What Are Required Beliefs of Anglicans?

This may sound like a stupid question...but I truly don't know. Obviously the creeds are still recited in virtually all Anglican churches (well, most anyway), but what specifically is required? My confusion comes from the fact that not only do Anglicans have a wide variety of views on a ton of different issues, but also because the Book of Common Prayer itself seems to declare certain things to be accepted standards which are not followed today. For instance, the Book of Common Prayer contains the "Articles of Religion" on page 867 of the 2007 released version, and in those articles, it is stated that praying to saints is a Roman invention, that free will exists, and that original sin at birth is true. Yet, despite these beliefs, many sects within Anglicanism completely reject one or more of the example above, if not all of them. How is this possible? Are Anglicans basically required to believe nothing in order to be "Anglican?" If so, what does it even mean to be "Anglican?"

 

I would also like to point out that the same appears to be true for Methodists (at least United Methodists).

 

Some are bothered by wide doctrinal diversity; I am not.

 

I am not bothered by it at all either. But the question still remains, do you need to believe any specific set of theological beliefs? I just find it hard to believe that the Episcopal Church has no specific set of guidelines for what they believe. Is the BCP considered that doctrinal standard? After more research, I have found the doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church: http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1L..._Documents_of_The_United_Methodist_Church.htm and they at least spell out what is required to be a "Methodist," although I admit many in the denomination do not actually meet those criteria and no one in the UMC enforces it like Catholics or Orthodox do.

 

I believe the BCP and the 39 Articles are that doctrinal standard. But great latitude is still allowed and accepted.

The principle of looking to the prayer books as a guide to the parameters of belief and practice is called by the Latin name lex orandi, lex credendi ("the law of prayer is the law of belief").

 

Ok. It seems rather confusing to me then that something can be "doctrinal standard" but not accepted by a great number of people. It looks almost like anyone, no matter what they believe, can be called an Episcopalian or Anglican. I realize that every denomination carries with it many people, sometimes even a majority, who reject the doctrinal standards of that denomination, but there is a big difference between a church that says "this is what we believe and what it means to be a part of our church" and "this is what some of us believe and you can be one of us whether you agree with it or not."

 

See bold: That is not true -- although in the TEC it almost is, considering the far left extremism and even paganism that has infiltrated the church.

But generally speaking, would you rather have a situation where there is enforced doctrinal uniformity, or a situation like Anglicanism which has general doctrinal standards but allows disagreement, within orthodox teaching? I choose the latter. For example, if the 39 Articles were rigidly required and interpreted, there would be no place for the Anglo-Catholics. While I strongly disagree with them in most areas, I would not want to see them excluded from Anglicanism. Would you?

 

Of course I would not want to see them excluded. I am not at all advocating for the Anglican Church to force doctrinal standards on anyone's conscience. However, this is really about what Anglicans are allowed to teach. And I do believe that to be in the Church as a leader, and to teach in the Church, one should adhere to the same doctrinal standards. Otherwise, you will have thousands of different teachings that contradict each other all in the same church. I don't have a problem then with making the required doctrinal standards broad, but they need to at least be in place. In Anglicanism, it doesn't seem like that is the case. Not even the 39 Articles are adhered to! I think that is a real problem and I believe it has directly led to what we see now in the TEC.

 

It is par for the course today, in the decline of Christianity. The Roman Catholic church that is supposedly against contraception in a recent survey has 90%+ of Roman Catholics using contraception. The most socially progressive politicians in the US are often RC -- Nancy Pelosi, Biden, and the like. These people have tried to push forth abortion amendments in direct contradiction to the supposed stance of the actual church. Obama surrounded himself with Nuns to lecture the country on the need for abortion, etc.

 

I understand the point, but there is a giant difference between the two scenarios. In the RC, the laity may not believe or follow what the Church teaches, but the Church, everywhere, is required to teach the same doctrines. In the Episcopal Church, and many parts of the Anglican Communion, there are a wide array of doctrines being openly taught and accepted as a valid form of teaching. There is no, as far as I can tell, standard by which all Anglicans must adhere. This means an Anglican parish can essentially teach anything it wants, and often does. Now I realize this is controlled by the national church and my experience is tainted by the Episcopal Church, but it sounds like many of the Anglican churches in Europe are in the same boat. I guess that's what I am confused about even still...What even makes a person an Anglican or a parish Anglican, other than just a legal affiliation? It seems like anything from Anglo-Catholic to Calvinism is taught with either no liturgy or high church liturgy using either the BCP or basically ignoring it.

 

Sadly, what you said is correct.

 

Is it? If so why is the RC Archbishop of Vienna in favor of female priests, and advocates that doctrine? You are overstating your case. There are many other such wrinkles in the Roman system. There is even a 'gay lobby' in the Vatican as Francis recently admitted. I thought that was contrary to Roman doctrine?

In some sense what you say is true, because the Pope can ultimately pull back and fire any bishops he doesn't like. In Roman Communion nobody has any rightful status but the Pope alone, and bishops per se don't exist. Only one bishop, in Rome, exists truly, and he's the only actual bishop in the roman communion. He imposes his will on the whole. If that's what you were trying to say, you are correct.

The point about that is that we can analyze that setup through the lens of standard classical political theory. It has the same advantages and disadvantages that a monarchy would. When the monarch is good, the system is good, and when he is bad, the system is bad. In Anglicanism, you are right there is more fragmentation because there's no universal bishop holding the whole church under his thumb. And you may suffer in the US, as all of us are. But the simple fact is that the majority of the Anglican communion is very conservative. If you remember news of African Christians who went so far as to even criminalize homosexuality -- those were Anglicans in Nigeria. The GAFCON and the Global South are extremely conservative, and they constitute the majority of the communion. So while we are suffering, the majority of Anglicans in the world do not suffer under heresies, and they do have that unity, which we lack.

 

I don't agree at all regarding your point. Yes, of course, many bishops, priests, deacons, volunteers, and laity in the Catholic Church teach and say things which are false. But they do so in defiance of the OFFICIAL stance of the Church. No one in any organization can stop a minority of people from expressing something the organization as a whole does not agree with. My point is not to say that the Roman system of governing works better. I don't believe that at all! What I am saying though is that AT LEAST there are standards which are official and required on paper. There is a set of doctrines every single Catholic in the world can point to and say: "This is what my church teaches as truth. Yes are some who disagree and teach something else that is contrary, but the official position of my church is (fill in the blank)." In the AC, there is no such official position. You can believe or teach whatever you want and no one is going to stop you and there is no official document to point to and say "You must follow this."

If we are going to relate this all to political theory, then my point is that the AC needs to be a "Constitutional" church, where certain inalienable beliefs are taught as officially true. Of course there will be some that twist the words of that official set of doctrines and many more who ignore them completely, but it doesn't change the fact that at least a written code exists which we all can appeal to. The AC has nothing. If I say one thing is true and you say another thing is true, there is no objective standard we can point to and agree that, regardless of which one of us right, this is what our church teaches. If our church doesn't officially teach anything, then what is the point of the church at all? There is no standard of truth or clearly defined doctrines, even on an elementary level.

Now the difference is that some national churches do have clearly defined dogma, and it just so happens that my national church does not...I realize that this greatly affects my view on the subject, but you can't deny that the American national church would not be able to get away with this if the AC said, "No, this set of doctrines are what we all officially agree are the standard of our faith." Without objective truth, then church is relegated to a post-modern theological club where "whatever you believe is true for you."

 

And so have Anglicans. You will not be able to find anyone that denies the Creeds, for instance.

Again you overstate your case. What is the official RC stance on male priesthood? Is the archbishop of Vienna 'wrong', or is he merely at odds with some of the others? Quote me an official RC document on this doctrine, please.

Also, what is the RC stance on priestly celibacy? How does it correspond it with the "Ordinariate", a section in the RC church that admits married Anglican priests into the RC church, and doesn't require them to divorce.

Are you asking or are you stating? You've suddenly become an expert on all things AC despite recently asking about a church to attend for the first time .

Yes and I've pointed those out.

 

The official doctrine required of Anglicans is found in the Articles of Religion (1571), Prayer Book of 1662, and Books of Homilies (1547 and 1571).

 

Is this what happens when reason is elevated above scripture and tradition? I believe a problem of the modern church is that humankind's whims, biases, belief's, preferences are elevated above those of the Father. So, humankind endorses as permissible that which we have reasoned in our own human minds is okay.

The first answer to the call of discipleship is obedience...even to that with which we disagree. Consider the invitation to the disciples...come with me and I will make you fishers of men...they responded solely with obedience. Certainly reason would have had them remain fishermen or stay in their own communities instead of following this curious Fellow who they did not fully understand.

 

I certainly do not classify myself as an expert on the AC (to say the absolute least). This whole thread was asking a question, to which you responded with "basically nothing." Now you are saying the Creeds, articles, formularies, and scripture are all the standards of faith. Perhaps you just misunderstood my question from the beginning or I misstated the question to start with, because these answers are far different than the first answer you gave.

With that said, it doesn't appear that the things you listed are doctrinal standards at all because no one has to believe them or teach them to be a priest in some of the Anglican churches, like the Episcopal Church. Unless I am missing something, most TEC bishops will not stop a priest from totally rejecting virtually any of the things you listed above, save possibly the creeds.

Further, you keep brining up the RC and specific instances where they are unclear or contradict themselves. I don't care to debate any of those issues because they have absolutely nothing to do with my question here. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. The RC has the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which whether you agree with it or not, spells out exactly what they officially teach on many issues. Does it address everything? No. The point isn't that it addresses every issue. The point is that at least they have something! Any priest or bishop who teaches against the CCC can be removed for violating official doctrine. This is the major difference. In many AC churches, this doesn't happen. Priests and bishops can teach anything. That's what it seems like.

Now, you have recently said that the Creeds, the Prayerbook, etc. are doctrinal standards...so I guess our definitions of a doctrinal standard are very different. For me, a doctrinal standard is required for teaching and is the normal standard of belief. In the AC, churches are not required to teach anything in particular as the Episcopal Church has proven.

 

Thank you for this. I appreciate the addition and the thoughts. If this is truly the case though, I don't really understand how Anglo-Catholics can teach what they do while liberal Christians also teach entirely different doctrines. If it is a standard, how come no one enforces it?

 

The problem with obedience in America for an Anglican is...there are many different churches with many different beliefs and even different bishops with different beliefs...and now different denominations within Anglicanism with different beliefs. Who should we obedient to?

 

It might have been my fault. Your post to Hackney asked why the standard is not enforced sometimes, and I went straightat that without answer your initial question.

Hackney is a better expert on the TEC than me so he'll fill you in on that. The doctrinal standards are on the books but the national church does not systematically enforce them. That is true, but that's a different question than whether the standards exist, or whether we as Anglicans have them to adhere to. Btw the conservative bishops do require adherence to them when ordaining a priest and conservative parishes do require them. It's spotty and that's why I personally am in favor of ACNA which has included the Articles and the 1662 Prayerbook in its official set of doctrinal standards.

Again that's different from whether the standards exist.

The simplest answer for why standards are not enforced is the same as why Christians are weak today in general; the methodists don't enforce the original methodist doctrinal statements; the Presbyterians do not enforce the Westminster Standards; and the Roman church does not enforce the official policies it has on the books.

I already mentioned almost no RC believing the official stance on contraception. Even worse, almost no RC believes that the host is the physical and corporal body of God Himself, presented and sacrificed by the RC priest on the altar. This most essential RC doctrine is fundamentally ignored by RC priests, religious, and laity. The biggest believers in this doctrine, the SSPX, aren't even a part of today's Roman Communion.

All this is what I was trying to bring across in my initial answer. The comparison with other churches is important and necessary, to point out the weakness of Christianity as a whole today.