Comments on: “Strange Ecclesiology,” Indeed http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/ political theology in the city Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:27:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: matt http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/#comment-74654 matt Thu, 28 May 2009 14:00:11 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=836#comment-74654 I do not believe, however, that unity in the church is at all founded ontologically on doctrinal agreement beyond the _historic_ rule of faith, which is conveniently summarized in the Creed. And I take this to be of the essence of the difference b/t Confessionalism (including classical Presbyterianism and classical Lutheranism) and what you might call "Creedalism" or (in my opinion) Catholicity. I do not believe, however, that unity in the church is at all founded ontologically on doctrinal agreement beyond the _historic_ rule of faith, which is conveniently summarized in the Creed.

And I take this to be of the essence of the difference b/t Confessionalism (including classical Presbyterianism and classical Lutheranism) and what you might call “Creedalism” or (in my opinion) Catholicity.

]]> By: matt http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/#comment-74653 matt Thu, 28 May 2009 13:59:11 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=836#comment-74653 David, I am not under any illusions that the history of the church prior to the 16th (or 9th) century was free of conflict, obviously. However, if the eucharist is the church's iconic sign of unity in the world, then surely it is a travesty when this is broken, as denominationalism indeed breaks it. Your comment about the Episcopal Church being a denomination: of course, this is what is at issue is so many of the conflicts we are presently undergoing. Will we see ourselves as bound together in some agenda / ideology, or in the apostolic ministry, which is universal both in time and in space, in all its fullness, which includes bishops and eucharist (the latter presupposing creed & scripture). Is the Anglican expression of the church in this land a denomination, or a communion? I am convinced that in the Anglican tradition there will always be a way to live into the latter option, including in this land. I think that the GAFCON developments and the recent paper, signed by the "Communion Bishops" (which I have blogged about) are two examples of this. David,

I am not under any illusions that the history of the church prior to the 16th (or 9th) century was free of conflict, obviously.

However, if the eucharist is the church’s iconic sign of unity in the world, then surely it is a travesty when this is broken, as denominationalism indeed breaks it.

Your comment about the Episcopal Church being a denomination: of course, this is what is at issue is so many of the conflicts we are presently undergoing. Will we see ourselves as bound together in some agenda / ideology, or in the apostolic ministry, which is universal both in time and in space, in all its fullness, which includes bishops and eucharist (the latter presupposing creed & scripture). Is the Anglican expression of the church in this land a denomination, or a communion?

I am convinced that in the Anglican tradition there will always be a way to live into the latter option, including in this land. I think that the GAFCON developments and the recent paper, signed by the “Communion Bishops” (which I have blogged about) are two examples of this.

]]> By: matt http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/#comment-74652 matt Thu, 28 May 2009 13:52:22 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=836#comment-74652 Why the need to qualify orthodoxy with "Reformed?" Why the need to qualify orthodoxy with “Reformed?”

]]> By: David http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/#comment-74649 David Thu, 28 May 2009 04:54:58 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=836#comment-74649 Clark's comments above are a postive and needed note Matt. There is a constant assumption (for instance) of a massive protestant fragmentation; in fact there is massive unity on certain points - though it does not center on eucharist and espiscopacy. Both fragmentaiton and unity are real. And we both know that what is often suggested to as a united Church (ie Rome, etc.) is hardly so, either now or in history. I won't insult anyone by saying that the Anglican Communion is a 'denomination' in the American sense of that word, but neither can it claim authority beyond itself, and must still relate to Rome and Constantinople (I speak in the general sense) as a foreign boyy of sorts - at least in thier eyes! Clark’s comments above are a postive and needed note Matt. There is a constant assumption (for instance) of a massive protestant fragmentation; in fact there is massive unity on certain points - though it does not center on eucharist and espiscopacy. Both fragmentaiton and unity are real. And we both know that what is often suggested to as a united Church (ie Rome, etc.) is hardly so, either now or in history. I won’t insult anyone by saying that the Anglican Communion is a ‘denomination’ in the American sense of that word, but neither can it claim authority beyond itself, and must still relate to Rome and Constantinople (I speak in the general sense) as a foreign boyy of sorts - at least in thier eyes!

]]> By: R. Scott Clark http://www.religiocity.org/2009/05/27/strange-ecclesiology-indeed/#comment-74648 R. Scott Clark Wed, 27 May 2009 16:55:11 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=836#comment-74648 Why is is the definition of orthodoxy so mysterious? Don't the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Westminster Standards define "Reformed orthodoxy"? Why is is the definition of orthodoxy so mysterious?

Don’t the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Westminster Standards define “Reformed orthodoxy”?

]]>