Does unreformed Catholicism have a place in the Anglican Church?
By Robin G. Jordan
Those who champion the recognition and acceptance of Anglo-Catholicism as a legitimate theological strand in Anglicanism make a number of arguments to support their claim. Among these arguments is the assertion that Anglicanism has evolved since the sixteenth century and modern day Anglicans cannot be expected to conform to sixteenth century standards of doctrine and practice. Anglicans have moved on. Anglicans have become broader in what they comprehend.
One of the problems that I have with this argument is that it is the identical argument used by those championing the recognition and acceptance of liberalism as a legitimate theological strand in Anglicanism. It defines the limits of Anglican comprehensiveness in terms of the present state of affairs in the Anglican Church, or perhaps more accurately in terms of what is perceived to be the current state of affairs in the Anglican Church. This perception may not involve the entire global Anglican community but may be confined to a particular segment of that community.
Making this argument is analogous to moving the boundary markers of a parcel of land and then claiming the locations to which the boundary markers have been moved mark the boundaries of that parcel of land. The Scriptures contain a strong warning against moving a neighbor’s property line (Deuteronomy 19:14). While this passage applies to land, the underlying principle has wider application.
If we adopt the logic of this argument and pursue that logic to where it leads, then Anglicanism is no more than whatever each successive generation of Anglicans decide what it is. We can assert as do liberal Anglicans that Anglicanism is a big tent that shelters all kinds of diverse and disparate views. These views do not have to agree with the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies. They do not have to be even remotely Christian. They simply have to be recognized and accepted by one part of a particular generation of Anglicans as being, in their estimation, genuinely “Anglican.”
An accompanying argument is that the Thirty-Nine Articles, contrary to what the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans upholds in The Jerusalem Declaration, is not authoritative for Anglicans today. The Articles represent the views of the sixteenth century English Reformers. They do not represent the views of modern day Anglicans. They are not binding upon the consciences or minds of contemporary Anglicans on matters of doctrine and practice.
What this argument is basically asserting is that each generation of Anglicans is its own authority on such matters. They may look to church tradition, the Council of Trent, the Jesus Seminar, the College of Bishops, or a similar authority for guidance but ultimately they are their own authority.
For the rest, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment