Well, I thought that, given recent posts on the blogosphere such as "Why I am a Baptist", "Why I am no longer a Baptist" et c., I should grab my quint-bass sordune and jump on the bandwagon.
My reason for doing so is largely motivated by yet another debate on social media in which I have had to defend my Anglican Catholicism. I have tried very hard to answer many of the questions arising in my book, "The Meaning of Anglican Catholicism" but people don't like reading books these days, apparently, especially if they are by me!
I have long given up calling myself an Anglican. The reason can be found in my blog posts but, essentially, I have rejected three specific statements:
1) I reject the Thirty-Nine Articles as an accurate description of my faith.
2) I reject the need to be Communicatio in Sacris with the CofE.
3) I reject the doctrinal innovations of the Reformation such as Sola Fide and (de facto) Scriptura Solo.
And of course, I am told that I am not an Anglican. Actually, I accept that. If the essence of being an Anglican is to be found in the acceptance of any one of these positions, then I am not an Anglican and I don't care. Similarly, if the definition of a Protestant is someone who is not a Roman Catholic, then I am a Protestant just like a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and I don't care.
The problem with "Anglican" is that, like "Protestant", it is an umbrella term which has lost meaning. Archbishop Haverland has said much of this when he was only in priestly orders. Even Anglican Scholars agree that there is no one single Anglicanism. How can Anglicanism simultaneously (a) affirm the priesthood of women and the validity of same-sex couples; (b) reject the priesthood of women and/or the validity of same-sex couples yet see priesthood as a secondary issue; (c) hold to a Catholic understanding of the male-only priesthood - i.e. that it is a first order issue - and affirm the traditional moral teaching of the Church; (d) that it is possible for a Christian to be an atheist? If Anglicanism is able to hold together contradictory positions, then simple logic says that Anglicanism is simply not a means of discerning and promote Christian Truth but is more of a cultural milieu.
Now, this makes more sense. It gives the Anglican the option of affirming one of the following:
(1) that Anglicanism possesses the means to discern the Christian Truth. This will mean that it must necessarily reject contradictions to that truth. It will mean that "being an Anglican" is well-defined.
(2) that Anglicanism is not truth-discerning but rather a means to help people experience God for themselves through non-logical and mystical means. This will mean that it will embrace contradictions but, in so doing, lose any form of credibility and meaning as anyone will be able to call themselves Anglican without some specific defining principle.
(3) that Anglicanism is a cultural term describing the heritage of the Church in England. This will mean that it ceases to be a noun, possessing no substance in itself, but rather be an adjective that points the enquirer to the Anglican Heritage.
This last position is mine and it makes sense when we use the word "Anglican" meant in its original usage. Of course there will be those who say, "'Anglicanism' has come to mean..." but I cannot accept that. The label defines the set. The set of Red Kangs cannot remain the set of Red Kangs the moment it contains a Blue Kang for the simple reason that Red is not Blue. If Red comes to change its meaning to become Blue, then it is no longer Red in its first sense: it has either lost internal consistency or external comprehension.
That's a problem with the Church which seeks to preserve timeless teaching. If "Catholic" changes its meaning then the "Catholic Church" will not be the "Catholic Church" that Our Lord intended it to be.The Doctrine of the Church cannot change because God is independent of Time and thus is changeless along with His Truth.
Thus, I hold to "Anglican" as simply meaning "English" and use that to qualify my Catholicism just like the adjectives Roman, Russian, Eastern are used to describe Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I applaud those who have made a definition of Anglicanism in order to discern the Truth. Those who hold to the Anglican Formularies will have my admiration and very much of my affection because we do share something vital. We do depart on various issues but we can at least agree on heritage and some degree of walking parallel with the possibility of convergence.
But I am saddened by those who seek to hold contradictory positions because they do not understand the importance of Truth which is objective: it is made objective in the hypostasis of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It does make me wonder whether these folk are the Laodiceans.
I left the Church of England ten years ago. It was painful to do so but, given what it has become, I do not know it any more. It doesn't want to share heritage with me because only Now is relevant. Thus I am no longer an Anglican but Anglican.
No comments:
Post a Comment