Anglicanism: Conciliar and Confessional

Why not BOTH? Or are they necessarily exclusive?

The attempt by sects to affirm one and deny the other is the source of the current ire in The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Anglicanism (for better or for worse) has been one of synthesis (current state). In fact, according to one of my professors, our dear JI Packer so strongly believed in the theological process that he would endorse almost every book he was asked to endorse. He had a childlike trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church into all truth!

In any case, there is a polemical argument in arguing for either confessionalism or conciliarism over against the other. However, I look to these two and see the potential, as an alternative to the fighting, for synthesis. I tend to see the Church as a Court. God is judge, he appoints representatives. He has given us his law (a confession, if you will allow this characterization) and has appointed a court to test every spirit (a council, if you will allow this characterization). To be sure, not everything is to be tried by Church courts (e.g., synods), but dealt with at the lowest level possible (see Matthew 18) where possible.

The Church of England, by an Anglo-Catholic conception, started as a synthesis between Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, and Liberals. I have not sought to prove nor disprove this thesis, but I accept it for sake of discussion. It is interesting that in the recent formation of the ACNA, one could argue that allowing liberalism to achieve its Telos has resulted in the schism. In fact, it has been noted (circa 1930s?) that the Evangelicals grouped Liberals and Anglo-Catholics together in their minds and thinking “they are in charge of the Episcopal Church,” while the Anglo-Catholics saw Liberals as distinct from themselves and thought “they are in charge.” Liberalization is by nature or at least allows for progressivism.

Whether or not the original Liberals were so bad is not here being considered but that their heirs have fractured the American Church (as well as others) with a rival confession. Does this mean that confessions are important? More than important, they are inescapable. Just like liturgy can be written down or not, or tradition can be acknowledged or dismissed, both of them as well as confessions are facts of life and are inescapable. That is not to say that every liturgy, tradition, or confession is well-developed, but that they exist, even if only in seminal form.

So is the ACNA headed for a confessional threshing? But of course! To think otherwise would be disingenuous, or at the very least ignorant. I believe the Anglo-Catholics see the coming threshing. I believe there are Evangelicals who look forward to the coming threshing (not that they should as it will be a day of weeping and gnashing).

But what is to be done?

First, the Anglo-Catholics have Francis J. Hall’s Anglican Dogmatics! Good for them. But do the Evangelicals have an Anglican Systematic Theology? Nope, not so good for them, especially in an upcoming Confessional (i.e., theological) threshing. So, adherents of each confession needs to sit down and write out their theologies: ecumenical and polemical, dogmatic and adiaphora, systematic and biblical, etc.

Second, reestablish Church Discipline. I don’t mean spanking people. I mean Church order. Are dissenters allowed to be ordained in the ACNA? This is a set up for failure. What are the minimum confessional requirements for ordination? How loosey-goosey is one allowed to be on the 39 Articles of Religion? It also means censure. Now I don’t want to see the ACNA turn in to some brand of witch hunting that many people have experienced in American fundamentalist Churches. But it does need to have standards.

Third, cast the mold for how we move forward in a Church having rival confessions. Come let us reason together, taking counsel apart, taking council together. Should we be conciliar? I think it’s also inescapable. There is no organization without people. There is no holding together without a kind of consensus (manufactured or actual). Thus there is no Church without a Council.

Historically, it seems that the synod, classis, presbytery, or similar have been the council of the various Church bodies holding court. This has been circumvented by standing committees which have exercised an outsized influence over the conciliar process, which needs to be reassessed by each Church body if we are to be truly conciliar (see Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church).

Beyond that, I’m not ignoring the larger Church at council (“conciliarism”), it’s just we haven’t seen one in a while and it may be that we need to get our “sectarian” councils operating properly so that we can be experienced enough to run a contemporaneous Council of the Church.

Returning to the recent American Anglican schism­—I’ll ask a pertinent question to this whole ordeal—could we have kept the liberal progressives in the Church? Or to put it another way, could we have kept the Church together with liberal progressives in our midst?

Yes.

Yes, but…

Yes, but their positive energies and motivations needed to be properly directed (constrained). It is far easier to let their progressive spirit (i.e., a desire to change things while pursuing their ideals) venture them off the deep end and then excommunicate them. It is much more difficult (and we weary so easily in well-doing) to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the LORD!

I mean, can you imagine it? Can you take someone with an ingrained wild, progressive spirit, teach them the ways of the LORD and then release them on the world? What would it be like?

Could someone take their idealism into the Church, not be unduly polemical (divisive), not change things for change’ sake, and seek the pure washing of the bride of Christ with the pure water of the Word? Could someone take their “progressivism” and seek the reforming of the Church? Could someone take their rebellious spirit of individualism and yet submit to biblical authorities? Could someone take their holistic brain and train it in sequential logic?

But of course. That’s me :) That being said, it was a long road and fraught journey.

Last thoughts.

Can East meet West? Some people think that is what characterizes Anglicanism.

Can Confession meet Council? I think history is clear on this point, but we resist.

Led by Children, Good or Bad?

Children Leading, a Bad Thing?

“I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them.” Isaiah 3:4 (NIV 2011)

This was judgment, it was not a good thing. It is interesting that the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK) cross-references this verse to several verses about the child kings in the Old Testament (OT). I had not thought that the boy-king Josiah's rule was a result of judgment: a bad thing. But it does make some sense.

Josiah became king because his father was judged. Okay, sure. So it may not be the fact that a child is ruling that is in itself a bad thing, but that it came about because of bad things. This squares with what comes later in Isaiah about future blessings of old age. If the people of God are blessed, children won't be forced to take the leadership roles.

Children Leading, a Good Thing?

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6

I have always taken this passage literally. It's a wolf. It's a lamb. Next question...

But as I was listening to this, it occurred to me that we refer to evil people as wolves and the average person as a sheep. Ah, the people that once preyed upon others will do so no longer! This is what the passage is talking about, righteousness and justice. It is also the case that in other parts of Isaiah animals and plants represent people, so it squares.

This brings us to the point about children leading. In the way I used to read it, children will be able to pet lions, tigers, and bears, Oh My! While I don't want to throw that away, I don't think that's the point of the passage. It's talking about people, much of Isaiah does that with metaphors.

So this means that a child will lead people, a blessing in this context!

Uh...

If children are in charge, how do we know if we're being cursed or being blessed?

Good question. Let's look at a few more verses.

How Shall Children Lead?

Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. Psalm 8:2

We have considered the auspices under which children ascend to the throne of leadership (Isaiah 3:4). We have considered the type of society that children would lead (Isaiah 11:6). But we have not talked about what would characterize their leadership.

In Psalm 8:2 we see a childlike trust in the Lord, because we know they don't have the experience to fight and win. Jesus refers to this kind of faith. Cleverness and shrewdness have their place, but trusting in the Lord should characterize us and our leadership. In fact, a child could lead. Not by their knowledge, skills, and abilities, but by their faith. Their faith in God.

Interestingly, when you've worked for the federal government for 17 years, you realize just how much the system relies on faith. Even leaders step out on faith to lead. So is it really any different? Man has been reduced to faith in man, but God asks us to place our faith in Him. In this way, any child of God could lead, because all of the support we give to bad leaders anyways, could instead be given to children who lead with their faith in God.

Now, don't misunderstand.

I'd prefer someone with experience AND a childlike trust in Jesus to lead our society.

Why can't we have both? How do we get there?

Lead by Example: Be a Leader Worth Following

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6

I know, I know. It's not talking about "children." But it is talking about how you lead people and by consequence how you raise up the next generation of leadership. And that's my point here. How we lead will have an impact on how those who come after us will lead. "More is caught than taught."

Conclusion

IF your society has justice…

IF your children trust Jesus…

They will LEAD us in praise! 

That's my point. So beware, dear reader. You have been warned. Do you practice justice, righteousness, and faithfulness? Do you inspire others to trust and place faith in Jesus?

IF NOT we'll be left will childish leaders. 

Hmm. 

What kind of leaders do you think we have today? And is your response to criticize the leaders or to practice justice? Oh, I'm the one who doesn't understand??? Oh well, I'll go back to reading Isaiah.

Research Notes on Creation, Theology, and Science

Institute for Creation Research

Principles of Scientific Creationism https://www.icr.org/tenets

Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.) https://icr.edu/mced

Why am I posting articles titled "Research Notes"?

 I am in the beginning stages of designing/architecting a website as a repository for my notes, writings, sermons, exegetical sermon notes, blog posts, opinions, outlines for books and articles, etc. It is intended to be developmental: a public blog, a subscriber forum, and a supporter portal.

For now, that means I need to transition from saving everything as a Gmail Draft to blog posts, partly for ensuring the information gets saved more securely, but also forcing me to turn disorganized notes into organized notes (public viewing driving accountability to that end!)

So if you actually read this nearly shallow pulsed blog, I apologize for the uptick in dry content posts...but you'll gain an insight into what's going into the project that's getting underway.

Research Notes on Bible Commentaries

 Isaiah Commentaries

https://bestcommentaries.com/isaiah/

I found this while trying to find a copy of a book (from a commentary) that I need for my Isaiah class I'm taking this Spring!

Research Notes on Federal Vision Theology

Keyboards warriors, unite!

Ha ha. 

I got into a conversation with a few people on the internet and of course there were disagreements; this time it was about the Federal Vision (FV) controversy. But I don't merely agree to disagree nor do I retreat to entrenched commitments. Instead I go into research mode.

I reread some old things, re-watched some old things, but I also found new things too.

Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church's Response to FV

First, I'll post what I was looking for: Analyzing the Federal Vision, Woodruff Road Presbyterian https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesonly=true&sourceid=woodruffroad&keyword=Analyzing+The+Federal+Vision.

The quality of the recordings are subpar, but the content is essential. There are more recent exposés on YT that have better sound, video, and production, but this is the one my pastor gave us to watch back in 2008 or something like that.

Thus, its relevance is that it was distributed by an agent of the Church and was much closer in time to the controversy. Also, it is relevant in reminding me what I watched so that I don't misquote it some 15 years after watching it (I have a decent memory for such things, but not a perfect one).

Drs Pipa and Waters

Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and Dr. Guy P. Waters are really smart guys. Pipa can be a bit strong with the rhetoric, but he's not wrong. You can see his credentials here: https://gpts.edu/about/faculty-staff/pipa/. As a result of watching this, I requested information about Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary 15 years ago. I still think I have the compact disk, LOL!

Waters was a bit dry but I liked the informative approach. He works at Reformed Theological Seminary: https://rts.edu/people/dr-guy-waters/. He has also written a book on paedocommunion: https://rts.edu/resources/children-and-the-lords-supper/. 

Drs Venema and Strange

I also listened to Dr. Cornelis P. Venema and Dr. Alan D. Strange. Venema has done some good work on the New Perspectives on Paul controversy and you can see his credentials here: https://www.midamerica.edu/faculty/cornelis-venema. He's also got a book on paedocommunion: http://marsbooksonline.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=18. But he deferred to Strange on the FV controversy.

Strange is at the same seminary as Venema: https://www.midamerica.edu/faculty/alan-strange. He did a wonderfully irenic treatment of the FV pastors. I thought he was spot on but also charitable. You can listen to that here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=6300622337.

Orthodox Presbyterian Church Statement on FV

https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478

Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly Minutes (addresses FV)

https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/33rd_pcaga_2005.pdf (PDF warning!)

Thus ends my notes from 2023-01-07 (really though, 2023-01-03).

To Build a Movement, to Develop Focus, and to Hatch a Plan

MVV

Core Value(s): To #ReturnToGod through Jesus Christ.

Mission: To work alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents

Vision: To build towards #TheFutureCity in the New Earth.

As a statement:

#ReturnToGod and work with #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents to build #TheFutureCity.

This statement takes the form of Initial, Progressive, Final, or in other words Already, but Not Yet.

Strategic Planning

1. Define your vision
2. Assess where you are
3. Determine your priorities and objectives
4. Define responsibilities
5. Measure and evaluate results

(Taken from: https://www.mural.co/blog/strategic-planning-process)

1. The vision of #TheFutureCity needs to be fleshed out. There are many visions out there. Every person, generation, intellectual camp, etc. has to set down their vision. My vision is the one that I can see most conforms to the vision I see in the Christian Bible, most notably in the book of Revelation. It is a theonomic theocracy (more on that later), a monarchial kritarchy, etc. (more terms for "archy" and "cracy" can be found here: https://phrontistery.info/govern.html).

2. The mission of working alongside #CoreligionistsAndCobelligerents is where we are at today. There are problems in public schools that we must fight along with other theists who are fighting those battles. There are problems in our laws that we must fight along with cultural Christians, Supreme Court Justices, Congress men and women, etc. You get the point. Insisting on only working with "the pure" will necessarily lead to failure of achieving our goals. "The Pure" do not exist, if you think they do, you yourself will eventually be excised from that group anyways, so what's the point?

3. Theology provides the foundation for all of life and thought. Start there. If you started somewhere else or left, #ReturnToGod.

4. This is something that will be done as the movement is fleshed out. In any case, each person should act in accordance with their conscience. So, take the principles we will present here and work them out! A lot of people will resist anything that's prescriptive, but some people crave structure (due to personality or other factors). Also children, the immature, or those with aging mental faculties could greatly benefit from that which is prescriptive. We shouldn't shy away from that which is prescriptive, we should shy away from totalitarian/authoritarian methods of enforcing prescriptions. We should also be charitable about them as they are often adiaphora, open-handed. The prescriptiveness of some religions are drawing people to them, Christians should consider it.

5. Time will tell. However, we will look to develop SMART Goals! Plan, Do, Check, Act is another methodology which can be employed (with some modifications, or at least clarity of actually understanding the methodology). This is often clarified by true understanding of mission and vision. Where there is no vision, God's people perishes. Often when we truly understand the problem, antithesis, whatever, the solutions seem to readily present themselves.