Posted on 11/23/2009 10:44:25 AM PST by GonzoII
Bump for later
Cake or death?
However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.
How could he have responsibly been ordained if he did not agree with these delightfully protestant articles?
Methinks he was part of the problem every bit as much as those he castigates.
Let the Catholics go - the Anglicans are better off without them subverting it's historic statements of faith.
Fr. Longenecker is engaged in building a strawman here, based on the dread word, "modernist." (Whatever that means....)
I seriously doubt that Fr. Longenecker is truly unable to find even a single "modernist theologian" who is able to believe in a "God who is both immanent and transcendent." It sounds like wonderful reason to leave ... but I suspect that the good Father is telling a lie.
Don't get me wrong: there's plenty wrong with what passes for theology in the Anglican churches (on both the "revisionist" and "orthodox" sides, it must be noted). But to simply condemn Anglicanism on the basis of an ill-defined epithet is not helpful; and it's not honest, either.
Over the past few years I've had the unpleasant opportunity to see at close hand the sorts of arguments that are unleashed by clergy engaged in self-justification. Fr. Longenecker's screed positively reeks with it.
A very interesting article. The Anglican Church does have a long history of compromise, and it has taken its via media role seriously. However, it is a Church that because of this stance is for the most part no longer Christian. Having been a member of Episcopalian churches from my youth till less than a decade ago, I have seen it led by individuals who do not believe in Scripture as foundational to the faith, nor do they really believe in Jesus Christ. They go through the motions of tradition, but even the tradition is jaded. The language of the Book of Common Prayer has been modernized and sanitized, and the heart of the CHristian message destroyed in favor of some pagan distortion. There are many faithful and Orthodox Episcopalians who want the CHurch to go back to its reformer roots, and they have left the ANglican communion to join with other like minded and conservative Episcopalians. I am not sure why this gentleman, Fr. Longnecker did not go in that direction. It is true that many Anglican churches are so Anglo Catholic as to be indistinguishable in practice from ROman Catholic ones. That is another reason I left the Episcopal Church. I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not ascribe to popery in any form, and the contemporary Episcopal church has in many ways gone straight over to Rome. Anyhow, I think there is are other Protestant alternatives to becoming a Roman Catholic when you are disillusioned by Anglicanism.
For a good, complete definition, you may wish to read Pope Pius X's encyclical letter, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Written back in 1907, it really forecasts a lot that has happened within the Church.
“However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.”
You have said eloquently in a few sentences what my original rambling response did not say half so well in many. Anyhow, The 39 Articles are indeed Reformed in dogma, but do modern Anglican clergy pledge to uphold them? I know there is something called the Reformed Episcopal Church that uses the articles in their statement of faith, but in all my years as an Episcopalian, I never once heard these nearly Calvinistic points of doctrine discussed.
Perhaps so. But Fr. Longenecker's strawman remains.
pint
I left the Anglican church over these issues of historic doctrinal issues.
When I was inducted (by Rowan no less then archbishop of Wales - and a really nice though liberal-to-his-toes type of guy) I was told that he would ask me about the 39 articles but he would not look at me when I answered, so there was no need to take it seriously.
But I did. And I was virtually hounded out of the church for it (another story) and I am now a minister to a delightful small reformed evangelical church.
But there are pockets of grand historic Anglicans - in the UK the Church society and Reform, and in Australia the diocese of Sidney. And of course most African clergy.
I love Anglicanism, but it has been defeated from within. Cranmer Latimer Ridley to name but a few, we are not worthy of them. It breaks my heart.
L: The foundational problem with modernism is that it is anti-supernaturalist.
PDG: But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation of this history, to ignore God altogether, as if He really had not intervened, let him answer who can. Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded. We shall soon see clearly what, according to this most absurd teaching, must be held touching the most sacred Person of Christ, what concerning the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and Acension into heaven.
L: For the modernist God is either totally immanent.
PDG: 7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated.
L: or he is so totally transcendent as to be a sort of deist God who is 'out there' and does not intervene.
PDG: But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation of this history, to ignore God altogether, as if He really had not intervened, let him answer who can.
As far as whether this has infected the Anglican communion, I can't answer, as I am not an Anglican. But the effects of modernism, a relativistic ethic that denies any transcendent mores, cannot be denied. At one point in time, the Anglicans rejected contraception. They then flipped on the issue. At one point in time, the Anglicans rejected abortion. On that issue, there was a flip, as well. They rejected female clergy. Guess what? They rejected homosexual clergy on a doctrinal basis. And guess what?
Maybe it's because I am not an Anglican, but it seems apparent that Modernism crept into that community based on the effects, alone. Just as with the bulk of credal Protestantism (...and, in all candor, far too much of Catholicism, as well. At least with Catholicism, it hasn't had a doctrinal impact on the Magesterium)
Thanks for that... If we accept that discussion of "modernism," then we can see that Longenecker's analysis is therefore quite incorrect.
Modern-day Anglican revisionism (and Christian revisionism in general) depends rather strongly on the idea of intervention by the Holy Spirit; and as such their theology is strongly "immanent and transcendent."
There is much that is wrong with this approach, in that it deals emotionally with theological issues, and that often leads to a rejection of Scripture in order to justify whatever "the Holy Spirit" has supposedly led them to.
On the other hand, there is almost always a kernel of Christian truth at the center of the revisionist impulse: truly the leading of the Holy Spirit on some topic or other. (As an example ... how should Christians treat homosexuals?)
Thanks for the ping. This is an excellent article, and not only applicable to Anglicans. All the so-called “mainstream” Christian denominations of which I am aware also have this basic disbelief. He calls it “modernism” but it comes from materialism and humanism.
You wrote:
“However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.”
“should”? That’s the problem right there. Anglicans have no real dogma. What ‘dogma’ they have was handed them by a monarch and the parliament. It can change any minute of any day. That’s not dogma.
You wrote:
“Anyhow, I think there is are other Protestant alternatives to becoming a Roman Catholic when you are disillusioned by Anglicanism.”
Alternatives? So it’s like picking up any other consumer item? Does truth happen to have anything to do with it?
What I meant by alternatives is that one need not go over to Rome when one is disillusioned by Anglicanism. The doctrine of the reformers is alive and well in many evangelical Protestant churches like Baptists or Orthodox Presbyterian. I did not mean to insinuate that choosing one’s church is like picking an item off a menu. The truth of scripture is given in many churches that are not Roman Catholic. If the church is Bible based and the Word of God is preached in spirit and truth then you are in the right place. My curiosity was why this man decided to embrace Roman Catholicism that is all.
You wrote:
“What I meant by alternatives is that one need not go over to Rome when one is disillusioned by Anglicanism. The doctrine of the reformers is alive and well in many evangelical Protestant churches like Baptists or Orthodox Presbyterian.”
Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Anglicans who are leaving Anglicanism for the catholic faith are doing it because they are interested in embracing the “doctrines of the reformers”?
“I did not mean to insinuate that choosing one’s church is like picking an item off a menu.”
So the “doctrine of the reformers” isn’t making doctrine into a menu item?
‘The truth of scripture is given in many churches that are not Roman Catholic.”
No, actually none of the Protestant sects do so.
“If the church is Bible based and the Word of God is preached in spirit and truth then you are in the right place. My curiosity was why this man decided to embrace Roman Catholicism that is all.”
Because he wanted the truth. And he found it. He found Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church.
**The problem is modernism — a philosophical and theological position which is deeply opposed to historic Christianity.**
So true. Even the Catholic Church fights modernism within its realm.
“To: GonzoII
Fr Longeneker’s analysis of Anglican clergy is pretty much spot on.
However to say that Anglicanism is without dogma is wide of the mark - not least the 39 articles that clergy should assent to at ordination and induction into parishes.
How could he have responsibly been ordained if he did not agree with these delightfully protestant articles?
Methinks he was part of the problem every bit as much as those he castigates.”
Modern Anglicans (and Episcopalians) pay about as much attention to the 39 Articles as Congress does to the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.