A point that I’ve made in the past but which usually took long for me to communicate due to my own defects is that I think Episcopalism (i.e., the idea that the Church is governed by an Episcopal College that succeeds the Apostles) is emptied of purpose if the Episcopate is not protected from error and visible division, and therefore, Anglicanism is false.
In what way is this aimed at Anglican ecclesiology? If it was, it would cite actual contemporary sources: particularly Lambeth 1920s “appeal”, the Windsor-Covenant proposals, ARCIC, the Nairobi-Cairo proposals and so forth. Or one could cite some of our more important ecclesiologists: Radner, Avis, Thornton. This isn’t the 19th century, and we don’t really do ecclesiology in the way you think we do. If you did, you’d know that according to our own self definition, our vocation is to a reunited church, and that of all the non-Roman churches we have pursued the most faith and order dialogues. I fail to see why that ecumenical progress should be abandoned for winner-takes-all retro-style polemics. What can possibly be gained by returning to the failed methods of previous centuries that had less to show than the progress ARCIC has made? If you care about Anglicans, get yourself on one of those dialogues.
Unless I’m mistaken, you take us to believe in a branch theory of the church and that apostolic succession alone is adequate for the discernment and reception of truth. I’m just denying that that’s what Anglicanism is. Lambeth’s own self-definition is that Anglicanism is a reunion project. This assumes that we are neither “true” nor self-sufficient but that higher degrees of unity go hand-in-hand with a more complete understanding of truth. I just don’t see the point of apologetics when what’s historically been most effective for motivating reunion is 1. The recognition that competitive missions are counterproductive (Edinburgh), 2. Division has led to wars of religion (WWI) as the context for Lambeth’s appeal. The papal claims may or may not be what a reunited Church adopts. But I’m sure that apologetics will never get us there - it’s born little fruit historically. I guess my appeal is that communicators like yourself follow the example and method of Brett Salkeld.
I never said Anglicanism doesn’t try to absorb these problems. They do. The point is that they can’t, in principle, since Anglicanism believes in the creation of the Episcopate as a successor to the Apostolic College. Of course an Anglican is going to say that the problems are not fatal. The argument here is that if you follow the logic closely, it is fatal . The fatality rests upon the breakage of what Christ created with a purpose. That purpose, per Anglicanism, is fulfilled in the midst of indefinite schism. That’s illogical.
It will never cease to amaze me how people will talk like this when Anglicanism only exists because a king wanted to pipe a different girl.
Hi Erick--a reply: https://anglicanaesthetics.substack.com/p/why-branch-theory-is-true-a-reply
In what way is this aimed at Anglican ecclesiology? If it was, it would cite actual contemporary sources: particularly Lambeth 1920s “appeal”, the Windsor-Covenant proposals, ARCIC, the Nairobi-Cairo proposals and so forth. Or one could cite some of our more important ecclesiologists: Radner, Avis, Thornton. This isn’t the 19th century, and we don’t really do ecclesiology in the way you think we do. If you did, you’d know that according to our own self definition, our vocation is to a reunited church, and that of all the non-Roman churches we have pursued the most faith and order dialogues. I fail to see why that ecumenical progress should be abandoned for winner-takes-all retro-style polemics. What can possibly be gained by returning to the failed methods of previous centuries that had less to show than the progress ARCIC has made? If you care about Anglicans, get yourself on one of those dialogues.
Hi,
Everything you say here is compatible with what I've written. I'm confused?
Unless I’m mistaken, you take us to believe in a branch theory of the church and that apostolic succession alone is adequate for the discernment and reception of truth. I’m just denying that that’s what Anglicanism is. Lambeth’s own self-definition is that Anglicanism is a reunion project. This assumes that we are neither “true” nor self-sufficient but that higher degrees of unity go hand-in-hand with a more complete understanding of truth. I just don’t see the point of apologetics when what’s historically been most effective for motivating reunion is 1. The recognition that competitive missions are counterproductive (Edinburgh), 2. Division has led to wars of religion (WWI) as the context for Lambeth’s appeal. The papal claims may or may not be what a reunited Church adopts. But I’m sure that apologetics will never get us there - it’s born little fruit historically. I guess my appeal is that communicators like yourself follow the example and method of Brett Salkeld.
I never said Anglicanism doesn’t try to absorb these problems. They do. The point is that they can’t, in principle, since Anglicanism believes in the creation of the Episcopate as a successor to the Apostolic College. Of course an Anglican is going to say that the problems are not fatal. The argument here is that if you follow the logic closely, it is fatal . The fatality rests upon the breakage of what Christ created with a purpose. That purpose, per Anglicanism, is fulfilled in the midst of indefinite schism. That’s illogical.