I have been wondering if the Anglican Church is meant to be universal... I read as this quote (down) and it made me think how much is the Anglican Church is defined by "ethnicity" I do not know much so I am asking those of you who have been Anglican for a while or are more studied than myself. "One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
I'd need to know more about that quote before I could address it directly, but I can say this: ethnic traits aren't going anywhere. Ethnic parishes aren't necessarily the ideal way to worship, but they aren't going anywhere either. But we Anglicans aren't an ethnic Church. At least, we're not supposed to be. One's experience will be shaped by the local parish, of course. I'm sure that there are Anglicans who are too obsessed with English culture. There are also some who know nothing about English worship, but who see themselves as Christians who happen to be Anglican. We have all kinds. We could probably find Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, and Orthodox parishes that are too fixed on their traditional ethnicity, but those Churches - as a whole - do not want to be restricted to those ethnicities. I would suggest that Anglicans reflect traditional Western Christianity in their worship and practice. Yes, it originates from an English style, but it meant to be universally appropriate. In fact, most Anglicans are African. Here's a list of the provinces of the Anglican Communion.
There might be an element of radical-equality or even eugenics behind that quote. Christ our Lord told us to proclaim the Gospel to the Nations, not to subsume all the gentiles into the race of Israel. There's something odd about even making this an issue at all. There are Eastern Christians in Ethiopia, Armenia, India, and Greece who all use differing liturgies and have vastly contrasting cultures in which they can approach God. The Anglicans are the same, being spread across Western, South American, African, and Asian countries. Anglicanism's "Catholicity" consists of the acceptance of the Nicene Creed, drawn from the Holy Scriptures. A Church is Universal if the whole accepts the ancient faith delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ. We are universal in that we have the Lord Jesus by faith, and we believe the truth, whether worshiping the Lord with ukelele, bongo, guitar, piano, organ, shamisen, karghy tuiduk, or with simple human voice! Lutheranism has been traditionally identified with Scandinavian & Germanic people; Orthodoxy with Greek & Slav; Roman Catholicism with Latino & Roman; Anglicanism with Anglo-Saxon & Norman. Anglicanism now grows in places that were not British colonies, however, such as in Africa and Japan. We should celebrate individual, national, and local cultural norms of worshiping God, so long as they are within the universal orthodox catholic faith.
The Anglican Church has never claimed to the ,'Universal,' or Catholic Church in its entirety! Only to be a Communion of Catholic Believers, in this it has shown good sense, we already have two complete , One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Churches, surely that's one too many! The matter rises to hysteria when we think on that neither talks to the other! The Church has always been ethnic, in that originally it was known as the,'People or Church of God', in a specific place, i.e. Corinth or Rome and Galatia. As it grew bigger, the description was amended to cover the growth,the Church in Rome being designated, the Suburbicarian Church of Rome which covered the Catholic Church for about a hundred leagues about Rome. Then to cover the faithful from Rome to the southern shore and the three Islands.Finally with the departure of the last Roman Emperor of the West it ended up as the Suburbicarian Church of Italia! Being organised through Church Councils called and in many cases paid for, by the state, it was thought easier to follow the growth and geography of the political state and gradually ,in the early centuries it was simply a federation of of Catholic Communities built around five patriarchates, Jerusalem, Alexandria , Antioch, Rome and Constantinople. It moved away from this as the Church expanded. What you should look for is Belief! Does the Communion, or Church, hold to the standards set by Christ and the Holy Tradition? Not all Anglicans do,neither do a lot of other claimants, ascertaining which do teach Christ's revelation is what we need to spend our time on and what are the parameters?
Can the Anglican church's nature be changed? The Roman and Greek churches can trace their historical continuity to the early church and the early church fathers too and yet they have changed over the centuries, can't the same thing happen to the anglican church's nature? I see this as perhaps already happening in practice. It's full of people of events which are agianst her nature (if we're judging by the 39 articles and the 4 ecumical councils)
I was wondering the same thing. The Romans/Latin tried to inflict their nature on the East, they wanted to Latinize the East but they failed and after centuries they realized that they cannot do it so, so they started to change their strategy in making One Universal Church by accepting many small Churches instead of making just one of the same type and tradition...
Well you actually said the most important thing in that last sentence: the fifth-column in the Church is opposed to her nature.
Stalwart? The Church on earth is simply part of the whole, it is in effect ,'the visible ,' Body of Christ.' It most certainly can disappear, the entire North African Church, an important segment fell away on the fourth and fifth centuries.(S.Augustine. ) On this Board, we have people telling us that Anglicanism is, no more than current whim! If this is so what we should be asking is ,is Anglicanism worth saving?
I think if any consider the Anglican Church just temporary then it would be silly if they are still part of that Church...
The situation is a little different from the 4th and 5th centuries. During the Patristic era, the Church had not fallen into grievous error yet. During the 16th century, the sins that were being committed by the Roman church became all too visible; her departure from the apostolic truth became insurmountable. So, to keep our example, imagine if the North African Church went and signed a series of documents wherein it defined its catholicity. The Roman church ( say ) continued its downward spiral, while a fragment of the whole church started a life separate from Roman, and guided by those documents. Now, if we say those documents are apostolic (which I would), then in them is contained the doctrine of apostolicity in the modern age. The Roman church persisted in her errors, many Protestants schismed into self-oblivion, and the Anglican church was all that was left. Still, the Enemy works ceaselessly, and now even the Anglican church has started to fall away. But I would argue, the Formularies she formed, they're still apostolic, they're still there. The Form of an Apostolic Church that she formed originally during the struggle with Rome, that Form is still valid, and is still apostolic. She may fill the shoes of that Form less, or more, as the ages roll by, but that Form can never wither and die away. Do you understand what I'm saying?