Evangelicals - remember the High Churchmen

Thank you, David.

By the way, this is an interesting and similar take from the Anglo-Catholic perspective:
http://anglicanwanderings.blogspot.com/2008/07/not-only-but-also.html

As an evangelical, I would suggest that WO violates the Biblical ‘husband of one wife’ prohibition and is as anti-Bible as it is anti-history.

Thank you, David.  This is well-stated.  I hope that the Jerusalem fellowship primates are looking at this very, very carefully as we write.

I’m bewildered by this vote.  The premise was that full recognition of women bishops was needed even from the conservative AC’s.  Now that this has been passed, the conservative AC’s still won’t recognize women bishops. 

What have they accomplished in the way of “full recognition” ?  Zip. 

More listening process, perhaps?  Are they trying to tell us something? 

“We &%$@#$ don’t want you &%$@#$ !!!  Go away &%$@#$&%$@#$ !” 

Yes, we’re <u>really</u> listening this time.  To be sure, we are shocked at your contempt our brothers;  but as much as we are shocked, we are sure that we are looking at your good side.

David,
Like you, I’m an evangelical—an evangelical member of FIF-NA.  I cannot square women priests with either Scripture or sacred tradition (much as I’d love to—I’d get in fewer arguments that way!) and have even more of a problem with women in the episcopate.  I appreciate what you’ve written immensely, but would point out that it’s not merely a “high church” or “Anglo-Catholic” thing.
Great column!
Drew

I wonder how many of our bitter fruits of the liberal takeover we eat today were sown when JC Ryle and Newman were snipping and being a very poor example of what they profess. Either in trying to unite the Church militant as much as possible that the world may know or loving their brother whom they could see thus casting doubt about the measure of love for that they could not see.

I may disagree with some things and cannon ball jump in pool when you were going along swimmingly, but one element from the silver-spoon part of my life was when my parents purchased a Ming Dynasty mirror, though a 1000 years after St. Paul penned 1 Cor 13:12, I think this dimly polished thing is closer to what the apostle meant than the silver back mirrors we use today. It’s humbling to think that’s how much we truly understand today and certainly Spirit inspired to be in the context of the love chapter.

Thank you, David+, it’s a good essay. I pray your fellow countrymen [meant gender neutral] and clergy listen.

I appreciate what you’ve written immensely, but would point out that it’s not merely a “high church” or “Anglo-Catholic” thing. 

Of course. As I point out I, as an evangelical, think that the ordination of women to the priesthood (and subsequent consecration to the episcopacy) is contrary to scripture’s prohibition of women having authority over men.

I think my point was that the hurt for AC’s is even greater than ours.

I think my point was that the hurt for AC’s is even greater than ours.

Agreed—thanks for clarifying and for a great essay.

I would call it an “early church” thing.  Bishops were central by the time of Clement of Rome and one of his epistles almost made the canon of the Gospel.  Ignatius of Antioch said, “Where the bishop is, there is the Church.”  As an Eastern Orthodox, I don’t share all the anglo-catholic concerns but regarding ecclesiology, this is universal, at least from the time we were able to come out of the catecombs and probably before.  I think there is some bit of evolution of understanding that happens in that first generation between the apostles and the bishops that followed.  Even as the Church has authorized certain expressions of how God works through the Church according to Christ’s example such as baptism and eucharist, so it has authorized bishops to follow the apostles.  These sacramental forms do not spring out of Jesus’ earthly ministry but our understanding is changed by the Incarnation.  Marriage isn’t a new thing with Christians but the Christian understanding of it is both renewed by Jesus’ normative statement regarding what God has done “from the beginning” and in our evolving understanding as expressed by St. Paul in that marriage somehow participates in and reflects the marriage between Christ and the Church.  Anyhow, Ignatius of Antioch was the first to ask couples to have their marriages blessed. In other words, it took some time for the Church to understand what marriage is in light of the Incarnation and how best to honor and support it.  I would say that this is also true of the office of bishop.It is unfortunate that evangelicals within the “Episcopal” Church have lost sight of this aspect of orders as it is fundamental to apostolic succession which is fundamental to realization of the fulness of what it is to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.  This is not simply an anglo-catholic eccentricity like smells and bells (however biblical these may be).  It is the universal witness of all churches for the first 1500 years of Christianity.  I do understand why the investment of power is dangerous and given abuses institutional and individual, I can understand why many would feel hostile to such structures.  In a democratic and egalitarian society, I can understand how it is that we would come to place individual formed conscience above the leadership of bishops.  I hope you can see by the example of both TEC and the plethora of independent, congregationalist Protestant sects how this has played out in history and how it is playing out in the Anglican Communion.  In fact, I would hope that those here would see the Anglo-Catholics not simply as weird fellows deserving our sympathy but as essential to something about our own worship.  There is nothing essential in many American examples of evangelical piety and practice that requires ordained clergy, prayer books, or sacraments.  These things fit together in ways that perhaps we have not completely thought out because, thanks to the inheritance of anglo-catholicism, they were a given.  In the Calvinist, Presbyterian tradition which many evangelicals cite as more apropos to their Christian lives than Tractarian, Anglo-Catholicism, there is not much of sacramental theology, whether we are discussing Real Presence or ontological change in ordination.  When “office” is merely a function, it is a short step to lay presidency.

David,

I am an evangelical and supporter of WO.  With that out of the way, I greatly appreciate this article and hope we all take it to heart.  Someday the Church victorious shall be the Church at Rest, until then, toil and tribulation…and hope.

Thank you David for a very fine piece.  The so-called liberals are indeed quite illiberal as they push on without regard to the needs of a chunk of the church, whether orthodox AC or Evangelical.  This is an important contribution.  Nicely done!

Perhaps as someone who earnestly claims to be BOTH evangelical and catholic (not to mention charismatic, to boot), I can add my perspective that I hope will prove at least somewhat illuminating.  As a priest of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany I am firmly convinced that bishops (AND priests and permanent deacons) are of the ESSE of the Church.  Though they are not always of the “bene esse” of the Church, due to their human weaknesses and failures.  That is, I am totally committed to the idea that the three-fold order of ministry is NORMATIVE and BINDING on the whole Church, even though it’s a post-biblical development.  But I hasten to add that I do indeed mean that ALL THREE orders are essential, and not just the office of bishops alone.  And yes, that specifically includes the REAL or permanent diaconate, which is only beginning to be restored, especially in western Christianity. 

An aside: One of the major problems with the famous Lambeth Quadrilateral from the 3rd Lambeth in 1888 is that the fourth point only mentions “the historic episcopate” and not the “historic diaconate” too, which is also an essential aspect of the classic, patristic model.  In other words, I’m one of those 3-D Anglo-Catholics who readily acknowledges that it’s not nearly enough to “maintain” the traditions of the Church in terms of Catholic Order.  No, merely attempting to preserve or conserve the past isn’t enough.  Some radical recovery of what has been lost through the centuries must also take place.  Not all change is bad and a sign of decline; some radical changes are ineed necessary, in order to honor the authentic Tradition properly.  The real catholic Tradition has been corrupted, and must be recovered and reformed.

But what really matters isn’t historicity but apostolicity.  After all, what we confess in the Nicene Creed isn’t that we believe in “one, holy, catholic, and HISTORIC Church,” but in an “apostolic” Church.  And it’s been plain ever since Irenaeus in the late 2nd century that the MAIN point of the apostolic succession of bishops was to foster, if not guarantee, the true apostolic succession, which is the passing on of the true apostolic teaching in the face of many rival versions of the gospel, such as the Gnostic perversions of Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, or their modern equivalents.  That is why the corruption of the episcopate through false teachers becoming purveyors of a false gospel is such an intolerable thing.

At the same time, I am also a loyal son of my evangelical alma mater, Wheaton College.  And so I continue to insist that God is sovereignly able to work outside the appointed or covenanted means of grace.  The wind blows where it wills, and can’t be confined to institutional channels.  Or perhaps that’s my charismatic side coming out (I am an ex-Pentacostal who spent 10 years in the Assemblies of God).

But what both evangelicals and catholic Anglicans have in common is a strong belief in the reality and accessibility of Divine Revelation.  We aren’t left groping in the dark, as if God were silent, or hadn’t revealed himself and his will clearly.  Our broad church or liberal friends and foes in the AC make far too much of a virtue out of being “tentative” and “non-dogmatic.”  As I like to remind them, open minds, like open doors and windows, are a very good thing.  But open doors and windows also need screens to keep the bugs out!  And in the middle of a storm, it’s best to shut the windows for a while.  We are in the midst of such a cultural storm now.

As Anglicans, we have roots in both the patristic era and the Reformation era, and we are rightly indebted to both.  David Ould+ and Matt Kennedy+ plainly value the Reformed tradition over the patristic one, even while honoring both (for that matter, it appears that Greg and Jackie do too, and Sarah certainly does).  I do the opposite.  I give primary place of honor to the early Fathers, and a secondary place to the Reformers (and I look for guidance more to Luther than to Calvin).  But we can still agree that there is such a thing as divinely revealed truth, and that it is accessible today (pre-eminently in the Scriptures) and that we must be faithful to that divine revelation at all costs, even if it means taking a very unpopular, counter-cultural position in terms of the culture wars of our time.  And that is where we part ways with our relativist foes, who have been seduced by the siren songs of the “progressive” advance of “social justice.”

David Handy+
Passionate advocate of “3-D Christianity” a well as the New Reformation.  And committed to a new “Post-Christendom” as well as “Post-Colonial” Settlement.

Allow me to clarify how I myself strive to reconcile or synthesize the competing interests of evnagelical truth and catholic order (which I believe are actually complementary, but they can easily seem competitive rivals, as they do to many).  One of the major stumbling blocks to ecumenical reunion as been the fact that an insistence on Catholic Order, including the non-negotiable necessity for maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, effectively “unchurches” so much of the Protestant world.  And that understandably causes great offense and misunderstanding.

So some readers after reading my post above may be inclined to ask me (as I have been asked over the years by some of my evangelical friends, especially Lutheran ones), “Do you then regard Protestant churches as so defective structurally as to forfeit the right to call themselves part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?”  And they are frequently taken aback and hurt when I forthrightly reply, “Yes.  I regret to say and admit that I do indeed ‘unchurch’ you and the rest of them.”  By forsaking an ESSENTIAL aspect of Catholic and Apostolic Order, Protestants have indeed forfeited the RIGHT for their churches to be considered “churches” in the full sense.  That is, I’d argue along the lines of Vatican II, that Protestant churches are merely “separated brethren” gathered in “ecclesial communities” that have partial but incomplete marks of the Church.

But wait and hear me out.  I don’t stop there.  For I also “unchurch” the Roman Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox as well.  They too have forfeited ESSENTIAL apsects of what it means to be part of that same Tradition.  As noted above, by forsaking the “historic diaconate,” the Romanists have likewise betrayed Catholic Order.  Moreover, by condoning and all too often promoting false and unbiblical teaching, not least in terms of distorted understandings of justification and the role of the saints in living the Christian life, I must also admit that I “unchurch” Rome and Constantinople and Moscow or Antioch too.  Sad, but true.  “None is righteous; no, not one.”

To cite a Pauline idea: It appears to me that “God has consigned us all to disobedience, in order that he might have mercy upon us all alike” (slightly modifying Romans 11:32).  NONE of us has any “RIGHT” for our fellowships to be called part of the true Church of Jesus Christ.  We have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory to which the Church is called, Protestants and Catholics alike.  And our denominations are able to be considered part of the authentic Church, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” only by the sheer mercy and grace of God.  Period.

And so, in the end, my evangelical and biblical side reasserts itself and demands, in good Pauline fashion, that all true eccelsiology rests on the foundational notion of “grace alone.”  Just as our salvation rests on grace alone.

David Handy+
I’m an equal opportunity offender.  I unchurch everybody.

David Ould+ and David Handy+,

Thanks to both of you.  I think your essays complement one another in a remarkable way.

Fr. Ould seems to me, in my simplistic way, to be saying be nice to one another, considerate of one another, respect one another, even as we disagree, holding to our beliefs and faith and recognize the significance of the issue to each side.

Fr. Handy seems to me, in my simplistic way, to be saying the same, but adding don’t forget where came from and why me made the journey, the pilgrimage and avoid subverting those issues being nice to one another, because we really aren’t being nice when we allow that nicety to obscure the basics of our faith and thereby aid and abet those subverting the faith.  The latter point seems to me to resonate well with some of the Scripture in the Daily Offices this week.

If I didn’t get it, missed the point, please let me know.

Thanks, again.

I hear you, Monologistos.  You have explained the early church evolution of bishops and sacraments well, given us a lot to think about. 

The Church would do well not to trample, but to re-read the fathers, to re-examine, re-explain all this again respectfully.
Now many do not understand what you are talking about. 

The church should never have allowed holy matters such as doctrine and theology and standards for catechism and discipleship and church leadership to be vulnerable to erosion, distortion and pollution by political process.

Popular vote, political interests, lobbying, influence, pressure, bribes, negotiation and compromise have sickened and moved the Anglican Church off its foundation.

Thank you David Ould. As an Anglo-Catholic who has sometimes taken exception to some of your writings, I very much appreciate your generousity of spirit and your plea to your fellow evangelicals. I often fail to be as charitable and I ask forgiveness of that now.

David writes:
Moreover, by condoning and all too often promoting false and unbiblical teaching, not least in terms of
distorted understandings of justification and the role of the saints in living the Christian life, I must also admit that I “unchurch” Rome and Constantinople and Moscow or Antioch too.
This is off topic but I’d be interested in hearing what you see as false and unbiblical teachings regarding Eastern Orthoddoxy today.  Communion of the Saints?  Theosis?  You must realize that we do not worship saints or icons and that in practice, we do not see too many perfected saints in this life, if any. Orthodox theosis is none other than sanctification by the Holy Spirit.  In my experience, although we are certainly called to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect, it is unlikely to be finished in this mortal, wounded life. The western Augustinian formulation of Original Sin off which Protestant and RC definitions of justification bounce, is also, by my lights, unbiblical and false; therefore the formulation of the resolution based on a mistaken view is also off target.  Of course all human institutitions have fallen short ... nobody here is likely to argue any differently on that score.  But if any human failure or theological imperfection prevents the Church from being realized in Eucharist, that is not an acceptable, Christian understanding.  It is not acceptable to deny the Church exists ... I think in the end that will be a denial of the Incarnation. So if eucharistic fellowship is not what you are talking about when talking of “unchurching”, what is it?  How do we distinguish between lacking the “fullness of the faith” and failing by not by assembing the ekklesia for for eucharistic fellowship?  Most everyone here will agree that the Holy Spirit can and does act outside the formal sacramental life of the Church.  Even RCs today seem to claim that although I’ve seen no renunciation of older formulations of the Magesterium.  I think this is a problem for you and I’m interested in how you might propose to handle it.

Let’s put it another way, if the very traditions which were normative to us yesterday, are both unacceptable and sufficient to mean that we have Christians but no Church, no Eucharist possible, then how could there be a received tradition?  Are you suggesting that there was no church from the time of the Fathers until, well, ever?  Or that possibly, a new church could spring into being by simply harkening back to our records of what the earliest Christians did and said?I am nonplussed by those who find it necessary to reject a church for reasons that were the norm within Anglicanism until a few years ago.  Not so long ago, there was no open communion in the Episcopal Church.  Did the Episcopal Church spring into being in the 1970’s?  We lack the historical and theological understanding to even know why things were done as they were ... but often we are pretty certain that we know better.Please don’t misunderstand me.  I love the evangelical aspect of Anglicanism as well as the Anglo-Catholic.  (I was confirmed by Bishop Quarterman down in Texas.) These are two sides of one coin.  Without the other, not only are we maimed in our faith ... but perhaps we fall short of being the church ... in some sense.

monologistos (#18 & 19),

I fear that answering your questions in any depth and length would indeed take us fairly far off-topic.  So let me make a few simple declarative, clarifying statements.  If you wish to pursue these matters, feel free to contact me off-line.

I was not denying, or not intending to deny anyway, that the Church has continued on uninterrupted since the days of the apostles.  I am not a Protestant restorationist.  What I was trying to say, rather, was that the continuance of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is purely a matter of God’s grace, despite our sins, both personal and corporate.  No institutional expression of the Church can claim that it MERITS that designation since it has preserved all the necessary marks of the Church.  But as always, where sin has abounded, there grace has abounded all the more.  But God, in his inscrutable providence, has allowed us all (East and West, Protestant and Catholic) to fall into such serious disobedience that we can only retain our ongoing status as part of that Church by the Lord’s sheer mercy and grace alone.  This is NOT to deny the doctrine of the indefectability of the Church, but only to insist that it is based on God’s infinite grace, and not on any human merit or faithfulness.

I don’t have any problems with icons, contrary to your guess above.  I freely acknowledge the validity of the Second Council of Nicea in AD 787 (that Calvin so detested as condoning idolatry).  Indeed, I have two icons prominently displayed here in my office, and I’m looking at them now.  One if of Our Lord, a typical icon of Christ the Teacher.  And the other is of Our Lady, the Theotokos, the Mother of God.

Nor do I have any problem with the concept of “theosis” or our “divinization” by grace in Christ.  I’m rather fond of that classic notion first espoused by Irenaeus, and later developed by Athanasius and the Cappadocians.  Truly, God became human in Jesus Christ, so that we might become sharers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).  Nor do I complain about the doctrine of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary; it has close enough biblical parallels in the assumptions into heaven of Enoch and Elijah for me to find it compatible with Holy Scripture (unlike the Roman doctrine of Our Lady’s “Immaculate Conception” which I regard as anti-biblical in appearing to deny Mary’s need for redemption).

But I do fault the East for failing to understand Augustine, the greatest of the Western Fathers, and for remaining completely bound to the old Christendom model of Church life, subordinating the Church to the State or the cultural values of the various ethnic groups that so utterly dominate Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.  But I think all that is really pretty irrelevant to the thrust and focus of this thread. 

I’m not interested in provoking a fight with you, monologistos, or others who have gone over to either New Rome, or Old Rome, or the more Reformed in our midst (like David Ould).  I intended my comments above in an irenic way, as Ol’ Bob sensed.

When David Ould started this thread, he admitted that he didn’t fully understand why the structures of the Church are so central and crucial to those of us who share a doctrine of the Church more indebted to the Fathers than the Reformers, so I was trying to explain how I at least approach these matters, as a self-professed “3-D” Christian, who sincerely seeks to synthesize the evangelical, catholic, and charismatic dimensions of the Church.  And I was trying to indicate some ways in which we might all be right about some things and we might all be wrong about others, but in such a way that we need each other to complement each other and to compensate for the shortcomings of our respective traditions.

I hope that helps shed more light than heat.

David Handy+

You will find anglo-catholic priests and parishes in the parts of our cities where angels fear to tread.  They are some of the most gentle and faithful of Christians.  They bring aid and joy to those in need and a vision of another life and world.  Their quiet respectful service is a model to all of us.

We love and need our anglo-catholics - who else is going to stretch and challenge those like me who are a mile wide and an inch deep?

I think the term “Anglo-Catholic” has lost a lot of its meaning because we have too many “affirming catholics” calling themselves “Anglo-Catholic.”  I’ve even had Elizabeth Kaeton refer to herself as “high church” or and “Anglo-Catholic!” 

I think we need to subsitute the terms “High Church” and “high ceremonial.” (The caps are important.)  “High Church” indicates a large degree or paramount degree on the received Tradition of the Church - particularly the patristic era.  Teaching what the Church teaches and has always taught is the essence of High Church theology.  It is possible to be High Church without the liturgical style that normally accompanies Anglo-Catholocism. 

“High ceremonial” on the other hand indicates the smells and bells.  The beautiful and integrated perichoresis of the liturgy.  This is St. Mary’s Bourne Street in London or St. Francis, Dallas.  It is also many congregations in the “affirming catholic” arena. 

It is possible to be “high ceremonial” without being “High Church” and possible to be “High Church” without being “high ceremonial.”

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

#22 Philip Snyder - but I had got the impression that Anglo-Catholic, at least in England was different from High Church?

Phil in Dallas (#22),

Alas, it’s all too true.  There are lots of “Affirming Catholics” like former PB Frank Griswold who are very adept at swinging a thurible and smoking up the church—-in more ways than one!  That is, the incense cloud is a smoke screen that hides the lack of any real catholic faith, in terms of upholding “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”  It’s notable, for example, that John Henry Newman kept to a very plain and simple style of eucharistic celebration during his years as an Anglican, rarely if ever wearing a chasuble etc.

But even among those who are orthodox theologically, I’ve witnessed a definite distinction betwen what I’d call “aesthetic Anglo-Catholics” and “theological Anglo-Catholics.”  I was once privileged to serve as the Priest-in-Charge of the most Anglo-Catholic parish in Richmond (the Virginia capital is a low church, and especially broad church stronghold).  They hired me, a priest from Albany, partly because I was comfortable with all the trappings of catholic worship that they liked (and that most Virginia priests shy away from).

But I gradually made the unpleasant discovery that they weren’t nearly as catholic or “High Church” theologically as I had assumed.  They really knew very little theology or church history when I got there; they just liked the ceremonial trappings, i.e., the sumptuous vestments (including copes and dalmatics), the chanting, the great reverence shown in worship etc.  So I worked hard during my brief tenure there to teach the meaning, history, and symbolism behind it all.  I’m still not sure how much of it really sunk in.

My point is: it’s not just in liberal parishes with liberal priests that you’ll sometimes run across what Deacon Phil calls “high ceremonial” churches that aren’t really “High Church” theologically. It’s all too easy to retain “the form of religion while denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5).  Or if not actually denying that divine power, simply being blithely ignorant about it.  It’s all too easy for the outward trappings to become a substitute for the inward realities to which they point.  But when all that holy beauty is joined to the beauty of actual holiness, when outward form and inward substance are actually consistent and seamlessly one, then you have something truly glorious.

And returning to the main theme of this thread, the apostolic succession of bishops is only a pathetic sham when there is no real continuity of apostolic doctrine and practice.  Or as one of my charismatic friends aptly puts it, “Apostolic succession isn’t as important as apostolic success.” 

Let the outward successors of Peter and Paul, James and John, and all the rest prove themselves to be their true successors by preaching the same gospel they did, and by winning the lost and planting churches as they did.

David Handy+

Hello David NRA,  I generally agree with what you write but I do have to disagree with the concept that churches without the historic Episcopate are not apostolic.  The LCMS, which I am currently visiting (and likely will take the membership classes) speaks directly in the Nicene creed of belief in one holy Christian and apostolic church.  The LCMS clearly have overseers (a few of whom I think are called Bishop; I haven’t yet figured out who is who).  Also, the LCMS have gone to great pains to remain faithful to the true orthodox, apostolic Gospel.  Their website http://www.lcms.org is a treasure trove of information regarding doctrine.  Anyway, I really like and deeply respect what you are doing and what you say, but just wanted to correct the record on this one point.

physician without health (#25),

Thanks for the general commendation and your respectful critique.  You aren’t alone, of course.  Virtually all Protestants would agree that the apostolic succession of bishops is not an ESSENTIAL point without which a church is not truly catholic and apostolic.  The Lutheran tradition has been very clear about this since their famous Augsburg Confession of 1530 (written by Melancthon).  Article VII of the Augustana states the classic position: “It is SUFFICIENT for the unity of the Church” that the Gospel be truly and faithfully preached and the Sacraments duly administered.  Calvinists and the AnaBaptists added a third point, the need for godly discipline to also be administered.  But they all agreed that maintaining the outward apostolic succession was NOT necessary to be a true Church.  And quite understandably so, for apart from Sweden, Finland, and England (and a few scattered places where the local Catholic bishop converted), Protestants were unable to gain control of the episcopate.

I have friends in the Missouri Synod, and I respect that sturdy German Lutheran tradition.  As you will soon discover, if you haven’t already, Lutherans have no standard system of polity.  The Missouri Synod basically functions along congregationalist lines, where each local congregation is basically independent, although they are organized into “Districts” (like the Methodists).  They avoid the term “bishop.”

However, the ELCA, like the earlier LCA and ALC, has administrators that are called “bishops,” but the office of bishop is understood in purely functional terms.  There is only ONE order of ordained ministry among Lutherans.  So when a pastor is elected as a “bishop,” they are NOT ordained again as if to some higher office, and when they retire or resign they go back to being an ordinary pastor.  Confirmations are likewise done by the local pastor, not the bishop, and there is no claim to standing in the “historic episcopate.” 

Rather, Lutherans strongly insist that church order is a matter of adiaphora, or things indifferent, since they rightly recognize that the Bible doesn’t require any one type of church structure, and in fact supports a variety of polities.  And evangelical Protestants have happily agreed on the whole, with the Reformed branch being the major exception, since Calvin disagreed with Luther here and insisted that the Presbyterian system was the only biblically warranted way to organize the Church.  Many evangelical Presbyterians now admit that the Reformed system of polity is just one of several possible ways to organize church life biblically, even if they still prefer it.

But this is an area where I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  I’m afraid I do indeed continue to affirm that the whole three-fold ordering of ministry that was the consensual achievement of the late 2nd and early 3rd century is indeed not only the “classic” system of church polity, it is NORMATIVE.  It is not a matter of adiaphora, even though it is a post-biblical development.

In other words, from my perspective, the spostolic succession of bishops (along with a council of assisting presbyters and a staff of true or permanent deacons) is a NECESSARY condition for being a part of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” Church.  But it is NOT a SUFFICIENT condition for that. 

And that is why I would still insist that, in good Pauline fashion, all churches today, including the Roman Catholics, are part of that historic fellowship only by the sheer mercy and grace of God.  “For God has consigned us all to disobedience, in order that he might have mercy upon all.”

David Handy+

Fr Handy,
The beauty of the high ceremonial you described in the church in Richmond was obviously appealing to those who chose to go there.  It is the responsibility of the clergy to educate the laity in the meaning of the ritual and liturgy so that they can enter into it more deeply.  The fact is that high ceremonial is the only form of worship that really engages and appeals to a certain segment of society (among whom I number myself), just as big screens and rock music and flipflops draw in others.  This is a constituency for which only Anglicanism has something to offer.  Perhaps it’s a small niche in the greater scheme of things, but it is a niche we have always been there for.  I worry that the low church, evangelical domination of GAFCON will leave these High Church, High Ceremonial, Anglo-Catholics out in the cold.

Thank you David for taking the time to explain further, and thanks again for all you do!

physician without health (#28),

You’re welcome.  I’m glad if my rambling posts have been informative or helpful.  But it’s you laypeople who deserve the real credit. 

As a priest, woe to me if I do not preach the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16) and build up the church!  But when devout, dedicated laity like you or evan miller above (etc.) take the time to do what you do to serve Christ and his Kingdom (especially busy doctors like you or robroy), well, that’s really praiseworthy.  May the Lord reward you.

David Handy+

David, #20, I still think there is work to be done in addressing the question of fullness versus absence in terms of Church.  I think I touched upon your concern regarding Augustine, from my vantage.  It would be my contention, gently put forth, that Augustine’s notion of Original Sin, based upon Jerome’s mistranslation of “eph ho” versus “in quo” logically leads to Rome’s promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.  Our Eastern understanding of the Dormition is based on very old traditions but it is not dogma that is necessary for salvation.  As to whether her body was then lifted up, I haven’t the faintest.  It certainly wouldn’t be necessary for my faith if she was or was not.  She is the Theotokos, not the Lord.  In Adam, all men die.  As an aside, The story of Elijah is a type ... a foreshadowing of the Resurrection ... but it is not Resurrection BEFORE Christ.  Only IN Christ, are we resurrected into the Kingdom, whether to everlasting joy or something else.  It may be that Elisha sees a vision of the last things in Elijah’s passing.  But Elijah died even as Mary died and we shall die.
I would say that our belief is that Mary’s parents knew each other after the manner of mankind, that Mary was conceived as we are all conceived.  If by sanctifying grace, Mary is made perfect in God’s grace at some point, and I expect that is so, that does not mean that she has reached the end of the path.  The road up into the mountains of God is beyond infinite and the General Resurrection a new beginning of a story that has only begun to be told by the Author of Life.  It should be understood that the expression of our understanding of Mary differs perhaps from that of Catholicism in that we generally do not speak of her to non-Christians.  On a personal note, I take personally the invocation by Jesus on the Cross ... “Behold your mother.”  We take Mary into our homes, in spirit, even as our own mother and when we speak of her, there is a reticence, even as we might speak of our biological mothers.  We make much of her, sometimes to poetic excess IMHO, but it is poetic and not dogma.  Our liturgical expression is not for the marketplace but it is personal. If we should take a photograph of our mother, and carry it at our breast during combat and even kiss her image before the battle, it is not an act of idolatry.  Mary, in her unique closeness to God is all the more clearly NOT God and therefore doing her honor is a way of bending the knee of our hearts to the Lord who makes and gives all things according to grace without regard to merit.  Yes, Mary has died.  Will we cease to love our own mothers and fathers when they die?  We pray for those we love.  It is that simple.  God is perfectly capable of answering our prayers as He will.  We need not fear that we will pull the wrong knob on the prayer vending machine.  He is Lord and in His sovereignty, power and presence, His providence works according to the divine humility to respect our freedom while bestowing grace.  His Kingdom comes close to us this day. Our communion in Eucharist is also personal in each place ... representing not simply “spiritual” relation to one another but family.  Thus, we are more likely to react to the notion of “open communion” as if the crowd of Sodom had asked us to send out our daughters to them.  It is a different sense that many in Anglicanism are accustomed to but it is not as strange to the longer tradition ... which was still in effect in my lifetime.I was once touched to read about the care devotees of a particular Hindu saint, Baba Neem Caroli, took in preparation and choice of gifts of fruit to bring to him.  It reminded me that my writing out that check for the offeratory had become quite rote.  My hope in citing some of the intimacies of Eastern Orthodox worship here is not that you should feel your worship lessened in comparison but that you might take away something to remind us of times when our worship has been more fervent and take notice that we have indeed slipped from deeper intimacy into an easier faith.  I do not mean that things should be “fraught” but that we are called to be engaged both with our emotions and with our minds ... in an adult but fervent manner.

monologistos (#30),

Thanks for your clarifications.  However, I think we’re probably wandering off-topic here, so if I don’t attempt to respond to your post, it’s not because I took offense or anything of the sort, but it’s just that I hope we can return to the original focus of the thread.  Personally, I think the famous “mystical” quality of Eastern theology and spirituality bears some resemblance to the “charismatic” dimension that helps to supplement and balance out the evangelical and catholic elements that are all too often played off against each other in western theology. 

In keeping with the theme of this thread, I’d summarize it this way: We need each other in the Body of Christ.  Evangelicals need the Catholics and vice versa.  And the Western Church needs the East, and vice versa too.  So thanks for representing the Eastern Christian perspective.

David Handy+

Thank you David for your very kind words.  It is great to see you quote 1 Cor 9:16; Frank Limehouse, Dean at Advent, had it made into a plaque and installed on the pulpit where he preaches.  And your teaching and his both reflect individuals who by the power of the Holy Spirit have taken the verse to heart.

Late to the table. Been on vacation. Thank you very much for your kindness and understanding, David.
AP+