Hello. My main problem with Anglicanism and Protestantism in general right now is with Doctrines of the Church. I am Eastern Orthodox so these Protestant interpretations seem very foreign to me. The first one is the one I've been led to believe is Lutheran. This is that the Church is all firmly believing orthodox (little o) Christians, in other words the elect, are part of the Mystical Church and all reprobates are just not part of the Church no matter the denomination. The second is the one I've been told is the Anglo-Catholic view as per North American Anglican's Tract XI - On The Church (Part II), which is that all orthodox denominations (EO, RC and Anglican) are part of the Church. These two are very similar so my quarrel with them both is identical: I don't like how it seems to forget about heresy. How can Calvinism and Lutheranism bot be part of the Church when they proclaim each other heretics? Why does Church membership (dodgy way of saying it, I know) hinge only on the catholic and orthodox parts of our denominations? Shouldn't it hinge on the whole expressions of faith? Could someone please send some patristics my way backing these views up or explaining them? Please clear up these matters of ecclesiology and heresiology for a poor confused Orthobro
Orthodoxy often seems more disposed to define the truth as that which is left standing after all the errors have been peeled away. We often speak of the Great Oecumenical Councils as spelling out the truth, however much of them was spent not so much in defining the faith as defining heresy. Anglicans are less inclined to call out heresy, and I don't think Anglicans in the main would describe, Orthodoxy, RCC, or Lutheranism as heresy. We would stand by the truth of scripture, the tradition of the Church as expressed in the Creeds (most especially Nicene-Constantinopolitan) , the sacraments (especially the Dominical Sacraments), and the Historic Episcopate. I don't think that the Anglican view of the Church is that far out of line with Orthodox understanding, though perhaps a little less adjectival, still perhaps a little bit on ineffability. Article 26 begins 'In the visible church . . .' which of course predisposes one to reflect on what might be the 'invisible' Augustine (Western Father) spoke of wolves within and sheep outside, which is still much of this issue.
I don't think you will find any early church writers mentioning denominations. Back then, the known church was not exactly uniform, but that didn't bother the early fathers. What did bother them was serious errors (heresies). Other than heresies, they might write back and forth to discuss and advocate for ways of understanding various issues and questions, but differences of opinion didn't knock a person or a congregation "out" of the church unless the differences were great ones on important doctrinal matters (such as the Trinity, or whether Jesus is God). At the same time, I don't know if they were "signing up members" per se, the way many denominations do today. They just didn't have a heavy emphasis on whether your name appeared on some document of record in the church. You lived where you lived, there was one church gathering nearby (if that), and you either went there (in which case you were probably assumed to be a Christian) or you didn't (and weren't). Therefore, back then I doubt they had much reason to make a hard distinction between 'the visible church' and 'the invisible church'. Yet even back then, as now, attending and being thought of as a Christian was no guarantee that one was actually a Spirit-indwelt believer; one might attend just to go along with the rest of the family, for instance. Nowadays, the word "heresy" gets thrown around somewhat more freely (perhaps too freely). Folks might well discuss whether denom A's particular teaching on this or that doctrine is or isn't heretical, but by and large the denoms themselves are not heretical even if they are 'off base' with a few teachings. Howbeit, one of the major issues that will justify labeling a denomination as heretical is, IMO, if that denom is not teaching its members the correct doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in God the Son, and not by works or deeds or faith in anyone/anything else. If a denom teaches its members that membership in that particular denom is one of the keys to their salvation, or if a denom says that the salvific teachings of post-Apostolic-age prophets, 'apostles,' or Magisterium override the plain teachings of Jesus and the Bible, quite likely we are right to say that such a denomination is heretical. One more point I'd like to make (shifting gears here): during the course of a person's life in this modern world, one could become a 'card-carrying' member of a whole slew of denominations. For example, one could eventually die as a member of the RCC, the EO church, the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, and the Nazarene Church... and still not be a truly redeemed, born-again Christian! Jesus never said, 'he who belongs to an organized church will be saved.' Granted, by the time one has sat through a lifetime of church services and heard the Gospel message countless times, one certainly ought to have come to faith in Christ; but it's not the time spent in a pew or on a church's membership roll that counts, for God sees and judges a man's heart.
Well, why are they less inclined? What then is the common standard for orthodoxy? Also, what do you mean by 'less adjectival'?
I guess my problem was with defining heresy. It seems obvious enough that right-believing Arian who has true faith will not be saved, so heresy indeed does have an effect, but defining what heresy is is the problem. Is it by the Formularies, the Councils, etc.? If the both then the Formularies deny the Councils in Article XXI.
Bluntly, because Anglican theology is something of a mess. Inevitably so, given its history. The Anglican church, unlike the other Protestant churches, is the established Church of England. Thus, its theological reach had to be broad (and not run afoul of Royal sensitivities, something not easily done in the Reformation era). Modern Anglicanism can broadly be separated into three strands: Evangelical, Broad Church, and Anglo-Catholic (High Church). But even within these strands, there is a lot of contention in theological doctrine. There is little consensus on the Prayer Book, the authority of the 39 Articles of Religion, the Liturgy, or, well, anything else. There are Arminian Anglicans and Calvinist Anglicans and even Anglicans like Bishop Spong who deny the Divinity of Christ. It is this lack of internal consensus that makes declaring something "heretical" very difficult for leadership to do. Consider the example of Bishop Spong -- if he was not a heretic then the word has no meaning, and yet no primate felt empowered to defrock him and eject him from the church. The fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury let him abide, even allowed him to spread his lies, is yet another scandal among the many that has tarnished Canterbury in recent decades. Ultimately, the Anglican church lacks the will to enforce its own canons, which is part why the "Anglican realignment" has been underway since the early 2000's. Canterbury has not only not provided leadership on divisive issues, but has actively abetted the destroyers of the peace and unity of the Anglican Communion.
Right, I get the history. I can't believe the hierarchs don't understand how off-putting this is from the Faith. I think a lot of the reason why lots of young men do not have faith in Christ is because they view Christianity as weak and soft and modernising , especially the Church of England. I'm glad there is a realignment going on; if I become Anglican this is definitely something I would help with or at least try to.
Perhaps the maxim of Augustine of Hippo has rung through here as well. "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." I think that the difficulty has been trying to understand what is essential and what is non-essential. I concur with @Ananias in his reflection on Bishop Spong and others. Some have clearly observed some elasticity in the boundaries of Anglicanism, and some have mistaken that liberty of a licence to drive the truck right through. Whilst there is a place for theologians who want to push boundaries to expand and develop the thinking of the Church as we seek to proclaim the eternal gospel in the face of a changing world, I do not believe that is the role of the Episcopate. Bishops should be guarding the sacred deposit of the faith, and keeping the faithful safe. Because Bishops stands as a group of equals, it has been complex, difficult, and not easy to bring them into line. Sorry for my adjectival flip. The origins of this was an Orthodox Priest, who invited a group of us to the Liturgy (I think it was Chrysostom). One member of our group asked the Priest why he thought their liturgy took 3 hours when we got it all done in 75 minutes. His response was 'we use more adjectives'. Anglicans will easily say Holy Holy Holy, whilst our bothers and sisters in the East will be saying Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal. I have a great deal of love and respect for the Orthodox, and I believe Anglicanism - done right - and Orthodoxy have much in common.
I see, I've never heard that quote from St. Augustine, I guess I agree with him on that. And I get you now about 'adjectival'. So the fundamentals of who is a member of the Church is basically orthodox (little o) Christianity? Or maybe catholic (little c) Christianity would be a better term.
XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
A quote from an Australian Bishop, Stephen Pickard: "a comprehensive Church is an inherently messy and challenging church, but one that bears witness over and again to the saviour who relentlessly kept the doors of the kingdom open to so many". Yes, Anglican theology is a mess. But I think it's worth the effort, the struggle, and the challenge to keep the doors open if it means a few more souls are saved rather than cast out into the cold.
Is that from his essay in the General Synod Papers 'Disagreement and Christian Unity - reevaluating the situation'. I think that was a powerful read. I liked this paragraph among many. When Christians disagree with one another they disagree as members of the one body; not as isolated individuals or groups, but as people yoked together by Christ. This makes the Church more than a mere context for disagreements. The Body of Christ, like the water in which the fish swims, is the life and soul of those whose lives it nourishes through word, sacrament and witness in the world. The Church is not simply the passive recipient of outcomes of disagreements. Disagreements have to take stock of the very ecclesial nature of faith. In other words, it is the Body of Christ that is the natural home in which disagreements occur. This reality gives shape and form to the character of disagreement. Disagreement, if it is to be what is referred to as ‘godly’ has to assume a pattern and tone congruent with the risen Christ in the midst of the Church. This of course has an ethical and moral dimension but prior to this it is a matter of the being of the Church. The organic relationship that inheres among the members of the Body of Christ is established, enriched and sustained according to the pattern of Jesus Christ. As such the Church is not configured to its own image, nor is it the product of its own determinations and presumptive claims. Rather the configuring of the Church to its Lord is shaped by Holy Scripture under the discipline and energetics of the Holy Spirit.
I like that too. My (mis)quote was from his article in Anglican Focus from last week - Who's In? Who's Out. I seem to have misquoted him back to front, but the message remains the same. They bear witness to a saviour who relentlessly kept the doors of the Kingdom open to so many, much to the chagrin and offence of the self-appointed good and righteous in his day. A comprehensive Church is a uniquely and inherently messy and challenging church. It is never the soft option; it is the road less travelled. This is the vocation and mission of those who travel the Anglican Way. For @Jim Bob, the article I linked is a good history lesson in how the Anglican church came to its commonly held position that the RCC and EO church are both parts of the visible church. Of course the Anglican Church has no official must-believe doctrine on what exactly the Church is, so if you do feel inclined to 'swim the Thames' then the only thing necessary for your confirmation would be accepting your Anglican Church is part of the visible church. It's then entirely up to you on whether the visible church ends at your Anglican Communion, all Anglican Communions, all Episcopal Churches including EOs, RCCs and High Lutherans, or if all Christian denominations are part of the visible church.
" Thank you, I've bookmarked it so I can read after church today (Dormition Feast for Orthodox ). I like the phraseology "swim the Thames". I think this conversation has actually cleared up what the distinction between the visible and invisible Church is, namely that we do not know who is in the invisible Church, but the visible Church is, well... visible. However, do you have anything I can read that justifies this view of the Church in Scripture of theologically?(I will be asking the same thing for the Orthodox view). I understand it now so I need to see whether it's correct or not.
If the Church were just the visible, then the Arians would have to have been a part of the Church. They were visible members. Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons would have to be considered a part of the Church, for they are quite visible attendees of church congregations. That can't be correct. So it stands to reason that the true children of God (the invisible church), rather than the visible congregations themselves (which include people who still live in spiritual darkness), comprise the worldwide ecclesia of actual, spiritually-reborn disciples of Jesus Christ, all connected to Christ by faith as parts of His body on earth (1 Cor. 12). We are living stones (1 Cor. 3:9; 1 Peter 2:5; Eph. 2:20-22) forming the spiritual edifice that is the Church. Eph. 1:22-23 says that Christ's body on earth is the Church; see also Colossians 1:18,24.