The main aim of this blog is to interpret the Christian Order in the light of current affairs, philosophy, literature and the arts -- and vice versa. So it's about ideas. Social, political and religious comment. Links, notes on people, places, events, books, movies etc.
And mainly a place where I can post half-baked ideas in the hope that other people, or the passing of time, will help me to bake them.
Blogged this a few weeks ago, which is where Fr Joseph Huneycutt (a former Anglican priest) got it. She seems to come from modern Central Churchmanship, whence come many of the people in new Anglican ecclesiastical arrangements in America, both in and out of the Episcopal Church (she was in ECUSA), often under overseas Anglican bishops. (These new arrangements also seem to import English- and Aussie-style Evangelical churchmanship, hitherto largely unknown in America.) Fine people.
Central Churchmanship is also called 'middle of the road'. You can say it's the real via media, classic Anglicanism, half-Catholic, half-Protestant. Midway between Anglo-Catholicism and the extreme Calvinist Protestantism of real Low Churchmen (Evangelicals). Rather like a kind of Lutheranism that claims apostolic succession.
Latitudinarians or Broad Churchmen are liberals. They come in two versions: those who are still Christian, resembling the Centrals except they approve of practising homosexuality, and those who are no longer Christians theologically like John Spong, who likewise approve of the gay thing.
A researcher once did a survey of theological students where he asked abbout churchmanship, and gave 5 options:
(1) Anglo-Catholic (2) Prayer-book Catholic (3) Modern churchman (4) Liberal evangelical (5) Conservative evangelical
I was an Anglican in those days, and told him I didn't belong to any one of them. He could put me down as (1) and (5). By that didn't work, so he put me down as (2), because I was from South Africa, and the last person he knew from South Africa "Prayer-book Catholic".
When he did a follow-up survey I had decided that the best description of my churchmanship was "Revolutionary Orthodox", but there was no room for that in his survey either, and, as I discovered, no room for it in the Anglican Church. So I became Orthodox.
I've been pretty much out of touch with the politics of Anglicanism for the last 20 years, so can't comment much on your finer distinctions.
In South Africa "charismatic" had little to do with churchmanship, and united Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical. A friend of mine, a former Anglo-Catholic happy clappy, who went to Rome over the issue of the ordination of women, recently rejoined the Anglican Church in New Zealand.
Another friend, who I still see, came to SA from England 30 years ago, and was conservative evangelical and the lowest of the low churchmen, but since he was elected bishop lost his objection to wearing copes and mitres. So I would have said that the charismatic renewal movement tended to push people from high and low extremes towards a sort of "Central Churchmanship".
But, as I said, that's based on my knowledge of things 20 years ago, and the survey was 40 years ago.
10 comments:
Blogged this a few weeks ago, which is where Fr Joseph Huneycutt (a former Anglican priest) got it. She seems to come from modern Central Churchmanship, whence come many of the people in new Anglican ecclesiastical arrangements in America, both in and out of the Episcopal Church (she was in ECUSA), often under overseas Anglican bishops. (These new arrangements also seem to import English- and Aussie-style Evangelical churchmanship, hitherto largely unknown in America.) Fine people.
Thanks for the info! Haven't heard of this Central Churchmanship, but I wound it very interesting.
Central Churchmanship is also called 'middle of the road'. You can say it's the real via media, classic Anglicanism, half-Catholic, half-Protestant. Midway between Anglo-Catholicism and the extreme Calvinist Protestantism of real Low Churchmen (Evangelicals). Rather like a kind of Lutheranism that claims apostolic succession.
Latitudinarians or Broad Churchmen are liberals. They come in two versions: those who are still Christian, resembling the Centrals except they approve of practising homosexuality, and those who are no longer Christians theologically like John Spong, who likewise approve of the gay thing.
A researcher once did a survey of theological students where he asked abbout churchmanship, and gave 5 options:
(1) Anglo-Catholic
(2) Prayer-book Catholic
(3) Modern churchman
(4) Liberal evangelical
(5) Conservative evangelical
I was an Anglican in those days, and told him I didn't belong to any one of them. He could put me down as (1) and (5). By that didn't work, so he put me down as (2), because I was from South Africa, and the last person he knew from South Africa "Prayer-book Catholic".
When he did a follow-up survey I had decided that the best description of my churchmanship was "Revolutionary Orthodox", but there was no room for that in his survey either, and, as I discovered, no room for it in the Anglican Church. So I became Orthodox.
Here’s what I’m trying to say.
I've been pretty much out of touch with the politics of Anglicanism for the last 20 years, so can't comment much on your finer distinctions.
In South Africa "charismatic" had little to do with churchmanship, and united Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical. A friend of mine, a former Anglo-Catholic happy clappy, who went to Rome over the issue of the ordination of women, recently rejoined the Anglican Church in New Zealand.
Another friend, who I still see, came to SA from England 30 years ago, and was conservative evangelical and the lowest of the low churchmen, but since he was elected bishop lost his objection to wearing copes and mitres. So I would have said that the charismatic renewal movement tended to push people from high and low extremes towards a sort of "Central Churchmanship".
But, as I said, that's based on my knowledge of things 20 years ago, and the survey was 40 years ago.
So why'd the friend in NZ go back?
Were you an ordinand?
Post a Comment