Various expressions of Anglicanism

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Orthodox: straight-teaching, generally holding to scripture, the creeds, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles. Often influenced by the counter reformation and the Oxford movement.

Liberal: accepting different interpretations. Specifically questioning some of the miracles of the bible such as 7 day creation, Jewish captivity in Egypt, Noah's flood, virgin birth, resurrection. May be suspicious of Pauline theology (the letters of Paul).
 
Anglo-catholic: seeking to retain the links with (and ceremonies and/or traditions of) the Roman Catholic church rather than being fully reformed. Anglo-catholics may be liberal or orthodox.

Evangelical: seeking to promote the gospel. Emphasising a personal relationship with Christ and the experience of being "born again" as well as Christ's substitutionary atonement. "He paid the price for my sins". Links to Puritanism and the reformation.

Charismatic: acknowledging the work of the Holy Spirit in signs and wonders. Often refers to a more informal worship style as well.

The interesting thing is that in the midst of turmoil in the worldwide Anglican communion there is much common ground between "Evangelicals" and "Orthodox Anglo-catholics". Both disapprove of homosexual relationships being sanctioned by the church and both have a high view of scripture (inerrancy).

I am happy for others to further clarify or correct these points but I felt they may be helpful pointers - particularly in reference to some posts on another thread.

[Jereth]

It's interesting Phil how you delineate these 5 camps. I do not think your definitions are inaccurate.

On the other hand, I would say that I have no major issue with 4 of the camps (orthodox, anglo-catholic, evangelical, charismatic) because as I understand it the distinctions between these 4 camps have to do mainly with church order, polity and style of worship. In terms of fundamental theology, respect for the Bible, Christ and the Gospel all these camps agree.

I think we saw these 4 camps putting aside their differences at GAFCON. Check out the heading on the website http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/

The odd one out is Liberalism. Now what I have noticed more and more is that liberalism is a theology, not a style of worship or churchmanship, and it manifests itself within both anglo-catholic AND evangelical churches. Liberalism is a great masquerader. It has become apparent to me that there are people, yes in Melbourne, who call themselves evangelical, talk like an evangelical and worship like an evangelical -- but when you find out their real views about inerrancy or penal substitution or justification or hell or higher criticism or pseudonymity or homosexuality or sanctity of life you find out they're really not evangelical.

So personally I think the challenge for Anglicanism is not about whether the ministers wear robes, but whether they believe and teach that the Bible is 100% correct in all it says. If an Anglo-Catholic affirms this then we evangelicals should count them as brothers, and treat our different opinions about robes and liturgy as secondary. I'm disappointed that, within 4 months of GAFCON, Sydney Diocese has burnt its bridges with other Orthodox churches by approving lay presidency (see http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_467.shtml) -- it seems that after all that effort to forge an alliance on primary issues they're now going to divide over a secondary issue.

Having said all that I can respond to what our new colleague Alex said in another thread:

Jareth makes an interesting comment - "of course they wouldn't set foot in a Bible-teaching church either" ... there is the assumption here that anything other than, and please excuse the 'label giving', an 'evangelical' church is 'Bible-teaching'... I find that greatly offensive... in fact I might note that I have been to a few 'evangelical' services myself and noted the lack of direct 'biblical' content... perhaps only a psalm, perhaps a detailed analysis of an Old Testament passage - i wanted to ask, "Where is the gospel?"  I accept that the entire service would have used biblical passages throughout - woven into the liturgy - but this is also true of any BCP or APBA service... I don't for one minute want to suggest that the 'evangelical' churches do not draw on or respect the bible - as I know they do! - but I think it is totally unfair - and perhaps spiteful - to assert that any other tradition is not 'Bible-teaching'.

I think what I've said makes it clear that I actually don't equate "Bible-teaching" with "evangelical". In my understanding "liberal" and "bible-teaching" are 2 polarities, however "evangelical" is only one subset within "bible-teaching"... and you'll in fact find "evangelicals" who don't really believe the Bible.

cheers
Jereth

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

I know that this is an Anglican website but it is very interesting to consider how other expressions of christianity deal with the same issues that we are grappling with, and others.

I have heard many concerned about the liberal theology influence in the Uniting Church (for about 30 years), I am now hearing concern about liberal theology influencing the Baptist Church. I have heard that Willow Creek has "repented" of its seeker-sensitive approach, recognising it did not produce disciples.

It is interesting that some Pentecostal Churches have a married couple as "Pastors", some Baptist Churches now have female "ministers", many denominations have practised "lay presidency" for as long as they have existed.

There are things that make the Anglican Church distinctively Anglican (39 Articles, creeds, BCP), these can be beautiful and helpful things.

Does our expresssion of Anglicanism serve to bring more disciples into the Kingdom or not? I see that St Peters, Eastern Hill has attracted many and from a brief perusal of their website the gospel is read every week and proclaimed, there are many other things that I would describe as devotional that worshippers find useful, which may not be to "evangelical" taste.

I see that God uses many different expressions (St Judes, Carlton; HTD; St Peters, Cathedrals etc. etc) to attract followers to His kingdom.

Mk 9:38-39 John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us."
But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.

To illustrate "taste" it is possible that churches will polarise over the use of data projectors vs. hymn books, no matter what their other traditions (just an example).

[Jereth]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

Does our expresssion of Anglicanism serve to bring more disciples into the Kingdom or not? I see that St Peters, Eastern Hill has attracted many and from a brief perusal of their website the gospel is read every week and proclaimed, there are many other things that I would describe as devotional that worshippers find useful, which may not be to "evangelical" taste.

Dear Phil,

Both yourself and Alex Milner have drawn attention to "St. Peters Eastern Hill" in your recent masg posts. It is not a church I have ever heard of before (forgive my ignorance). So out of curiosity I went to have a look at their website last night.

Their vision statement 2008-2010 is appealing. It talks about worship, the beauty of holiness, the love of God in Jesus, and an active engagement with Scripture. I could agree with all 10 or so points stated there.

However I was shocked to find the following article on homosexuality, which is "authorised" by the Vicar of the church:
http://www.stpeters.org.au/views/papers/homosexuality.shtml

The central thesis of this article is incompatible with Christianity and with Anglicanism. I felt gutted reading it. Only 3 conclusions are possible:
a. the article is quite old, the church has since repented of this position, and it is left up on the website in error
b. the article is there to stimulate discussion and debate, in a "devil's advocate" kind of way -- it does not represent the actual view of the church
c. the church still takes this position, and the vision statement 2008-2010 is a deceitful attempt to look orthodox by a church that is in fact far from orthodox

So Phil, could you please elaborate what you're getting at by saying the following?

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

Does our expresssion of Anglicanism serve to bring more disciples into the Kingdom or not? I see that St Peters, Eastern Hill has attracted many and from a brief perusal of their website the gospel is read every week and proclaimed, there are many other things that I would describe as devotional that worshippers find useful, which may not be to "evangelical" taste.

Alex M, if you're still lurking around, I'm also keen to know your opinion -- since you've made it clear you have some familiarity with this church (well, you listen to its sermons).

Thanks guys,
Jereth

[Jason]

It's interesting to see how Dr Caroline Miley's theology (see http://www.stpeters.org.au/views/papers/homosexuality.shtml) is based in part on a wrong assumption that the category of "non-practising" homosexuals (which many evangelicals argue is the biblical response to homosexual orientation) exhibits an unchristian mind/body dualism. What Miley's article does exhibit is a dodgy eschatology - she is right to suggest a mind/body dualism is slightly fuzzy. However, a proper Christian eschatology recognises that Christians live between the cross-resurrection event and Jesus' return. That is, the Christian life is a constant putting off of the old nature, and putting on the new nature (Eph 4:22ff). So "non-practising" can be better categorised as putting off the old and putting on the new.

I wonder if part of the difference between conservative Anglicans and those of a more liberal stance is a difference in how we conceive eschatology?

[Alex Milner]

Alex M, if you're still lurking around, I'm also keen to know your opinion -- since you've made it clear you have some familiarity with this church (well, you listen to its sermons).

Hi Jereth,

As I've said, I like reading some of their sermons/materials because it is fairly frank, not because I agree with it. I think the issue you've identified is fairly accurate.

The parish leadership's position can be seen from the attached statement:
http://www.stpeters.org.au/views/news/comment07.shtml

The attached sermon also is interesting in that regard:
http://www.stpeters.org.au/views/sermons/dalton/CDA07lent5.shtml

(Phil, with respect, I think these sorts of differences go well beyond matters of personal style or taste.)

Kind regards
Alex

[Jereth]

Hi Alex,

I've had a look at the leadership statement. Here's my brief analysis:

At stake is the inclusiveness and justice of a gospel that preaches and lives out the love of God in Jesus Christ – one who himself reached out in love and care to the foreigner, the outcast and those on the edge.

St Peter's Eastern Hill, the Anglican parish church of Melbourne since 1847, condemns this growing and dividing intolerance and affirms the proper place within the Church of all people, gay or straight, who are seeking to grow in integrity, faith and service.

I agree with the statements as they stand. But I suspect they understand "reach out" to homosexuals / "proper place within the church" of homosexuals as meaning that homosexually oriented people can accept the Christian faith and continue indefinitely to practice a homosexual lifestyle. Whereas I understand reaching out to homosexuals, and including them in the Church, as offering forgiveness, mercy, healing, restoration and repentance; ultimately a turning away from broken behaviours and beginning a new, transformed life in Christ. I believe that with a lot of care, support, and professional therapy (if necessary) even homosexual orientation can be healed (though maybe not always).
cf. http://www.exodus-international.org/

The reason I suspect St Peters have this other understanding is because that's exactly what Dr Caroline Miley asserts in her article on their site. (Unless of course Miley is acting as a foil for the church's true position?? as I speculated previously) Also because the wording sounds a lot like stuff that the TEC or Canada church says, and we all know what their position is.

I find it alarming that an Anglican church can be publicly holding and teaching this view, against the official doctrine of the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of Australia. Is St. Peters just a fringe group of Anglicans with an aberrant view? And if this is their official teaching, why have they not been disciplined by the bishops and the wider church?

Jereth

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Jereth and Alex,

I apologise. Every now and then I throw a complete red herring into the forum.

St Peter's Eastern Hill is probably the most extreme anglo-catholic parish in Melbourne (it certainly has that history). I used to refer to it as "bells and smells".

The point that I was making (with an extreme "for instance") was that there are many expressions of anglicanism. Personally I more comfortable with the forms that are more like contemporary baptist, church of christ and even pentecostal expressions of christian worship than highly religious and ceremonial styles.

In reality though, I think the parable of the weeds (where the disciples ask Jesus: "Should we remove those that are wrong" and Jesus answers something like "It is hard to pick the wheat from the weeds at this point, leave it until the final harvest") has a lot to teach us. There are churches that faithfully teach the gospel but the secondaries are things that don't appeal to us, equally there are churches where the style appeals to us but the gospel is corrupted.

I am not sure of the quality of St Peter's gospel preaching, I just note that their style is certainly appealing to some.

[Jereth]

Phil,

No need to apologise! Thanks for the conversation.

Bells and smells are not my cup of tea either. However I don’t have an inherent problem with that style of worship. I recognise that it can be edifying for another generation of sincere Christian people. And if a bells and smells church teaches the Bible faithfully that's a good thing. (FYI I went to a Bells and smells secondary school and thus became fairly accustomed to it after getting over the initial shock; now I enjoy a chuckle whenever watching my “low church” friends freak out  when they experience it for the first time!!! Eg. at cathedral ordination services)

I’m not sure how well St. Peters preaches the gospel either (having never gone there – in fact I only learnt about the church last week thanks to you chaps). But if their position on homosexuality is as apparent from that shocking article on their website, my suspicion would be that they are preaching another gospel and thus should be subject to swift censure by higher church authorities.

You’re right Phil in citing Jesus (in Matt 13) that some weeds can’t be removed until the second coming. However I think the New Testament also provides some balancing guidance about dealing firmly with heretical church leaders. I notice that the reason in the parable for not removing the weeds now is that the removal might harm some of the citizens of the Kingdom. There are certainly situations where this will hold; however my feeling is that in the current social climate it is in the long run more harmful for kingdom citizens to allow incorrect teaching about the homosexual lifestyle to persist unsanctioned. (cf. a little leaven spreading through the whole lump)

It is a delicate matter, I'll grant. What do you think?

cheers,
Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's note]

Hi all,

Just want to encourage you to be very careful in the things you say about particular churches or their leaders. Again, while it may seem to you that something is so about their position on a given subject, it may be that you want to say 'it seems to me...' rather than anything firmer unless you have very solid evidence.

I remember someone suggesting that some views may be presented at time to time in order to play devil's advocate; to tease out a line of thought or something like that. There may also be other reasons for things not actually being exactly as they seem.

So please, continue to probe and question and think, but be careful not to draw final conclusions without having all you need to back them up.

Cheers, Tim

[Bogong]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

... probably the most extreme anglo-catholic parish in Melbourne (it certainly has that history). I used to refer to it as "bells and smells".

The point that I was making (with an extreme "for instance") was that there are many expressions of anglicanism. Personally I more comfortable with the forms that are more like contemporary baptist, church of christ and even pentecostal expressions of christian worship than highly religious and ceremonial styles.

In reality though, I think the parable of the weeds (where the disciples ask Jesus: "Should we remove those that are wrong" and Jesus answers something like "It is hard to pick the wheat from the weeds at this point, leave it until the final harvest") has a lot to teach us. There are churches that faithfully teach the gospel but the secondaries are things that don't appeal to us, equally there are churches where the style appeals to us but the gospel is corrupted...

Isn't there something in the NT about "whatever distracts from Christ's message, weakens it's effect"?

For me, it's not so much the High Church "Smells and Bells", it's the even more distracting neo-Charismatics with their Village People style "YMCA hand actions" during services. If one is trying to contemplate the meaning of a sermon, scripture or even just a song, and understand how to apply it to one's own life, it's more than a little distracting to have someone doing a happy dance in front of you! You can sort of ignore the smells and bells, but it's impossible to ignore someone nearby who is trying to attract attention.

At times like this I'm tempted to either write them off as shallow minded attention seekers or quote Matthew 6:5-6 to them and remind them of Christ's advice to be humble and discreet in worship and prayer rather than adopt a "Look at ME" approach.

However every few days I read a NT passage that emphasizes that the core of Christian faith is that we should (attempt to) love everyone in our hearts. So any intolerance we may have of the different ways people have of worshiping and expressing their faith is far more regrettable than any flaws we perceive in the religious practices of true Christians who happen to worship differently than we do.

So we should all appreciate that while the Anglo-Catholic "Smells and Bells" and/or the neo-Charismatic "YMCA hand movements" may not be for us, rather than being intolerant or trying to prove them false with scripture, we should appreciate that both are expressions of Christian, (indeed Anglican), faith and do our best to love the people that worship in this way rather than judge them for having a different approach to worship or interpretation of scripture to our own.

[Guy]

2 Samuel 6:14
You judge David when you judge charismatics

[Guy]

Which one of the Village People do you think David is? I don't recall any of them wearing an ephod

[Bogong]

Guy wrote:

2 Samuel 6:14
You judge David when you judge charismatics

Fair enough Guy. But 2 Sam 6 also has lots on sacrificing burnt offerings and other practices which were superseded by Christ's teaching. King David wasn't dancing when others were trying to worship and contemplate Christ's word.

If you re-read my post from last night, you will see that despite my mild irritation with the happy dancers, I know judging others is wrong and that we should all strive to avoid it. Personally I've made a big effort in recent months and a couple of weeks ago I deliberately sat behind one of the most enthusiastic proponents of this style of worship. Okay, their flailing arms often blocked out the screen and made it hard to read the words of songs, but I was fairly successful in this test of my own tolerance.

The main points in my earlier post were:
( 1. ) Two examples of distractions from contemplating Christ's message, both Smells and Bells <u>and</u> YMCA hand actions. The former distracts some earlier posters in this thread from focusing on what has been said in sermons etc. and contemplating their faith. The latter distracts me and other people I know.

( 2. ) Judging others is wrong! Christ made a big thing of this. The NT also constantly states that we should also do our best to love all people. So just as I should strive to avoid being irritated by the Charismatics, others should strive to avoid being irritated by High Church rituals. Let those without sin be the first to... , etc. 98% of the faith and practices between High and ultra-Low Church Anglicans are identical. Surely we should all celebrate this shared faith and direct any surplus energy towards evangelising to the 95% of Australians who have no faith and don't attend any church, rather than internal sniping.

As I said in my earlier post in this thread "... every few days I read a NT passage that emphasizes that the core of Christian faith is that we should (attempt to) love everyone in our hearts. So any intolerance we may have of the different ways people have of worshiping and expressing their faith is far more regrettable than any flaws we perceive in the religious practices of true Christians who happen to worship differently than we do."

[Guy]

Bogong, you wrote:

"Fair enough Guy. But 2 Sam 6 also has lots on sacrificing burnt offerings and other practices which were superseded by Christ's teaching. King David wasn't dancing when others were trying to worship and contemplate Christ's word."

Yes, I do believe it is fair enough. David danced in the fact of knowing God would bring salvation -Read Psalm 25 along with your NT readings sometime. In verse 5, David says:
guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long. Jesus - The Word is not limited to the New Testament, heading into the future. Like God, the Word was there in the beginning.

David danced just like the Village People, but maybe for him, the words were different: Y ahweh M essiah C hrist A men

[Bogong]

Sorry if my (former) intolerance of Charismatic religious practice offended you Guy. :(
But as I said, I've almost overcome it, in accordance with the instructions in scripture not to be judgmental and to love our neighbours.

But Charismatic worship is not for me, I prefer a quieter and more contemplative approach to worship.

I guess my main point was that Charismatics should strive to understand and not condemn High Church practices. Just as High Church practices don't suit them, some Charismatic practices throw "contemplative Christians" such as myself.

But we are all one Anglican community and we should appreciate that. If this was a more broadly based forum, I might push that definition further to include all Protestants, or even further to include ALL Christians.

But that further option is a little too far for me at this stage. I still find too much of what the Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and Orthodox churches preach upsetting and contrary to my understanding of Christ's message. So I still have a long way to go in my attempts to avoid being judgmental and "stone casting" towards other expressions of Christianity.