles in my previous post!

William Witt #69 - thanks for that thoughtful bit of clarity.  I think you are right about the current question.

Yesterday my students and I finished an entire semester of studying Contemporary Theology. We began with Schleiermacher and Barth, then covered everyone from Brunner, Bonhoeffer, the Niebuhrs, the Catholic Resourcement movement (DeLubac, Congar, Danielou), Orthodoxy (Bulgakof, Schmemann, Lossky), post-Vatican II theology (Rahner, Lonergan, von Balthasar), theology of hope/revelation history (Moltmann, Pannenberg) post-Liberalism (Lindbeck, Hauerwas), Evangelicals (Packer, Henry), (post-conservative)Evangelicals (N.T. Wright, Vanhoozer), “Scientific” theology (T. F. Torrance, Alister McGrath).  We finished with Anglican theology--Ramsey and Sykes. All of these fairly clearly lined up with Barth.  On the other side, we studied Bultmann, Tillich, process theology, feminist theology, liberation theology.  All of these fairly clearly lined up on the other side--with Schleiermacher.

Egads!  You studied all these folks in ONE semester.  My biretta is off to you!

How about “Praise God for His mercy HE has called me to follow Him, led me by His prevenient grace despite my Mommy, me ,Adam, and Eve.

But presumably such a call requires a voluntary response, unless we assume God is a rapist.

Paula;

I believe TEC recognizes two (2).  Numbers 26 & 27 incl.
I wish I were wrong.

Jeff

Egads!  You studied all these folks in ONE semester.

Unfortunately, we tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep sometimes.  We spent a week on each group of major figures for fourteen weeks.  I get to do Anglican Way of Theology this June in one grueling all day long week--beginning with Cranmer on Monday morning and ending with the twentieth century late Friday afternoon.

Dr. Witt, I agree with you. At the heart of the matter are differing understandings of Jesus Christ. From an Orthodox perspective this seems more evident. I’ve always loved Cranmer’s sonorous liturgical passages and then I discovered that he drew much from the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil.

Any faith that strays from the Christological realities prefigured and fulfilled in Jesus’ shed blood, resurrection and coming again must ultimately be discarded by true catholics. And any reading of the Bible that makes these realities extraneous is a false reading.

Whatever one my think of the relative merits of Trent vs Geneva or the correctness of John Henry Newman’s ultimate choice to cross the Tiber, his understanding of the insitutional shortcomings of Anglicanism and its inevitable slide into pure liberalism was right on target.

I have said all this, my brethren, not in declamation, but to bring out clearly to you, why I cannot feel interest of any kind in the National Church, nor put any trust in it at all from its past history, as if it were, in however narrow a sense, a guardian of orthodoxy. It is as little bound by what it said or did formerly, as this morning’s newspaper by its former numbers, except as it is bound by the Law; and while it is upheld by the Law, it will not be weakened by the subtraction of individuals, nor fortified by their continuance. Its life is an Act of Parliament. It will not be able to resist the Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian heresies now, because Bull or Waterland resisted them a century or two before; nor on the other hand would it be unable to resist them, though its more orthodox theologians were presently to leave it. It will be able to resist them while the State gives the word; it would be unable, when the State forbids it. Elizabeth boasted that she “tuned her pulpits;” Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it; and that which determines its existence will determine its voice. Of course {9} the presence or departure of individuals will be one out of various disturbing causes, which may delay or accelerate by a certain number of years a change in its teaching: but, after all, the change itself depends on events broader and deeper than these; it depends on changes in the nation. As the nation changes its political, so may it change its religious views; the causes which carried the Reform Bill and Free Trade may make short work with orthodoxy.

The same popular voice which has explained away the wording of the Office for Baptism, may of course in a moment dispense with the Athanasian Creed altogether. Who can doubt, that if that symbol be not similarly dealt with in course of law in years to come, it is because the present judgment will practically destroy its force as efficaciously, and with less trouble to the lawyers? No individual will dare to act on views which he knows to a certainty would be overruled as soon as they are brought before a legal tribunal. As to the document itself, it will be obvious to allege that the details of the Athanasian Creed were never intended for reception by national believers; that all that was intended (as has before now been avowed) was to uphold a doctrine of a Trinity, and that, provided we hold this “scriptural fact,” it matters not whether we be Athanasians, Sabellians, Tritheists, or Socinians, or rather we shall be neither one nor the other of them. Precedents on the other hand are easily adducible of Arian, Sabellian, and Unitarian Bishops and dignitaries, and of divines who professed that Trinitarianism was a mere matter of opinion, both in former times and now.

. I am aware that the name of Pantheism is repudiated by several writers of the school I allude to, but I think it will be found to be the ultimate resolution of its principles

Dr. Witt

I am interested in your placing Barth at the head of the category of those opposed to Schleiermacher.

Would it be accurate to say that the distinction you are making in your first post has to do with the primary way Christ makes himself known or the nature of revelation. It seems that those who look to special revelation as the primary source are all on the Barthian side of the divide?

I wonder if the right way is not that of straddling at all- if that means keeping our feet on two diverging roads, but staying the course from which both, in their own ways, have strayed.  One theologian “modern” enough to read without a pre-req history course, was fluent in the thought of the Cappadicians and Desert Fathers as he was in Calvin and Luther.  He called himself a “Reformed Anglican” all his life took the Eucharist at least four times every week, and was a faithful priest of the CofE until his dying day.  In faithfully preaching the Gospel as is found in the Articles and the Homilies he was instrumental in saving England from revolution and collapse in a day of extreme laxity and corruption in the church.  Those who believed through his ministry were so many that the Established Church could not provide oversight for them, so, tragically, the fire of that revival was sent “outside the camp” to form its own congregations.  Because, then, of his great success as an Anglican priest his works are primarily studied outside of Anglicanism.  For any who haven’t guessed, John Wesley would be a great reference point from which to start in defining what the “faith once delivered” really looks like in this “modern” era!

#75 Of course. I would however, call it a free, enabled response. Because He has freed me, I can respond.

Although he’s a Methodist [smirk], one might respectfully add Thomas Oden to the list of contemporary theologians. The evangelical paleo-orthodox movement strips away centuries of Christian rust, including scholasticism.

With Bill Witt, I too very much like the christological emphasis of Barth, Torrance, and others; but it is not at all clear to me that such an emphasis provides us easy answers, e.g., to the sexual morality issues now demanding attention.  There are plenty of Barthians out there who find themselves supporting the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals.  A sound christology is not sufficient.  We still come back to hermeneutics and the interpretation of Scripture.

I’d like to bring to everyone’s attentions three recent pieces published by Fr Stephen Freeman:

An Orthodox Hermeneutic

More on an Orthodox Hermeneutic

How to “Read” the Church

I, too, wondered about the primacy of special revelation as being the ground of the split that Dr. Witt has noted above.

Fr. Kimel notes that it is apparently possible to be a Barthian and concur with the innovative ideas of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.

I wonder if having a high Christology/soteriology (I believe Dr. Witt rightly linked the two) is enough to prevent a slide into the morass that has encompassed the Anglican Communion.  Would there not also be a need for recognizing the voice and authority of Christ?

The RC Magisterium seems to possess this with its teaching on Scripture and Tradition.  However, to read Barth, one comes away thinking no matter how high his view of Christ, it does not overcome his view that Scripture contains the Word of God, but is not necessarily the Word of God.

Thus, authority is lost (or diminished at best) even as one submits a Christological center and ground for belief, salvation and practice.  If I remember correctly this was the problem that teachers like Kantzer and Henry saw in Barth’s theology.

#60 In general, yes. Perhaps the only benefit of connecting church law with the law of the land - as is the case with the Church of England - is that there are “secular” routes to challenge capricious or arbitrary disciplinary decisions. In terms of the arbitrary disciplinary decisions that TEC has handed down over the last decade, dioceses would have been thumped in “secular” courts a long time ago.

In fact, given that English Canon law is rooted in legislation and case law (apparently unlike TEC’s) on the rare occasions when courts sit - it is normally the Diocesan Chancellor who heads them up. He or she is independent of the Bishop, normally a lawyer with decades of experience in ecclesiastical and secular law, and often has experience as sitting as a judge in other areas of the law. My experience is that Bishops are usually extraordinarily grateful for their Chancellor’s role in the legal process and extremely deferential to them.

A major, major problem in enforcement of TEC’s Canons is the lack of an independent judiciary.

IMHO, this warning from the Vatican could very well be their last warning to Rowan Williams to get the AC’s act together. Rome has had no problems encountering Protestants who know what they believe.

It may very well be that after Lambeth, if Canterbury doesn’t get it together, the Pope may very well go ahead and receive the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) into full union with the Roman Catholic Church.

I remember the talks between the late Archbishop Ramsey and the late Pope Paul VI about us being sister churches. From the Anglican side the Church has changed so radically that Pope Benedict may very well go ahead and negotiate with the TAC and leave the Canterbury Communion behind. I have read that the Pope is in favor but Cardinal Kasper is against it. Guess who will win?

The question is not catholic or protestant.  Any viewpoint can be taken to extremes and thus become heretical.  I think true catholicity embodies a balance and a life held in tension.  To me this is the beauty of Anglicanism.  I consider myself to be a liturgical charismatic reformed traditional evangelical catholic, and no, I am not schizophrenic. 
I have worshiped in Eastern Orthodox churches, in Roman Catholic churches and in non-denominational churches and God was present in all. 

I also believe the issue is Christology/soteriology but must include the issue of authority as well.  And furthermore, I am leaning towards believing that authority is the central issue. 

One thing pluralism has brought into the mix is that there is no one single authority.  One can believe that Christ is God (or at least a god) and also believe that there are many other gods, but I think to hold this pluralistic view, one must reduce the very concept of “God” into something that is devoid of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, perfect wisdom, utter purity and holiness, etc.

I am no theologian and perhaps I am off base, but to me it seems that the underlying issue then is whether or not we accept the unique superlative qualities of “God”, which then implies His authority, or do we mistakenly believe that our concept of a god is merely some sufficiently advanced being that we don’t understand, not unlike the race of “Q” beings from the Star Trek series.  I do not think that the issues of Christology and soteriology, as important as they are, matter much to those who hold this later view.  First, we must accept the very concept of a unique supreme being before we can try to argue that Christ is that one and only God.  In my dealings with the liberal left, they do not accept this very foundational concept of a supreme being and therefore I think the central issue really is one of authority.

So then, the central issue for Anglicanism is not are we catholic or protestant.  We are both.  The issue is whether or not we are even Christian!

Would it be accurate to say that the distinction you are making in your first post has to do with the primary way Christ makes himself known or the nature of revelation. It seems that those who look to special revelation as the primary source are all on the Barthian side of the divide? 

Matt, by focusing on Christology and atonement the way I did, I gave an extremely abbreviated account of the problem.  A constitutive Christology is the center of a cluster of related issues, some having to do with ontology, some with epistemology, some with ethics.

Revelation is certainly one of those related issues. In terms of epistemology, a constitutive Christology implies that God is in himself who he is in his revelation--one of Barth’s key themes and the foundation of his trinitarian theology.  I deliberately mentioned both the person and work of Christ (and not only the work) because what Jesus did is inextricably tied up with who he is--Jesus saves because he is God become human.  As the Word made flesh, he is the very revelation of God.

But to talk about Jesus as revelation necessarily means talking about the Old Testament Scriptures that provide the context for that revelation--Jesus is the fulfillment of OT hope--and the definitive apostolic witness to Jesus’ person and work--the New Testament canon. 

The person and work of Christ are not only ontologically constitutive of salvation, the Scriptures are epistemologically constitutive for our understanding and appropriation of God’s work in Christ insofar as they are the definitive divinely sanctioned witness to God’s revelation in Christ.  God not only acts.  God speaks.

And, finally, there are crucial ethical implications for any talk about Christology and soteriology.  (See, for example, Richard Hays’s Moral Vision of the New Testament or Oliver O’Donovan’s Resurrection and the Moral Order.) How could there not be? Doctrine and praxis can never be separated--which was one of the reasons Barth refused to separate ethics from theology in the Church Dogmatics.

If people don’t mind my quoting myself:

If one were to express the heart of the Christian faith as concisely and precisely as possible, one could hardly find a better summary than the two-word aphorism “Jesus saves.” Arguably, the purpose of theology is nothing more than to reflect critically on the meaning of those two words. At the same time, fundamental disagreements about how one understands what it means to say that “Jesus saves” have accounted for countless theological controversies in the history of Christianity, and certainly will continue to do so. In the contemporary Church, fundamental disagreements about such issues as sexuality and the Church’s role in contemporary culture are often expressed in the political categories of conservative and liberal, “left wing” and “right wing.” But such characterization proves inadequate because it reduces fundamental disagreement to matter of degrees on a continuum (with an ever shifting middle) rather than addressing what is really a fundamental disagreement about what it means to affirm this two-word summary “Jesus saves.”

In the contemporary divide, the fundamental question about the content of Christian faith and its corresponding practices divides contemporary theologians on the question: Are the person and work of Jesus Christ constitutive of a salvation we can find nowhere else, or, are they rather illustrative of a salvation we can find elsewhere or even perhaps everywhere as well? How we answer this question will work itself out consistently to form our understanding of Christian faith and identity.

Specifically, at the level of symbol and narrative, if we take the person and work of Jesus Christ as constitutive of our salvation, we will understand the stories and symbols of the gospels to form our own understandings and to challenge our preconceptions of God, Christ, and the world. So, for example, not only will we find the “Father” language that Jesus used to describe God to be informative, challenging, and even subversive of our own understanding of what it means to be a “father,” but we will find that it illuminates and challenges our preconceptions of what it means to be God, and to point in the direction of an ontological relationship between Jesus and his Father grounded in the eternally constitutive trinitarian relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Conversely, if we understand the person and work of Jesus to be primarily illustrative of other generally known truths, we will tend to view the symbols and narratives of the gospel as projections of a prior universally available religious experience, and thus correctable in ways that speak more adequately to contemporary religious expression.

In terms of history, if we endorse a constitutive understanding of who Jesus was and what he did, we will tend to perceive the high Christologies of the New Testament writings to be a consistent development of who Jesus understood himself to be all along. We will tend to identify the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, not in the sense that we presume that the historian can necessarily confirm for us every detail of the gospel records, but in the sense that a constitutive understanding of Jesus’ mission is consistent with the plain reading of the texts themselves.

Conversely, if we regard the function of the New Testament documents to be that of authenticating an otherwise available experience, or of producing new and keen insights into contemporary experience, but not necessarily as pointing to a Savior who delivers us from our inherent moral incapacity and its consequences, that is, not a Jesus who “saves” us from our sins, we will likely find a great deal of discontinuity between the Jesus who lived in Palestine in the first century and the developed Christology of the early Church—simply because notions such as atonement, forgiveness, and redemption are so central to New Testament Christology.

Finally, in the area of ontology, the constitutive position comfortably acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate Son of God, who, for us and for our salvation, came down from heaven, who died for our sins, and was raised for our justification. If our primary existential question is “What must I do to be saved?,” then our primary ontological concern will be who must this Jesus be in himself if he is to be capable of delivering us from our sins. On the other hand, if we believe that Jesus provides a handy illustration of a generally available moral illumination or political reformation or social renewal, we will look to Jesus as a moral example, and our Christologies will be adoptionist, our doctrine of creation monist or deist, and our understanding of God unitarian.

This inextricable connection between narrative, history, ontology, and praxis explains why there is an inevitable correlation between one’s stance on Christology/Soteriology and one’s stance on seemingly unrelated issues, such as sexuality.  Al Kimel is correct that there are people who claim to be “Barthian” and who advocate SSU.  In that sense, it is logically possible for someone to advocate a constitutive Christology and endorse the “new thing” in the sense that it is possible to point to theologians (like Rowan Williams) who attempt to do so.  It is not, however, logically coherent to do so.

That the vast majority of those who advocate the new thing also embrace immanentist doctrines of creation, adoptionist Christologies, and enthusiast doctrines of the Spirit, is not a coincidence, but an inevitability.

As a side note, there is, of course, no Christology without ecclesiology as well.  I just preached a sermon on that.  But the connection that Kasper wants Anglicans to draw about a particular ecclesiology does not follow from that connection.

As an Evangelical Protestant Anglo-Catholic, I believe that I am more catholic, in the truest sense of the word, than Cardinal Kasper. I find his suggestion to be rather arrogant. Actually, I do believe that the good Lord is trying to break down our walls of division. Both Protestantism and Catholicism have so much to offer when it comes to realizing the Church which Christ envisioned. Both sides have so much to learn from each other. Let’s leave it at that. Jesus is our priority, nothing less, nothing more.

Decide?!  Choose?!  How decidedly un-Anglican!

Dr. Witt,

Not to distract from the great explanation you have given, but how are you using that phrase “enthusiast doctrines of the Spirit” in the next to last paragraph of your #89 post?

My understanding of those who would hold to enthusiast doctrines of the Spirit is that they would be dead set against the new thing (e.g. Assemblies of God, Vineyard or some versions of the Baptist diaspora).  You seem to be using the word in wider sense than I have classically understood it.

To get back to what you have written, does this high view of Christ/soteriology require a correspondingly high view of Scripture?  You seem to hint that it does in your comments on God’s revelation of Jesus Christ.  But how does one safeguard a high view of Scripture if one also believes that Jesus sends His Spirit to teach us all things?  In other words, how do we know with a high Christology that the Spirit is not leading us to do this new thing as some of the Barthians mentioned by Fr. Kimel seem to think (logically inconsistent or not?)

I’m sorry if you may have answered that question already, I read your post fairly quick and may have missed it, but this ought to be concern as we move to the future of Anglicanism.  Maybe the issue is really authority as Spencer has suggested (along with N.T. Wright in The Last Word).

Amen, wolf, #90.  Well said.  Most decent Catholic and/or catholic churches look great on paper, but in the field, there is MUCH to work on.  The Catholic church’s rebels and pastoral and theological offenses are many but under the radar and harder to clean up.  MCJ has an example of one such travesty. 

Many catholic laity (and some priests, it would seem)are ignorant of Scripture and spiritual dangers of occult and false religion… I have worked with them and know this. 

Maybe Benedict XVI needs a CIA.

There is plenty of trash to take out in all our lives, parishes and denominations.  Gloating over other people’s dirty laundry doesn’t help get their clothes clean.  Nor does it help us get ours clean.  Remember the speck and plank.

I think that, in some ways, we’re misunderstanding what the Cardinal is saying.  _The Catholic Herald_ article suggests what “Catholic” means in the present context (issues of WO and gay ordination):

“His comments will be interpreted as an attempt by Rome to put pressure on the Church of England not to proceed with the ordination women bishops or to sanction gay partnerships, both serious obstacles to unity.

“They have come at an extremely sensitive time for the Anglican Communion, as cracks between different factions in the church are beginning to show ahead of the conference in July.”

Rom. 1:16,

I would be using “enthusiast doctrine of the Spirit” in something like the way that Ronald Knox understands “enthusiasm” in his book by that title.  Knox notes that in ordinary theology, the principles of reason and revelation are interlocked.  For the enthusiast, revelation and reason are bypassed, and there is a direct appeal to an inner divine light that must not be questioned. 

Luther distinguished his own understanding from that of the Schwarmer by insisting that the Spirit could never lead beyond or contrary to the revealed Word contai