This book collects different voices from around the globe to speak on Anglicanism. There are authors from Africa, the Middle East, Canada and America (I was a little sad there wasn't an Australian voice, but then again, we might not be that big). There are theologians & historians, not to mention other denominational perspectives from Baptists and Catholics all giving their take on Anglicanism. At the end of each section, there was also a response by someone to those chapters in those sections, adding more reflection and thinking on what is ahead for the Anglican church.
From one standpoint, I found it great to see a varied response to what Anglicanism is and where people see the church might be heading. I was encouraged by the African and Middle Eastern perspectives on the missional imperative that they bring to the table. From another standpoint by the time I got to the end of this book I was a little disappointed at the varied responses to what it means to be an Anglican and where this collective think the church might be headed (their assessment may be right, but it is disappointing to see it come to this).
One disappointment I had, was that there actually was no clear definition of what it means to be Anglican. Unlike other churches that have clear doctrinal statements, it seems today we don't have much. Most authors who were trying to define a set of beliefs point to a series of different places (which is telling as it if was clear there would be one point of reference). Many use the almost traditional line that Anglicanism is both Reformed and Catholic, as it values both word and sacrament.
Some pointed to Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) who said Anglicans believe “one canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the Fathers in that period”
Some also noted the Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888) as a standard of belief for the Anglican church, which says Anglicans 1. believe Scripture is necessary for salvation (doesn’t say it is sufficient nor that it is a standard of faith), 2. Hold to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed, 3. Hold to the two sacraments and 4. has a church structure that can be flexible in different contexts.
Essentially GAFCON looms large in the background of this book. When I first heard of GAFCON a few years back, I thought they were a bit mean. I first heard about them running their own conference of Bishops around the same time the official Lambeth conference was on. I thought if you didn't like a party that was going to happen, and you then ran your own counter-party on at the same time and invited the same people to yours, then you were being a bit rude. However, this book helped me see more of the background. This has been brewing over a few Lambeth conferences, and these things only take place every 10 years.
In Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10 it passed a series of things in regard to marriage and homosexuality. This resolution was passed 526–70, hardly a close margin. However, in the 10 years that passed between the next Lambeth Conference, parts of the Anglican church, most notably the Episcopalian church in American ignored this and got more and more progressive (you can even visit Saint John’s Cathedral in NY and see a transgender Jesus which they call "the Christa").
In Lambeth 2008 there was lots of pressure, from the majority of those who attended, for the Archbishop to say something about this failure to follow last conference rulings. There sadly was nothing really said and GAFCON got together, to try and add more pressure, for the church to hold to what it decided on 10 years earlier. In 2016 Canterbury called a meeting to discuss some form of discipline of the Episcopal Church and said that they would be for a three year period. However during this discipline period, in 2018 the Bishop of the Episcopal Church was allowed to preach at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
With all this background I can see what the GAFCON people are annoyed. They say they represent the majority of the Anglican voices across the world, and they want their head, the Archbishop of Canterbury to actually enforce decisions made in the communion. The GAFCON people want a standard of what it means to be Anglican, they want lines in the sand to be drawn and then enforced. I think with my personality type, I would like a decent framework or definition of what it means to be Anglican, as it makes it easier to say what we are for and what we are against.
I did find it interested that some of those in this book who pointed to the 39 Articles as a standard of what it means to be an Anglican, failed to note that Lambeth 1968 resolution 43 which says these Articles are no longer a requirement for ordinals. On one hand, they wanted a doctrinal standard, on the other they want Lambeth decisions to be enforced.
I think the general idea behind this book is to define what it means to be Anglican and to show that the Church of England, or maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular, is not Anglican, for they are not holding to core values of the church. I think this book wants to be able to sever the (figure) head of the Anglican church and keep the body who holds to Lambeth decisions and enforcement of doctrine, something they haven't seen done in 20 years. It is bold and disappointing, and I have no idea if it will work.
From my ordination class, we had a short session on the Archbishop, Lambeth and some other Anglican meetings and positions, and from that, it was said that they are only advisory bodies, who can only encourage and persuade but have no real direct power over the local bishops (it seems the local Bishops have the most direct influence, but then again in some of my experience it seems the local rector has the most influence). I also learned that in Australia we aren't technically in fellowship with other jurisdictions, but only with Canterbury. This also explains why Brisbane Anglicans are very different to Sydney Anglicans who are different to Ameican Episcopalians.
In our Australian Anglican Constitution, the doctrinal basis of the church seems to be 1) what is in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed (for some reason the Athanasian Creed isn't included) and 2) to say that the Bible is necessary for salvation. Personally, I would like it to say more, such as the Bible is sufficient, clear, necessary and authoritative for salvation and Christian living. Otherwise, you could say for this basic point, the Bible is needed for someone to be saved, but then we can add more things for living the Christian life. There are other "ruling principles" like the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, but they are not in the "fundamental" section.
In the Constitution it also says we can only break away from the Church of England if it goes against these two creeds or stops saying the Bible is necessary for salvation. Since this GAFCON issue is about marriage and living as a Chrisitan, the Church of England is constitutionally in the clear as they would probably still say you need to know bits of the Bible for salvation.
It seems that being an Anglican has a very loosely defined framework. It does have a great history and tradition with a strong focus on mission and evangelism, and some real solid Evangelicals you can point to. It also has removed J. I. Packer from his position (only for him to talk up another Anglican position in another network) and John Shelby Spong was a Bishop in the church. There is a very broad standard, which is good, as it means there is probably room for me. But after reading this book, it does wonder if there is a standard at all and if it is being enforced.
0 comments:
Post a Comment