Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The "Burgon Thesis"
- In a message dated 9/26/04 9:08:40 PM Central Daylight Time, c_tylor@... writes:
I personally find that
totally ridiculous, to invite people you ecclessiastically must
regard as schismatic, to work on something this important for the
orthopraxy of your church. Yet Protestant Ecumenicism had already
taken hold of the Church of England by 1870.
You observe something that Toon points out in his work on the Tractarian issue that the Anglicans prior to the Revised Version was being dealt with.
The one thing the High Church Protestants wanted to do was to defend the Church of England against liberalism and Romanism. But the difficulty with this was the opponents of Romanism were often Puritans, Anabaptists, independents, etc.
Bible societies (outside of the ecclesiastical oversight) were putting forth much literature and often the High Churchman appreciated the gospel being preached but also lamented the fact that it was outside the visible church.
Of course the visible church has tests of orthodoxy. Clergy, creeds, confessions, etc.
Bible societies and independents are not bound to that. Puritans of course were different but still opposed to the Anglican worship and structure.
It is similiar today. You have para church groups printing literature and doing ministry (on campuses, etc) but they are not under the oversight of the church and her officers.
I think many traditional Protestants (Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterian) feel the problems of these para church groups and these "cell-what does this verse mean to you" bible study groups that people often replace for church.
I have noticed this when trying to start a traditional Anglican church in my area.
People love the small cell bible study where we all sit and "share" and talk about what the verse means to "me." But when you move to corporate worship with responses and creeds and readings (not trying to interact with the earlier post on liturgy) people get nervous.
Just some thoughts.