Fr. Dale Matson
Canterbury never seems to
have an over the cliff moment, only a possible downhill slide into oblivion. There has
been a well-intended but mistaken sense for both +Rowan Williams and ++Justin
Welby that agreement within the WWAC is simply a process issue whether it is called ‘Indaba’ or ‘Reconciliation’.
Both men have failed to see the differences between the traditionalists and
progressives for what those differences really are. It is heresy versus orthodoxy. I was greatly disappointed when +Rowan Williams
referred to the differences as a matter of ‘styles’ as if it was simply
differing local adaptations of the Gospel. They have identified and attempted
to treat a symptom, disunity, as the problem
when disunity is only a symptom of the problem.
Today, Canterbury
Anglicanism is not a firewall. Canterbury is a fulcrum used by the progressives to pry loose the preeminence
of Scripture, Tradition and Reason and supplant it with subjective experience. The
innovations are patches of new material on old cloth. Would Canterbury be
recognizable by Thomas Cranmer today? The once reformed church is now itself in
need of reformation. The ‘locally
adapted’ innovations of progressive churches are now becoming the tail wagging
the dog of Anglicanism. We have taken the wrong road and ignored our brothers
and sisters in the Roman and Orthodox Churches. It was a sin of pride to go
another direction. The ordination of women propelled us down the wrong path. Some
would even say our separate path began sooner with birth control that makes
sexual pleasure the goal of human sexual intercourse. This has degenerated further into
reproductive rights but it is still murder of
the unborn child. It is an unconscionable outrage that some call this a
blessing. Sex for pleasure has led to additional perverse forms of sexual relationships
being added to the list daily. The church is called to be a restraint on evil
not call that which is evil blessed.
One cannot separate
Canterbury from the Church of England. The CoE views itself as both catholic
and reformed. Reformation is not usually associated with innovation as much as
a recapturing/remembering. That is the spirit of Thomas Cranmer.
“The religious settlement
that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth gave the Church of England
the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day. It resulted in a
Church that consciously retained a large amount of continuity with the Church
of the Patristic and Medieval periods in terms of its use of the catholic
creeds, its pattern of ministry, its buildings and aspects of its liturgy, but
which also embodied Protestant insights in its theology and in the overall
shape of its liturgical practice. The way that this is often expressed is by
saying that the Church of England is both 'catholic and reformed.’” http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history.aspx.
Thomas Cranmer was
both catholic and reformed. His vision was for a Benedictine spirituality available
to the people in the vernacular via the Book of Common Prayer. Orthodox
Anglicanism was preserved in missioned lands far from Canterbury. What the progressives would term primitive
binary thinking is God’s prophetic voice calling Canterbury back to her roots.
Canterbury is no longer catholic or reformed. Canterbury has gone her own way, doing what is right in her own eyes. Canterbury has not sought the council of
the Roman or Orthodox churches. Can Canterbury even say to what extent she
remains a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church? She still has a seat
but no voice and vote. Does Canterbury even reflect the mind of the majority of
Anglicans?
The ear of Canterbury
has turned toward contemporary society for its prophetic voice and away from God's voice in Scripture. Myopic eyes see only a
contemporary human centered missiology. It is a material kingdom of this world.
It is a human flourishing in this world mentality, not a preparation for the
next world spirituality. God the Holy Spirit cannot and will not bring unity
and reconciliation to those holding to Tradition, Scripture and Reason and
those who have introduced another gospel. It is the gospel of distortion. It includes Eve rather than Mary feminism. It is the insistence on factional rights rather
than God’s sovereignty. It is human focused not Christocentric. It is finding new ways to introduce innovation
through the back door in the dark of night one inch at a time.
This is not the time to
attempt reconciliation without the urging and blessing of God the Holy Spirit
Who created and unified the Church of Jesus the Christ. This is the time for
repentance and reformation. It is a call to return to historic orthodox
Anglicanism. It is a call to seek reconciliation with our brothers and sisters
in the Roman and Orthodox Churches. It is a call to return to the only name and
hope we have, Jesus Christ.
“It is Classical orthodox
Christianity that tells the profoundest truth about the One we call the
Christ." Very Rev. Robert Barron, S.T.D.
3 comments:
Good points. Let me present a question.
Unity in the Church as it now stands appears to mean being able to share the communion cup with those who you see supporting an "innovative" (AKA heretical) Gospel.
Is that theologically tenable?
I don't think it is, but I will leave it to wiser minds such as yours to spell it out.
The "innovator" will claim that his position is Spirit led, not heretical, etc., and therefore those who believe communion has been impaired by those innovations are labelled as the ones who are less than Christian.
A renewal is clearly needed, but Canterbury has not wanted to offend anybody except perhaps the "orthodox" recently. I think any honest attempt by the Church to create unity will have to come out of a search for the truth. I don't see that happening anytime soon. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reflected on his days at Union Theological Seminary.
"...in the conflict between determination for truth with all of its consequences and the will for community, the latter prevails. This is characteristic of all American thought, particularly as I have observed it in theology and the church, they do not see the radical claim of truth on the shaping of their lives. Community is therefore formed less on truth than on the spirit of 'fairness'."
UGP,
I initially attempted a quick response but realize there is so much to your thoughtful comment that I will submit a blog length response.
The 'innovator' is a spiritual tourist whose church is the bus from which they depart to new experiences and thrills. They have no fruit of the spirit, nor gifts, so a shopping they must go.
Post a Comment