There’s quite a long article in the Vancouver sun here, I just wanted to draw out a couple of quotes:
When it comes to liberal Anglicanism, (Dean Peter) Elliott defines Christianity’s “good news” in a somewhat different way than many evangelicals and Catholics.
Instead of emphasizing that “salvation” offers a guarantee of existence in an afterlife, Elliott defines salvation primarily as “healing.”
Instead of teaching that the Easter Sunday story is about the literal “resurrection of a corpse,” Elliott said it is a mystical account of “a new experience of God,” something beyond the confines of language.
Mainline Protestants now make up 20 per cent of the Canadian public (seven percent of whom are Anglican), which is a sharp decrease from when they formed half the population in the 1930s.
For his part, Bibby owes much of the drop to the mere fact that mainline Protestants had fewer babies than Catholics and evangelicals, and to the way immigration began coming less from Europe and more from Asia.
But, as the prominent sociologist adds, mainline Protestants still account for six million Canadians, with roughly one out of three regularly attending an Anglican, United, Lutheran or Presbyterian church.
So, even the once-mighty mainline Protestant fortress has not really crumbled in Canada.
When it comes to reaching immigrants, Elliott believes most liberal Anglican churches are not successful until the second generation, when minorities become more comfortable with Canada’s official languages.
On another practical level, Elliott believes the over-building of mainline Protestant churches in the 1950s exaggerates the image of Protestant decline, since many small neighbourhood congregations now have few members.
“Nothing attracts people like people,” Elliott said, suggesting it may be necessary for mainline Protestants to operate fewer church buildings and focus, like many evangelicals and Catholics, on the larger congregations that already appeal to people.
As the leader of a successful progressive Christian congregation, Elliott said Christ Church Cathedral faces other challenges on a continent that just experienced eight years of born-again George W. Bush in the White House.
Elliott says he has to help newcomers overcome the stereotype that most Christians are Republican-Party-style conservatives, condemning of homosexuals and women who have abortions.
“We don’t want to be like those Christians who initially appear welcoming, but then later reveal a lot of judgment. We seek to provide a safe and inclusive community,” Elliott said.
For their part, conservative evangelical and Catholic churches in Canada have also had to work to emphasize they are more moderate and less divisive than the controversial Religious Right in the U.S.
However, as Sutton finished her cafe latte during our downtown conversation, the young convert made it clear she is one of those new Christians who prefers a church that is welcoming to, for lack of a better word, liberals.
Sutton has become active at Christ Church Cathedral, including by teaching dance in the Sunday school, because she was drawn to what she called an “intellectually deep” community “where people don’t offer quick fixes, or pretend to have all the answers.”
“It was highly emotional to be baptized. There was this marvellous feeling of being home. It was just lovely,” Sutton said over coffee.
“I didn’t get baptized to be saved, to go to heaven. I think we’re all saved. My baptism was about my commitment to God.”
“When it comes to liberal Anglicanism, (Dean Peter) Elliott defines Christianity’s “good news” in a somewhat different way than many evangelicals and Catholics.”
Um…shouldn’t this be corrected to say, Dean Elliott defines Christianity in a somewhat different way than Christians? Yes, it should. And why? Because the Bible, upon which all Christian tradition defines the parameters of the gospel, as well as the Doctrine and Discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada as it stands officially today, both proclaim salvation (ie. saved from God’s anger at sin, and ultimately judgement and into eternal life by the merits of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God in human flesh, and received by faith) and resurrection (bodily – please check scripture, and creed Mr. Elliott) in terms of universally accepted Christian doctrine. Dean Peter’s version may feel good to him, and it may grow club church, but it aint Christian.
Quite. And the ACoC wonders why most of the Church has disowned it…
This apostate dean simply shows we need to avoid the term of “liberals” for bishops, priests or others having the same convictions. We need to call a spade a spade which means we should call them by the correct term ‘APOSTATES’. That might not be polite terminology but it definitely is correct. Teaching said beliefs simply directs people away from the Cross and causes them to believe they can be saved by being “a good boy” or having warm and fuzzy feelings. That is an offence to the sacrifice of Christ. Christians – and that includes Anglicans – need to wake up and take a good look at the words of hymn #121 in the old blue book:-
“Christian. dost thou see them
On the holy ground,
How the host of darkness
Compass thee around? . . . and the second verse
Christian, dost thou feel them,
How they work within,
Striving, tempting luring,
Goading into sin? . . . and the appropriate response
Christian, up and smite them,
Counting gain but loss,
Smite them by the merit
Of the holy Cross.”
An offensive article – Christ is crucified again. Lord, have mercy. The majority of Anglicans do not believe in such a view. The ACoC statistics are out-of-date. Most second generation immigrants do not feel welcome in such an “inclusive” (but actually exclusive) church – there have been at least 4 generations now in Canada who have chosen life over death. Time for Christians to write articles on Christianity.
Re 4: The problem is that a majority of Anglicans allow their leadership to preach “such a view.” Elliott wouldn’t have a congregation if people didn’t like what he said. And he is definitely not the only one to deny the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. I’ll bet if people posted names and examples of sermons or articles containing this revised theology of the resurrection and atonement, we’d get quite a list. It wouldn’t just be coming from the mouth of the gay and partnered Dean of New Westminster.
Let me get that list started: check out Diocese of B.C.’s Rev Dr. Harold Munn’s Easter Letter 2007 http://www.stjohnthedivine.bc.ca/openletters/2007easter.asp
…where the resurrection is but a metaphor…
Thank God it isn’t. If it were only a metaphor I wouldn’t bother with the effort of being a Christian. What would be the point?
I don’t know, Sam. He doesn’t specifically say that the resurrection was real and physical in that letter, but he doesn’t deny it either.
The emphasis of the letter, however, agrees with Sam’s conclusion.
See also toward the end of that page where we read:
“A “special” 10:30 eucharist celebrating Pentecost with the Gaia Mass on May 27th.”
ML (#7)
That and the fact that they are recommending Borg and Crossan (of the Jesus Seminar) offer abundant proof that there is a complete departure from orthodox Christianity there. The whole letter sounded completely new-agey, but people soak it in anyway, don’t they.
Thank you 7 and 8…my point precisely. Without actually affirming the physical resurrection and atonement, with promoting Borg and Crossan’s teachings regularly in lecture series hosted at St John the Divine’s, one should draw the conclusion that metaphorical interpretation is what is really meant. For further illumination, check out their VIEWS ON section: “There are three characteristics, which keep these various Anglican churches together. Firstly, unlike most other denominations, the Anglican church has no unique set of beliefs which define it, and to which members are required to agree.” http://www.stjohnthedivine.bc.ca/about/anglicanism.asp
Continuing from #9: What about this from St. John the Divine’s site about Jesus:
“One type of interpretation has been that the clarity with which he ordered his own life on the principle of love without limit means that he is both a light that shines into our own lives and is also the reality of God. Another type of interpretation says that his death and resurrection is the process by which evil is removed, both from the universe as well as from individual people.” http://www.stjohnthedivine.bc.ca/about/jesus.asp
Is this supposed to be Christianity?!!!
#7 Ugh.I missed that,I only read the letter.
Bishop of Durham Tom Wright has an appropriate Easter message:
The Church must stop trivialising Easter
Christians must keep their nerve: the Resurrection isn’t a metaphor, it’s a physical fact
Wow! what a lot of time spent on a letter written for 2007. This is 2009 and yes it is Easter. The Lord has risen indeed.
Has anyone read the 2009 Easter letter written by Rev. Dr. Harold Munn at the same website?
Ruth (#13)
Yes, I read it, and the 2008 letter as well. Unfortunately, the most recent does little to undo the revisionist fictions of the previous ones. In fact his very first sentence raises the eyebrows,
Whatever it meant to them? He makes it sound open to interpretation. The Bible clearly describes a literal, physical rising from the dead; a very real stone rolled away and a very empty tomb. And the Bible describes the first believers knowing it for a fact.
It’s funny, the arrogance of people today who claim to know better than they.
Sam [#9], the statement you quote is simply true. There are no distinctive Anglican doctrines: most are shared with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Churches, the Lutheran Churches or the Reformed Churches.
What distinguishes Anglicanism from other branches of Christianity is its approach: moderation, comprehensiveness (NOT inclusiveness) and reason.
I will grant that St. John the Divine seems to be reinterpreting this a little (and as Irena says reinterpreting Jesus a lot), but it’s actually a classical definition of Anglicanism.
The 39 Articles are distinctly Anglican are they not?
Gordon (#15), I am struggling to make sense of your comment. Are you asserting that the 39 Articles were not a definitive statement of Anglican doctrine that set the Church of England apart from Rome? Are you saying that Anglicans adhering to the 39 Articles would not have been considered anathema in light of what was produced at the Council of Trent? Even the most catholic of Anglo Catholics seem far removed from the RCC. Unless one is willing to submit to the Pope and the Magesterium as a higher authority than Scripture, there is a chasm of difference that cannot be bridged regardless of how much the liturgy may appear Catholic.
I don’t know what you mean by “moderation, comprehensiveness (NOT inclusiveness) and reason”. I think many other denominations could make a similar, and equally valid, claim to these qualities. In the moderen context, I will assert that the only thing that sets Anglicanism apart from other variations of Christianity is its form of government. In many of the discussions I have had on this blog, I have been reminded, time and again, that, without “the communion”, Anglicanism ceases to be Anglicanism and that people might just as well join another denomination. The main objection to the ANiC also seems to be the belief, by those opposed to it, that it has “offended” the Anglican form of government. Issues of biblical doctrine seem to pale in comparison.
I guess the foregoing means I also disagree with your concluding statement.
Sam [#16] and Warren [#17], the answer is yes and no.
The 39 Articles were indeed designed to distinguish Canterbury from Rome, and are a foundational Anglican statement, but there are almost no Articles to which none of the other Churches can subscribe.
Most Roman Catholics could easily subscribe to articles 1-5, 7-10, 26-27, and 29
Article 6 defines the Protestant Canon of Scripture, shared by all the Evangelical Churches, Articles 11 and 30 are pure Lutheranism, Articles 12-25, 30-34 and 38-39 would be accepted by most Evangelical Churches, and Article 28 could be described as applied Lutheranism.
That just leaves Article 35, “Of the Homilies”, 36, “Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers”, and Article 37 “Of the Civil Magistrates”. Article 35 asserts that the Homilies are doctrinally sound, but is now moot, as there is no likelihood of the Homilies actually being used in Church, Article 37 denies the authority of the Pope in England (a position accepted by Protestants) and Article 36 affirms that the Ordinal in the BCP is godly and contains everything necessary for ordinations (again, a position accepted by those Protestants, who regard Anglican priests as true ministers of God).
In short, there is no distinctively Anglican doctrine in the Articles, but the way those doctrines are expressed is distinctively Anglican.
Warren, your claim that what sets Anglicans apart from other Christians is their form of government does not touch my argument, unless you are claiming that administration is a matter of doctrine.
Anglicanism has very little to distinquish it doctrinally from other Christian denominations, but a great deal which distinguished it from non-Christian groups.
Another example to add to my growing file folder of evidence to support the statment I wrote.
Gordon (#18),
I think we are both guilty of mixing categories (probably moreso me). Although denominational distictives, biblical doctrine, and biblical imperatives overlap in certain areas, they are not synonymous. In a general sense, doctrine is properly concerned with organization and structure. My primary job for the past two years has involved the writing of military doctrine and I know that the armed forces of most nations have doctrine pertaining to how they are organized. Doctrine is a body of principles and tenets, that, if applied with wisdom and common sense, should generally result in success. Biblical doctrine is a subcategory of doctrine and I grant that the doctrine of the trinity or the doctrine of atonement are different in kind than organizational doctrine.
My response to this statement is “so what?” (and I don’t mean this in a pejorative way). Why would it matter if none of the 39 Articles, taken individually, are unique to Anglicanism? Taken as a group, however, the Articles do set Anglicanism apart from other denominations; in the same way that the Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dordt set the Christian Reformed Church apart from other churches – even though the individual elements in these documents may be shared by other denominations.
Going back to your statement in #15 that, “There are no distinctive Anglican doctrines”, this is a good thing. It is churches that hold to “unique” biblical doctrines that I am suspicious of.
So, what makes Anglicanism unique or “distinct”? In #15 you stated it was the approach of, “moderation, comprehensiveness (NOT inclusiveness) and reason”. I’m sure we could get into a long debate about how these terms are defined, but my argument is that these qualities are not unique to Anglicanism and that other denominations can lay legitimate claim to them. I, on the other hand, am suggesting that the Anglican form of government – the “communion” if you will – is what sets Anglicanism apart from other Protestant denominations. My observation is not scientific, but there seems to be a deep fear amongst died-in-the-wool Anglicans that a congregational form of government may gain sway, and they would rather tolerate all manner of other changes rather than see this happen. I don’t really see anything else that makes Anglicanism disctinct in its entirety, although sub-groups within Anglicanism may have distinctives (not all of which are good).
I find this attachment to the “communion” interesting (although hardly unique), because I think it is founded in tradition rather than biblical doctrine. From my reading of the Bible, independant baptist churches, with all their flaws, have as legitmate a claim to their church structure as do Anglican churches (I don’t think that either structure is perfect). I also suspect that independant baptists are as loathe to let go of their form of government as are Anglicans. Although convictions run deep and are sincerely held, I see an element of sinful human nature in all of this. Man resolutely resists bending his knee to his creator in all areas and few men are willing to foresake everything and obediently follow their saviour into the unknown in faith that He will not desert them. Which leads me back to biblical imperatives.
Many apologies for my lengthy pontification.
Warren [#20] no need to apologise: it’s helpful.
I still wonder, however, how comprehensive other Churches are when compared with Anglicans. As far as I can tell, only (healthy) Anglican Churches can keep low-Church Evangelicals and higher-than-Rome Anglo-Catholics living together in relative harmony.