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?)