I would like to recommend Divided We Stand: A History of the Continuing Anglican Movement, by Douglas Bess, to all those interested in Continuing Anglicanism. Having done some ad hoc research into the history of Continuing Anglicanism myself over the years, which has included in-depth conversations with several of the key participants in such landmark events as the St. Louis Congress, the Denver Consecrations, and the Dallas Synod, I can say with some confidence that Bess has done an excellent job of making an accurate record of the Movement’s key events. Moreover, let me also say that this record is of crucial importance for anyone who wishes to understand the state of Continuing Anglicanism today.
My recent rereading of Divided We Stand left me with the firm impression that the Continuing Anglican Movement is fundamentally divided between two, discrete visions of Anglicanism. There are (1) those holding an exclusively catholic-minded vision of Anglicanism, most of whom, but are not all, are distinguished by their use of the Anglican Missals and by their distinctively Tridentine theological outlook and piety; and (2) those adhering to a conservative, comprehensive vision of Anglicanism centered on the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion but otherwise tolerant of quite a bit of theological and liturgical latitude. Today, the predominant catholic jurisdictions are the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK), while the comprehensive jurisdictions are the Anglican Church in America (ACA) and the Anglican Province in America (APA).
Having stated that Divide We Stand, as its title suggests, leads the reader to a dichotomous view of the Continuing Anglican Movement, I must give Bess credit for not painting this division in overly stark terms. Indeed, as Bess correctly points out, the catholic jurisdictions, such as the ACC and APCK do, in fact, have parishes that do not use the Missals, and steer clear of Tridentine teaching and piety. On the other hand, Bess notes that the comprehensive jurisdictions are hardly the exclusive province of low-church parishes, but instead contain many fully Anglo-Catholic parishes, some of which, I would note, are replete with the Missal Mass, Marian Statuary, and frequent use of the Rosary. Thus, on the surface of things, the distinction between the two competing visions of Continuing Anglicanism might be viewed as merely involving differing centers of gravity in churchmanship, and Bess does not dispel this possibility in his text as far as I can tell.
Thus, I would not fault a reader of Divided We Stand for coming away with the impression that the difference between the catholic jurisdictions and the comprehensive jurisdictions is one of emphasis rather than substance–at least not enough substantive difference to justify continuing schism. But, this conclusion would be, in my opinion, incorrect. In the first place, as Bess’s narrative demonstrates, experience has shown that the catholic and comprehensive camps have generally been suspicious of and adversarial toward each other throughout the history of the Continuing Movement. Indeed, the conflict between the two visions of Continuing Anglicanism and the resulting political machinations that have occurred within the Movement is the very drama driving the main plot line of Divided We Stand. Thus, I cannot help but conclude that something more fundamental must keeping the division alive. And, what that something is, I believe, is, in a word, Calvinism.
Indeed, in the conservative, comprehensive vision of Anglicanism, Calvinists have been recognized as having a legitimate place at the Anglican table since the Glorious Revolution. Thus, for the comprehensives, Evangelical Churchmanship, often denominated as “low churchmanship” in contemporary parlance, which is perhaps most seminally expressed in W. H. Griffith Thomas or D.B. Knox’s expositions of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, deserves its share in the Continuing Anglican Movement. In contrast, for the ardently catholic-minded Anglicans, the Evangelical Party has always been a bridge too far. Indeed, for the catholic-minded Anglican, Missal Anglo-Catholics, Prayerbook Catholics, philOrthodox, Old High Churchman, and perhaps even Conservative Central Churchman can be tolerated under one big tent, but the “low” churchmanship of the Evangelicals cannot.
Thus, in my view, the real reason that the predominantly Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions such as the ACC and APCK will not seriously entertain union with a conservative comprehensive jurisdictions like the APA or the ACA, is that comprehensive formulations of Anglicanism are simply too tolerant of Calvinism or Reformed principles. Indeed, the existence of Evangelical expositions of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is precisely why the catholic jurisdiction have shied away from giving the Articles constitutional status. Moreover, it is also my opinion that, despite the prevalence of Tridentinism in the catholic jurisdictions, they do have a valid point. Whereas the differences in the exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles evinced by decidedly non-Tridentine works of such catholic-minded men as W. Beveridge, E.H. Browne, or E. J. Bicknell can theologically co-exist along side the Tridentine-friendly expositions of A. P. Forbes and Newman (Tract XC), on the ground that each merely express differing theological opinions about secondary aspects of the same underlying faith, once the Evangelical point of view is introduced, fundamentally inconsistent understandings of the very faith itself are being asked to cohere, which is logically intolerable. Indeed, atonement is either limited or it is not; grace is irresistible or its is not; men are predestined to death as well as life or they are not.
In sum, while much of Divide We Stand, leads me to believe that a great consolidation of the jurisdictions presently comprising Continuing Anglicanism is possible in the near future, I nevertheless believe that the irreducible minimum number of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions are two. This is so because a significant number of catholic-mined Anglicans, whether of a Tridentine, Missal Anglo-Catholic persuasion or not, will simply never agree to the comprehension of Calvinist or Reformed principles as a legitimate component of Continuing Anglicanism. Thus, a significant number of Continuing Anglicans are always going to hold hold against the supposed reasonableness of even the most conservative schemes of comprehensive Anglicanism and unification of the Continuing Movement into a single body will remain and elusive goal.
I only hope is that Mr. Bess continues on with his research to bring everyone up to date on where the CC are, and that unless there is a move of God among the mitres; it will be nothing more that a footnote in the history of Christianity in the West.
We see the lack of conviction to evangelize, face-to-face, whereas now the trendy thing is to “YouTube” or send out podcasts to reach the masses while we ignore our local communities with the Gospel. This maybe the state of Anglicanism today, but it is not what Cranmer had in mind with the communal order of the BCP in the everyday lives of local community.
Having read Bess’s book, and being a latecomer in life to Anglicanism, I come away with the thought of nothing more than pride, power and popery among the mitres today, and no burden of the Lord. How the mighty have fallen!
God, have mercy on us and raise up Godly bishops to cause us to weep before Heaven and reclaim this glorious heritage that had been entrusted to us in order that we might be used in your vineyard to save some!
Guess I need to put down the old classics and start learning how to upload our next service (maybe 8 in attendance) on YouTube to bless an elderly shut in or a few believers in India that might happen to come acroos our evangelistic podcast!
What a joke in the face of a eternal crisis!
This sounds like it should be an interesting read. I will have to buy a copy. It appears that I am somewhere between the two factions you describe.
As I was well on the playing field for most of the time that the Continuum was beginning, I found Bess’s book both dishonest and flawed. In a number of cases he simply gets his “facts’ wrong and in much else His bias distorts what might otherwise be honest reporting.
From my viewpoint the major problem of the Continuum from the beginning was that three of the first four bishops in the Chambers’ succession were never honestly Anglican. Rather, they were Anglo-papists who viewed all of the faults of the Church in the last fifty to one hundred years as being that of those who truly used the Book of Common Prayer in the manner intended. One of them quickly ‘poped’ and the other two began a rivalry which probably came close to destroying the Continuum before it got off the ground.
I would agree that one of the major problems in the Continuum as it was in Anglicanism from the days of Elizabeth I has been the Calvinist yearnings of a number of its clergy along with the expectations of some of the laity. But the major problem that the Calvinists share with the Anglo-Papists is an unwillingness to keep their ordination oaths as to the “doctrine, discipline and worship . . . of the Church” as expressed both in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and in the overall prayer book tradition from Elizabeth’s book of 1559. In that regard they both have a “low” view of the Church. They both too much want to do their own thing rather than what the Church and the prayer book requires. In a way, I think both do so from a position of a studied ignorance of Anglican history and theology. The cite the names of the great Anglican heroes and saints but most have never read their works or actively studied their lives.
I have come more and more to believe that the only way that the Church in the United States can regain the ground which we have lost is to return to an honest obedience of our Book of Common Prayer in terms of the prayer book tradition from the English prayer book of 1559. And, whether you call it “prayerbook Catholics, philOrthodox, Old High Churchmen or Old Central Churchmen,” churchmen of those stripes can work together without the blinders which both Anglo-Papist the extreme Calvinist minded low churchmen seem to have adopted about what the prayer book tradition either allows or rejects.
If you looks to the English Church in the early 20th century, giants of the Catholic side of the English Church such as The Right Reverends Charles Gore and Walter Howard Frere were both able to bridge the gap to sound “Evangelicals” while moving their dioceses and the Church as a whole to a more comprehensive Biblical and prayerbook Catholicism.
Mr. Poteet,
I agree that Tridentine Anglo-Catholics do not represent authentic Anglicanism, either in doctrine or worship. To my mind, they are more or less English Old Catholics. But, on the basis of the inter-communion agreement struck between Anglicanism and Old Catholicism in the 1920s, I believe that a mere Anglican can be in communion with an Anglo-Catholic.
In contrast, I question whether that is really possible between a mere Anglican and a Calvinist. In any case, I do not think Evangelical quasi-conformation to the BCP and 39 Articles is a sufficient basis for such communion any more. And, I think this feeling goes far in explaining that jurisdictional barriers in Continuing Anglicanism today.
Oops, Death, I forgot to say that this was an excellent and important post well worth everyone’s attention and careful consideration.
Hello Death,
I credit Bess for making some sense of the often confusing history and relations of the many Continuing jurisdictions which are often compared to ‘alphabet soup’. My only criticism of his book is not only has much changed since its last revision, but Bess gives too much latitude to Bp. Morse whereas +Doren comes off looking like a tool for southern phalanx. I think Bp. Doren was much more driven by scruple than Bess seems to grant.
IMO “catholic” just like “scripture” often creates more questions than answers. Often the difference between Puritans and Anglicans were their opinions with respect to which centuries were most reliable. Calvinists often narrowed catholic faith to three centuries or less while Anglicans often considered much more, including late and mid-patristics. A good example of this is how the Puritans vs. Carolines differed over the administration and ceremonies for the sacrament of the altar. Basically, Anglicans were willing to resource a greater stretch of the patristic period than other magisterial protestants, i.e., it was a more conservative reformation. For this, I believe, we can thank the Crown.
Bishop Lee is right to note how RCism and Calvinism are really two sides of the same coin, especially with respect to the history of prayer book non-conformity. Hooker, of course, makes the same stab, and this probably why his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity are so brilliant, killing two birds w/ one stone.
My own encounters with Reformed somewhat verify +Poteet’s point. The criticisms of Anglican standards by so-called anglo-reformed vs. anglo-papists are basically the same. The Calvinists, of course, claim the 39 articles and prayer book are only half-reformed. Meanwhile, anglo-papists believe England’s standards are likewise deficient, taking in part Roman belief yet departing in essential ways from the fullness of Peter’s See. To remedy both High Church Anglicans use to confidently believe subscription to three articles was enough to bar these extremes, the standards being both 1) genuinely catholic; 2) abiding perfectly with the rule of scripture. When you study Rome, we discover the Papacy is anything but catholic. When you study Geneva, we discover the Calvinists are anything but ‘scriptural’. Puritan RPWism a case in point.
To think otherwise seems to suggest the Church of England and Tudor/Stuart thrones were really wrong from the get-go, and this is pretty much the position the ACC takes per their 1995 Athens Statement and 1979 C&C. I personally believe the safest route to get around pet divines or troublemakers like Griffith, Newman, et al., is to treat the Church of England as truly chapel of the Crown, i.e., the King’s faith, and then rank documents belonging to the 16th and 17th centuries accordingly, namely, by their possession of royal seal together with convocation, thus measuring their appointed status. I think you will find that sufficient to exclude the calvinists. But this is something Anglicans often can’t wrap their mind around, frequently equating the Crown to a bare parliament or the modern state, etc… This is a huge mistake because it ignores the quasi-episcopal character of the King. Anyway, I believe unless we have high regard to standards, ‘catholic’ and ‘scripture’ are both pitfalls since each demand a fair amount of interpretation.
Setting aside the problem of royal authority, some how I do not think subscription to the Three Articles would be a sufficient basis for excluding extremes precisely because the Reformed interpretations of the Articles and the BCP were codified long after the Three Articles. In sum, clergy claiming to be formulary Anglicans can be just about anywhere on the map theologically and liturgically.
In sum, it seems to me to be quite difficult to come up with a simple formula that stands for strict adherence to the BCP and a non-revisionist reading of the Articles, unless we just add a qualifying statement that when we say that the Anglican formularies are the BCP, the Ordinal, and the Articles, we mean to exclude revisionist spins of each. But that again just changes the debate to what constitutes a revisionism, which is what Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals have historically done when pressed on the formularies.
Perhaps Mr. Poteet is correct that the best way forward is simply to pray the BCP with stricter compliance to its rubrics. Indeed, if all who profess Anglicanism actually allowed themselves to be formed each and every day by the BCP intself–rather than trying to evade its provisions by quasi-conformity–then I suspect all doctrinal wandering toward Rome and Geneva might well cease more or less automatically.
Hence, anglicans need to clarify their ‘catholicism’ against calvinism’s alleged sort as well as Rome’s kind… and so clergy use to subscribe:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/three_articles.htm
And, it wasn’t the standards that failed but the enforcement of them. Laud was otherwise known as a “disciplinarian”, and he was indeed a very good catholic.
Charles: I suppose today one would be hard pressed to find a Church of England parish using a Book of Common Prayer.
Hello Fr. Coady,
I suppose the standards are a dead letter. Fr. Wells sort of admitted this with respect to the Articles, for example, in the Intro of his Layman’s Guide. All that can be said is if the standards are not definitive of England’s religion, properly summing catholic and biblical faith, then something else must fill the void. My opinion is if we reject Anglicanism’s historical definition of itself– how it knows five or six centuries of the ancient church– then we might stop wasting time and return to Rome or cross the Bosporous.
The Church of England might have ended up ‘reformed’ in the Calvinistic sense if it were not for Tudor and Stuart royals who had catholic and non-radical sensibilities. For the most part they were good Kings, and we were blessed to have them to steer us through the troubles of the Reformation/counter-reformation. Their wisdom obstructed and mitigated many unnecessary revisions.
However, we might disagree about when this ‘orthodox’ period indeed came to an end. I’ve always identified its demise with the fall of the old Tory party, but factors are probably more complicated. I believe AB Robinson has suggested the mid-1700′s. I’m inclined to identify the 1830′s while others have claimed the late 1800′s.
Regardless, I think we all agree that the Crown and Archbishops in England have since then effectively abducted their cures. What to do? Read the erastian order outlined in the Litany: King, seed, privy, bishops, magistrates, and last the faithful. We’ve kind of burnt through the first three or four. But I’d say our appeal is far from exhausted as we still have a few orthodox bishops, dioceses, and parishes that enjoy the older conformity.
In this respect, I appreciate Keble’s sermon (On the Case for the 39 articles) and Newman’s Appeal to the Faithful. Both discuss how orthodoxy on the brink of desuetude can be reversed and who to make an appeal when historical authorities are otherwise apostate.
Yet, until a better day arrives, let’s at least preserve an honor for the old order, making our own homes and lives examples of conformity, much as Nicholas Ferrar did at Little Gidding with his family during the Interrum. I believe he, like many Anglicans, continued cherishing the royal regalia, kept the daily offices and psalter, despite parliamentary supremacy and raging Puritans about. Can we do the same?
Just as the first celebration of the Holy Communion service in full accordance with the rubrics of the books of 1559 and 1662 had to be done at the instigation of the laity, I believe it very likely that a return to the primitive Catholicism of the Church of the first five centuries must also come about at the insistence of an informed laity a few learned and devout deacons and priests with the courage of the Reverends Nicholas Ferrar and John Mason Neale as well as the founders of the Alcuin Club and the Anglican Society. The latter have now fallen victim to the modernists but the men who first moved them were giants.
For the last ten days I have been searching for a quote from reading long past to the effect that where the daily office is not said publicly, the Church does not exist save as a mission or assembly that dissolves with the final “Amen.” It seems to me that the successful restoration of the monarchy and the Church in 1660 was only made possible by the generation of young gentlemen who were raised and tutored privately in the classics and in family celebrations of daily Morning and Evening Prayer as the parish churches had been usurped by either Calvinist or congregational preachers much as many Anglican parish churches in Virginia were taken over by Baptists because they were no longer supported by state subsidy through the tobacco taxes. That was what happened to the parish closest to Mount Vernon making regular church attendance very difficult for the General and later president.
If we wish to see a true revival of classic prayer book Anglicanism I think that we have to realize that it is going to fall to our lot to provide it. That means that we must first define in the most precise terms possible exactly what we mean by the same. For me it brings it back to what the prayer book in its last orthodox version in our own particular country requires and push for that by first incorporating that rule into our own lives as Christians. In doing so we will be placing ourselves in the company of such great Anglicans as Lancelot Andrewes, John Cosin, and Nicholas Ferrar as well as countless others who simply did it in their own parishes because that was what they had promised to do – all other considerations aside, they kept their promised word, their vows to God and His Church. Can or should we do any less.
For the clergy in the Continuum this may seem exceedingly hard because so many have to earn their own livings (even as St Paul) because their parishes are too small and too poor to support them. Also, many may not have a place where they and such of their parishioners as would be willing and able to join them on week days 8ut chapels have been made of unused rooms or garages and I know of one English bishop, a suffragan, who built the equivalent of a garden shed in his back yard large enough to accommodate a small altar, a lectern and enough space for a small congregation because he had no parish church or chapel which he could use for the recitation of the office and week day celebrations of the Eucharist.
More later
In 1977 many brave Anglican souls stood against the ascendency of innovations of Liberal Theology in the Church. Now it is indeed time for some brave Anglican souls to stand for a revival of Restoration Anglicanism. And, yes, it begins with the Book of Common Prayer — Matins, Litany, and Evensong — wherever and however possible.
And while ‘said’ will do if that is all that is possible, we should take direction from Holy Scripture and as quickly as possible move to ‘sung,’ It may be necessary to begin with no more that the opening dialogue, the Apostles’ Creed and the Our Father being sung in monotone with the celebrant singing the the three collects, but a return to the sung office because of what it does inside us is a necessity. The Litany is easy to sing once it has been learned and very gradually the canticles, the psalms and the lessons can be added to it according to the rubric of Elizabeth’s book of 1559.
As Christians we should be addicted to song as the Muslims are terrified of music which means that any one beginning to aid in this work will need not only prayer books and a good copy of the Authorized Version of 1611, but also copies of The Sarum Psalter and Briggs and Frere’s The Manual of Plainsong.
I highly recommend that all musically inclined Anglicans search ABE for a copy of Briggs and Frere’s Manual of Plainsong. Having participated in the Office chanted to Briggs and Frere every day while in seminary, I can attest that even a plainsong makes a big difference. And nothing beats a choral evensong!
Also, my website has a link to the Cradle of Prayer, which is worth checking out.
I am extremely pleased that some portion of my efforts have received a ‘second’ Death Bredon. But while Choral Evensong is so wonderful that a Roman contributor to The New Liturgical Movement blog admitted they he had become all but addited to it what studying theology in England, a completely choral Mattins after which the Litany is sung in procession following the third collect actually beats it hands down. But this is not a battle between the morning and the evening office, but a liturgical, theological and ascetical blow against both modern and ancient gnosticism.
Hello Death and Bp. Lee,
I think this worry about Geneva taking over Anglicanism is a red herring. You are talking about a half-dozen gadflys on the internet that are no longer churched as Anglicans but worship either at Baptist and Presbyterian churches. Why you give them heed or paint them into a Godzilla is beyond me. It’s really a strawman.
That said, I’m sure you see today’s dominance of neo-anglicanism as belonging to the legacy or same genealogy as Calvinism. But I don’t see how this relevant to your thesis regarding low church. For instance, North American (ACNA#2) Anglicanism is not dominated by Genevan calvinism in any way, but it’s typified instead by neo-Evangelicism, aka., charismatic ‘three streams’. Consequently, the rise of neo-evangelicism probably has a closer historical genesis to liberal catholicism of the late 19th century rather than Calvinism per se, continuing that shibboleth introduced by Gore and later Temple of ‘creedal-onlyism’ or “mere Christianity”, defining Anglicanism in terms of minimal doctrinal unity and dodging what otherwise required ex animo subscription to more specific and historic Anglican Settlement standards. Neo-evangelicals are thus hardly like confessional puritans in their theology or method. Rather they are much closer to EO mystics than western scholastics, and while you might be quick to identify their lack of prayer book conformity with the old pattern of puritan conventicles, this could equally be said of so-called anglo-catholics and their history of ritualist recusancy within the church, breaking from Anglican orthodoxy for want of quixotic sacramentalism that pretend realism in icons, candles, oils, palms, salts, relics, etc…
It seems better to remain consistent in terminology. If we’re talking of “low church”, then charting a history of ecclesiastical disorder that implicates both Romanism and Puritanism, outlining such into 18th century by way of methodism, and, then, the 19th/20th century with the rise of anglo-catholicism, not only Newman but also ecumenicalists like Bicknell, would make sense. This genealogy would thus connect and expose a secret unity between, say, both ACC uber-catholics and ACNA neo-evangelicals today since neither ‘party’ live by old standards that a high churchman would normally identify with or respect, preferring instead the liberal catholic critique that despises royal seal and the consequent Settlement while being very dogmatic about a free church, and therefore intellectually tossing ‘ex animo’ in choir with the hosts of earlier dissent.
Rather, the original high church was identified by its conformity, even rigidity, to standards. Those who departed, whether of a recusant mind or of sectarian sort, were categorially ‘low church’, and so the definition goes beyond calvinism to implicate anglo-catholicism as well. To redefine ‘high church’ as merely conformity to prayer book while leaving open or detaching the 39 articles/homilies and other doctrinal standards which together constitute a ‘system’ of theology that articulates or contextualizes the “five centuries” of Andrewes and other orthodox divines, is very partial and therefore a falsification of the high church position. Also, to make calvinism a culprit while equivocating over Missal use is to side with one side of disorder while making the other a scapegoat. I suggest both parties are two sides of the same coin, and therefore compose a false opposition that can only be escaped by ‘ex animo’ which is the common enemy and therefore true polarity apart from this false dialectic. I thus agree w/ Bp. Poteet in so far as he wishes a greater loyalty to BCP. But this must also extend to 39 and the appointed/royal standards that support and prop up BCP-use, i.e., homilies, and canons, marked by their approval from the throne. If Rome has the rock of peter, Anglicans have at least the rock of Jacob-Israel to which Peter was the “little one”.
Furthermore, high church Anglicanism only begins with BCP, 39, and Supremacy acts as definitive of English reformed catholicism. The fact neo-Anglicans, both Anglo-catholic and neo-evangelical, largely reject supremacy today has less to do with the actual circumstances of the American revolution than with a perceived opportunity to remake Anglicanism either in the image of Rome or as a vaguely evangelical-muhlenburg fellowship. Moreover, the rule of analogy does not stop with the three Articles, but they are further and naturally reinforced by the two books of Homilies, royal primers, the collated works of Bp. Jewel given for the churhces, the Bishop’s and Great bible prefaces, official occasional services (e.g., the rite of purification for women), previous prayer books, royal injunctions defining the Settlement, and longer catechisms (especially the henrician). These add a context that is explicit with respect to what the Andrewes formula suggests, sealing up so-called problems of interpretation or vincentian canon. But to suggest the Settlement was somehow incomplete or insufficient, needing Missals or a St. Tikhon’s liturgy to make sense of it, is really to repeat what “low churchmen” have propagated all along, either by way of calvinism or by more elusive liberal catholics like Gore, Moss, and Bicknell. Again, they are all low church/false opposites.
Furthermore, the calvinist accusation is the same as the Romanist, namely, the Settlement failed or the 39 is, half-baked, political compromise, etc.. Ironically, it is a charge heard from both the numerical insignificant and therefore laughable ‘anglo-reformed’ as well as the insane xenophobicism common amongst ACC bishops. You will find, when you press authentic royal theology and very history of Anglicanism, that both “low church” calvinists and anglo-catholics end up doing two things: 1. they hate the Crown, want a free church, and reject the royal standards, so typical of radicalism/recusancy. 2. they make a desperate appeal to WCF or EO oby way of irrelevant letters exchanged by a small sector of english nobility during Edward for the swiss reformation, or they might point to non-jurors dialogues in Scotland, rejected as too ‘protestant’ by the Greek church. This is all very tentative and proves nothing because not even Lambeth articles, or the non-juror book of 1734, nor any petition or act of the puritanical parliaments of 1580′s, nor even Deacon’s non-juroring catechism, etc. received the royal seal. These are utterly irrelevant arguments and have little to do with high church Anglicanism.
Finally, you find, just as Whitgift and Bancroft well-knew, ex animo declarations are something both sectarian and recusant flee fast from. They hate the term ‘ex animo’, and they always want to water down the language due to imagined ‘catholic’ or ‘protestant’ consensus. Meanwhile Elizabeth I solved the puritan and Roman problem not by tossing aside subscription, but by shrewdly promoting high churchmen as Ordinaries through her church, of which James I benefited greatly, laying the foundation for the Caroline revival so many recusants misuse and abuse. All the while the Jacobean dogmatically asserted the divine right of both epsicopacy and Crown together. And, wherever you press these points– giving the prevailing vector to the royal chapel, the crown’s seal, the conferences approved by the King, and the high church bishops– puritan and romanizers will invoke the same defense– political compromise, a unfinished, mixed confession, etc.. So, alleging a difference between a Missal user and WCF confider basically masks their true unity and is a cover for further low churchmanship.
So, I don’t know why people run away from royal seal when it is in their best interest in proving not only the genuine catholicism of England but also its staunch, war-mode of polemics against puritanism by which James I and the Savoy bishops were able to easily dismiss lowchurchmen like Baxter and Reynolds. Furthermore, there is an abundance of official doctrinal statements that easily exclude calvinism and romanism simultaneously, agreeing most profusely with Hooker. These are not solved by increasing ambiguities of “five centuries” with no further elaboration, but accomplished by positive doctrine.
The fact Romanizers and Puritans might partially use these documents to cloak their disorder does not make the appointed texts defective. What is defective is the fact the enforcement of such has been suspended and made lax for several generations if not more than a hundred years! Again, Laud was called a ‘disciplinarian’ for a good reason, he enforced the King’s religion, and that did not make him popular.While Puritans persecuted the Crown with pike, we should not forget the Jesuit did the same with powder and poison– Both rejected supremacy, but this was not because they were against ‘politics’ but wanted a new supremacy yet under a foreign jurisdiction. Today we face the same with WRO and Ordinariate types.
I can only assume those who reject the Crown in the church– or the memory of such by way of appointed texts, royal rubric, and a conforming spirit– really want another basis for Anglican theology other than what has been laid down by the three articles, of which follows the homilies, primers, canons, and catechisms as proper elaborations of Andrewes if not Henry’s formula. It’s really a body of theology that is rather complete and sufficient to exclude the disorders described above since it successfully contended against the dissembling forces for more than two centuries, proving quite stalwart compared to the tolerance of pseudo-catholics who promote ‘mere christianity’. We should remember CS Lewis himself converted to a foreign church, so had every interest to water the ancient british one down.
Lastly, if we talk about BCP conformity alongside catholic tradition, certainly the 1928 is light years better than the 79. That said, it’d be nice to know if we’re indeed talking about BCP conformity by the 1928 or 1662? The 1928 was part of a larger break-down in Settlement doctrine introduced by the collusion of modernists and liberal catholics. After comparing the 28 to 62, I’d be willing to contend Cosin’s ’62 is closer to the 1549 than the 1928! There are alarming departures from both the 1549 & 1662′s which the 1928 takes, especially in holy matrimony, the litany, and baptism that open distinct doors to WO. For example, the 1928 introduces equal vows plus omit the rubric which restrains the wife from the baptism of a child until purification. There are also curious deletions of “elect” and downplay of Adam’s fall compared to both the 1549 and 1662 which use less ambiguous, even ‘harsher’ language. I believe the 1928 proved to foster and provide that foothold for what we might pretend to oppose– the emancipation of women and that larger culture of equality which has spread throughout the church upon which the 79 would did profit. It’s not like these things just started in the 1970′s! We would have done better to have kept the 1892, imo. And, I think a defense of the 1892 if not the 1662 is much more appropriate for to the old high church position given the 28 was a more liberal catholic project and not true recovery of the 1549, of which, the 1662 remains closer.
But these are all sticky points that are better left for resolution at a later date. Bringing on the brunt of troubles which besiege us, all at once, would obstruct short term work on more immediate problems. I know many probably dislike the idea of a confessional/confessing Anglicanism, but this is the byproduct of Gore/Temple that would redefine everything upon a nearly pantheistic incarnation, not classical, ‘ex animo’ anglicanism.
Charles, what do you mean by the following comment:
“If Rome has the rock of peter, Anglicans have at least the rock of Jacob-Israel to which Peter was the ‘little one’.”?
And when did C.S Lewis convert to a ‘foreign church’? (I was unaware of this). Thanks
DT
hello DT,
You probably zeroed in on the weaker parts of my argument. Much like Charles II, C.S. Lewis allegedly requested Roman Catholic last rites. My point about “mere christianity”, however, was its replacement of Settlement standards for a loose ecumenicalism based broadly upon the Creed, evaporating the provincial in universal.
Regarding the ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ rocks of Jacob vs Peter, that was a bit rhetorical. The British Crown, by way of Norman and Saxon inheritance(s), is coroneted upon the Stone of Scone which, according to ancient legend, is the rock of Jacob-Israel. Thus, if the Pope can claim secular powers over every provincial church and secular authority, what ecclesiastical claims can the English Crown make over all Israel (Christendom) as the line of Judah? The Anglican church, in so far as legends and oral tradition goes, has as right to primacy as Rome, and in 1841 she came very close to making these claims concrete as the great minister of all northern catholicism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Union_(Evangelical_Christian_Church)#Foreign_Commitment_of_the_Church. However, the Tractarians, namely Newman, sabotaged this. Also, note the earlier claims for a Jerusalem-Anglican primacy by non-jurors: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/langford1.html
Now, what would happen if Anglicans actually managed to restore their Church order? I think things would turn around very quickly, and Rome would be forced to abandon presumptuous claims.
Hi Death or Kevin, could you delete my 3:11 on March31 comment? thanks.
I think I was successful.
It would be interesting to do an update on this – with the charismatic renewal in the Episcopal Church that occurred in both evangelical and Anglo Catholic parishes and dioceses, this brought another dimension of both diversity and friction into the mix into the more conservative wings of the Episcopal Church. We can see that there would be discomfort between charismatic Episcopalians and reformed Episcopalians – a division that has carried into the ACNA today when the charismatic AMiA finally decided not to join the ACNA which is filled with reformed Anglicans.
We also have the explosion of the Alpha Course which appeals to the Wesleyan and open evangelicals (as they are called in England) who also experience tension with the reformed or calvinist Episcopalians. We’ve seen that explode lately with the controversery over Rob Bell.
The unity that we had at General Convention 2000 between the traditionalist Anglo Catholics, the reformed and Wesley evangelicals, the charismatics and the open evangelicals (i.e., politically liberal, theologically conservative) and others was nothing short of a miracle. Now that the point that appeared to unify has lessened, we are now more apt to turn back to our old ways of finger pointing.
How do we do things different – well, first we learn from the past as we can see that there have been so many “continuing Anglican movements” in the past all ready and they continue to be small little sects. The only one that did break off that turned became a bigger organization were the Methodists early on (can you think of any others?). In some quarters, there are conversations going on between the Anglicans and the Methodists for a reunion which could be very interesting. Also, the Alpha Course seems to be building bridges between different groups that we’ve not seen before – yes, even with our friends the Baptists and the Roman Catholics and what do we make of that?
At the end of the day, it seems the most powerful thing that can build bridges instead of burn them is building relationships with each other – so we are not merely seen as a particular tag, as interesting as that may be sometimes, but as a real friend. It doesn’t take a lot of them – it just takes commitment to the ones we all ready have.
And how do we strengthen those friendships – well, the first thing that comes to mind is yes, prayer. This weekend my parish is doing a 24 Hour prayer event and it’s being led by the young adults in the parish. They are very very serious about it and it will be interesting to see what happens – it seems often that when we go to prayer, the first thing that comes up is repentance, and not of “the other person” (not pointing the finger at Rob Bell for example) but our own.
bb
As a matter of passing interest here, I am a Western Rite Orthodox Priest. We have increasing defections from the much-divided Continuing movement. At my church and all those under my oversight, the Sunday service consists of Mattins (the John Cosin version) followed either by the Litany of the Holy Trinity or the Great Litany, followed by the Divine Liturgy (the “English Liturgy” largely 1549). I notice that Roman Catholic converts fall in very happily with this.
Hello Fr. Michael, I really wish the best for WRO. My hope is that WRO alongside the Ordinariate will ironically help Anglicans correct their own disciplinary problems by providing a home for those who are already Orthodox or Roman in theology. I’ve noticed quite a few new Antiochian WRO parishes, one of which is Fr. Gleason’s, who is oddly enough is an editor of NAAJ. http://www.39articles.com/ His co-editor is Fr. Chori Seraiah who is bound to the Ordinariate. Is this really the future of North American Anglicanism? Or, is it more an indicator of CANA and TAC?
I’ve been away for quite a while. Computer was sick; then I was sick. I have been writing to Charles, though.
One. During the Commonwealth, Anglicans in exile in France, with no access to Anglican worship, were advised by the bishops to worship with the Huguenots rather than with the RCs.
Two. Many years ago, Fraser Barron did a BCP directory of parishes in England. One thing I noted was that, at the time, the Chapels Royal all used the BCP. One might check with the PBS in London about this being still the case. Yes, there used to be decent music. Also, one might check about The Temple Church. Dr Thalben-Ball was organist-choirmaster there for years. Very insistent upon good music, he was. Later knighted, I hear. Gone now.
In +, Benton