An Ambrosian Moment

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work.”
1 Timothy 3:1 (Authorized Version)

St. Paul encourages St. Timothy as he is discerning appropriate episcopal candidates that should the man desire the position, he is reaching out for it, it is a beautiful undertaking to want. However, St. Paul then explains the qualifications for a bishop. The standards cannot be any higher, as Scripture holds, he must be: 

Blameless, a faithful husband only to one wife, vigilant, sober in an age of addiction, behaving as a Christian ought, prone to feed and house the stranger, a teacher, not struggling with alcohol, not violent and striking others, not seeking worldly riches, instead a patient man, not one to start or pursue a brawl, nor coveting with his eyes and heart, but one who governs his own household well and able to lead his children, not a new Christian who is ripe for Satan to lift “up with pride [and] he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:6, AV). Finally, the man selected must be respected by those outside the church, for the bishop represents the body of Christ wherever he goes and whatever he says or does.  

These qualifications from 1 Timothy 3:1-7 are extensive and disqualify the majority of men from eligibility. Further, these standards require deep reflection and prayerful reflection by the ACNA College of Bishops as they elect the next Archbishop from among their ranks. (Article X, Section 3, ACNA Constitution). Since all the candidates are bishops, theoretically each of the men present is required to meet St. Paul’s standard reflected in Scripture. I pray it is so. However, because we are all sinners it further demonstrates why we must join Archbishop Foley’s request for prayer and fasting as we approach the election. 

My prayer is simple: Lord, grant the electors the wisdom and discernment to see who you are calling to serve as Archbishop. May he reflect the Ordinal’s call to “teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers” and “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word.” (The Ordinal).

Read the rest at The North American Anglican.

Whither Goes Anglicanism? Diagnosing the Disease

A Review of The Rev. Dr. Charles Erlandson’s Orthodox Anglican Identity: The Quest for Unity in a Diverse Religious Tradition

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

The trajectory of Anglicanism is bleak or blossoming – depending on how you define Anglicanism. The Rev. Dr. Charles Erlandson provides a multifaceted definition for Anglicanism after weighing a variety of possible definitions along trajectories of ecclesial, normative, practical, and historical lines in his book, Orthodox Anglican Identity: The Quest for Unity in a Diverse Religious Tradition. The long title of this book indicates how difficult it is to adequately, much less sufficiently, and succinctly define Anglicanism. The Rev. Dr. Erlandson’s analysis is crucial for understanding why under the banner “Anglican” there exists contradictory diversities and dual “integrities” – much to the confusion of outsiders. This inability to articulate and define Anglicanism as a comprehensive and singular entity or theology frustrates non-Anglicans and Anglicans alike. Difficult as it may be, the Rev. Dr. Erlandson provides the clearest and most succinct definition of Anglicanism presently available: “Anglicanism is the life of the catholic church that was planted in England in the first few centuries after Christ; reshaped decisively by the English Reformation that reformed the received catholic traditions and also by the Evangelical and Catholic Revivals and other historical movements of the Spirit; and that has now been inculturated [sic] into independent, global churches.”[ii] However, such a definition fails to reveal an Anglican ethos that can guide orthodox Anglicans in the 21^st Century and beyond. Before such a definition can be realized, Anglicanism’s present crisis must be properly diagnosed before a more sufficient and clear description can be articulated.

TROUBLE DEFINING ANGLICANISM

The ultimate definition chosen by the Rev. Dr. Erlandson is historical in nature, albeit through a healthy lens of the three stages (and emerging fourth stage) of Anglicanism he outlines in his work.[iii] Unfortunately, he rejects a normative definition in favor of a historical definition. He rejects a normative framework due to the present crisis in Anglican identity – namely the failure of ecclesial authority to enforce Anglican formularies.[iv] But this begs the question. Anglicanism’s present crisis, nay its disease, is a failure in ecclesial discipline enforcing its normative identity. Were Anglican provinces and the Anglican Communion as a whole to agree to enforce its normative foundations, the formularies, then it would not suffer from the disease of being ill-defined due to lax canonical discipline. As the author notes, “Anglicanism may be defined in terms of two kinds of formularies: general and special.”[v] These formularies include the universal catholic orthodox Church formularies[vi] and the uniquely Anglican formularies: “The Book of Common Prayer (especially the 1662), the Ordinal, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the canon law” of Anglican churches.[vii]

Defining Anglicanism – actual Anglicanism and not those who merely use the term “Anglican” in their name or as a description of their ecclesial tradition – must occur at the normative level.

Read the rest at The North American Anglican