With respect to Archbishop Duncan's toothache I think we can by-pass it as the main news out of Day One of GAFCON 2. On the other hand, reading here there is not much news from Day One worthy of ADU's expert panel (of one) analysis. (But do note the photo, critics of GAFCON, of a woman clergyperson).
So, back to yesterday's theme of Anglican revisionism.
Rightly correspondents to yesterday's post have queried my reflections. How can Anglicans keep revising if there are not queries to drive further revision!
Two issues, at least, are worth comment. One concerns substance and style. Are Anglicans free to revise the latter but not the former? Have Anglicans revised the former as well as the latter? Another concerns a possible distinction between revision and reform. Is reform the process we engage in when we refind and reformulate the unchanging truth of our faith (e.g. because we have lost sight of the truth, or because we recognise a need to restate the truth in contemporary language)? Is revision the process we engage in when we intentionally change what we say we believe in, that is deny the unchanging truth of our faith by, in fact, changing it?
I suggest that we need careful discussion as to what is substance and what is style. It could be that the distinction is clearer for some Anglicans than it is for other Anglicans.
I take it that every commenter here, if not every reader would agree to the substance/style distinction in the following propositions: Anglican believe, with the Great Creeds, that God is Trinity; Anglicans are indifferent to whether a chasuble is worn by the presiding priest at communion. Hopefully we also agree which of the two statements concerns substance and which concerns style!
I also take it that every commenter here, if not every reader would agree that the following is a proposition about the substance of our faith as Anglican Christians: the vows made in a marriage service are for life since marriage is a permanent contract only intended to be ended when one party to the marriage dies.
But would we all agree with the following propositions?
A. Anglican doctrine of marriage is fundamental to Anglican theological commitments, that is, it is as substantial a matter as (say) the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of salvation (even though it is not referred to in either the Great Creeds or in the 39 Articles).
B. It is a change in the substance of the doctrine of marriage when Anglicans permit the remarriage of a divorcee except where the previous marriage has broken down because of adultery.
That is, Anglicans can agree on matters of substance but may disagree on which matters are substantial or may disagree on the degree of substantiality of a substantial matter.
We could multiply examples of potential rocks upon which the good ship Substance Distinguished From Style may founder.
If an Anglican priest refuses to baptise infants (because theologically unable to baptise infants of believing parents), is the priest guilty of infraction of substance or of style (or of both)?
If an Anglican priest encourages presidency at communion by laypersons, has a matter of Anglican substance or Anglican style been denied?
When an Anglican such as John Newman admits the claims of Rome upon his ministry, has he changed his mind on a matter of substance or on a matter of style? If on substance, what doctrine has changed for him? Is it, say, salvation? Episcopacy? Both? Something else? If concerning both salvation and episcopacy, are each of the same substantial status?
In other words, I and many Anglicans easily recognise the distinction between substance and style for a number of instances in Anglican life but I (at least) do not so easily recognise that distinction in other instances.
Thus I am less than clear whether, say, a distinction between 'revision' and 'reform' holds up when we work out how we handle the remarriage of divorcees. Have we made a revision to our doctrine of marriage or reformed it? If we determine that the doctrine of marriage is 'up there' with the Trinity, exemplified, say, by a willingness to enter into schism if the doctrine is changed (e.g. by allowing that marriage might involve two people of the same sex) have we revised or reformed the status of the doctrine of marriage within the panoply of Anglican doctrines?
Would an Anglican priest, driven by theological reflection to refuse to baptise infants, or to permit lay presidency, or to recognise the claims to primacy of the Bishop of Rome be involved in reform or revision in understanding of Anglican doctrine?
And, just to have a little kicker re GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration: are Kiwi priests who sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration (i.e. to accepting the conclusions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, including the Nicean Canons which specify one bishop per geographical area) and who remain under the authority of our General Synod (which permits more than one bishop per geographical area) guilty of a sin of inconsistency in style or substance? Do they and I belong to a church which has reformed or revised its understanding of episcopacy?
"And, just to have a little kicker re GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration: are Kiwi priests who sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration (i.e. to accepting the conclusions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, including the Nicean Canons which specify one bishop per geographical area) and who remain under the authority of our General Synod (which permits more than one bishop per geographical area) guilty of a sin of inconsistency in style or substance?"
ReplyDeleteNice. LOL ;-)
You are assuming, of course Peter, that JD's (unspecified) "four" councils includes Nicaea...
Next you'll be suggesting that there might be a sin of inconsistency if they don't use the formularies (church services) that they vow and sign up to use...
Blessings
Bosco
Yes, Bosco, I think on any reckoning that Council is one of the four!
ReplyDeleteNo, I will not be suggesting that inconsistency any time soon re formularies. You see there is this knowledgeable bloke over at Liturgy.co.nz who keeps telling me our formularies includes bits and bobs of such flexibility that no one in our church could ever be brought to an ecclesiastical tribunal on a charge of inconsistency :)
"Thus I am less than clear whether, say, a distinction between 'revision' and 'reform' holds up when we work out how we handle the remarriage of divorcees. Have we made a revision to our doctrine of marriage or reformed it?" - Dr. Peter Carrell
ReplyDeleteLots of issues to consider here, Peter. But taking just one of them - based on your statement here mentioned - this might be a very good question to put to another Christian Tradition (Roman Catholic).
Considering Pope Francis' reported intention to change the R.C. mode of pastoral care of re-married divorcees, this might help you to come to some conclusion of your own - on what you think might be the
'proper' Anglican view.
Now; will that be a change in doctrine or style, do you think?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI suggest that we need careful discussion as to what is substance and what is style. It could be that the distinction is clearer for some Anglicans than it is for other Anglicans.
This is a very important as for example there have been many voices of criticism aimed at Sydney Diocese and have accused them of not being Anglican. From their criticism is appears that opponents are using high church forms with revisionist theology as the norm/template. So they have conflated both substance and form.
Anglicans can agree on matters of substance but may disagree on which matters are substantial or may disagree on the degree of substantiality of a substantial matter
Someone once said to me many years ago when I was 1st year at Bible college, " Keep the main thing the main thing". The main thing being the 'non-negotiables' of the Christian faith, which are affirmed very clearly in the BCP, the Ordinal, and the 39 Articles.
Here are three reason Peter why I think there is confusion:
1. When laity are poorly taught about the main thing so form and substance are either conflated or reversed. So we end up with parishes that are 'solid in form and liquid in substance'. Of course they don't see it this way. For example in my curacy, I served in a parish that was not Reformed and for them to have a service where there was no Eucharist, for me to wear chasuble, surplice and preaching scarf rather than alb, stole and chasuble would be deemed to be not Anglican. In my view they have conflated the two. (For the record, although I prefer to wear the former, it was not an issue, I was (and still am) happy to wear the latter it this is the culture of the parish. For me it is a second order issue.
2.Revisionists abandon the non-negotiables by either outright denial, (rare) or by obfuscation and relegating them to adiaphora. (I could say more on this, but I would be repeating myself I think)
3. Being Reactionary!
One of the problems I have observed (and in my self I must be quick to add) is how reactionary we can all be. For example I am sure there would be Evangelical clergy who would think I am high church, or have high church proclivities because I prefer to wear clerical garb, love candles, love liturgy. To me these are forms, not substance. Yet I remember when during my curacy I was having a wee whinge to another Anglican priest who was not a Reformed Anglican about how I don't like the candles being burnt right down to the candle stick and like the decanters being full. He was genuinely (though pleasantly) shocked saying " Josh, you are Reformed! I am really surprised to hear you say these things".
You see, he assumed that as a Reformed Anglican, I would be adverse to candles, having Eucharist weekly, etc.
Must go, off to a meeting.
If Francis swings a change re divorce in the RC church then I think that will be substantial, Ron.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Joshua we can distinguish between confusion which ought not to happen and confusion which is understandable!
ReplyDeleteOne matter I do not think you quite cover, and which may ['may' is stressed] pertain to the criticism the Sydney Diocese receives is the form is part of what distinguishes Anglicans from non-Anglicans. If the 'form' of what I do as an Anglican is not distinguishable from (say) the form of Baptist worship and ministry or of Roman Catholic ministry, then have I remained Anglican?
After all, on a lot of substantial matters Presbyterians, Baptists, Romans and Anglicans are 'just Christians': we all say the creeds and so forth. So it is not unreasonable for elements of form to be points of distinction between Anglicans and non-Anglicans.
However the peculiarity of Anglicanism over the centuries has been its ability to absorb many different forms. Thus there are very few forms, one might even argue that there are none at all, which make an Anglican 'unAnglican'!
Peter,
ReplyDeleteRe your first paragraph. I hear you. One of the weaknesses I have seen in Sydney Diocese (though I do believe there has been a big shift back thanks to men like Rev Michael Jensen) is that in praxis of what I call 'generic evangelicalism' (GA). With GA you have churches that in terms of the forms are pretty much the same, regardless of whether the church is baptist, presbyterian or Anglican. This in my view is a very sad thing. I believe that Evangelicalism transcends denominations (as it should) but this does not abrogate the characteristics that distinguish one denomination from another.
I believe that our liturgy is one the crown jewels of Anglicanism, so dropping it, or adopting an Anglican-lite I think is to lose something very special.
I think also the Gen X penchant for minimalising church membership, informality and denominational loyalty have contributed to this as well as our cultures rampant consumerism (which sadly affects God's people just like everyone else).
Though as I said, from what I have heard and read from Sydney diocese, there does seem to be a Gen X shift back towards the Prayer Book, liturgy etc.
Do they and I belong to a church which has reformed or revised its understanding of episcopacy?
ReplyDeleteOf course we do Peter, two words make that perfectly clear : Three Tikanga. Two bishops sharing episcopal oversight oft he same geographical location hardly has its beginnings in the FCA.
From GAFCON
I don't think you understand the real situation here, Zane. In our ACANZP Church the 2 Tikanga Bishops are all 'In Communion with one another. They share a joint ministry - not like the usurpers in North America.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI'll just comment on the revision/reform part of your article, since it was my comment that sparked it :)
In terms of baptism of infants, lay presidency and episcopacy, we are dealing with items not explicitly dealt with by Scripture. This is neither revision nor reform, but applying Biblical principles (with assistance of tradition and reason) the best we can to our current situation, and such practices should be held lightly.
With primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that means there is a pretty fundamental revision of your ecclesiology, and you are no longer able to keep your ordination vows (submission to your local bishop, not the Roman one).
What we've done with re-marriage of divorcees is allowed a pastoral exception to become the norm. Our official doctrine has not been revised - marriage is for life. The intent of the bishop's permission was to allow people who had been victims of particular circumstances - e.g. adultery by their partner, abandonment, divorce before becoming a believer - to be able to re-marry. It has turned into a rubber stamp for all divorcees rather than following the intent. This is revision by the back door.
There is another category of change - adaptation. While reform and revision deal more with substance, adapation deals more with style. This is where we decide our music, building style, dress, outreach, etc needs adapting to help us fulfil our mission.
Hi Zane
ReplyDeleteI am prepared to publish the following, slightly moderated to remove some statements I find excessive relative to the available evidence!
"Ron, why be so graceless? The ACNA have a very rich liturgy, which is thoroughly Anglican, we used it in worship this morning. The ACNA are sharing In fellowship, prayer and the Lord's Supper with committed Anglicans. Perhaps before you label them usurpers you should consider that they uphold the 39 articles, the apostolic faith, and believe the creeds something your beloved TEC and the [a number] of clergy in the ACANZP have long abandoned!
You have a selective memory if you think that the Three Tikanga structure didn't meet the disapproval of the Anglican Communion, it was hardly meet with wide acclamation at the time it was instituted.
We live in a province that has revised the traditional understanding of the geographical jurisdiction of bishops, it isn't all plain sailing, and I've seen tension between bishops of different Tikanga trying to minister in the same locations.
"
"We live in a province that has revised the traditional understanding of the geographical jurisdiction of bishops, it isn't all plain sailing, and I've seen tension between bishops of different Tikanga trying to minister in the same locations."
ReplyDelete- Zane - via Dr. Peter Carrell -
Zane, presuming you might be a clergy-person subject to the ethos and canonical rule of ACANZP, I wonder, does your local Bishop know about your opinion on our local episcopal situation? And how do you think the situation might change to suit your position?
Ron, please let there be no doubt that I am a clergy person subject to the canonical rule of the ACANZP, I have to adhere to the constitution, formularies, and canons; but I don't have to like them! Why if that was the case the revisionists within the ACANZP would have no truck attempting to change our cannons and constitution re: chastity despite what the formularies say (dare I mention Scripture as well?).
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I haven't made any statement in the post above which calls for a change to the Three Tikanga structure, only that I have observed tension between bishops of different Tikanga exercising episcopal authority over the same geographic locations; that tension is hardly going to be a revelation to my local bishop!
Re: my position, I haven't given one. I simply stated that this was a controversial issue when it was enacted, and is a major revision of traditional Anglican episcopal authority.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteOur church's episcopal arrangements are unusual by historical and catholic standards. That is essentially what Zane is saying.
If you wish to make a comment about episcopal arrangements in North America, do not use the word 'piracy' if you wish to have a comment published here.
It is a policy on this blog to be sympathetic towards the trials and tribulations of Anglicans everywhere. Words such as 'piracy' are inconsistent with that policy.
I had assumed by 'usurpers' that Fr Ron meant TEC - was I wrong?
ReplyDeleteI don't know that the Canons of Nicaea have ever been interpreted to mean that there can never be overlapping jurisdictions. They weren't interpreted that way in the Middle Ages - geographical dioceseso were the norm, but it wasn't rigidly adhered to. Nor does the Roman Catholic church today have all geographical dioceses. I seem to recall one of the Lambeth conferences in mid-20th century making the same point.
ReplyDelete