Wednesday, October 03, 2007

A worm at the heart of Anglicanism

Words to ponder from Dan Crawford (comment #82) on the TitusOneNine post, The World of Exclusive Inclusiveness and the JSC Report:

As I read the comments above, especially those by SanderD and others of like mind, I find Jeffrey Steenson’s reasons for resigning his see and seeking to be received into the Roman Church more and more compelling.

There is a worm at the heart of Anglicanism - and that worm will ultimately be its destruction - if not in this generation then in the not too distant future. There is no authority in the Communion - there is no real Communion in the Communion - and there can be none as long as provinces believe they can act autonomously with no regard to other parts of the church - as long as Anglicanism insists that it is of the nature of the church to tolerate and accept as equally authoritative, contradictory views about the Trinity, the Second Person of the Trinity, the mission of the church, the nature of God’s revelation and the form it takes, the meaning of the moral law revealed in the Ten Commandments, and the meaning of “catholicity” and the church itself.

Anglicanism had its roots in the corrupt power politics and personal behavior of a despotic king, and was sustained by its close relationship to the authority of the state. It thus comes as no surprise that it uses the sleazy tactics of power politics to advance and solidify its position. Its bishops claim no authority save the authority to sue, intimidate, threaten, bluster, and posture. Its titular head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, apparently believes he has no authority at all (save sending out invitations) and is incapable of exercising even a moral authority.

Given all this, given the less-than-glorious history of Anglicanism’s attempts to present a coherent theology to the world, why are we surprised when stacked committees like the Primates’ “Standing Committee” and the bureaucracy of the Anglican Consultative Council show themselves far more familiar with instruments of corruption and dishonesty than “instruments of unity”?

1 comment:

Jeff said...

FWIW, I'm reminded of this blog entry I wrote last year.

Anglicanism has, for a very long time, tolerated - even within the "orthodox" contingent - widely divergent theological views. When AngloCatholicism and low church Evangelicalism can exist side by side, can anyone be surprised when the modernist thinks they should have a place, too?

I'll apologize in advance, as the blog entry may be a bit harsh, but I think its on point.