Is there any kind of formal doctrine throughout the Anglican Communion?

[Padres1969]

The Anglican Communion has a heavy amount of theological pluralism. Some Anglicans are conservatives, and so they are opposed to gay marriage and abortion. Some are liberal and are open to gay marriage and abortion. Some Anglicans are Anglo-Catholic, believing many of the same doctrines that the Catholic Church professes such as transubstantiation (as it’s defined in the Latin west). Other Anglicans hold to a bit more Evangelical theology sometimes sharing a similar faith that Methodist have. Anglicans share a wide variety of theological opinions and belong to a wide variety of theological schools of thought some of which are more Protestant and others which are more Catholic. However, I want to know if there is any kind of formal doctrine in the Anglican Communion at all such as the Trinity? I hope the Trinity. Now, every single Anglican I have ever met or seen or heard of does believe in the Trinity. Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed at their services. I know Anglican provinces are allow to establish their own formal doctrine, but is there any kind of formal doctrine, at least one such as the Trinity, that all Anglicans believe? If so, do Anglicans who no longer believe it face any kind of excommunication? If not, are there Unitarian Anglicans?

The Trinity is held in common yes, as are the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The Articles are historically helpful in defining Anglicanism, but they’re not authoritative by any means. Common worship is also a unifying highlight of Anglicanism. Now that’s not to say there aren’t variations in the worship contained in the BCP within a particular province never mind across the Communion. But they all trace back to the original BCP. The historic Episcopate is another thing I’d classify as a unifying feature of the Anglican Communion (as well as the continuing churches) worldwide and something Anglicanism shares with Catholicism. Whether you want to classify any of these things as doctrines I’ll leave to you.

 

[commenter]

The Trinity is held in common yes, as are the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The Articles are historically helpful in defining Anglicanism, but they’re not authoritative by any means. Common worship is also a unifying highlight of Anglicanism. Now that’s not to say there aren’t variations in the worship contained in the BCP within a particular province never mind across the Communion. But they all trace back to the original BCP. The historic Episcopate is another thing I’d classify as a unifying feature of the Anglican Communion (as well as the continuing churches) worldwide and something Anglicanism shares with Catholicism. Whether you want to classify any of these things as doctrines I’ll leave to you.

When the US Constitution was written, there was no emphasis, or even mention, of family. That did not mean the Founding Fathers regarded it as unimportant. It simply means much of the guiding principles of any institution are so taken for granted, they tend not to be recorded explicitly.
These core doctrines are, or were, powerful within Anglicanism:

• Some things are absolutely true; some other things are absolutely false; some other things are undetermined;
• Same as above, but absolutely right or wrong
• The Natural Law
• The “World” along with the Flesh and Devil, tempts people to harm; including the church

These principles once constituted an unwritten, but core dogma throughout Anglicanism, but are rejected by some sectors today.

• I am sure there are others which still impact Anglicanism more or less: For instance “people have rights” would be one. “Goodness should be preferred over evil” would be another.

 

[JustaSinner]

I believe you are correct. Worship is at the very core of how we express our theology. That means Sacrament is central of course, but add ‘all things for the glory of God.’ It is what we do best.

As a traditional Anglican in belief (although I’d far rather be known as a “mere Christian” who is bound by Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church) I agree that what you say is representative of traditional Anglican practice. However, I must say that what TEC does best is butcher the Apostolic faith (eg arch-heretic Spong and widespread condoning of damnable sin). TEC is rapidly approaching the point where it cannot even be considered a Christian Church (it will join the ranks of Mormons, Jehovah Witness and others that deny the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology).

 

[ComplineSanFran]

As a traditional Anglican in belief (although I’d far rather be known as a “mere Christian” who is bound by Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church) I agree that what you say is representative of traditional Anglican practice. However, I must say that what TEC does best is butcher the Apostolic faith (eg arch-heretic Spong and widespread condoning of damnable sin). TEC is rapidly approaching the point where it cannot even be considered a Christian Church (it will join the ranks of Mormons, Jehovah Witness and others that deny the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology).

I would disagree with you. Heartily. As would my fellow Anglicans around the world. Bishop Spong is one person/theologian who has his distinct views (and many are very appreciative of those views) but he is only one of many theologians. Bishop Wright is also representative of Anglicanism, albeit from another viewpoint completely. There is room for both in our Church.

TEC’s liturgy remains the same as do the creeds. It is and will always be a church that is Christian.

 

[JustaSinner]

I believe you are correct. Worship is at the very core of how we express our theology. That means Sacrament is central of course, but add ‘all things for the glory of God.’ It is what we do best.

I would disagree with you. Heartily. As would my fellow Anglicans around the world. Bishop Spong is one person/theologian who has his distinct views (and many are very appreciative of those views) but he is only one of many theologians. Bishop Wright is also representative of Anglicanism, albeit from another viewpoint completely. There is room for both in our Church.

TEC’s liturgy remains the same as do the creeds. It is and will always be a church that is Christian.

The Jehovah Witness and Mormon religions (not to mention Islam) are a good deal closer to Christianity than the nearly athiestic religion of Spong. The same goes for other higher critical liberal theologians of TEC, who hold a mystical/naturalistic religion wholly foreign to Christianity.

 

[1ke]

Philosopher, just because there is a wideness in Anglican belief and practice, doesn’t mean that we have gone Unitarian. One of the joys of being in this branch of the Church is that there is room for us all - the Anglo Catholic, the Broad Church member, the evangelical, the charismatic, and the social justice members.

The Creeds will tell you what is bottom line beliefs and the Catechism in our BCPs will begin to unpack it. The Constitution and Canon Law will tell you how we hold the Church together practically. Our theologians will expound on various beliefs, as do yours.

I understand that you want Anglicans to be like Roman Catholics in that there are a clearly defined set of rules/doctrines, and if you obey them, you are in a state of grace, and if you don’t, then there are serious consequences such as excommunication.

We don’t work that way. The Church holds the beliefs (which are of course there in the creeds and catechism) and sometimes makes changes in its understanding and practice of those beliefs. The members? Well, we are free to think and practice as much of that or as little of that as we can.

I remember reading the works of Madeleine L’Engle (a good Episcopalian). She said that some days she just could not recite the Nicene Creed during the Liturgy because she did not believe it. And that’s perfectly ok, because the Church was saying it for her, believing it for her. And when she was ready to say it again, it was there to recite. Day after day, week after week. Year after year.

I think that is the beauty of my tradition. The Mysteries are there, the Sacraments are still there, and I am allowed to participate with all my being or I am allowed to let it carry me when I can’t. I am free to hammer out my theology in the way of Bishop Spong, and that is all right, or Bishop N.T. Wright, and that is also all right. The creeds are still there, being said every day, and the Sacraments are still being performed. None of that is going away.

Excommunication? It doesn’t happen much at all in TEC. There is only one instance I can think of and that happened about 10 years ago when a priest converted to Islam. The Presiding Bishop said she could not practice both faiths.I cannot think the Bishops would ever excommunicate a lay person. It just isn’t done.

Because you see, if you don’t have a check box list of what one must believe and practice - no ifs, ands, or buts - there is no need to excommunicate.

So, you are judging Anglicanism thru a Roman lens. That doesn’t work so much. If you want to judge us, you must see things thru the Anglican lens, which motley as we are, could be any number of lenses. That’s the way of it, I’m afraid.

That is the saddest thing I’ve read in a long time.

And why I left in 1992. It’s only a million times worse now.

 

[carefullytread]

That is the saddest thing I’ve read in a long time.

And why I left in 1992. It’s only a million times worse now.

It’s funny that I read the same post and I think that is sounds like a beautifully sensible way to run a church.

Overall, this thread reads like it was designed to illustrate ambiguity tolerance, with the Anglicans and the Catholics one different sides of the axis. For one group, the ambiguity of Anglicanism is among of the great defining features of that church and for the other it is a “the saddest thing” you can read.

That’s the greatness of human diversity. I for one am glad that both the Anglican and the Roman churches exist. And not just because I live in a Catholic country where the local Anglican Church is one of the few places I can find cultural events in English

 

[Reuben_J]

It’s funny that I read the same post and I think that is sounds like a beautifully sensible way to run a church.

Overall, this thread reads like it was designed to illustrate ambiguity tolerance, with the Anglicans and the Catholics one different sides of the axis. For one group, the ambiguity of Anglicanism is among of the great defining features of that church and for the other it is a “the saddest thing” you can read.

That’s the greatness of human diversity. I for one am glad that both the Anglican and the Roman churches exist. And not just because I live in a Catholic country where the local Anglican Church is one of the few places I can find cultural events in English

It is really sad that a church should come to that where there is “no excommunication, no check box list of what one must believe and practice - no ifs, ands, or buts …”

There are some within the Catholic Church who want to take that approach too. At one time, a seminary would teach priests that it is okay to have consensual sex, as long as the two people agree without getting married and to celebrate the mass with Coca-Cola. Sound unbelievable but fortunately those have been eradicated though I am sure if one looks hard enough one would find them.

It is a measure of how far we have gone from the Church that Jesus Christ left us with.

 

[carefullytread]

It is really sad that a church should come to that where there is “no excommunication, no check box list of what one must believe and practice - no ifs, ands, or buts …”

There are some within the Catholic Church who want to take that approach too. At one time, a seminary would teach priests that it is okay to have consensual sex, as long as the two people agree without getting married and to celebrate the mass with Coca-Cola. Sound unbelievable but fortunately those have been eradicated though I am sure if one looks hard enough one would find them.

It is a measure of how far we have gone from the Church that Jesus Christ left us with.

I definitely think it would be sad if the Catholic Church went in that direction. The Catholic Church is a dogmatic church and it has many wonderful things that can only come from being dogmatic, e.g. a very rich theology.

But there are different things, some of them good and some of them bad, that come from not being a dogmatic church and the Anglican church has taken that road. For me, it is a beautiful thing that we can live in a world where those approaches can peaceful coexist.

It strikes me that you are temperamentally inclined towards the Roman approach and there I hope you flourish. But others, like ComplineSanFrancisco, clearly are inclined towards the Anglican one.

But of course, I don’t expect to convince you that this is ‘good’, but I hope you can at least smile and recognize how nicely this thread illustrates that some people like ambiguity and some do not.

 

[GKC]

I definitely think it would be sad if the Catholic Church went in that direction. The Catholic Church is a dogmatic church and it has many wonderful things that can only come from being dogmatic, e.g. a very rich theology.

But there are different things, some of them good and some of them bad, that come from not being a dogmatic church and the Anglican church has taken that road. For me, it is a beautiful thing that we can live in a world where those approaches can peaceful coexist.

It strikes me that you are temperamentally inclined towards the Roman approach and there I hope you flourish. But others, like ComplineSanFrancisco, clearly are inclined towards the Anglican one.

But of course, I don’t expect to convince you that this is ‘good’, but I hope you can at least smile and recognize how nicely this thread illustrates that some people like ambiguity and some do not.

There are Anglicans…and then, there are Anglicans.

 

[JustaSinner]

As a traditional Anglican in beliefs (who affirms the necessity of submission to the Scripture and Ancient Creeds of the Church) I must say that the diversity permitted in TEC is not beautiful, but rather it is damnable anarchy against the Apostolic faith. Further, it is largely a departure from Christianity itself. Unity in the essentials (eg fidelity to Scripture and the Creeds) is non-optional for anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian.

[Note: I do not intend to exclude those groups of Christians from Christendom who for whatever reason do not use or prefer the language of the universal Creeds but nonetheless affirm in substance what is taught in the Creeds–eg affirm the Trinity and Christology–unlike the anti-Christian mystical/naturalistic religion of Spong and other higher critical liberal theologians in TEC]

 

[JustaSinner]

Double post

 

[GKC]

As a traditional Anglican in beliefs (who affirms the necessity of submission to the Scripture and Ancient Creeds of the Church) I must say that the diversity permitted in TEC is not beautiful, but rather it is damnable anarchy against the Apostolic faith. Further, it is largely a departure from Christianity itself. Unity in the essentials (eg fidelity to Scripture and the Creeds) is non-optional for anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian.

[Note: I do not intend to exclude those groups of Christians from Christendom who for whatever reason do not use or prefer the language of the universal Creeds but nonetheless affirm in substance what is taught in the Creeds–eg affirm the Trinity and Christology–unlike the anti-Christian mystical/naturalistic religion of Spong and other higher critical liberal theologians in TEC]

And there’s one of them. Anglicans, I mean.

 

[Padres1969]

As a traditional Anglican in beliefs (who affirms the necessity of submission to the Scripture and Ancient Creeds of the Church) I must say that the diversity permitted in TEC is not beautiful, but rather it is damnable anarchy against the Apostolic faith. Further, it is largely a departure from Christianity itself. Unity in the essentials (eg fidelity to Scripture and the Creeds) is non-optional for anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian.

[Note: I do not intend to exclude those groups of Christians from Christendom who for whatever reason do not use or prefer the language of the universal Creeds but nonetheless affirm in substance what is taught in the Creeds–eg affirm the Trinity and Christology–unlike the anti-Christian mystical/naturalistic religion of Spong and other higher critical liberal theologians in TEC]

And I’d argue that the ECUSA still affirms those essentials that you mention, eg: the creeds and scriptures. Of course being Anglican the latter in particular is only one of three legs which guide and inform the faith, the others being tradition and the third, reason.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

And I’d argue that the ECUSA still affirms those essentials that you mention, eg: the creeds and scriptures. Of course being Anglican the latter in particular is only one of three legs which guide and inform the faith, the others being tradition and the third, reason.

I was thinking about this thread during the Liturgy this Sunday morning. I looked around my parish and saw people praying and communing with God and with neighbor. I stood with my brothers and sisters in Christ as we recited the Creed. We listened to a sermon on the Good Samaritan and the horrible week just behind us, and were asked about what Christ was calling us to do. Were we the priest who followed Levitical Law to the T and passed by the person in need? Most would, especially if the ‘Law’ is more important than the person in need.

I thought of that here, where people are very, VERY concerned about Church Law.

My Anglican brothers and sisters then participated in the Sacrament, where Christ comes to us in the bread and the wine. We eat and drink so that Jesus fills us. And because we have Open Communion, all were invited to be filled with Christ. I saw strangers take this in and made welcome.

I know very well that many consider the Episcopal Church to be beyond traditional. I don’t. It is the core of the Christian faith. I see it every single day, because Christ is present with us and in us and around us.