Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Admin, Apr 23, 2013.
My good friend Gordon...
I always am blessed by your words of wisdom.
Or we could respectfully explore the shared nature of our catholic and reformed heritage. We are the catholic faith, fully perfected, and reformed. Our articles and prayers reflect this quite nicely.
I think it would do well for all to remember that this is a forum--not a church, not a club, not a society for propagation of the one true Anglican faith--we don't have to agree with one another, break bread together, cosign on one another's eternal security, heck we don't even have to look at each other. We just have to be able to bring a point of view to the table and be willing to engage respectfully about something that has some sort of connection with Anglican Christianity. While doctrinal purity may be something we demand of members in a church (though not any Anglican ones it appears ) it shouldn't be required of members of a conversation.
After some further reflection I believe it is absolutely essential for all of us to be in unity. We are not discrete units -- the Church should be (is) one.
As we know -- not all Anglicans in fact worship the same God -- there can only be one truth. However, sometimes the truth is a little wider than what some people want it to be. We need to be humble enough to accept the faith that has been believed everywhere since the beginning.
Exactly what is that to mean?
I agree with you on some respects Dave, but surely you do not believe unity is the same as uniformity in that we must agree upon all things great and small, essential and nonessential. I am no low churchman, but I have a great respect for JC Ryle, for both his brevity and clarity. The wrote a sermon call Unity Among Churchmen that I think has a lot to inform us on in this very endeavor. Perhaps the greatest is this statement (please forgive the length of the post but I believe the context is necessary to fully appreciate his statement):
If we want to promote unity among Churchmen, we must cultivate the habit of tolerating courteously diversities of opinion and practice about the nonnecessaria
We all allow that there are things which are not necessary to salvation, in the outer courts of Christianity—things which are wisely left open by the Church of England—things about which no hard and fast line has been drawn either by articles, rubrics, or canons—things about which men may be allowed to differ—things, in short, which are neither essential to salvation, nor to loyal Churchmanship—things about which we may hold as strong opinions as we please, but about which we have no right to anathematise and excommunicate our brethren.
The list of these “things indifferent,” and the items it includes, will vary greatly according to the standpoint and school of the man who draws it up. My own list would include such points as the Calvinistic controversy, the precise meaning of certain phrases in the Baptismal Service, the voluntary religious Societies we support, the quantity of singing to be used in public worship, the use of the surplice or black gown in the pulpit, and the like. On all these points, you will understand, I have a very decided opinion, and I act accordingly. But they are all points which I have long regarded as non-essential, and I feel I have no right to condemn my neighbours who disagree with me about them.
Now what I am contending for is the immense importance of disagreeing courteously and good-naturedly, about such things as these. Nothing, I am convinced, divides and keeps Churchmen apart so much as the common habit of getting hot, and calling names, and throwing mud, and casting dust in the air about non-essentials. About things essential I hope I am as ready to contend for the faith as any one. I am prepared, for example, to gird up my loins and fight to the bitter end against any attempt to throw away the doctrine of the Trinity or the Atonement, or to un-Protestantise the Church of England, and reintroduce the Mass and the Confessional. But I do protest against the common practice of ramping and raging and using violent language about matters which neither exclude a man from heaven nor from the Church of England."
As far as my comment on worshiping the same God...
There are some very dramatic differences within Anglicanism on who people think God and Jesus are, and I leave it at that for now.
I have never heard of any Anglicans or Christians who don't believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are part of the Trinity.
You did make the comment so please explain.
I would agree to mostly what you say-- we don't need to be uniform in all thing. Depending on how one defines Calvinism amd how it impacts ones worldview could be such that it is barely recognizeable as Anglican -- theologically that is.
Where we tend to get into trouble is when we try to narrow down a multi-faceted theological mystery into a single formulation and say it is the only formula possible.
We are the latter.
That being said, the kind of unity in doctrine we are seeking will not limit or prevent conversations. Those who qualify will have a label or badge, and certain posting privileges that come with the name (seeing as we are an Anglican forum).
hmmm...I'm sorry. I don't understand this last part. Does this mean that certain members of the forum will receive a badge saying they are Anglican? Also, what privileges will they receive?
Interesting concept - how do we decide who qualifies?
That is what we're here to decide.
I am baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church, thus I am an American Anglican. Do I qualify for a badge? And if so, do the privileges involve cookies?
Hmmm I must have misunderstood the original post. How do we determine what the unity in doctrine is - when we have a such a broad Church?
I was Baptized and Confirmed into the Church of England prior to there being an Anglican Church of Australia, but I believe there is no issue with a women being ordained into any of the Orders we have in the Church.... Is this the level of unity of doctrine we are trying to determine here?
My I try to follow Franciscan Spirituality which also includes the certain aspects of Marianne Theology as a member of the Anglican Church of Australia, does that put me outside of the unity of doctrine?
I honestly believe to decide on what this unity of doctrine is based on our grass roots of our common doctrine e.g. The Creeds rather then arguing the pros and cons of the 39 Articles as our Church is way older then 500 years. IMHO
And what about people that are not in the Anglican Church or Epispocal Church proper, will they be considered Anglican?
...and the continuing Anglican movement?
I would say let's start with Nicene creed but even that could get sticky... Filioque and all
I just lost a post , is this thing working ... Test . test.
Update: That would be a YES , its working
I have met some nontrinitarians at my last TEC church, and there is not much to talk about.