Maid Marie
Zechariah 4:6
Thank you for your explanation. Although, unfortunately, it was still way over my head. I have only attended an EC service for a year and only once a Lutheran service so I am very clueless as to the differences between the two. Ex. I just learned today that what I call the communion table would be called the Altar in the EC. In the Nazarene world the altar is something different.
But what you wrote here is still informative. It explains why TEC seems lax at times on what many consider important issues.
But what you wrote here is still informative. It explains why TEC seems lax at times on what many consider important issues.
I think the confusion comes from how things historically worked out. The 39 Articles really were intended as an English Reformation confession of faith for the English Church, and at least on paper, the Church of England still makes their priests swear to uphold them in their ordinations.
The thing is, the "communion" experienced what's called latitudinarianism. The idea here was that "non-essentials" should not be given too much importance and that if they're not prohibited, they should be allowed. This went hand and hand with the view that the Articles can be interpreted in various ways and that they allow a lot of freedom of interpretation. So it was argued, for example, that even though article 28 literally reflects a Reformed POV, it can be interpreted to allow for other views like the Lutheran view of consubstantiation. The thing is, the Articles explicitly say that they are to be interpreted literally, so you see, the latitudinarians went against against the Articles themselves to allow this and ended up leading people to abandon the Articles as an English confession of faith.
Now I don't know if you consider this a good or bad thing, but the point is, ever since this, the idea in much of the Anglican world has been that the 39 Articles are either not binding at all (the Episcopal Church for example dosen't require priests to uphold them and has them listed with the "historical documents" in the current BCP), or that they can be interpreted in many different ways--just don't read them in their "plain and full meaning." This in turn leads to the notion of lex orandi, lex crendandi to fill the vacuum left by a lack of a formal statement of faith. The idea is that since we don't have a formal statement, our theology can be found in what's implied in the worship services of the prayerbook.
So you could say have we have two different views in the church. One side still holds to the historical post reformation view that the Articles are "our confession." One side holds to the latitudinarian or Broad church POV that we either don't have one at all or that we can interpret things in various ways to allows for various POVs. This is an imperfect simplification (because some conservative Anglo-Catholics don't necessarily fit into either group), but I think it might be helpful to see why you have some folks saying we do have a formal statement of beliefs and others who don't.
Upvote
0