I have decided that over the next few months I am going to post reworked versions of the series I did on my previous blog on the 39 articles of the Church of England. I’ve been prompted to do this by some of the comments made by Anglo-Catholic bloggers reacting to the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. (HT Dave Walker for these links)
One priest, Giles Pinnock. commented:
For me, who would not in any case be able to sign The Jerusalem Declaration, GAFCON / FCA / ACNA isn’t going to be the answer. The Declaration isn’t all bad, but rests heavily on the Book of Common Prayer 1662 and the 39 Articles of Religion as definitive, and I cannot help but see these documents as part of the fundamental problem of Anglicanism, not the answer.
One (flying) bishop is quoted as saying:
I was dismayed at Jim Packer’s lauding of the Articles. Bashing us with them seems little different to me from bashing Americans with the Canons. Man-made, of one time, and not Gospel.
It is interesting that the two extreme wings mark their position out in relation to the articles: for one they are “part of the problem” for the other something to be lauded. (Though I’ve always thought Packer far more extreme than the moderate Calvinism of the articles.) However, I do not entend any direct engagement with the issues being staked out by the various participants engaged in party polemics about being persecuted out of Anglicanism. Nor do I want this to be seen simply as an intra-Anglican conversation about how our past relates to our present.
I do think a reasoned exploration of them might be of some use in the present situation, but it’s en route to exploring the question whether, as we re-read the articles in the light of our history and tradition, our ecumenical engagement, and both fresh and traditional readings of scripture, we might find a kind of mere Anglicanism. Along the way I hope those of other church traditions might also contribute to the question of how we might re-express our formulae of faith in fresh words when our past formulations were mired in the controversies of their day.
This will not simply be a reposting of past work. I benefitted from a number of the comments I received back then, and changed my views in various ways through that conversation. I hope similar interaction can continue to help a shared exploration and further learning.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 1 comment }
Hi Doug
I would look forward to the series!
The Anglican church is many things to many people, but when I hear talk that the 39A are ‘part of the problem’ I wonder if Anglican diversity can contain that idea and my idea that the 39A mark us out as a church beholden neither to Rome nor Geneva, the latter idea being a good thing, and if I began to think otherwise, should I not do the decent thing and cross either the Tiber or the Alps?
Comments on this entry are closed.