Small o orthodox

[allipalli]

Several years ago I had a conversation with an Episcopal priest. He explained to me that in the Episcopal Church there's no sense of orthodoxy. He said that orthodox means "right thinking" and that TEC is a "big tent" of many differing viewpoints within Christianity. He explained that the Episcopal Church doesn't have a statement of faith like the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, apart from the Nicene, Apostle's and (one other?) creeds.

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

What about the various Anglican denominations? Do they have a sense of orthodoxy?

 

[Deacon001]

Several years ago I had a conversation with an Episcopal priest. He explained to me that in the Episcopal Church there's no sense of orthodoxy. He said that orthodox means "right thinking" and that TEC is a "big tent" of many differing viewpoints within Christianity. He explained that the Episcopal Church doesn't have a statement of faith like the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, apart from the Nicene, Apostle's and (one other?) creeds.

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

What about the various Anglican denominations? Do they have a sense of orthodoxy?

Unless I am very much mistaken, even TEC's prayer book contains the 39 articles.

 

[Wigglesworth]

When two theologians disagree on a point of essential doctrine, is one wrong? If only one is right, then there is orthodoxy. If both may be right, there is not orthodoxy.

 

[Albion]

Unless I am very much mistaken, even TEC's prayer book contains the 39 articles.

They are there, all right. But in contrast to the historic BCP, in this book they were placed in a section for "Historic Documents" so to remove the presumption that they are in any way an official statement of faith. This is widely seen as completing the demotion of the Articles from authoritative to optional to not even that.

 

[Deegie]

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

The church takes positions on all sorts of things. On one level, anything approved by the General Convention is the official position of TEC. That said, it is not a confessional church in terms of laying out everything we believe in a document. And there is plenty of space for people to form their own opinions. So there are no tests for membership. Clergy, on the other hand, do take a vow to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church. How that works out in practice is a whole 'norther matter.

 

[allipalli]

They are there, all right. But in contrast to the historic BCP, in this book they were placed in a section for "Historic Documents" so to remove the presumption that they are in any way an official statement of faith. This is widely seen as completing the demotion of the Articles from authoritative to optional to not even that.

That explains a couple things. 1) There used to be a clear statement of faith that includes the authority of scripture and 2) how that theological position was set aside.

Thanks for pointing that out. My BCP is an old Kindle version that's hard to navigate. I should look for an updated (Kindle) version that is useable.

I found what I was looking for: authority of scripture, article VI. As you indicate, though, it's relegated to "Historical Documents".

I never hear any of this stuff at church. I always have to go looking for it.

 

[allipalli]

... there is plenty of space for people to form their own opinions. So there are no tests for membership.

I appreciate that because, frankly, there is a lot of ambiguity and even some contradiction in scripture. It rankles me when some conservatives make the Bible out to be a clear, simple rule book.

Clergy, on the other hand, do take a vow to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church. How that works out in practice is a whole 'norther matter.

I am beginning to understand. Some of my confusion probably stems from my years in extremely left-wing Episcopal churches. For several years I went to TEC in Boulder, Colorado and now I'm in the diocese of Olympia (Washington state), which simply must be the most radical in TEC. Some of the things I've heard priests say are radically different from my previous years in Calvary Chapel, Baptist, and other churches.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Several years ago I had a conversation with an Episcopal priest. He explained to me that in the Episcopal Church there's no sense of orthodoxy. He said that orthodox means "right thinking" and that TEC is a "big tent" of many differing viewpoints within Christianity. He explained that the Episcopal Church doesn't have a statement of faith like the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, apart from the Nicene, Apostle's and (one other?) creeds.

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

What about the various Anglican denominations? Do they have a sense of orthodoxy?

That the Episcopal Church does not have any formal confession other than the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds is mostly correct. The 39 Articles, by which some put so much store, have never had any official status in the Episcopal Church, with one exception: Our clergy have always been required to declare that they "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation," thereby subscribing to Article VI in part. Our canon law also contains one canon that applies directly to the Laity:

All persons within this Church shall celebrate and keep the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, by regular participation in the public worship of the Church, by hearing the Word of God read and taught, and by other acts of devotion and works of charity, using all godly and sober conversation.

To say that we "don't take a position on anything other than the creeds" may not be accurate, but it is impossible to say until your are more precise about what you mean.

 

[Albion]

Several years ago I had a conversation with an Episcopal priest. He explained to me that in the Episcopal Church there's no sense of orthodoxy. He said that orthodox means "right thinking" and that TEC is a "big tent" of many differing viewpoints within Christianity. He explained that the Episcopal Church doesn't have a statement of faith like the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, apart from the Nicene, Apostle's and (one other?) creeds.

What he meant is that he suffers no penalty for dissing the Anglican Articles of Religion.

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

No, it has taken positions. What it no longer does is enforce the Articles, the other statements OR the Creeds either.

What about the various Anglican denominations? Do they have a sense of orthodoxy?

Almost all of the other Anglican bodies in North America do strive to be orthodox. Of course, orthodoxy is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. But I'd say "yes" to this question otherwise.

 

[allipalli]

That the Episcopal Church does not have any formal confession other than the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds is mostly correct. The 39 Articles, by which some put so much store, have never had any official status in the Episcopal Church, with one exception: Our clergy have always been required to declare that they "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation," thereby subscribing to Article VI in part. Our canon law also contains one canon that applies directly to the Laity:

That's interesting. Is it possible to "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God" and believe, for example, that admonitions against "men lying with men" were simply influenced by the culture of the time? I'm not trying to provoke something. My question is genuine. Do the people who talk about cultural influences of the ancient world in the Bible also say that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God?

To say that we "don't take a position on anything other than the creeds" may not be accurate, but it is impossible to say until your are more precise about what you mean.

It was badly stated. I suppose what I'm really interested in is the authority of scripture. (The divine nature of scripture? Canonicity? The nuances of these terms eludes me. I'm a software engineer trying to converse with theologians.)

 

[Albion]

That's interesting. Is it possible to "believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God" and believe, for example, that admonitions against "men lying with men" were simply influenced by the culture of the time? I'm not trying to provoke something. My question is genuine. Do the people who talk about cultural influences of the ancient world in the Bible also say that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God?

Only if they qualify it in some way, such as saying that the Bible contains the Word of God...or that it was inerrant as originally delivered to mankind but of course has lost that quality through successive translations, etc. Others have adopted the "It's the Word, but it's not the only way that God has given us his will and intentions for us" approach. Anything else, including cultural norms, is then cited.

 

[Deegie]

Only if they qualify it in some way, such as saying that the Bible contains the Word of God...or that it was inerrant as originally delivered to mankind but of course has lost that quality through successive translations, etc. Others have adopted the "It's the Word, but it's not the only way that God has given us his will and intentions for us" approach. Anything else, including cultural norms, is then cited.

I have seen two other approaches in addition to the ones already mentioned. The first is to take "Word of God" in a different sense: something which is not the literal words of God. There are several variations on this theme. The other is to suggest that the law God gave Israel was not intended to be permanent. This is often called the relationship between Law and Gospel, although I dislike that phrasing.

 

[Albion]

I have seen two other approaches in addition to the ones already mentioned. The first is to take "Word of God" in a different sense: something which is not the literal words of God. There are several variations on this theme.

The other is to suggest that the law God gave Israel was not intended to be permanent. This is often called the relationship between Law and Gospel, although I dislike that phrasing.

Yes. I recognize the first one, now that you mention it. The second...I dunno. It would seem a toughie to convince someone that the whole of the OT is Law, not to mention discounting the NT at the same time.

 

[Rurik]

...The 39 Articles, by which some put so much store, have never had any official status in the Episcopal Church...

So this never happened? The U. S. Book of Common Prayer: Articles of Religion

 

[allipalli]

I just thought of something else. If referring to scripture as the Word of God is an acknowledgement of Biblical authority, there's another place in the BCP that acknowledges Biblical authority besides the 39 Articles: After the first two scripture readings the lector says, "The Word of the Lord." The congregation responds, "Thanks be to God." It's to late for me to go look it up, but wouldn't that effectively be an official acknowledgement of Biblical authority? That's in the BCP isn't it?

 

[Deegie]

Sure, but as I mentioned in a previous post, "the Word of the Lord" or "the Word of God" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. Many people take it to mean literal words, whether spoken directly or inspired by the Spirit. Others suggest that it is the Word of God because Jesus (the Word) is present within Scripture. This is sort of a sacramental approach -- Jesus is present for us in Scripture the same way he is present in the Eucharistic elements. Others might say that it is the Word of God because it is the ultimate and normative revelation of God, even if he didn't write it. This makes it "the Word" in somewhat the same way that Christ was "the Word". Bottom line: the fact that it's "Word" with a capital "W" allows for a variety of interpretations. In typical Anglican fashion, I would like to state that I see value in all of the approaches.

But I should also stress that really all Anglicans consider the Bible to be authoritative. It's just that some are less inclined to see it as inerrant.

 

[allipalli]

Sure, but as I mentioned in a previous post, "the Word of the Lord" or "the Word of God" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. Many people take it to mean literal words, whether spoken directly or inspired by the Spirit. Others suggest that it is the Word of God because Jesus (the Word) is present within Scripture. This is sort of a sacramental approach -- Jesus is present for us in Scripture the same way he is present in the Eucharistic elements. Others might say that it is the Word of God because it is the ultimate and normative revelation of God, even if he didn't write it. This makes it "the Word" in somewhat the same way that Christ was "the Word". Bottom line: the fact that it's "Word" with a capital "W" allows for a variety of interpretations. In typical Anglican fashion, I would like to state that I see value in all of the approaches.

But I should also stress that really all Anglicans consider the Bible to be authoritative. It's just that some are less inclined to see it as inerrant.

Okay, making that distinction between authority and inerrancy helps.

 

[allipalli]

I've been struggling with these ideas for a long time and don't know what to think. I'm an engineer, as I think I mentioned, and I like for things to be clear. I'm not sure it will ever be clear to me.

Yesterday's second scripture reading caught my attention:

2 Peter 1:16-21
New International Version (NIV)

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[a] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

That last paragraph seems to suggest inerrancy, at least for prophecies.

There are other places that suggest human origins for portions of scripture, like at the beginning of an epistle. It'll say something like, "A letter from Paul to ...."

Maybe I should have started a separate thread asking about Biblical authority. Sorry I haven't gotten my thoughts together better before starting this.

 

[Deegie]

That last paragraph seems to suggest inerrancy, at least for prophecies.

There are other places that suggest human origins for portions of scripture, like at the beginning of an epistle. It'll say something like, "A letter from Paul to ...."

Maybe I should have started a separate thread asking about Biblical authority. Sorry I haven't gotten my thoughts together better before starting this.

No need to apologize as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate the fact you want to wrestle with these weighty ideas.

Just to throw another wrinkle into your above analysis...I believe Scripture is quite clear that the prophets were inspired and spoke as God instructed them. But they didn't write any of it down. In fact, some of it may not have been written down for centuries. So might it then be possible to separate out actual prophecy from cultural conditioning? Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Albion]

I've been struggling with these ideas for a long time and don't know what to think. I'm an engineer, as I think I mentioned, and I like for things to be clear. I'm not sure it will ever be clear to me.

Yesterday's second scripture reading caught my attention:


That last paragraph seems to suggest inerrancy, at least for prophecies.

There are other places that suggest human origins for portions of scripture, like at the beginning of an epistle. It'll say something like, "A letter from Paul to ...."

Maybe I should have started a separate thread asking about Biblical authority. Sorry I haven't gotten my thoughts together better before starting this.

Switching gears slightly, I don't quite see your dilemma/struggle. The Church has long had doctrinal standards and they are by and large enshrined in the BCP just as you've been pointing out to us. BUT there are now many Episcopalians who no longer want to be bound by them...and no one is forcing them to.

So as for yourself, there's no issue here about what Anglicanism stands for. There's only an issue of which group of Anglicans you want to stand with, if either.