'The "glorious clamour," as Maria Giberne called it, that broke over Tract 90 forced Keble to recognize that the rift in the Anglican Church between those who read the articles in a Protestant and those who read them in a Catholic light could not widen indefinitely. Sooner or later, Anglicans would have to decide whether they wished to subscribe to a Protestant or to a 'catholic' church, and if they chose the latter, they would have to decide whether the English Church truly met the criterion for catholicity. This was the crisis of Tractarianism.' (p. 39)Today we could say,
'The current controversies in the Communion are forcing people (or should be forcing those who think all is well) to recognize that the rift in the Anglican Communion between those who understand Anglicanism in a conservative and those who understand it in a progressive light cannot widen indefinitely. Sooner or later, Anglicans will have to decide whether they wish to subscribe to a Covenanted Communion or not, and if they choose the latter, they will have to decide whether an unCovenanted Communion truly meets the criterion for catholicity. This is the Communion's crisis.'
7 comments:
Why are the choices limited to Covenanted or not-Covenanted? Are there no other possibilities?
Talking about books: Bryden Black mentioned one recently. It's titled, "Reason and the Reasons of Faith". My copy arrived a few days ago. So far I've read the Introduction and the first essay (by Alan J. Torrance). Excellent stuff! Before you got to any more huis on contentious subjects (or whatever you kiwis call such confabs) you should read Torrance's essay at least.
Hi Peter,
I understand you're trying to draw historical parallels to the Tractarian debates, but do you think our current crisis is about how we understand Anglicanism? I would argue that the root cause of the crisis is Scriptural authority and interpretation. We can't continue to exist together in a Communion where some understand Scripture as the final authority on faith and conduct, while others treat it as an authority that must be re-interpreted as society's values change.
Not trying to split hairs, but I think we need to be clear that our crisis is deeper than Anglican identity and goes to the fundamentals of Christian faith.
David: I cannot think of a third possibility. Can you?
Janice: Good advice!
Andrew: Well, yes, it could be described in that way; but there is still a range of view in the Communion around how Scripture is understood, and what authority it is understood to have, to say nothing of a range of interpretations on certain matters. In that sense at least there is a parallel re diversity today and diversity in Keble's day and this a question of the limit of diversity.
Good on you Janice! And if you found Alan T good, just continue to read; there's even more delicious and important fare to come!
Well, Br. David, I think that there is a third possibility: sign the Covenant and then ignore it. Perhaps this is what Mexico and some other countries have done?
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
"We can't continue to exist together in a Communion where some understand Scripture as the final authority on faith and conduct, while others treat it as an authority that must be re-interpreted as society's values change." - Andrew Reid -
Surely what ought to be at issue here is not whether Scripture can be interpreted 'in the light of society's progressive values', but rather, whether the Scriptures are only to be interpreted in the past understanding of how society works.
(e.g. the value of women & slaves)
One of the most important tasks of Jesus, for which he was put to death, was to offer a radical re-interpretation of the Scriptures for his own day - in a way that scandalized the Scribes and Pharisees with tunnel vision.
'Semper Reformanda!'.
Post a Comment