I grew up in a mixed-Christian (Mom was, Dad kind of went along until they divorced) home where I was taught that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God. We were generic American evangelicals: General Baptist theology with sympathy for the charismatic movement. In my high school years, I decided to delve into theology since I was dissatisfied with the Biblical basis for what I was taught as a kid. I became an orthodox Presbyterian, got baptized in a Presbyterian Church, and grew while I was in the Presbyterian Church. Since my theological shift, I've had much more sympathy with the Anglican Communion than I did before. As a typical American evangelical, I was basically taught to believe Anglicans were Catholic-lite who thought Priests should be allowed to be married (or women). In my studies as I became Reformed, I realized that this was not the case. I also thought that, if I lived in England, I would have joined an Anglican Church rather than a Presbyterian one. Since then, I have moved and I have decided to attend a local Anglican Church. In the interim, I have come to believe the Elizabethan Settlement formed a very Biblical Church, whether or not that was the intent. I am both High Church, and yet Reformed and Evangelical. I think the Elizabethan Churchmen such as Whitgift and Hooker, as well as some of the later churchmen like James Ussher and George Carleton, held to Biblical truth much more closely than either their radical Puritan or Roman Catholic opponents. Anyway, I look forward to being part of the discussion and upholding Traditional Anglicanism and Biblical Christianity.
EC, may I ask if you've joined an Episcopal church or one of the other American Anglican bodies and if so, which one? How well does your Reformed leamings jive with you new church home? (Congratz on finding way anglicanism btw)
It's an REC church within the ACNA. They seem pretty Reformed doctrinally, though borderline Anglo-Catholic in liturgical practice. At first, I was kind of put off by some of the ritual involved, and I probably wouldn't adopt some of their practices if I had my druthers, but I can live with them. I plan on talking with one of the parish's presbyters to get to know their theology a bit better soon, but all but one of their clergymen attended Reformed seminaries.
Wonderful! I hope you find peace and growth in your new church home. I assume that when you say reformed, you mean calvinist leaning. Would you consider that an accurate estimation? Also, please do tell us the inspiration of your name.
Yes, that would be the case. I don't usually like the term "Calvinist," however, since I think the typical modern Calvinist these days is in a theological ditch just as much as the modern Arminian. I think both of them ignore the overall context of Romans 9-11 and other relevant passages, but I do think the Calvinist is right on the technical point he is trying to make while the Arminian is wrong. What exactly I mean by that I'll dig into some other time. I admire both Richard Hooker and John Whitgift, the preeminent Elizabethan Anglican Churchmen. Furthermore, the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church managed to hold both the High Church and Reformed beliefs in tension. For instance, George Carleton managed to uphold a strict Calvinism along with Apostolic Succession for the episcopate at the Synod of Dordt. That is a position very close to Augustine himself, who managed to hold to a strong view of Sovereign Grace, the Sacraments, and the Church at the same time. Since that is the position I take, I want to be associated with those Churchmen. I don't think there is any inherent contradiction or inconsistency between those views.
Since you are an RECer, yiu might find this link of interest: http://books.google.com/books?id=7SZYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reformed episcopal church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9vO-UsK9Bcmu2AWL8oHABA&ved=0CEUQuwUwAA It's a link to google books' scanned copy of the 1889 REC prayerbook. I was amazed by its articles of religion, which differ from the CofE's in key ways imo (but then so does the ECUSA's). I notice that currently on the church website, it uses the original 39. Do you know the story behind the shift? If so, please share it, I'd love to learn more. I speculate that it might ascribe to bot, with one fleshing out the other, but I can also see places where that might be problematoc. But then Im an outsider looking in.
Even though I've only been attending an REC for a few months, I had surveyed a bit of its history in the past few years, so I do know a little bit about what you're asking. Also, it has more to do with the recent history of Presbyterianism in America than internal REC factors, believe it or not, and that's a controversy that I am intimately acquainted with (the Pastor who baptized me was heavily involved in the controversy). The REC was founded as a very Low, broad evangelical Church. The Protestant Episcopal Church had become Anglo-Catholic in almost its entirety by the time Bishop Cummins decided to leave and form the REC with a few other bishops (all assistants/suffragan or retired, I believe), and he was a Low Church Calvinist. The REC overtime became a fringe Calvinist group, basically Presbyterians with prayer books, but even lower church than many Presbyterians. So, they adopted the 1785 prayer book and its articles of religion, which was very low church. I have found that low church Anglicans often are reacting to some of the excesses of Anglo-Catholicism and go too far in the other direction in order to try to distance themselves from the "Roman Catholic-lites." Meanwhile, in the 1980's, there was a revival of interest in High Church views within American Presbyterianism. This movement is called the "Federal Vision," if any any want to look into closer. Eventually, many of those people decided that Episcopalian government and liturgy was more Biblical than the Presbyterian views of those issues. Since they still held Calvinist views and those are a tiny minority in The Episcopal Church, and strict Calvinistic Presbyterians had long since abandoned the Mainline anyway, their natural home was the Reformed Episcopal Church. However, since the REC was tiny and very low church, the newcomers quickly overcame the old uber-low churchmen and restored a lot of the High Anglican practices and doctrines. Now, the REC has started to allow the use of the 1928 prayer book, changed its own standard to a combination of the 1662 and the 1928 prayer book, and adopted all 39 articles. This also led to them uniting with the ACNA when that came about.
I know. It really is amazing how much the Church has fractured, especially here in the United States. At the turn of the last century, there were maybe 2 or 3 forms of each of the main denominational groupings, and only one of them was a major force. Now, it's hard to navigate the "Alphabet Soup" that American Protestantism has become. It's really becoming a sad joke and it has done real harm to the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We should all pray that our divisions will be healed and new life given to the Church here in America and throughout the Western World.
Thank you. I hesitated a lot before adopting my positions because High Church Calvinists seemed to be a dying breed even before Charles I lost his head. However, I think it's an eminently Biblical position when rightly understand, and so I had to adopt it. It seems like some others think the same way.
I would describe myself as "High Church Calvinist" with some caveats to both of those words, but anyways, welcome!