By making the comparison to Unitarianism, I meant that the “Broad Church” comprizes the more liberal, less ecclesiastical element in the Anglican ecclesial community. It embraces latitudinarianism – first established by S.T. Coleridge, who died in1858.
I would say the Unitarians who participated in the survey you reported are latitudinarian.
Anything goes.
Could you post that Quadrilateral again, please?
How do you decide between the three conflicting but equally valid positions in the Anglican ecclesial community?
Thanks, Jim Dandy
Let me repeat myself, from another thread, to support what you say here. As I said to you, over in the Anglican Communion thread:
*In general, you are correct, but the terms were slow in developing. In the Elizabethan period, the Elizabethan Compromise was constructed to form a a peaceful unity (enforced) between the more reformed side of developing Anglicanism, and the less so.
In dealing with this historic range of attitude and doctrine, I always stress (though not everyone listens), that the terms you used represent two slightly different and overlapping spectra. The high-low dichotomy (broad is a latter development, basically liberal, as you say) best refers to ecclesiology: churchmanship (how many candles, what sort of vestments, incense, liturgy, terminology, etc). The reformed/evangelical-Anglo-Catholic dichotomy emphasizes doctrine: Mariology, eucharistic theory, sacraments generally, attitude toward Rome, etc. The distinction is not absolute and it is not inaccurate to consider low=reformed/evangelical and high=a range of Anglo-Catholic, up to Anglo-Papal, as generally what you will find. But I find the distinction useful.
This is the historic and evolved Anglican spectrum, which existed under a general umbrella of common understanding of recognizable creedal and historical Christianity. But to it now must sadly, be added another, one that turned the broad category (without regard to ecclesiology) into what almost amounts to an 3rd dimension, indeed, a new faith; a liberalizing not only of Anglican particulars, but eating into what had been the common basis and ground underlying the old distinctions: mere Christianity. So, now one must consider, not merely what the level of churchmanship of an Anglican might be, and/or where in the doctrinal spectrum such might fall, but to what degree to they manifest historic, not Anglicanism, but Christianity. *
And, as I added, speaking to bluegoat, with respect to the addition of the term “broad” to low and high:
*Because of how the term came to be, within the CoE. It was a movement that didn’t pay much attention to the Church praxis, but that held that doctrine was flexible and not to be overly defined, interpreting Anglican formularies in a liberal sense, and avoiding dogmatism. Thus, broad and hazy, as Anglo-Catholics were high and crazy. Bishop Colenso was a fine example.
In the day, this did tend still to be in the context of a mere Christianity, but its descendants have broadened that into a comprehensive big tent. Liberal, that is. Christianity one of many paths.
Here’s a site, with a quick look:*
victorianweb.org/religion/brdchrch.html
Once you see the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, be aware that, useful as it might be for a quick reference to a broad-brush mere Anglicanism (and some parts are problematic, even so), there is nothing that mandates it for Anglicans, nor any authority capable of doing so.
A curious historical point is that the origin of the process that led, first to the Chicago bishops’ resolution, in which the 4 points are embedded, in 1886, and then, more succinctly, in the Lambeth resolution,1888, was the idea of reunion, most particularly with the RCC. This sort of thinking led, through tortuous paths, eventually to {I]Apostolicae Curae. And the Quadrilateral also played a part in the relations in the mid 60s, between Rome and Canterbury, in the establishment of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission.
But it doesn’t serve as a universal statement of what Anglicans do or must affirm. Though they could, sure. And many doubtless do.
Coleridge didn’t establish latitudinarianism; he was about 100 years too late. But he was associated with it.
GKC
