Subversive Christian Unity

Dr. Gavin Ashenden here takes a stab at defining what is beyond the pale of historically orthodox Christianity. Willingness to repent and be remade into someone new he sees as the sine qua non for becoming an authentic Christian. Remaking the faith instead will not work.  Attempts to do so leave you with less than the truth. I think that is a good starting point for discussions of where Christianity's boundaries lie, because it is even-handed toward all of us sinners. 

Following upon the Anglicanism-related posts I've made lately, I'm pleased to pass along this charming short cartoon about the prayerbook. The cartoon gives what are perhaps overly simple explanations of some points, but this is, after all, a two-minute cartoon, not a history of theology treatise. One of my Catholic friends refers to the Book of Common Prayer as the "un-guided missal," which is clever, but I think it nearer the point to say that the book contains prayers that any faithful Christian can use. All can pray them together. Even some who worship outside the Anglican frame of reference value the beauty, insight and timeless character of the material. This prayer, for example, goes back (in Latin) to the eleventh century or perhaps earlier, was compiled by Cranmer into the prayerbook in the sixteenth, and is fully relevant today: Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse the th...

I find myself agreeing with Archbishop Welby's words in the clip below. But his words elsewhere, and more particularly his actions, dismay me. I feel that what I am seeing is a man filled with good intentions, but lacking a realistic perception of the state of the church he heads.  In the worldwide Anglican Communion, Welby's willingness to cooperate with the church world's most socially progressive and sexually permissive elements is a matter deeply disturbing to traditionalists. Nearer to home, the Church of England's own traditionalists are deeply concerned over the same thing, and with what seems to them abandonment of historical church teachings and practices. They feel, increasingly, that they are offered the right boot of fellowship when they speak up. Tradition-minded Anglicans in the UK and elsewhere are saying that the zeitgeist is too much in control of the church and that as a result, scripture, reason, and tradition get short shrift. Significa...

The video starts with Luther and the Reformed, but soon finds its way to the Elizabethan Settlement, the first event of a process that created Anglicanism's tolerance for diverse religious opinion within the one church. As I have remarked before, Anglicanism is a good model to use if you are looking for a church government that can serve believers who exhibit wide differences in their theological viewpoints. As I have also remarked, some segments of the Anglican Communion are in our time heretical when measured against Anglicanism's own historical standards. Anglicanism needs to figure out how to keep its varying ideas inside orthodox boundaries. That work is in hand, but is far from finished. Here is a look into the past to see where the tradition of the big tent (or broad church) has its roots. You can skip ahead to  https://youtu.be/BP4dtZoWlZg?t=1243 if you don't need the deep background of the story.

In real life I program computers. Programmers have favorite computer languages. Mine is C, and I can always start an argument by saying we don't really need other languages. People who have other favorites then take umbrage and start a debate. It is common in the tech community to refer to such kerfluffles as religious conflicts, and that is unfortunately apropos. The parallelism with religious debates is striking. People describing the same things in different ways, pursuing the same answers by different means, instinctively see one another as doing something wrong. I say that a program variable is, in reality, simply a numbered position in the computer's memory, what is called in computerese an address. That is the wrong way to look at it, say proponents of the higher levels of abstract symbolism. What is important, they say, is meaning.  We sound like a bunch of theologians. I am coming round to the conclusion, after years of thinking about it, that ...

I have previously praised the Anglican demarcation of adiaphora, the most robust in all Christendom. I think everyone should adopt it, for it does not oppress minority views or unduly elevate the importance of the majority. Whatever else that church has gotten wrong, they are right about this. If a thing is not plain in scripture, it cannot be claimed as necessary to salvation, for the scriptures are clear about their claims in the matter. If we say something is necessary beyond what the apostles preached, we make them out to be false. In these pages I have used the phrase "enlightened ignorance" for the commendable practice of not supposing one's own understanding is going to be acceptable to everyone. Cultural differences and epistemic tendencies that vary with era, place and education mean that what is convincing to one person may not be to another. "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be...

We cannot say "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity" until we agree on what is, or isn't, a nonessential. Only one church has had the courage and foresight to hold an ironclad definition of adiaphora. I have now been thinking long enough about the problem of Christian unity to see the way forward to a solution. The first step on the journey is to find out what an essential of the faith is, and what is nonessential. Christians everywhere, and particularly those in the West, way overthink things. We have taken the simple offers and assurances made by the Savior and over-complicated them, sometimes in efforts to reassure ourselves that we really can believe them. The heavy-handed scholasticism of the medieval era gave way to a free-for-all in the Reformation era, as churches defined their differences from Rome, and each other, by means of often tedious philosophical demonstrations that, often, left Christians farther from one ...

Canterbury, 15 Jan. 2016.   Frank Augstein/Associated Press Thinking that Christian doctrine cannot be stretched to encompass the whole of the gay rights agenda is "homophobia," a secular sin, in that what forbids it is the church of fashionable opinion.

Submitted for your consideration: a clear explanation of liberal Episcopalian thinking on what they style marriage equality. It was posted months before the Anglican primates' gathering in January of 2016, at which the primates called into question the direction the Episcopal Church had taken in this matter. I present this video so that you can get a clear view of what it is that a certain segment within the Episcopal Church is currently defending. Their rhetoric at the moment is a bit shrill; you cannot expect to get a clear understanding of the question from it. Here the matter is laid out calmly. Of course, my point here is to try to clarify the discussion by returning it to its real subject. Source:  http://www.episcopalrochester.org/content/lay-deputy-update-neil-and-susan-talk-marriage-equality-church

Presiding Bishop Michael Curry As you perhaps know already, the primates of the Anglican Communion just concluded a week of closed-door meetings in the crypt at Canterbury Cathedral. The Episcopal Church, USA, was censured for moving forward with gay marriages, counter to the doctrine of Anglicanism in general. It is a clear affirmation of historical orthodoxy by the Anglican mainstream, but the rebuke was a lighter one than some traditionalists wanted. Here is the sentence passed upon the Episcopal Church by the gathered primates: “It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on ...

(via Facebook )

Interesting summary in the online Washington Post about the ongoing soap opera that Anglicanism has become. Those interested in Christian unity are well advised to study schisms taking place right in front of them, in their own lifetimes, not just historical schisms. Excerpt: The Anglican Communion is already divorced  By Trevin Wax | Religion News Service September 21   Is the Anglican Communion about to split over different views of sexual ethics?   You might think so after reading headlines about the archbishop of Canterbury’s proposal to “loosen” the structures of the Communion — a way of retaining his relationship to the liberal wing of the Western churches as well as the traditional Anglicans of the Global South.    But to interpret the archbishop’s recent announcement as a split over sexuality is to miss the bigger picture. . . "  Read more:  The Anglican Communion is already divorced (COMMENTARY) - The Washington Pos...

"I am convinced it won't be theologians who bring about unity among us. Theologians help us, the science of the theologians will assist us, but if we hope that theologians will agree with one another, we will reach unity the day after Judgement Day." --Francis Read the complete transcript of the Pope's remarks here:  http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/text-of-pope-s-videomessage-for-day-of-christian-unity-in-us It still appears to me that the Roman communion has no ecclesial mechanism toward unity besides conversion of others to Roman Catholic. Thus, as this pope has done before, in other matters such as accommodating gays and affirming atheists, he may sound like he is signalling something beyond what his Church is ready to deliver. We see the durable old Roman attitude toward other churches--my way or the highway--in the 'concession' to Anglicans through the Ordinariate. Anglicans may become Roman Catholics who happen to have something resemblin...

As I have noted before , Anglicanism is a splendid possibility to consider when thinking about what one church for all believers might look like. Anglicanism accommodates catholic and reformed streams of faith and practice, and variations within those streams. In today's Anglicanism you find charismatics and Anglo-Catholics, determinedly "low church" worshipers who like to keep things simple, evangelicals, Reformation doctrine buffs and more than a few open-minded believers who are comfortable in all those settings. Unfortunately, heterodoxy set in during our era, as some people exploited Anglicanism's genial tolerance that gave countenance to a range of ideas and opinions that all--until recently--stayed within the pale of historical Christian orthodoxy. Here Fr. Gavin Ashenden takes a look at what went wrong--the current split-up in progress in Anglicanism, as the orthodox take stock of what has become of their church:  Leaving home: The Future of the Faith in...

The Anglican communion's plural viewpoints and differing worship styles with, at the same time, unity of church administration, is appealing as an example of how a single church for all believers might work. But in recent times a problem has arisen with its model. Some have used the Anglican tendency toward genial tolerance of varying views to bring into the church ideas that are heterodox at best, importing passing fashions from the culture as new standards for Christianity. It will be interesting to see how (or whether) the Anglican communion recovers from that. That said, Anglicanism is uniquely positioned to serve as a vehicle for dialog, since it is a Protestant church with Catholic roots and Orthodox affinities. As an entity that can point to its continuous existence and operation from long before the Great Schism of 1054, it can claim kinship to the undivided Church of old, something no other Protestant body can do. At the same time, it is accepted as a Protestant church ...

The pope has retired, in a move that is unusual but not unprecedented. It is certainly right to pass on the mantle to another when you know you have given all you can, your efforts are flagging and your own exhaustion limits your effectiveness. I've felt that way too, and as one of fewer years and much narrower responsibilities. I wish him a blessed and peaceful retirement. I hope he will be able to do some writing. I would like to read more from him, particularly on Christian unity. He surprised me by taking a profound interest in the matter. I was expecting that Joseph Ratzinger, the hard line theologian, would be rigidly doctrinaire as pope. But as Benedict he opened his arms outward and acknowledged, to a degree that surprised me, that there is one Lord, of faith, one baptism. My Latin is so appallingly bad that at first I misread the title of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus , thinking it concerned English rocketry. Fortunately there is an English translat...