"The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable."
Hmm... interesting.
5 comments:
Yes of course!
a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture
- I've got no problem with this.
the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible
- But I do with this.
Does this mean I'm not reformed?
Of course not - evangelical Proetstantism desires not the 'sole' authority of the Scripture, but the rule of the (inscribed) gospel. Sounds like Williams (or perhaps those he is characterising) needs to think more carefully what is meant by sola Scriptura.
Having now read the full letter from RW, I'm a little happier with his comments. He makes some important points about the limitations of congregationalism. Definitely worth a read. However, the Bible-Sacraments-World discussion at the end is a little reductive (as I mentioned above) - but for a few lines in a letter, perhaps not unservicable.
I found RW's use of language interesting:
The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible.
The key word here is "unmediated". It is a negative term. "Looser" could also be interpreted as a negative.
The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point.
No negative words there. In fact, his "catholic" side of the argument imfers strength.
I wonder which side RW is on then?
(One Salient Oversight)
Good point, OSO. I think in my initial post I'd felt that negativity and responded out of a feeling of some injustice.
Post a Comment