Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Will the real Anglican stand up?


By Robin G. Jordan

In the nineteen sixties my family gathered around our black and white TV and watched the popular game show “To Tell the Truth”. The panelists had to guess from the contestants’ answers to their questions which contestant was the real butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. When the panelists had made their guesses, the host said, “Will the real … stand up?” Only one of the contestants was “the real …”. The other contestants had been telling lies and trying to stump the panel. The more panelists they stumped, the larger the prize they took home. My family would join in the fun of attempting to guess which contestant was “the real …”. This game show was one of the ways my family whiled away the evening before retiring to bed.

In order to identify the right contestant, the panelists had to ask the right questions. They had to know something about his occupation or skill or whatever to make an educated guess. Otherwise they had no chance of distinguishing him from the other contestants. They had to have a clear idea in their heads what was normally involved in a particular occupation and so on. If the same game show was held in 2010 and the object was to guess who was the real Anglican, the panelists would struggle for the right questions to ask and the show would end with all the contestants standing up.

The definition of Anglican has become so broad that those who accept such a loose definition have no clear idea of who is the real Anglican. They do not want to tighten the definition, to make it narrower, because they fear that they and their group will fall outside the definition. Since the nineteenth century the definition of Anglican has become increasingly broader as each new group comes along and claims a place in the Anglican Church. The result is that it has gotten so loose that almost everybody meets the definition—Buddhists, Druids, Muslims, Unitarians, and Wiccans, as well as assorted Christians. The growing pluralism and synecreticism of certain segments of the Episcopal Church and the open communion movement in that church body have highlighted the problem in recent years. The boundary between North American Anglicanism and other religious faiths is becoming too permeable. It is admitting the passage of beliefs and practices that can make no claim to being Christian.

Defining Anglican was not a problem until the nineteenth century Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologists set about the self-appointed task of changing the identity of the Church of England. It meant “of the reformed Church of England.” Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, the Church of England’s confession of faith; subscription to The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, her official liturgy; subscription to the Act of Supremacy; the Canons of 1604, and the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 guarded the boundary of the reformed Church of England.

The nineteenth century Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologists illegally introduced into the Church of England Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. They made the preposterous claim that they alone were the only real High Churchmen and the only true Churchmen. They slandered the Protestant High Churchmen, called for the abolition of the Thirty-Nine Articles and tried to drive the Evangelicals from the Church. This is not fabrication or myth. It is recorded history. Since that time other groups have demanded a place in the Anglican Church. The latest has been the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals.

In meantime the definition of Anglican has become even broader. The boundary that separates Anglican from non-Anglican has in the process has grown dangerously thin. Sociologists have studied this phenomenon in other groups. Eventually it will cost the Anglican Church its cohesion and identity altogether, and the Church will disintegrate, The various elements of the Anglican Church will be absorbed by other churches or strike out on their own.

The Anglican Covenant is an attempt to strengthen the boundary of the Anglican Church. However, it has been so diluted and weakened, it will not serve that purpose. The Jerusalem Declaration is another attempt to reinforce the Anglican Church’s boundary. The effectiveness of the Jerusalem Declaration will depend upon its signatories and the commitment of their respective churches to its provisions.

The newly formed Anglican Church in North America has established its boundary by the incorporation of a number of elements into its constitution and canons. These boundary elements fall into two categories—controverted and non-controverted:

Controverted elements:
1. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the episcopate as essential to the being of the Church.
2. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on apostolic succession (stated).
3. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the sacramental nature of confirmation (implicit) and matrimony (stated).
4. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the inadequacy of non-episcopal ordination (stated).
5. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the ex opera operato operation of the sacraments and baptismal regeneration (implicit).
6. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on prayers for the dead, the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, the eucharist as a sacrifice, and the presbyterate as a sacrificing priesthood (implicit).

Non-Controverted elements:
1. Acceptance of the ultimate authority of the Bible.
2. Acceptance of the three catholic creeds.
3. Acceptance of the doctrine of the first four councils of the undivided church and the christiological definitions of the fifth, sixth, and seventh council.
4. Acceptance of the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Although the ACNA constitution and canons contains references to the historic Anglican formularies, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571 and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the accompanying ordinal, they have not been listed as boundary elements since the provisions of the constitution and canons referring to the Articles, the Prayer Book and the ordinal are so worded that the formularies do not function as boundary elements. The ACNA definition of being Anglican is substantially that of being Anglo-Catholic or open to Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that historically have divided Anglo-Catholic and classical Anglican evangelicals.

As can be seen from the foregoing list, the number of controverted boundary elements exceeds the number of non-controverted elements, and create a significant barrier to classical Anglican evangelicals and other groups that do not share these doctrinal positions. They do not, however, impede the movement of independent Catholics (and other groups that have no difficulty with them) across the boundary into the ACNA. They form a boundary that is permeable to a variety of Catholics but impermeable to classical Anglican evangelicals. The only way a classical Anglican evangelical can cross this boundary is by abandoning or compromising his beliefs. This particular barrier filters out Reformed Protestant and historic Anglican beliefs on key issues—the episcopate, apostolic succession, the sacraments, non-episcopal ordination, purgatory, eucharistic presence and sacrifice, and the nature of Christian ministry. Ultimately it excludes Reformed Protestant-historic Anglican beliefs on salvation and grace and arguably with them the New Testament gospel.

At the same time the boundary of the ACNA is permeable to all kinds of liberalism. While the ACNA may take a conservative position on homosexuality and homosexual practice, its position on this issue does not mean it is free from the less radical forms of liberalism. Openness to Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that historically have divided Anglicans is a form of liberalism. The tolerance of women in ordained ministry is also a form of liberalism, as is the tolerance of divorce and remarriage in the clergy. The willingness to permit charismatic practices without authoritative interference is a form of liberalism too.

While the nineteenth century Tractarian movement was opposed to liberalism, it was nineteenth century liberalism that enabled the Tractarians to establish a foothold in the Church of England. Anglo-Catholic beliefs and practices helped liberalism to flourish in the former Protestant Episcopal Church. Liberalism and modernism spread through the church, wearing Anglo-Catholic trappings, and taking full advantage of the lay docility and the passive deference to the clergy generations of Anglo-Catholic priests had cultivated in their parishes. A laity that had been taught that the church was the final authority in interpreting the Bible and the clergy spoke for the church was in no position to question the reinterpretation of Scripture by a new generation of priests. Anglo-Catholic questioning of the sufficiency of Scripture opened the way to liberal questioning of its divine origin.

The boundary of the ACNA is similar to the boundary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the heyday of Anglo-Catholicism in that church. During that period the Episcopal Church adopted a revised Prayer Book that showed the influence of liberalism as well as Anglo-Catholicism. It was a mild form of liberalism compared with liberalism in the twenty-first century but it was liberalism.

A major difference between the ACNA in the early twenty-first century and the PECUSA in the post-World War I era is that the ACNA has a substantial number of members who describe themselves as “charismatic” or “evangelical.” Only a few of the latter appear to be classical Anglican evangelicals. The rest sit loosely to the historical distinctives of classical Anglican evangelicalism. They do not appear to be the product of the classical Anglican evangelical revival in the PECUSA in the 1950s-1970s. This may be one possible explanation why they find the ACNA boundary to be endurable when classical Anglican evangelicals on the account of their theological convictions regard a number of its elements as highly objectionable, narrowly partisan and completely unwarranted. Their tolerance and even acceptance of Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic doctrines and practices may also be attributable to the influence of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement which glozes over fundamentally conflicting doctrinal positions between historic Anglicanism and classical Anglican evangelicalism on one side and Anglo-Catholicism on the other on primary matters as well as secondary ones. It further points to the influence of the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement that does the same thing. Their seeming indifference to the lack of a strong commitment in the ACNA constitution and canons to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the accompanying ordinal, which have long been recognized as the doctrinal standard of Anglicanism, stands in sharp contrast to classical Anglican evangelicals’ strongly marked concern over this lack.

The Episcopal Church has changed its boundary with a number of General Convention resolutions and is considering the adoption of more such resolutions. These resolutions are primarily intended to close the boundary to conservatism and traditionalism. The litigation against departed dioceses and congregations is itself a form of boundary enforcement. While the primary focus of the litigation is who is the rightful owner of the property in question, the dispute is also over ideology and identity. In one way TEC is expanding its boundary and making it more permeable to achieve its particular vision of a Christian church; in another way it is contracting its boundary and making it less permeable to the same end. With its high tolerance of sexual behaviors and lifestyles that the Christians have historically rejected as inconsistent with the Bible, it has shown low tolerance for those who retain a Biblical view of these sexual behaviors and lifestyles and want to do more than keep it to themselves. Basically TEC takes the position that individual members are free to think what they want to think but they are not free to express what they think or to act upon it. The boundary is being inexorably closed to those who want to do the latter. Tolerance and even acceptance of such behaviors and life styles can be characterized as a controverted boundary element since there is still division within TEC over this issue and there is certainly division between TEC and other member churches of the Anglican Communion. Belief in the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ and belief in the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is no longer a part of the boundary of TEC. TEC pluralism is also classifiable as a controverted boundary element as its acceptance of the Bible solely as human writings reflecting upon the divine.

Both the ACNA and TEC do not support the restoration of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the accompanying ordinal as a major part of the boundary of the Anglican Church and as the chief markers of that boundary. Both do not want to return to the old boundary of historic Anglicanism, dominated as they are by groups that have pushed beyond that boundary. Both have developed their own definitions of Anglicanism that make allowances for their own collective peculiarities.

From a historic Anglican perspective the formularies’ authority is the Bible’s authority since they are agreeable to Scripture. The formularies for this reason are critical boundary markers that should not be ignored or replaced. In The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today J. I. Packer notes that one of the primary functions of the Thirty-Nine Articles is to serve as the reformed Church of England’s identity card. They state where the reformed Church of England and historic Anglicanism stand on a number of essential issues. Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today emphasizes that adherence to the authority of the Articles is constitutive of Anglican identity.

For Anglicans the formularies provide what may also be described as guideposts. Pilgrims to the holy isle of Lindisfarne may at low tide cross on foot the straight that separates the island from the mainland. A series of wooden poles serve as guideposts to mark the safest route across the mudflats. For Anglicans the formularies mark “the pilgrims’ way.” Any group that sticks to the formularies, interpreted in accordance with the received interpretation, can be assured that it is walking in what the late Peter Toon called “the Anglican Way.”

What occurred in the nineteenth century and has been happening since is that each new group seeking to make a place for itself in the Anglican Church has introduced its own set of boundary markers and guideposts with its own redefinition of Anglican. With this constant shifting of boundary markers and guideposts and redefining of Anglican the Anglican Way has become obscured and Anglican identity blurred. If the boundary markers were landmarks, moving them would be a cause of endless disputes, violence, and litigation. If they were guideposts, pilgrims would never be sure that the route they were following across the mudflats was safe and that they would not drown in a deep pool or be sucked down by quicksand.

The idea that Anglicanism is ephemeral and in a state of constant flux and consequently the boundary markers and guideposts and definition of Anglicanism must be changed with every change in the Anglican Church irrespective of whether the change is consonant with Scripture is frankly dangerous. It puts the church and therefore whatever is at the moment influencing the church’s leaders in the position of determining what for the moment is Anglican Christian. To the English Reformers who accepted what the Bible itself teaches that the Word of God is immutable, this sort of thing was unthinkable. They held that on primary matters whatever the church taught and practiced must be in agreement with the Scriptures. If the church’s doctrine and practices were not in agreement with the Scriptures, then it was no longer truly apostolic, that is, faithful to apostolic teaching.

The English Reformers also recognized that things in the continuance of time are corrupted and, if they had occurred before their time, they would have regarded as evidence of the process of corruption a lion’s share of the changes that have happened in the Church to this date. They would have considered as false teaching the controversial positions that TEC has taken in recent years. They would have rejected as serious error the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that the ACNA has adopted as a part of its boundary.

From the perspective of historic Anglicanism, any group that accepts the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, adheres to the biblical doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies, and gives a prominent place to the teaching of the English Reformers and those who stand in continuity with them has a much stronger claim to being authentically Anglican than those groups that do not fully meet these criteria. The Anglican Church in the twenty-first century is facing these challenges: Does the Anglican Church give countenance to the redefinition of Anglican and the alteration of the boundary of the Anglican Church by each group seeking a place in the Anglican Church? Or does the Anglican Church establish a standard which existing and new groups must meet in order to identify themselves as Anglican? If so, should that standard incorporate the historic Anglican formularies and to what extent should they be treated as authoritative? Or should the Anglican Church bind itself to the formularies as the standard?

Classical Anglican evangelicals naturally favor the restoration of the formularies to a place of prominence in the teaching and life of the Anglican Church. They believe that groups wishing to be recognized as authentically Anglican need to bring themselves into line with the formularies’ biblical doctrine. This view is, of course, unpopular with groups that do not adhere to the formularies’ biblical teaching, and is labeled “exclusionary.” Where Anglo-Catholics and those open to Anglo-Catholicism predominate, there is a tendency to promote a standard that excludes or nullifies the formularies and is Anglo-Catholic in its emphases. The doctrinal provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons are an example of such a standard. In the case of the ACNA it may be described as a partially hidden standard since it is spread throughout the constitution and canons and is implicit as well as stated. This standard is not only at odds with historic Anglicanism but also is at several points at variance with the Jerusalem Declaration.

Whether the world Anglican community can resolve the conflict over identity and boundary to satisfaction of all parties is doubtful. It will dog that community for the foreseeable future. When the game show moderator asks, “Will the real Anglican stand up?” after a moment’s hesitancy three chairs will be pushed back as their occupants stand to claim that honor.

33 comments:

Chris Larimer said...

Why is it that you never point to the deistic civil religion of the late 18th & early 18th century as the start of trouble?

Why is it that you pass over the functional unitarianism that had passed as "reformed doctrine" in the CofE and instead continually lay the blame at the feet of people who were fighting for a way of life in the church that modeled the Most Holy Trinity?

Why is it that you uphold the GAFCON / Being Faithful documents when they speak of the 39 Articles, but ignore them when they speak of our catholic identity and the recent experience with Pentecostals?

You say that the ACNA makes no room for Reformed Evangelicals. I beg to differ. You're welcome at the table. The plain fact is that you won't have us...or any other expression of the Anglican Communion that exists on the planet today.

(Don't say Sydney...you're screeds against them are becoming better known in the blogosphere.)

Joe Mahler said...

Chris,
When you wrote, "...continually lay the blame at the feet of people who were fighting for a way of life in the church that modeled the Most Holy Trinity?" Did you mean Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical, Anglican Christians? They certainly model themselves according to the righteousness established by God in the pages of Holy Scriptures. I hope you were not thinking anglo-catholic who with their human tradition are often in contradiction to God's Word. They practice idolatry with images and veneration and bowing before objects made of metal, wood, and plaster. They worship bread and drink. None of this is a modeling after the Holy Trinity. This stuff is clearly an abomination in God's Word.
Joe

Soul Deep said...

Mr. Jordan,

The writer of this comment is by definition an Anglo-catholic evangelical.

Sir, I'm not so sure your position on "real Anglicanism" includes such as me. There are many of us out here. We all hold to the non-controverted elements. We view many but hardly all catholic (small c, mind you, as I think you are concerned that we'll want to go big C on you without so much as a fare-thee-well) practices as appropriate to an actively holy, Christocentric, cruciform and actively giving life.

Are you allergic to the supernatural? Is there any room for the holy mysteries in your theology, or is everything, including the presence of the Holy Trinity, empirical?

What have you against episcopal ordination? Are you a congregationalist?

We Anglo-catholic evangelicals (many of us Reformed, BTW) hold to the idea of real presence, and if you'd read Richard Hooker, you'd know we're NOT transubstantiationists.

We hold to the two dominical sacraments.

We are not anti-clericalists, as you appear to be.

Please feel free to start up a non-denom if you prefer.

Your missive does nothing to clear the air that has polluted classical Anglicanism. Kindly try again after doing some better research on the position with which you take issue.

Mr. Mahler, you clearly misunderstand the Anglo-catholic ethos. We worship the Triune God, and NONE OTHER. Full Stop.

Sir, catholic worship praxis does not equal adherence to Roman Catholicism. Do you have any Roman Catholic friends?

If you're so inured to understanding our position, feel free to worship at a Quaker meeting house. Perhaps its spartan accoutrements are more in keeping with your idea of worship.

Joe Mahler said...

SD, "...you clearly misunderstand the Anglo-catholic ethos. We worship the Triune God, and NONE OTHER. Full Stop." You obviously read into sentences that which were not put there. I did not say anglo-catholic did not worship the Triune God. The Roman church also worships the Triune God. What I did say is that anglo-catholics practice idolatry. That is that they make images of God and bow down before them. They bow before crucifixes, crosses, and bread and wine. Is there something wrong with that? Is a supposed image of Jesus, wrong? Let's see. Who is Jesus? He is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity: He is God, and images of God are forbidden by the second commandment. An image of God or of a god is an idol. You shall not make them and you shall not bow down before them. anglo-catholic priests kneel before bread and wine that they claim by their own hands have been made into the true body and blood of Christ. Now if you do not believe that those images that anglo-catholics bow before are not idols (images of God) then they must be just statues of human beings that you call Jesus Christ. If that is the case then you would have to deny that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. But at any rate all this is rebellion against the Holy Trinity.

Soul Deep said...

Mr. Mahler,

You may wish to review the definition of idolatry - a very serious accusation by the way - at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idolatry

Care to try again? Perhaps some concerted study on what Anglo-catholics believe and practice would be helpful to you.

Perhaps your concern with idolatry would keep you from here: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/london-st-pauls-cathedral-photos/slides/eos_185p ?

RMBruton said...

Robin,
Not surprising that when you turn on the kitchen light of reason, you see the cockroaches of revision scurrying about. In what way are they evangelical, do they accept the Thirty-nine Articles in their plain, grammatical and intended meaning? I rather doubt it. Anyone who has read Hooker would see that he was a Receptionist, but they continue to promote the fables that he would support their own distorted understanding of the Lord's Supper. They continue to try to hijack the term Anglican, now they attempt to co-opt the term evangelical. Perhaps in some convoluted sense but not in any Classical Anglican sense of the term Evangelical.

Joe Mahler said...

SD,
I notice that you don't use your name. Are you ashamed to do so? I know what idolatry is, and I know that it is a serious accusation. It is not made lightly. Your scholarship should have gone a little bit deeper than just to give the dictionary definition of idolatry. I assume you agree with the definition of idolatry you cited. The pertinent one is "1. the religious worship of idols." (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989. But Webster also gives the following definition for "idol": "1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed. 2. Bible. a. an image of a deity other than God. b. the deity itself." Now, what does the Bible actually say? Exodus 20: "4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Note: There is a prohibition of any kind of image for the purpose of worship or adoration, whether that image be in heaven, on earth, or under the earth.
It is no wonder the ango-catholics like to eliminate the Decalogue from the Lord's Supper. It reminds them that they are in rebellion against God's righteousness. Don't look to the secular dictionary for you definitions when God has already established what He means in His Word. Man is subject to God not God to man.

JimB said...

Wow, Robin, you have set off quite a storm here. From my perspective the real reason for the storm is that so many think they have to get not a seat at the table but rather the power to deny others a seat. Jesus offered community and diner to Judas, conservatives, heritage Anglicans, Orthodox or whomever is leading the charge cannot manage to share with each other let alone liberals.

And there the errors -- the twin assumptions that you and your version of Calvin are what God thinks when he has the correct information, and that you are charged to clear the table of bad guys. Nope.

FWIW
jimB

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

It sounds to me that you have bought into the nineteenth century Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologues' propaganda hook line and sinker. I would recommend that you expand your reading. Start with Peter Nockles' The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760-1857. A major linchpin in the Tractarians' campaign to present themselves as the saviours of the Church of England was to portray the Church of England in the eighteenth century and the opening decades of the nineteenth century in the worst possible light. They also portrayed themselves as the only true High Churchman. The detractors of the Tractarians were not all evangelicals. They included High Churchmen and former Tractarians. They even included those sympathetic to the movement. The latter was critical of the questionable scholarship and the intellectual dishonesty of Newman, Pusey, and other Tractarian leaders. The Anglo-Catholic movement is built on a foundation of half-truths and falsehoods. The Tractarians' sympathy with the Church of Rome and their desire for reapproachment was unconcealed. The Tractarian movement in its later stages introduced into the Church of England doctrines and practices that were alien even to the pre-Reformation medieval English Church.

If the ACNA actually makes room for confessional Anglicans--those who uphold the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her formularies, why does it constitution and canons take a Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on so many key issues that historically have divided Anglicans--apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments to name a few? Why does the ACNA constitution in its choice of wording and emphasis neutralize the historic Anglican formularies as long recognized doctrinal standards of Anglicanism? "Your dog won't hunt" as the old saying goes.

The only welcome that the ACNA extends to confessional Anglicans is to those who compromise or abandon their beliefs and principles. How does that make the ACNA any different from TEC, which tells everyone they are welcome as long as they accept homosexual practice, the ordination of gays and lesbians, and the blessing of homosexual liasons?

I think that it is time that you faced up to the fact that the ACNA is not as comprehensive as you like to pretend that it is. A lot of what went into the ACNA constitutions and canons was unnecessary and unwarranted. The canons are seriously flawed. There has been a lot of criticism of the proposed changes in the disciplinary canons of TEC. Has anyone other than myself taken a serious look at the ACNA disciplinary canons? The proposed changes to the TEC disciplinary canons take away a number of safeguards. The ACNA disciplinary canons offer very few if any safeguards. A major objection to the proposed changes in the TEC disciplinary canons is the new powers they give to the Presiding Bishop. Has any one other than myself examined the unusual powers that the ACNA disciplinary canons give to the Archbishop?

The ACNA constitution and canons cry out for reform and the ACNA is only one year old. They were crying out for reform when they were adopted, when they were rushed through the initial Provincial Assembly.

Now you are spinning my call for evangelicals outside of North America to reconsider their unconditional support of the ACNA "a screed against Sydney." In the not too distant future I believe that the evangelicals in the UK and Ireland, the Africans, and the evangelicals in Sdney are going to regret their support of the ACNA. The ACNA has too much TEC in its DNA. Like TEC it sees itself as the future of Anglicanism and like TEC it shows an inclination to act unilaterally. Sooner or later the ACNA is going to do something to alienate its supporters outside of North America. It is only a matter of time.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Soul Deep,

What is the relevance of this particular comment to my article?

Are you allergic to the supernatural? Is there any room for the holy mysteries in your theology, or is everything, including the presence of the Holy Trinity, empirical?

Because someone raises an objection to the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and ordination, it does not follow that they are opposed to episcopal ordination or that they are a congregationalist. Anglicans have historically divided on these two issues. The Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position is just one of a number of positions. It is not the position of the English Reformers or authentic historical Anglicanism. It is also not the position of classical Anglican evangelicalism.

In a church that is supposedly comprehensive to adopt a narrowly partisan position on these issues is unwarranted. I have examined the fundamental documents of a number of other Anglican provinces and they affirm episcopal ordination without using such partisan language.

On what basis do you believe yourself to be an evangelical? It would be helpful if you explained your understanding of the term “evangelical” and tell us where and from whom you acquired this understanding. There are a number of definitions of the “evangelical” in circulation. Some may have a degree of validity; others are much more questionable.

Where do you find in the writings of Richard Hooker support for the doctrine of the Real Presence as it is generally understood, that is Christ is present in or under the form of the bread and wine? Hooker is widely recognized for holding a receptionist view of the sacrament of the Eucharist. He wrote that Christ’s presence is not to be found in the bread and wine but in the heart of the believer.

In the nineteenth century the Tractarians claimed to find support for their views in the writings of Jewel, Hooker, and the Caroline divines. As both their contemporaries and modern scholars have noted, Newman and Pusey often selected from the writings they cited passages that appeared to support their argument when a closer examination of the particular work showed that it said something completely different. The Tractarians liked to claim that they stood in continuity with the Caroline divines and were their spiritual heirs but in reality that was far from the case.

What is your understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence? This is a doctrine that means different things to different groups. Do you believe that Christ is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine and offers himself through the priest to God? Do you believe that the faithful are associated with Christ in his offering? Do you believe the priest acts in person of Christ? Do you believe that ordination confers upon the priest the power to bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist? If you hold these beliefs, then the doctrine of Real Presence to which you subscribe is also known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Thirty-Nine Articles reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation in its different variant forms (Article 28). you subscribe is also known as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Thirty-Nine Articles reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation in its different variant forms (Article 28).

Classical Anglican evangelicals are not Zwinglian memorialists. They believe that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper but not in or under the form of bread and wine. His presence is true—not imagined, and it is spiritual—not corporal. The means by which the believing communicant feeds upon Christ is faith. This is the doctrine of the true spiritual presence and it is the doctrine that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer teaches. (cont'd)

Robin G. Jordan said...

In the Lord’s Supper we lift our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up by faith to heaven. In the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper the substance of the bread and wine are not changed, but the word of God and heavenly grace coming to the sacrament, “there is such efficacy when we rightly receive the Lord’s Supper…with the very divine nourishment of his body and blood, most full of health and immortality, given to us by the work of the Holy Ghost, and received of us by faith, as the mouth of our soul, we are continually fed and sustained to eternal life….” Christ gives himself to us in other ways than by the Lord’s Supper, and he principally gave himself to us to be the author of our salvation, when he gave himself to death for us. This explanation comes from Part Four, of the Sacraments, of Alexander Nowell’s Catechism, which Nowell prepared at the request of Convocation in 1563. It has the status of official doctrine of the Church of England. The Catechism in 1662 Prayer Book was adapted from Nowell’s Catechism.

You say that you subscribe to a number of Reformed beliefs. It would be helpful if you shared with us what Reformed beliefs you hold. Some Reformed beliefs are not particularly Reformed. They are also catholic beliefs. The Reformed Churches did not completely discard “the ancient common heritage of Christendom” but retained it in a biblical form.

Classical Anglican evangelicals have historically been recognized as standing in continuity with the English Reformers more than any other group in the Anglican Church. They can claim more than any such group to represent authentic historic Anglicanism. In the nineteenth century the Tractarians and the Anglo-Catholics tried to push the evangelicals out of the Church of England. In their publications and in their sermons and lectures they claimed that they were the only true Churchmen, and the evangelicals had no place in the Church of England. They campaigned for the abolition of the Thirty-Nine Articles. They succeeded in driving the conservative Evangelical Episcopalians out of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873. In 1920s they joined with the Broad Churchmen in a nearly successful attempt to remove the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book but were thwarted by the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church. How do you differ from them in your suggestion that I should "start up a non denom"?

As I observed in my article, each new group that comes along wants to redefine Anglicanism and reinterpret Anglican Church history to create a place for themselves in the Anglican Church. This naturally brings them into conflict with classical Anglican evangelicals who uphold the biblical and Reformation teaching of the historic Anglican formularies. The Thirty-Nine Articles set the bounds of Anglican comprehensiveness and not the latest group to come along. This was the intent of their authors. The Articles interpreted in their plain, natural, and intended sense, and not reinterpreted Rome-wards without any regard to historical context or authorial intent as Newman tried to do, are, alongside the Prayer Book and the Ordinal, the doctrinal standard of Anglicanism. (See page 35 of the Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today)If the particular belief of a group does not fall within the bounds of comprehensiveness the Articles set, it has no place in the Anglican Church, even if the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches accept that belief.

Since the nineteenth century there has been a concerted effort not only to redefine Anglicanism but also evangelicalism. Another term for this process of redefinition of terms and the accompanying reinterpretation of Church history is revisionism. While revisionism is frequently associated with liberals in the Anglican Church, it is not confined to that particular group. The theory of Anglican identity as a via media in its different variants is an example of nineteenth century revisionism. (Cont'd)

Robin G. Jordan said...

In its history the Episcopal Church drifted far from authentic historic Anglicanism. It became a church in which liberalism and modernism were blended with largely unreformed Catholicism. Its departure from the 1662 Prayer Book began very early in its history, and became more pronounced with the adoption of the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books. While it adopted its own version of the Thirty-Nine Articles, it never fully subscribed to their doctrine. With the 1979 Prayer Book it relegated to the past, putting it into the historical documents section of the new Prayer Book. Most clergy and congregations that form the new Anglican Church in North America and which came from the Episcopal Church are arguably more Episcopalian than Anglican. In some ways the ACNA has simply turned back the clock 50 years and returned to the Episcopal Church of the 1960s. At the same time former Episcopal clergy and congregations have brought into the ACNA the more recent idea that Anglican comprehensiveness embraces a wide diversity of disparate theologies, an idea that the liberals have championed.

It is quite reasonable to expect a church that calls itself Anglican and affirms the Jerusalem Declaration to give a much more prominent place to the historic Anglican formularies than the ACNA has done so far. It is also equally as reasonable to expect those who describe themselves as “evangelical” to sit more tightly to the distinctives of classical Anglican evangelicalism in a church calling itself Anglican. If a halt is not put to the constant redefining of the terms “Anglican” and “evangelical,” “Anglicans will no longer be recognizably Anglican from an authentic historic Anglican perspective and “evangelicals” will no longer be recognizably evangelical from a classical Anglican evangelical perspective. They will be Anglicans and evangelicals in name only.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Jim,

I think that you may be missing my point. We cannot keep redefining Anglicanismto make room for everybody. We have to stop somewhere or being Anglican becomes meaningless. We have to establish some kind of boundary. Everyone, however, has their own ideas as to what that boundary should be. I do not hide the fact that I would prefer we gave a prominent place to the historic Anglican formularies as the boundary elements. The Thirty-Nine Articles were originally established for that purpose. They do not exclude people. They rule out certain beliefs and practices. Because of my preference I am labeled as exclusionary. But the reality is all boundaries, actual and proposed, are exclusionary. The ACNA boundary is exclusionary of classical Anglican evangelicals whether or not the ACNA folks are willing to admit it, as is the TEC boundary albeit for different reasons. If a classical Anglican evangelical wants to be a part of either church, he must compromise or abandon his beliefs and principles. Being totally inclusive does not work. The Congregationalists tried it in the nineteenth century and the experiment was a failure. Everyone was welcome who had some kind of belief in Jesus no matter what that belief was. The liberals found the conservatives too conservative and the conservatives found the liberals too liberal. They ended up forming seperate congregations and even then they did not get along.

Your reference to "my version of Calvin" tickles me. I admit that I have read John Calvin and studied his life and theology. However, my own Reformed theological views are largely drawn from the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the two Books of Homilies, and various benchmark Anglican divines. As far as the Swiss Reformers are concerned, I have been influenced more by Zurich and Henry Bullinger than Geneva and John Calvin. Like Charles Simeon and J. C. Ryle,I am a "Bible Christian," not a "system man." My final authority is the Bible, not the opinion of an early Church father or a Reformation father.

JimB said...

Robin,
You wrote in part, "We cannot keep redefining Anglicanismto make room for everybody. We have to stop somewhere or being Anglican becomes meaningless. We have to establish some kind of boundary. " Here in the problem.

It is fair to ask why we have to establish boundaries beyond the historic creeds and even there (et filoque) there is some variance. As to "meaningless" if the Anglican community is the set of those churches who affirm the creeds and quadrilateral, everyone on the various sides can fit at the table and that is indeed meaningful.

It is also unacceptable to those like Bishop Wright (with whom I had a similar conversation some years ago) who need boundaries. If we read the gospels looking for boundaries or Paul, we are not going to find all that many and none that divide the various Anglican expressions.

The issue is boundaries themselves. If God chooses to set some, God can. You and I not so much. Or so it seems to me.

FWIW
jimB

Chris Larimer said...

Robin,

It may surprise you but I came by my Anglicanism via the old prayer book and reading Hooker. It wasn't through Anglo-Catholic tracts or any such thing. That's why I urge you back to him. Hooker wrote of different spiritual powers of generation given to the orders of ministry directly instituted by Christ (apostles/episcopacy and presbyters, cf. Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V.LXXVIIƒ). If that's not an endorsement of the unique ministry of the episcopate, I don't know what is. It's not merely a way we ordered ourselves (as was the diaconate), but rather a distinction first made by Christ and continued by His Bride. That argues strongly against your rather dismissive attitude towards the historic episcopate which you see as an AC intrusion into AC-NA canons.

Soul Deep said...

A distinct anti-Anglo-catholic bias is coming through from posters and the proprietor of this blog, so my answering questions posed to me will be of very little value given that bent. As I am thick of head, I proceed anon.

Am I ashamed of my name? Hardly. Good thing my blogger identity hides it, as I would not like to be accused, via the bias noted, of pro-Roman sentiments by my associates and colleagues.

Am I Reformed? Absolutely. Protestant Catholics were among the original reformed. I hold ZERO obeisance, deference, or submission to Rome, the pope, the magisterium, et cetera. Marian theology gives me the sweats. Aquinas went too far. The medieval church went too far. Vatican II went too far and not far enough.

Apparently, one person's idolatry is another's praxis. Praxis, unless dictated under duress to another is adiaphora.

If you do not understand another's praxis, DON'T take that as an opportunity to impugn it. Due diligence is required. That involves research, discussion, prayerful consideration.

As to the nonsense about not using the Decalogue or its being eliminated from the LORD's Supper: have you attended an Anglo-catholic parish on Sunday during Lent? Do YOU state the Decalogue at every Eucharist? BTW, for us Anglo-catholics, the Pentateuch as a whole serves as what Torah is: God-given instruction, the basis of a solid moral code.

I am evangelical in that the Good News must, no exceptions, be taken outside the walls of the parish in addition to being proclaimed with Holy Spirit fire from the pulpit. Evangelism (Matt. 28:20) is paramount to a Gospel proclaiming church.


OK, no more having to defend myself. I'm tired and need a break...

traditionalanglican said...

If one takes your position to its logical extreme Anglicanism should be that of King Henry. That would be the mass in Latin and most of the trappings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Soul Deep said...

There is no such thing as a logical extreme. Logical conclusion, yes. You're not listening (or reading what I typed). Your anti-Rome position is so virulent that it paints anyone who disagrees with you in any way with the same hue.

I'll ring off further comments as some of the folks here have positions that would make a 17th century Puritan or even Jonathan Edwards (of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God fame) appear liberal.

Reformation said...

Soul Deep:

Read the 55-volume set of Parker Society series for an understanding of Anglicanism and its 17th century trajectory.

Then, return.

Thanks, Robin. The more I read you, the more it all resonates.

traditionalanglican said...

There is no such thing as a logical extreme. Logical conclusion, yes . . .
# posted by Blogger Soul Deep : 4:08 PM

I used the term logical extreme on purpose.

Soul Deep said...

Reformation,

Read this http://books.google.com/books?id=eNUrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA822&lpg=PA822&dq=richard+hooker+eucharist&source=bl&ots=VQ_bK1sAb7&sig=e8qPH8kY4syF3b4UDnz5RH56ORQ&hl=en&ei=8veSTIPbJYSBlAfboZyqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=richard%20hooker%20eucharist&f=false

and this:


If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and his blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So that his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every thing which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.

The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. V.67.5,6

and the remainder of Book V of Lawes and then return.

You may call that receptionism - some do. At any rate Hooker's is my theology of the Eucharist. If that irritates you, then you're not paying good attention.

Zingli was less a "signifies" memorialist than you appear to be, and yes, I've read Zwingli, who wrote majestically on the Eucharist, but later changed his views (or Zwingli's later interpreters changed them for him posthumously) based on an odd translation of the koine "estin" to mean symbolizes (from the Gospel institution passages, "This is (estin) my body,..this is (estin) my blood...")

Enjoy your legalistic, sectarian, low church Puritanism. Pehaps Geneva would receive you here: http://reformedpresbyterian.org/.

I wonder why the fine folks at Standfirminfaith.com link to this blog??

Soul Deep said...

Reformation,

Read this (you'll have to reassemble the link as Blogger has a problem with URI length) http://books.google.com/books?
(snip)
id=eNUrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA822&lpg=PA822&dq=richard+hooker+eucharist&source
(snip)
=bl&ots=VQ_bK1sAb7&sig=e8qPH8kY4syF3b4UDnz5RH56ORQ&hl=en&ei=8veSTIPbJYSBlAfboZyqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=richard%20hooker%20eucharist&f=false (snip)

and this:


If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and his blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So that his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every thing which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.

The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. V.67.5,6

and the remainder of Book V of Lawes and then return.

You may call that receptionism - some do. At any rate Hooker's is my theology of the Eucharist. If that irritates you, then you're not paying good attention.

Zingli was less a "signifies" memorialist than you appear to be, and yes, I've read Zwingli, who wrote majestically on the Eucharist, but later changed his views (or Zwingli's later interpreters changed them for him posthumously) based on an odd translation of the koine "estin" to mean symbolizes (from the Gospel institution passages, "This is (estin) my body,..this is (estin) my blood...")

Enjoy your legalistic, sectarian, low church Puritanism. Pehaps Geneva would receive you here: http://reformedpresbyterian.org/.

I wonder why the fine folks at Standfirminfaith.com link to this blog??

Soul Deep said...

Reformation,

Read this (and other references to Hooker on the Eucharist:

If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and his blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So that his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every thing which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.
(more coming next comment)

Soul Deep said...

The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. V.67.5,6

and the remainder of Book V of Lawes and then return.

You may call that receptionism - some do. At any rate Hooker's is my theology of the Eucharist. If that irritates you, then you're not paying good attention.

Zingli was less a "signifies" memorialist than you appear to be, and yes, I've read Zwingli, who wrote majestically on the Eucharist, but later changed his views (or Zwingli's later interpreters changed them for him posthumously) based on an odd translation of the koine "estin" to mean symbolizes (from the Gospel institution passages, "This is (estin) my body,..this is (estin) my blood...")

Enjoy your legalistic, sectarian, low church Puritanism. Pehaps Geneva would receive you here: http://reformedpresbyterian.org/.

I wonder why the fine folks at Standfirminfaith.com link to this blog??

Robin G. Jordan said...

Soul Deep,

To whom are you speaking--me, Joe, someone else. You seem to confuse a number of people. A number of your assertions do not make any sense. I asked for clarification of your position which you provided to some extent and then went off on a tangent. It would be helpful if you stated your understanding of the Real Presence and not your interpretation of Hooker's. Hooker's works are volumnious. It is possible to find all kinds of passages that seem to support what a particular individual may be contending but this does not mean that they actually do. They must be read and interpreted in context of all that Hooker wrote. The Hooker scholars that I have read do not support your contention nor do they support Chris'. Whatever position Hooker takes in any event does not trump the positions of the other benchmark Anglican divines of the period. Hooker is not the Anglican magisterium. One must look at their writings together. The fact of the matter is that authentic historic Anglicanism did not take the position of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic ideologues on episcopacy and apostolic succession, or the Real Presence. One or two passages taken out of context from Hooker prove nothing. Hooker also wrote that the church might do away with bishops and yet remain the church. The Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic movement is a counter-Reformation movement within the Anglican Church and has much more in common theologically with the Church of Rome than it does with authentic historic Anglicanism.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Soul Deep,

Please do not post the same thing over and over. If you want to add a URL, just refer to your previous post and add the URL. If you want a particular reader to take note of what you have written, just post a brief comment calling it to their attention. When you post the same material over and over again in a thread, readers are apt to skip over it and miss any additional comment that you may have added.

Soul Deep said...

Blogger kept throwing URI too large error messages. Why it posted multiple times, I don't know.Apologies for my mess. Dumb user error.

Am not myself a Tractarian. Tractarians were often more Catholic than Rome. Am merely one whose roots are Gospel first and always - Christ and Him crucified at the forefront. The small c catholic bits are for those portions of devotional and liturgical practice that support worship (NOT idolatry of iconography or human personages or relics) of the majestic, transcendent, eternal God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the 21st century there is an over-focus on immanence. Perhaps my over-reaction to the current mushy, sentimental Jesus is my homeboy, bud, sweet love, etc. sent someone who was raised an evangelical over the edge a tad. God is immanent (Immanuel in Jesus, present in the Holy Spirit) AND transcendent - together - always.

Only reason I posted Hooker - who is misinterpreted by everyone on the theological spectrum especially the far right and the far left - was to offer up that his Eucharistic theology (in essence) states that Christ is present (surrounds, abides within and without...) at the Eucharist in His way. The how of that way will remain clouded to us on this side of glory.

I bristle a memorialist tendencies.

Soul Deep said...

I bristle *at* memorialist tendencies.

Typing one-handed is a pain. Sorry, again.

A blessed week's end to all...

Robin G. Jordan said...

Soul Deep,

I certainly agree that Christ is present at the Lord's Supper and his presence real in the sense that it is not imagined. We have his promise that when two or three gather in his name, he would be in their midst. Classical Anglicanism simply does not tie his presence as closely to the bread and wine as does Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. The communicant, who rightly receives the bread and wine is a partaker of Christ's Body and Blood. He feeds on Christ by faith in heart with thanksgiving. In the classical Anglican view the communicant when he receive the bread and wine also receives Christ--not because Christ is in or under the form of bread and wine but by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. Christ's presence is not added to the bread and wine in some mystical way nor is the bread and wine transmogrified into Christ's body and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. Rather our feeding on Christ is a spiritual transaction. Does this offer clarification of the point of view that I am presenting? Christ's presence can be a real presence without being a substantive or corporal presence or being closely to the communion elements. The thing that memorialists fail to realize that if they have the Holy Spirit, they also have the Spirit of Christ. Therefore when they gather to remember the Last Supper and Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross, Christ is present with them in the power of the Holy Spirit. Celebrating the Lord's Supper is more than a bare memorial.

Soul Deep said...

Mr. Jordan,

Your statement is Hooker's eucharistic theology for sure! Thanks!

Charlie J. Ray said...

This piece has expressed my thoughts on the state of Anglicanism much better than anything I have read anywhere. Robin, this is an excellent piece of writing!

Chris, still pretends that Evangelicals have a place at the table while making that place conditional to their views. He wants to say we won't have them. The truth is the knife cuts both ways. They won't have us either!

And why not? Because Anglo-Catholicism and biblical Christianity are at odds with each other. And, as you point out in the article, Anglo-Catholicism has fewer safeguards than Rome has. When liberals infiltrate their ranks rationalism and reason takes precedence over Scripture as the final authority in all matters of morality and doctrine. This is why the Anglican Communion is in a state of apostasy in many of its provinces. It is also just a matter of time before the ACNA returns to the default position taken by the TEC that no one has a right to define any doctrine or behavior as heresy.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Soul Deep, your comment is the perfect illustration of what's wrong with Anglicanism. Archbishop Cranmer's book on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper clearly rejects your highly questionable re-interpretation of Hooker as advocating a real presence in the elements of bread and wine. Hooker's view is virtually identical to Cranmer's view. Any presence in the sacrament is not in the elements but in the hearts of believers as they chew with their spiritual teeth the body and blood of Christ sacrificed once at Calvary. It is only by a true and living faith that anyone can participate in the true body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are called by the names of what they are not. They represent the true body and blood and the wicked eat only bread and wine, not the true and virtual body and blood of Christ which can only be received in the heart and spiritually through a living faith.

Chris Larimer said...

Charlie,

You're breaking the 9th commandment and I exhort you to stop. ACNA is willing to explore unity with anyone and any group that acknowledges the points of catholicity found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

That means that when Anglo-Catholics who are against the ordination of women come to the table, they are welcomed on the basis of things they share but must sideline those issues outside of the big four. If evangelicals insist on something beyond the Scriptures, the catholic creeds, the dominical sacraments, and the historic episcopate...well, who is really refusing unity? There are several AC dioceses out there in the continuum who will not sideline the 1928 BCP or the W/O issue; ACNA welcomes dialogue, but unity won't occur until the basis of the unity is found in the quad.