Francis is out to change the church for the better

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-out-change-church

 

[Widlast]

Interesting article. The Church has done quite a bit lately to express mercy and to make receiving forgiveness less tedious. I just hope things don't wander so far down the liberal road that doctrine gets trampled on. That has pretty much killed the Episcopal church.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

That has pretty much killed the Episcopal church.

hey Fab, aren't you going to respond to this?

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

For me, one of the big problems with Catholicism is it is often more interested in being Catholic than it is in being Christian. When an issue arises, clergy and laity look first to church teaching, church rules, and practices rather than looking to the Gospels for direction. Sometimes it seems we almost forget that we are called to follow Jesus and not rules derived by theologians. Our theology builds on centuries of church tradition which is a positive, but sometimes we fail to see how each generation can take us farther and farther away from the core of the Christian message.

My first reaction to this was "of course" you are right" but...if you want to be called Catholic, "The Church" is God. (correct me here theologians)

 

[Fish and Bread]

I just hope things don't wander so far down the liberal road that doctrine gets trampled on. That has pretty much killed the Episcopal church.

hey Fab, aren't you going to respond to this?

Okay, by popular request:

First, I would say judging a church or even an entire religion by number of adherents or active church-goers is not necessarily the best criteria, because it's very hard to find a religion or a church that has always been dominated numbers wise.

For example, on Pentecost (When the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles as chronicled in Acts of the Apostles in the bible, most liturgically oriented folks like Roman Catholicism and Episcopalians celebrate it after the Easter season, often mid June-ish [Variable because the date of Easter changes year to year]), Christianity had, what, the 12 Apostles and how many others? A few hundred? Certainly, it was smaller than a lot of other world religions of the time, off the top of my head: Greco-Roman paganism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I'm probably forgetting a few (Taoism?). Technically, Christianity was even smaller than Judaism at that point.

More specifically, though, I would one look at the larger circumstances in the western world right now, which is that much of the natural world has been explained by science and there is no legal, and very little social, pressure to attend church in most circles, and so some Christians who remain feel under siege. This, to be honest, is mostly in their heads, in my opinion, but the feeling is there. In large part, this is because people choose to, instead of reconciling science with their faith and viewing their expanding moral conscientious on progressive issues as the logical progression of their faith, instead view these as attacking forces.

So, what do you do when you feel under siege by, you know, reality? You retreat into a theological bunker mentality. You (this is generic "you", just a hypothetical example person) retreat into fundamentalist expressions of faith that are actually even less in tune with reality and more conservative than your ancestors. If studying God's creation tells us that evolution is true (Which it does, but let's not take this thread on a tangent and argue about that), our hypothetical someone who for feels under siege starts saying the earth was created in 7 literal days and is 6,000 years old and they start homeschooling his kid and using Genesis as their science textbook, because he feels threatened. Yet, his great-grandfather may not have been nearly as strident about it, because he wouldn't have felt as under siege. Go back to the 5th century, before we even had the scientific evidence we have now, and St. Augustine of Hippo were talking about allegorical views of Genesis that didn't take the story of creation literally.

So, what we see is people going from mainstream moderate churches like the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodist Church, and so on and so forth, becoming Southern Baptists and non-denominationals (Sort of like Southern Baptists with the serial numbers filed off Very similar in practice and belief), because they are getting in the bunker. And the more in the bunker they get, the more people who it turns off from Christianity in general because of how out of touch and rigid it seems, which means those who remain Christian are more and more just the people who feel under siege and as their influence diminishes, they feel more and more under siege, which perpetuates the cycle (and of course makes the conservative churches more conservative and the moderate or liberal churches more liberal in the near term). Conservative churches are experiencing short-term gains as part of a cycle that will end with them being 5 people who meet in the woods in 2200AD or something. I exaggerate, but when you really look at why these gains are being made in rigid fundamentalist denominations, it's a house of cards that will eventually collapse in my opinion (Not necessarily in our generation, but eventually).

So, what does this have to do with the Episcopal Church? Well, the Episcopal Church is taking a progressive approach instead of going into the bunker. They are saying let's emphasis social justice, God is still speaking and doctrine is developing as we keep following the path that began with Moses or Christ and follow it to ends that were not obvious, but have become obvious, like recognizing women as equals who can be ordained in all orders of ministry, recognizing homosexuality in new ways, and so on and so forth. They don't view science as the enemy, they view it as complementary to faith and as actually showing them something about God because science shows how God creates and what he creates and how it works, and we can learn about God through that to some degree in the same way that we would learn about a painter by studying his or her paintings. There is something of oneself left in what one creates, a reflection.

Actually, a lot of Episcopalians remind me of liberal Roman Catholics.

But, you know, culturally and historically, we are at a point where lines are being drawn that shouldn't be, so people who we born Episcopalian or were Episcopalian a few generations ago get in that conservative bunker and view their church as selling out or whatever. Some become Southern Baptists or non-denominationals, others have actually broken off and formed their own churches that are in the Anglican tradition in terms of church organization and liturgy, but are rigidly conservative in doctrine. Meanwhile, some of the people who easily *could* be liberal Christians wind up spiritual but not religious, because they feel like Christians have drawn a line that excludes them and don't necessarily know that there are Christian churches out there that have things like women and gays as bishops and priests, that welcome all God's children to his table in communion, that believe in evolution and embrace science rather than run from it, and that care about the poor first and foremost. Or they know the groups exist, but don't really know anyone who belongs or believe the fundamentalist narrative that those are somehow fake churches, ironically agreeing with the way fundamentalists view Christianity and saying "Well, that's not me, so I'm not Christian", when perhaps otherwise they would be Christian!

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that the Episcopal Church is experiencing some short-term church attendance issues and such because they are embracing a progressive prophetic view of Christianity at a point where the demand for that is at a low point on a graph. However, the graph to me projects that churches like the Episcopal Church that are set up and going in this direction will eventually be the largest churches if they make it through this time period to the next. And if they don't make it through, some other similar church will pop up when the time comes.

In the meantime, the Episcopal Church has a few things going for it that will take the edge off of problems that some defections from conservatives and such create in the short-term until the world and the cycle religion is in hit the point where they are ready for this progressive style of Christianity on a large scale.

Examples:

1. One thing is, quite frankly, endowments. Endowments are, and this is not an exact definition, because I am not writing a book here and only want the post to be so long, basically things people leave to the church, in their wills, after they die, which have continuing monetary value. From the centuries it's existed, the Episcopal Church owns a lot of random land that rich parishioners who passed away ordered donated to it in their wills. It also has things that are basically like trust funds or long-term investments that sort of sit in the bank or are invested in mutual funds and such and generate increased value. These things can be used to provide operating capital to off-set temporary declines in donations in weekly collections to some extent. A lot of people don't know or forget this, but the Episcopal Church was once considered the church of high society American aristocrats and politicians and such. Episcopalian is the most common religious affiliation of American Presidents in the first, I don't know, we'll say 150 years or so of the country's existence (Founded 1776, first President 1789, the gap is a long story. Americans know those dates and the story, but I know we have some international readers who may not, so I try to provide brief notes like that).

Even to this day, there is an Episcopalian parish, I think it's St. John's, but don't quote me on that, in Washington DC that has a pew permanently reserved for the President, whomever that happens to me at the time. It's very close to the White House (The White House is official residence of the President, think 10 Downing Street if you are from the United Kingdom, and you've got the gist. The US version does not have an official cat, though. ). Even most Presidents of both parties who are not Episcopalian wind up there attending Eucharist services at least a few times in their administrations.

Actually, this briefly made news headlines around 2003 right before the Iraq War broke out. President George W. Bush, a Methodist (His father, the first President Bush, actually was Episcopalian, the son became a Methodist because he'd sort of lost religion as an alcoholic before his days in politics and then found religion and sobriety again, but it wound up being in the Methodist Church), happening to be attending St. John's Episcopal parish (Or whatever the name of the parish I'm thinking of is) for Eucharist on a Sunday very close to when the war broke out, when it was very obvious he was going to do it and he just hadn't launched the attack yet. As it turned out, the priest saying the Eucharist service was fairly progressive, and gave a blistering anti-Iraq War sermon with the guy about to launch the war sitting in the front pew listening.

Okay, so point there being- the Episcopal Church has financial resources that are beyond what some people realize. Some are not "liquid assets" (Meaning not money in the bank, some are like land they own that they'd have to put on the market and sell if they actually need to "spend" them).

The Episcopal Church increasingly is transitioning to a church of the downtrodden, but that's not where it started, and so it benefits from past endowments from the elites (And still does have some elites).

2. Ecumenical agreements are creating situations where parishes and dioceses that are in trouble, and even seminaries and other institutions, will be able to "join forces" with their equivalents from similar churches or denominations in specific situations to reduce overall costs.

The key agreement they have now is with the largest (and most progressive, not maybe moderate on an absolute scale) Lutheran church or denomination in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). There are some differences between the Episcopal Church and ELCA in beliefs and practices, but they are not horribly far about in the grand scheme of things. They are both churches that have liturgies and lectionaries, have priests (in the EC) or pastors (in ELCA) who wear robes, have altars, have liturgical seasons like Lent and Advent and Christmas and Easter, generally have communion every week, believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, are allowing women to become priests (or pastors), etc..

Now, the churches of course are not exactly alike by any stretch of the imagination. There are differences (Generally the Episcopal Church is more Catholic-esque in presentation and practice and these Lutherans are more Protestant, but both are "to the Catholic side" of Protestantism, if you want to think of it that way).

So, anyway, the two churches signed an agreement basically saying that they recognized each other and considered themselves in full communion. Different structures and traditions and ways of doing things, and even different beliefs in some areas, but essentially "close enough" that they could do certain things with each other that normally aren't done between two different churches.

What type of things? Well, an Episcopalian priest can vest as a Lutheran pastor and conduct a service at a Lutheran congregation, and an Lutheran pastor can vest as an Episcopalian priest and conduct a Eucharist at an Episcopalian parish. This could be very key, because if you have say a shrinking Episcopalian parish and a shrinking Lutheran congregation in the same area, they could share the same priest and each pay half his or her salary. Conceivably, they could even share the same building and go half and half on costs there, too- and have, say, a Lutheran service at 9am and an Episcopalian Eucharist at 11am.

There are actually two parishes in the US right now that are sort of experimental parishes where they have a weekly Eucharist liturgy that is basically a combination of Episcopalian liturgy and the Lutheran liturgy (Taking parts of each) with one priest or pastor, that is officially part of an Episcopalian diocese and a Lutheran district and under the jurisdiction of both Episcopalian and Lutheran bishops.

Both churches are using the same lectionary now, the Revised Common Lectionary, so their readings are identical most weeks. There are some exceptions- like church specific feast days that may be variant and that some Episcopalian parishes have special exemptions to use the lectionary readings from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and Lutheran pastors are allowed to chuck the lectionary and use whatever readings they want from time to time at their discretion (Episcopalian priests are not allowed to do that). But in theory each church's base lectionary is now the RCL.

Episcopalian bishops are present at the consecration of every Lutheran bishop as co-consecrators now (Kind of- Apostolic Succession was one sticking point in negotiations, because Episcopalians believe in a three-fold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons where Apostolic Succession comes through the bishops [Similar to Roman Catholicism], whereas the folks in ELCA are a variety of Lutherans that believe that there is really only one order of ministry [pastors], but where for organizational purposes the Lutherans have a pastor who has the position of bishop and leads their equivalent of a diocese for five years. So they split the difference and said when you Lutherans have your ceremony to appoint the pastor to the "position" of bishop, an Episcopalian bishop will be there with the various Lutheran pastors laying his hand on the new Lutheran bishop's head or extending his hands with the intent of consecrating [ordaining] him an actual bishop in the Episcopalian sense of it being a separate order of ministry and not just a position. And then that new Lutheran bishop is generally at the ordinations of all new pastors [priests] and so the Lutherans are sort of backdoored into Apostolic Succession without having to believe in it the way Episcopalians do. This is obviously controversial with some Episcopalians, who don't think this cuts it as really bringing the Lutherans into Apostolic Succession, and want the Lutherans to explicitly accept a three-ordered ministry and concentrations rather than just installations, and some Lutherans who don't even like being backdoored into Apostolic Succession even though they don't preach it or believe in in the Episcopalian sense, and want the Episcopalians to ditch the requirement, but both churches did sign on to the compromise and it's been happening.) and possibly vice-versa.

In a real pinch, they might even be able to combine seminaries in some areas.

Now, right now, despite the agreement, stuff like this isn't happening a ton in practice. There are real differences between these two churches or denominations (Example besides Apostolic Succession: Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, full stop, not further defined [Letting parishioners believe what they want within that general definition, although some traditionalists push for it to at least be within broad parameters laid out in an old document called the 39 Articles that has no current standing], and in practice tend to treat consecrated hosts as permanently consecrated, so if they aren't all distributed at communion, they are returned to the tabernacle or consumed by the priest(s) immediately and in Anglo-Catholic leaning Episcopalian parishes can even be used for Eucharist Adoration whereas Lutherans believe specifically that Christ is above beyond, beyond, and between the molecules of the hosts or whatever [What some term consubstantiation] and that it reverts to being just bread outside the context of the service itself) :and parishioners and members of the congregation don't really want a priest or a pastor from the opposite church as their rector, priest-in-charge, senior pastor, or whatever. Generally, it's not forced on individual parishes or congregations. If they want to do it or need to do it, they can, if they don't, they don't.

So most don't. But it's there now if they need it to survive in certain regions, or just want to do it. And other agreements like this with other churches are being negotiated, but have stalled mostly (Though there is something with the Methodists that allows a very limited version of some of this to not nearly the same extent).

So, that is a potential survival mechanism.

3. Episcopalians get a ton of Roman Catholic converts who essentially want to go to what is basically a mass every week and receive the Eucharist, but who believe the RC has gotten too conservative, and want a church that ordains women as priests and doesn't have the same requirements and so on and so forth. Divorced Roman Catholics who remarry without annulments and are basically permanently barred from Roman Catholic communion unless they stop living with their new spouses are one example of a group that makes up a substantial number of Episcopalian converts, because the Episcopal Church is basically the same thing in terms of some basic structural stuff and the look and feel of the mass but will admit them to communion.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Nominally the top post in the Episcopal Church) previous to the current one, was actually baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and was received into the Episcopal Church later and eventually became a priest and a bishop and so on and so forth.

Plus, the Episcopal Church gets some Protestant converts who want traditions and reason and liturgy and Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence while being able to retain many of their Protestant beliefs.

So, the Episcopalians who leave for Roman Catholicism or evangelical Protestant churches tend to be replaced in some number by people from those churches who become Episcopalians.

4. It's not a given that these conservative Anglican groups that split off from the Episcopal Church will stay split off until the end of time. The Episcopal Church split during the American Civil War (circa 1860s) and very quickly reunited after it.

Some off-shoots that were created during the 1970s because they objection to women priests sputtered out or shrunk from their initial numbers, and presumably some of those parishioners wound up back at Episcopalian parishes eventually.

When I was Episcopalian, I happened to have a priest who was conservative by Episcopalian standards who served as the rector (Rector is a position, like a pastor at a Roman Catholic Church, basically a parish's head priest if they are financially self-sustaining). These was a decade or more ago now, but we used to talk a lot and he believed pretty strongly that this would all blow over in about 50 years and some of these schisms would heal. He thought with time that who was right about some of the theological points at issue would become clearer or seem less significant with time, and that people would be close enough to come to the same Eucharist table again (In fact, that parish and it's priests were generally against the consecration of gay bishops and same-sex marriages and such, and they talked about splitting off, but were eventually able to work things out and stay even though they hold a minority view within their diocese and their church. Basically they and their bishops agreed to disagree after a while. It was pretty tense for a couple years, though, where the parish didn't want the bishop to perform confirmations, and he agreed to send one of his more conservative colleagues from another diocese to do it, who the parish accepted- I think eventually they all agreed that the actual bishop of the diocese would start coming to do the confirmations again within a few years of that, but I don't really know, I lost touch with the parish, I just would occasionally check their website and at one point noticed a big picture of the bishop in full garb with a miter and staff standing beside the rector (head priest of the parish) with huge smiles on both of their faces on what appeared to be the parish grounds and said "Oh good, they worked it out".

.if you want to be called Catholic, "The Church" is God. (correct me here theologians)

Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that the Church is God. The Church is analogized as "The Bride of Christ" (Can't take that too literally, but it's a common analogy that's often used by priests, bishops, and theologians). The belief is that Christ founded the institution directly. The Church is thus headed by Jesus Christ (But isn't actually Christ) in a larger sense, and headed by the Pope in a here's the human guy hanging out on earth in his natural lifetime who's the head sense. The constituent parts of the church are humans in heaven, humans in purgatory, and humans on earth who are in union with the Church (Obviously baptized Roman Catholics, *although* theologically it's recognized that many other churches perform sacramentally valid baptisms, which makes them sort of members of the church in a sacramental but not technical earthly organizational sense, and there's church a thing as baptism of desire and so on and so forth. Plus, you've got angels and such- they're in. Generally, the Church will tell you who is in, but not who is out (i.e. "Oh, well Bob the lifelong Roman Catholic is definitely part of the Church." "How about Bill the Southern Baptist" "Um, maybe, ask God" ). There's the sense that God tells you where to go and that the Roman church is the institutional church founded by Christ in the view of Roman theology (The bishops in union with the Pope), so that's the sure thing, but that God's grace extends beyond that in certain ways and we shouldn't try to limit it or put in a box, and leave what the status of the other people are up to him.

Of course, you know, variant views exist in the Church on various things. People can argue technical points vigorously until they are blue in the face, as you've probably noticed online. So, I don't want to act like I'm the Church's spokesperson or something. You want a better answer, ask a priest. But that's how I understand the theology.

 

[Paidiske]

Umm, F&B, what do you mean the 39 articles have no current standing? Don't Episcopalian priests have to assent to them under oath like I did?

 

[Philip_B]

Umm, F&B, what do you mean the 39 articles have no current standing? Don't Episcopalian priests have to assent to them under oath like I did?

I think, and I may be wrong, that ECUSA receives them as historic documents.

Section 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia says:

This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution. Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard.​

If I might paraphrase what I think that means in terms of the 39, they guide us but they do not imprison us. No doubt you can have another Umm on that.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I'm happy with that. I had to work hard at what it meant to assent to the Articles. I'm surprised ECUSA's... what... abandoned them?

 

[Philip_B]

I think we have been too quick, far to quick in fact, to run away from them. I am working through them again, and some of them are simply excellent. The one on predestination is pretty much spot on. Of course Article 1 is my favourite, however I think that is true for a lot of Anglicans. And if more of us understood it better we would have a whole lot more grown up understandings of God sitting in our pews. imho!

 

[Philip_B]

On the matter of change, I find in interesting that we are exhorted in scripture to be transformed - which to my mind suggests change - and for much of the history of the Church we have been at the forefront of social change, yet often my experience of the Church has been change adverse. When the bulb in the vestry goes out and the Vicar says, could somebody change the light globe the response could easily be 'do you have a faculty for that? My grandmothers second cousin gave the light bulb!'

I find it interesting that God's instrument for change in the world is so change adverse.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Umm, F&B, what do you mean the 39 articles have no current standing? Don't Episcopalian priests have to assent to them under oath like I did?

Currently, Episcopalians priests do not have to assent to the 39 Articles under oath to be ordained. That was at one time a requirement in the Episcopal Church, but it was done away with. I don't know the exact time period it was done away with in off the top of my head. I want to say 19th century, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that it still existed well into the 20th century. I just know it was definitely gone by the 21st.

In the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which is the Episcopal Church's most recent prayer book, the 39 Articles are listed under the heading of "Historical Documents". So, they're in there, but the title is ambiguous as to whether they are being presented as something of only historical significance to Anglicans and Episcopalians, or as a present day set of guidelines. The majority of clergy seem to think the former, that they are not active guidelines or rules, although I think there is a small conservative rearguard that keeps insisting that they are currently applicable (A rearguard that is largely ignored, and perhaps largely no longer in the Episcopal Church. Some groups that split in the aftermath of the 2003 consecration of Bishop Robinson, trying to find a larger justification for leaving rather than simply homosexuality, referenced the church "abandoning" the 39 Articles as an issue and off they went. They seemed content to just complain about it for the previous 24 years. But suddenly it became a church dividing issue when there was a gay bishop. There were a lot of things like that. Conservatives made a huge effort to justify their splits as being a reaction to a whole host of things, many even talking about the late Bishop Pike's public renunciation of the Virgin Birth and the failure of attempts at canonical presentments against him, which happened in the 1960s or 1970s, etc. as being reasons to leave the Church in the 2000s. The fact is, I am sure a lot of things concerned them prior to them splitting, but their efforts to not be perceived as splitting primarily over Bishop Robinson's consecration never seemed credible to me. It was very clearly why they split. But I think they understandably didn't want their new churches to be perceived as "the anti-gay churches", sort of instinctively perhaps knowing that history might not look fondly on that, and knowing that you can't build a solid foundation for a new church long-term on opposition to one gay guy being a bishop in your old church. But...). The historical documents listing of the 39 Articles did I think come up when the switch was made from the 1928 prayer book to the 1979 prayer book (Before my time), and I think some groups that broke around that time or in the few years before it due to women's ordination did refuse to use the 79 prayer book in part for that reason (This was a much smaller split in the US than the later one referenced, IIRC, and there aren't a whole lot of the churches that were formed then that are still left. Sometimes the new denomination is, but you look closer and sometimes they only now have like 2 to 3 small parishes in the entire country, and often seem to have more bishops than parishes, and a website that looks like it was written for use with Netscape Navigator 3.0. I think one of the largest remaining ones merged into one of the newer homosexuality related splinter groups. Often the female ordination opposition splinters are referred to as the Continuing Anglicans and the later groups have no specific term of reference beyond the name of their specific church bodies. I think an effort is being made to get a lot of them merged together under one banner for obvious reasons. I am not sure how that's going. The STR folks would know. One issue there is that the continuing groups from the 70s of course are strongly against women priests whereas some of the groups that split off in the 00s over homosexuality *have* women priests, and that's kind of hard to reconcile.).

I know in the fairly conservative (for my then-diocese, anyway) Episcopalian parish I attended when I was a practicing Episcopalian, the 39 Articles were taught to me as sort of a baseline summary of Anglican beliefs in the sense of identifying the church's center relative to other churches from other traditions, but not as being strictly binding on anyone. Essentially, I was given the impression that they were something that was important to learn, but not important to believe. A starting point, if you will, but not necessarily an end point for everyone. My rector believed in all of them personally and I got the feeling the other priest did as well (Maybe more so, the associate priest was older and would occasionally slip and reference something like mandatory fasting from sunrise to sunset on Ash Wednesday as if it were still a requirement. I can remember that in particular evoking gasps and loud chatter from the pews in the middle of a sermon on Ash Wednesday. Nobody seemed to know what he was talking about, or have been fasting [It was an evening Eucharist]. He was very old. A nice fellow.).

My impression was that the articles would not have been taught in progressive parishes at all, or would have been briefly mentioned for their historical significance. But that is just a guess. I'd also speculate that if there is ever another EC BCP, they won't be in it at all, but that is really hard to project, because there doesn't seem to be much of a movement within the EC for a new BCP (They just publish supplements for use by clergy, generally- like the RCL lectionary, changes in the liturgical calendar's feasts and fasts, new Eucharistic prayer options, etc.) in general (So, who knows what would be in a book that may be published anytime between a few years and a few centuries from now?), and, as you know, even progressive Anglicans often seem to have a certain fondness for old documents, even when they don't believe in them. I think that's one of the nice things about it as a church- the love of the past even while being progressive about what they believe. I'd like to see the 6 Articles and the 10 Articles (Which were more Catholic documents) along with the 39 Articles in a historical documents section, plus some sort of progressive relatively modern document, etc..

 

[Fish and Bread]

Lambeth Conference of 1968, Resolution 43:

The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles

The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled "Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles" (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.

Voting: Adopted, with 37 dissentients.

Source: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/re...-articles?author=Lambeth+Conference&year=1968

 

[Paidiske]

Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know about that Lambeth resolution.

As I said, assent on oath is still required here. I was taught that assent doesn't mean that this is a perfect summary of your personal convictions, but that you agree to keep your public preaching and teaching within the boundaries defined by these statements, and I found that acceptable.

I would worry that without that, we have no real theological anchor, and people could preach whatever they felt like this week...

 

[Philip_B]

Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know about that Lambeth resolution.

As I said, assent on oath is still required here. I was taught that assent doesn't mean that this is a perfect summary of your personal convictions, but that you agree to keep your public preaching and teaching within the boundaries defined by these statements, and I found that acceptable.

I would worry that without that, we have no real theological anchor, and people could preach whatever they felt like this week...

50 years like yesterday passing ...

I am not completely sure that the 39 Articles, in the first instance, were intended to be a theological anchor. I think they represent the Elizabethan Settlement of doctrine and practice as the guard rails for an ongoing theological peace(?) in England. They show a clear recognition of a number of the principals of the reformation - including the sufficiency of Scripture in establishing doctrine and the importance of preaching the 'pure word of God', whilst maintaining adherence to the Catholic Orders of Ministry, the Historic Episcopate, and the ministration of the Dominical Sacraments as Christ instructed.

Article 19 for instance also identifies that Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome have erred, which is interesting as it clearly leaves a big question about why Constantinople was not on the list. Given that the errors (some errors of Rome are addressed elsewhere) are not identified I am not sure how helpful this is as a theological anchor.

 

[Paidiske]

Probably Constantinople wasn't on the list because by the time the Articles were put together it was Istanbul, and primarily a centre of Islam.

I will grant you that some Articles are more directly relevant today than others - I'd be willing, for example, to draw a line between the purely theological Articles and the ones speaking to the relationship of Church and State, which is less applicable outside the context of an Established church - but I'd be unwilling to toss them altogether.

 

[Philip_B]

Probably Constantinople wasn't on the list because by the time the Articles were put together it was Istanbul, and primarily a centre of Islam.

I will grant you that some Articles are more directly relevant today than others - I'd be willing, for example, to draw a line between the purely theological Articles and the ones speaking to the relationship of Church and State, which is less applicable outside the context of an Established church - but I'd be unwilling to toss them altogether.

Perhaps it was because the then Patriarch of Constantinople of the time was interested in Lutheranism - we are talking 1562 and the Patriarch was Joasaph II who I understand was not altogether popular.

In a perfect world (haha) one may well want to rewrite the Articles for a global communion in contemporary English and try to omit from the articles those things that are more secular and preserve those things that are more theological. In reality this would probably end up as a reality TV replay of the Reformation with a few more twists and intrigues throw in.

Perhaps some of the seeds of the GAFCON crisis that faces the Communion today were sown in the 1968 resolution.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know about that last bit (I'm sorry, F&B, I know we keep straying further from your topic, we can take it elsewhere if you prefer).

The issues driving GAFCON aren't really touched by the Articles. Possibly a greater sense of autonomy, and an idea that we can each believe and practice as we want, didn't help, but I think there were other things going on which reflect much bigger cultural trends. Just look at the Catholic situation - to be more on topic - and the division between "liberal" and "rad-trad" and all the rest of it, and I think you see their version of the same sorts of issues.

 

[Philip_B]

Sorry F&B - we will have our discussion elsewhere.

I think Francis is an example of how God in Christ Jesus can still appeal to a broader audience.