tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post1366951133848982686..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: What does it mean to be an Anglican Christian (April 2010)?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46506327269484502422010-04-07T09:40:09.770+12:002010-04-07T09:40:09.770+12:00Hi Anonymous,
I am talking about the meaning of be...Hi Anonymous,<br />I am talking about the meaning of being an Anglican in general terms (for lay and for clergy, for unlicensed participants in the pews as well as for licensed participants in the sanctuary). Those who are licensed should stick by their vows and declarations as a matter of taking their vows and upholding them (or surrender their license). But the freedom of Anglican consciences allows one, licensed or unlicensed, to reflect upon the possibility that one's church is claiming the name 'Anglican' while moving in an 'unAnglican' direction.<br /><br />There are aspects of theology 'on the ground', for instance, in the life of ACANZP which concern me viz a viz faithfulness to Anglican theology, and were they to be enshrined in our canons and constitution, then I would wonder at the direction our church was formally moving in as measured against the general direction of the Anglican Communion as a whole. To so wonder would not, I hope, be to the detriment of my integrity!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74819592934063047042010-04-07T09:24:20.298+12:002010-04-07T09:24:20.298+12:00“For what purpose?” is helpful.
Your article woul...“For what purpose?” is helpful.<br /><br />Your article would make a fine dictionary entry. You vow to your bishop, she and you are committed to General Synod, and pledge to your province’s formularies. There is no mention of “decisions of Communion bodies” in your constitution or canons. In fact there is not even a mention of “Communion bodies” in your constitution or canons. So for the purpose of you and the ministers you train the answer is (1). No disconnect, just integrity. If you don’t agree, don’t make the vows, don’t sign the promises. The disconnect is too many people sign the paper, make the vows, and then breach them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84887947964183954012010-04-07T07:25:16.820+12:002010-04-07T07:25:16.820+12:00Hi Marshall,
Whoops, yes, I got that enumeration w...Hi Marshall,<br />Whoops, yes, I got that enumeration wrong when reordering during writing - now corrected!<br /><br />Thank you for your reflections, especially around "for what purpose" and "by whose measure".<br /><br />I think it is Anglican to wish to be part of something bigger (including the wish of the Anglican Communion to seek to be part of a larger ecumenical world church with Catholics and Orthodox). It is also Anglican to make reference both to the local, historically continuous Anglican church (as measured by participation in the Anglican Communion) and to the global expression of being Anglican, i.e. to the Communion, when working out what it means to be Anglican, including ongoing reflection within developing Anglican tradition.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19085232343239272262010-04-07T07:15:18.263+12:002010-04-07T07:15:18.263+12:00Thanks for that helpful comment, Kurt!Thanks for that helpful comment, Kurt!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62827092291940952622010-04-07T07:15:18.264+12:002010-04-07T07:15:18.264+12:00Peter, are you sure of your enumeration? It seems...Peter, are you sure of your enumeration? It seems to me that your item 4 would be not "all of (2) plus...." but rather "all of (3) PLUS making every effort to be formally connected to the Anglican Communion;" for item (2) already includes participation in some sense in the Communion through one of the national/provincial churches. So, then, "(1), (2) and <i>(4)</i> all include the Anglican Communion as a necessary feature...."<br /><br />I suppose that once again the question is "for what purpose;" or perhaps "by whose measure." The responses offered to our current differences are largely institutional, including the draft Anglican Covenant. Institutional structures tend to draw institutional lines - for some purposes boundaries, while for some simply guidelines - such as some measure of participation in th Anglican Communion. To use the language of "Anglican family," as in the recent Church of England substitute motion, offers the widest participation but says nothing about relationships. To use the language of "Anglican tradition" begs the question of whether that is explicitly content, or also implies a method for theological reflection that allows for differences over time and among the parties reflecting. It also begs the question of how wide to consider "traditional Anglican order. Brother Kurt raises the point of REC orders as "irregular," without dismissing validity. One could say the same, really, about the first episcopal ordinations of AMiA - irregular, without making claims about validity. It could also be said for a small number of bodies in the United States claiming to be Episcopal/Anglican but are more progressive than the Episcopal Church (and yes, they do exist).<br /><br />I am not aware of whether there are Anglican splinters as widely known outside of North America as they are here (with the notable exceptions of the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Church of England of [or is it "in"] South Africa - but surely not in the same numbers). Here in the United States there are simply so many small fragmented groups that coming to a broad enough understanding of what it means to be Anglican would seem difficult.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77733231453166181052010-04-07T01:33:28.378+12:002010-04-07T01:33:28.378+12:00“To be an Anglican Christian is to believe what An...“To be an Anglican Christian is to believe what Anglicans have believed through the ages, to worship according to Anglican patterns of worship (e.g. following an Anglican prayer book), and to live with a traditional Anglican order (deacons, priests, bishops).”<br /><br />It may surprise you, Peter, but I would agree, more or less, with the above definition of what it is to be an Anglican in the broadest sense of the term. <br /><br />When I was a youth in the early Sixties, one of our parish curates taught me about the existence of the Reformed Episcopal Church. Not withstanding the fact that this priest was very Anglo Catholic, he held (in common with most seminarians at General Theological in the 1930s and 40s) that the REC had a valid (though irregular) ministry. And while they were deeply influenced by “that heresy, Calvinism” they retained the essentials of being Anglican in the broadest sense.<br /><br />Similarly, I would consider most, if not all, of the denominations of Continuing Anglicans to be truly Anglican. They are not, of course, presently members of the Anglican Communion. I would not preclude their joining the AC as, say, Associated Churches, if they were to agree to inter-communion with TEC. (Of course, Continuing Anglicans already can receive Holy Communion in TEC parishes).<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />In Spring-like Brooklyn, NYKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.com