I came across this http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/catechism A very well written, matter-of- fact document. I enjoyed it. Unapologetic on the essentials and yet comprehensiveand charitable on iasues of adiaphora.
I have to agree, it's a fairly well put together document. It (explicitly) tries to please everyone so all parties should find a good deal that they agree with and a few substantial things they disapprove of. Some critiques, 1) it is too long for use in a class for newcomers. They could benefit from producing several editions (like Nowell's Catechism) and/or editing it down a bit. 2) The sinner's prayer bit is a rather strange.
i disagree on both points. (1) As i came to TEC formally as a young adult I found my catechesis prior to confirmation woefully thin and wished more could have been provided. it was 2 10-minute sitdowns with my parish's elderly deacon running through the high points of TEC's catechism. I can see this being along the lines of textbook for an in-depth four part class kind of like lutheranism 101 classes in the lcms. (2) i guess you are referring to the "prayer of faith and repentence" at the beginning of the work. I think making a commitment like that is an excellent way to begin one's catechesis. it seems no more srrange tban the TECBCP's " a form of commitment to christian service". imo the sinner's prayer iz only a problem insofar as there is a faulty theology that is often attached to it by evangelisr
ts that say all you have to do to be saved is say the prayer. theres nothing in and of itself offensive about the prayer.
but i too enjoy its comprehensiveness and big- tentedness without sacrificing essentials of the faith ans traditions of Anglican Christianity.
The sinner's prayer completely threw me off as well. The first few pages of the intro were too...well Southern Baptist/non-denominational sounding (I have attended both types of churches) rather than Anglican in the model of the BCP catechism. That being said, the catechism itself, with the questions and answers were very well done.
So each country is supposed to have its own Catechism now? :think: I don't get how this is supposed to work.
I like the ACNA Catechism. I like anything that J. I. Packer writes, edits, or approves. I did not know that he had gone over to ACNA. An important convert for them, even if he is age 87. ***** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Packer
In line with my thread about the declaration of assent and the Athanasian creed, I think there are serious problems with affirming the Athanasian creed as both a creed and catholic, neither of which it actually is, as far as I can tell from my research.
When we were at school, we were told that the Athanasian Creed was simply a doctrinal hymn. I like the beginning, not simply I believe, But,'Whosever wishes to be saved' a firm line and no dithering about! It does remain however the standard of doctrine for at least some Anglicans and I think that what puts so many Anglican backs up about it is its uncompromising tone," 'Whosoever will be saved it is above all things necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, which faith except he keep he do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" If I remember aright, the 8th Article recommends that it ought to be ,'thoroughly to be received and believed'. Also this Creed is recommended because it, like all three Creeds imposed by the Anglican Church, is based on Scipture, unlike say the Roman Creed of Trent!
Hi John, Have you looked over the other thread I started regarding the Athansian creed? To be short: historically it is not really a 'creed'; it wasn't written by Athanasius; it isn't 'catholic' (it wasn't accepted by any ecumenical council; it is Western specific and was created during or after the developing split between East and West; it would damn many Eastern Orthodox based upon a particular Trinitarian understanding); it hasn't been enduringly accepted within Anglicanism (it was argued about from the 19th c; it was unused in practice; it was reduced in liturgy over time; it was removed from the Episcopalian assents in 1801; it is not used in the province of NZ; it is not in the latest CofE Book of Common Worship; it is arguable whether assent to it is required in many modern Anglican provinces); and, additionally, many would argue with its biblical basis (universalists would obviously argue with damnation; annihilationists may also; and many would argue that salvation is not tied into specific doctrinal understandings, especially with regard to something as complex as the intra-Trinitarian relations). Given all these difficulties, it seems to me to be a retrograde step re-introducing it as equal to the Apostle's and Nicene creeds and defining the faith, rather than simply allowing it to be a historical formulation that should inform the faith. In such things, a latitudinarian approach that allows for some variation in understanding on disputed and dubious matters is best.
As I've found the Anglican Church holds three Creeds and one of them is the so-called Athanasian. I agree, it isn't a Creed, if only because it doesn't start with ,'I believe,'. However, it has been accepted, along with the seven councils by the Church in England as a means of defining doctrine and it is based on scripture. From my limited experience it is accepted by the Orthodox, even though some claim it is of western providence, the original my teacher told me was written in Latin. I know that interest in it has faded to almost nil, yet, what it says is no worse than scripture," He that believeth shall not be condemned." (S.Mark xv1 . 16) "He that believeth not hath already been judged".( S.John 3.: 18 .) As Anglican Catholics the scriptures are interpreted for us by our bishops through the Councils and Greek Fathers and as far as I can tell, the Creed in question has not been removed by any council or Synod. You mention a,'Latitudinarian approach.' What does that mean, to me as a High Church Man,? Simply that our modern bishops who appear to judge everything by a Latitude approach have tried to be good chaps instead of Churchmen. Since the seventeenth century this easy going attitude has weakened our Catholic Faith beyond measure. Indeed over the last sixty years it has dominated Anglican theory and practice and has reduced us to the pathetic shift we're in. It is,' latitude,' going beyond theory that has ruined us.
I would argue that it's the linking of damnation to a specific (Western) doctrinal assent regarding the trinity that is it's big problem - and the reason why it might muddy East-West ecumenical relations, might be considered unbiblical, and why it's dropped out of use (unlike the Apostles and Nicene creeds). Additionally, it pushes out universalists and perhaps annihilationists (unlike the Apostles and Nicene) who would argue their position based upon scripture and early church allowance. If the bible and early church fathers can be shown to have toleration towards such views, who are the Anglicans to prevent them being part of the visible body (especially when considering the hypocrisy of many Anglicans being either universalists or annihilationists)? If it's not a creed, then calling it a creed is a simple factual mistake, for a start. Why endorse a mistake? Of course, denominational bodies are free to do as they please. But I see this as an unnecessary regression rather than a positive move forward or positive recapture of what was best about the Anglican tradition and spirit. In many ways, not just this particular issue, the ultra-conservative backlash against radical liberalism is going to result in as much schism as the initial problem, IMHO. Consider how strict adherence to the 39 Articles is going to be problematic for Anglo-Catholics, broad churchmen and Arminians. Should the Anglican communion pretend that the past few hundred years haven't happened, and jettison what was good as well as what was bad? Should Anglicanism be Early Modern English Calvinism-lite with dress-up? Or should it be as inclusive of the whole tradition as possible, aiming for unity and breadth, and reject only the morally or scripturally repugnant? I can see the Anglican re-alignment going the way of Protestant denominational proliferation.