Thanks again, Keble, for your thoughtful reply, even though we don't agree.
No. It's the ordinary secular historical observation that orthodoxy isn't free of political consideration, and most particularly not in is adoption as the state religion of the Constantinian state. Appealing to secular historians to cynically dismantle Anglicanism will produce the same cynical deconstruction of Orthodoxy.
OK, thanks, and I got your drift the first time, conceding you have a point that politics figure in the history of the orthodox Churches including the Orthodox Church.
Serge, everyone is, in this sense, only two jumps from Spong.
Everyone? Not any Eastern Orthodox bishop I know of.
All you have to do is pick up one of his sufficiently late books and read it, and then assent to it for whatever reason.
Depends on what you mean by 'assent'. If you mean what I do by 'a stopped clock is right twice a day' and rejecting the patethic fallacy, you're right. Spong may well say a thing or two that's true. But if by 'assent' you mean 'buy into his premise' then no, nobody orthodox is only two jumps removed from him.
Being baptized in Orthodoxy isn't itself protection from this.
Of course. There are lots of ignorant, never catechized, nominal Eastern Orthodox.
Maybe it's because they are Baptists-- at least in polity. I can't find any good evidence about them; they aren't really attached to Sydney and the only evidence of any affiliation I could find at all was a reference in the Presbyterian Layman to an "Evangelical Anglican Church of Australia". I could find no other evidence that this body exists. I find no references to bishops or anything like that; everything points to a conventional pastor-planted evangelical megachurch with some Anglican coloring-- sort of a "pastores vagante", if you know what I mean. The pastor took a Masters at Fullers, after all.
You have a point here, too. The Church of the Apostles isn't very forthcoming about which church it's affiliated with - I got their backstory from a site other than theirs. My guess from that source was that they were attached to the diocese of Sydney but I could have been wrong. They may be part of some breakaway, Low, ex-Anglican group in the Antipodes. Also, as when quondam Anglo-Catholic Bishop Graham Leonard of London (now a Roman Catholic monsignor) took charge of an ex-ECUSA church in Oklahoma back in the 1980s, I can't see Dr Jensen, the archbishop of Sydney, taking over a church in the States w/o ECUSA making a stink, and I never heard about any such. You may be right that Dr Michael Youssef is now a vagus
pastor and that the church is functionally Baptist. His getting a master's from Fuller isn't ipso facto
proof he's not Anglican - I wouldn't be surprised if a priest from the Sydney diocese went there. There is very little at that church that appears Anglican! But my observation stands - there are parishes in the Church of England (much less grandiose as they are smaller and poorer) a lot like it.
I'm skipping over the homosexuality stuff-- you can read about the New Westminster mess at Virtuousity if you are so inclined, and see Williams's responses (which were not what the liberals expected or wanted).
I've met David Virtue and Virtuosity is a major source of content for my blog
. He and I differ mainly over the war in Iraq (about which we are 180 degrees apart), but he is an orthodox Christian gentleman, apparently a classical Anglican.
But I don't think this explanation of what you've said thus far is accurate. What you've said is much stronger: that they didn't take any part of A-C into the rest of the church except for appearances. This is far too strong. Parts of A-C arguments made it into the Anglican mainstream, and parts did not.
OK, I see what you're saying and I wasn't clear enough. Not only is adopting externals w/o any of the beliefs not really ACism, but taking on board certain ritual practices and
picking and choosing some beliefs from ACism and not others =/= real ACism.
The point is that the thinking that went on in establishing the Eucharist as the Sunday service contained within it the notion that main point the point of having the Eucharist every Sunday was that the congregation was to take communion every Sunday. The Catholic theory (left over from the Middle Ages) was that attendance was what was important and that one only needed to partake very infrequently.
Not necessarily. That might have been true of the Tractarians but the second generation of Anglo-Catholics (late 1800s) adopted Catholic practice lock, stock and barrel - the Solemn Mass on Sunday was noncommuning for the laity except maybe the old and infirm. People went to Low Mass early in the morning, if they wanted to make their Communion, and/or Mattins, then to the Solemn (High) Mass for the grace of being present again at the Holy Sacrifice and to hear the sermon, and went to church again for Evensong and, if the church was very, very high, Benediction.
(Of late they've begun to adopt the Anglican view, but to do this they've had to make concessions to Anglican practice too.)
I see what you're saying but I don't see any inherent connection between frequent Communions and adopting Anglican practice or the Novus Ordo
Communion every Sunday came about because thinging about doing liturgy led to the conclusion that it was the best practice and that there were no particularly good reasons for substituting Morning Prayer if there was a choice to avoid doing so. Catholic "trappings" had nothing to do with this.
I think you're referring to the Parish Communion movement from the 1940s started by a priest called Hebert - described as a sort of 'semi-Catholicism' with communion services and weekly communions as the norm. I agree with you that it can be taken separately from Catholic trappings but maintain that taking this notion on board (weekly communion service as the main service and not Morning Prayer) =/= real Anglo-Catholicism.
But you are acting as if these things are part of the same whole, whereas the reality is that they are practically opposing forces.
Fascinating idea and I agree that the forces are contradictory.
One one side is two somewhat different manifestations of The World. One of these is the Spongian theological crowd: academics (or pretenders to the same) picking at the scriptural story in a kind of world-weary and even cynical Franco-German scholasticism. My impression is that this is pretty much a "religion" of intellectuals, and that people who don't style themselves students of religion tend not to have much use for it per se. (Personally, it strikes me as a lot of academic mumbo-jumbo that doesn't have much to say to most people.) The other secularist element is the tendency to take social religion as a license to write into the church what the world wants it to say. I've gotten into a lot of very heated arguments with people about this on sexuality issues, because I find lots of people putting the Liberal Party Line in the mouth of the church when a cooler consideration would dissent on some or all points. These camps overlap a lot, but it seems to me that they represent different impulses.
Sounds like a pretty accurate assessment of the liberal camp.
But my point is you see this AND the pseudo-High stuff not only in the same denomination, like the way ACism and snake-belly-Low have coexisted for a century in Anglicanism (the bishops in the Episcopal Church on each side had reached a gentlemen's agreement among themselves by the mid-1900s before all hell broke loose in the 1960s), but done by the same people! Which is why I wrote it seems like somebody setting up a counterfeit catholic church - liberalism with altars, albs and communion every week. Example: Mr Bennison's half-truth that 'the church wrote scripture' - the other shoe drops with 'and can change scripture'. The first clause is pseudo-High, the second pure liberalism.
Have a glorious Easter.