Why not? There many in the evangelical camp that I greatly admire. I don't see how catholicism and evangelicalism are necessarily mutually exclusive here's an article I enjoyed reading about evangelical Anglicanism... http://www.tsm.edu/about_trinity/a_case_for_evangelical_anglicanism
Whoops wrong link. Here was the one I meant to post. http://anglicanhistory.org/misc/taylor_wesley.html
My understanding is, as it has come down through the years, that that the faith now, is, as it was when reveled by Christ! There's but one Church, all the rest is so much posturing!I am not particularly against methodies, but, they do not, as I understand hold the faith! I do not believe that Christ and His Apostles made thousands of errors that are brought to life in modern times through the heroic endevours of the Celtics of this world and the modern leadership work hard to rectify , I think this is arrogance! Note Well! Dave, it isn't personal, I just believe that Christ Revealed and the Apostolic College explained and took it the nest step forward and then, all of a sudden, it was complete.
I have never said this, your own thoughts run away with you! I don't judge Newton, if he believes, then I stand with him. I do not believe that people who openly reject the Revelation of Christ are catholics, I do not judge them, apart from failing to see how one can claim one thing and reject it on the other! To Be a Catholic and an Anglican, the one is synonymous with the other, in my mind!
It's interesting to read what JC Ryle said about the state of the church in the 18th century and Methodist preachers... http://lexloiz.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/jc-ryle-on-the-type-of-preaching-that-awakened-england/ http://lexloiz.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/piercing-thoughts-on-the-18th-century-awakening-p-1/
You are of course right, it doesn,t make it so, never-the-less after two thousand years , what gives right or wrong" Methodism holds to a break away from the Catholic Church, Anglicanism is the Catholic Church, no matter what Central Hall tells us or indeed the vatican! We hold to the teachings of Christ, we stnd or fold by the simple precepts of the fathers!
No but It would be helpful if you offered at least some evidence for your claims. I don't see how difference is the same as incompatability. I, for my part, have at least shown how Wesleyan theology played a pert in the rise of Anglo-Catholicism. See here: I would be more interested in knowing what you define as Anglo-Catholic. Often, those who do not agree with AC use Anglo-Romanism and Anglo-Papalism as strawmen. Not to suggest that you would. But those who do are not being intellectually honest or fair to the broad community that fits under the AC tent. That would be like saying that any non-AC is just a Calvin or Cromwell or somesuch other extreme pretending to be Anglican. When so much of Anglicanism exists on a continuum, we do a diservice to the bulk of adherents my only seeing the few that dally on the fringe. I've never met an AC who denied the authority of sufficiency of the scripture or justification by faith, or the need to be born again. They simply interpret the scripture primarily using the lense of tradition, and recognize that while we are justified by faith alone we are save by grace through faith working in love and obedience, and see the process of being born again as being inexctricably linked to the grace with comes from baptism. In the same way every evangelical Anglican I've met has never decried the use of the creeds or spoken ill of the bishops or denied the efficacy of the scraments. Certainly, they put a different emphasis on these things, but the difference between EAs and ACs is one of degree rather than kind imho.
It might be helpful to note that the term "Anglo-Catholicism" does not refer to "Anglican Catholicism". It was invented by John Henry Newman.
This is an important point to make. "Anglicanism", the Church of England, was fully Catholic because of her doctrine. Anglo-Catholicism (at least after the second generation, led by Pusey) makes Catholicism to be based on ritual and spectacle. We could even say that the traditional Anglican "Catholicism" is based on what you worship the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Holy Ghost, etc., whereas Tractarian "Catholic"s define people by how you worship. Methodism, to speak on the other hand, is very much distinct from Anglo-"Catholicism". The Newmanites & Ritualists were constantly & consistently spurned by free Methodists in the 19th century. Those little bare chapels with preachers in plain-clothes are so utterly different from the ornate gothic places whose priests put on all manner of chasuble & frill. Sanctus bells could never be heard under a Methodist table or pulpit. Incense was not burned. Sacramentalism was always derided as something automatic, robotic, and ridiculous. John Stott embodied this Methodist feeling very well. One of the biggest theological differences between A.C. & Methodist seems to be the idea of the episcopate. Methodists did not consider it of divine or apostolic institution, despite Wesley's life. Anglo-Catholics, even today, hold on to the absolute necessity of the episcopate. There is a whole split in world-view, at base.
I've been to Methodist churches where incense and bells were used. Methodists never were puritans, they were most often rebuked for being pragmatists.
The fact is our religion is simply what we believe Christ revealed and the apostolic college transmitted, whilst the bishops translated, or whatever.! The absence or otherwise of rites or ceremonial, is simply our own way of expressing our reverence! We should not get down in the gutters criticising someone's taste or lack of it! We should simply accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as accepted and transmitted by our catholic formularies, Scripture, history and tradition. I sign myself as an Anglican Catholic, though I went for half my life to a Anglo Catholic church, was quite happy there and didn't want particularly to leave, yet at no time have I used any other term but Anglican, Churchman or Catholic. Yet, there had been big changes, if the local Papist Church sneezed our entire parish went out and bought paper handkerchiefs. If the Roman priest limped, everyone got a walking stick! It was religious idiocy. When a decision was needed as to what was in fact Anglican Teaching, no one knew, either A/C or Calvinist, or even happy clappy newcomers, the C. of E. Clergy used to have recourse to the so called C.Catechism and when at a meeting I pointed out that Anglicanism differed somewhat from the publication, I was met with open hostility from some, not all the Anglican clergy! We have to redevelop our understanding of the place of our Church within the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!It used to be disclaimed, that we were the Church and a modest assertion of our catholicity, place and understanding put forward, all based on knowledge & teaching!
I'm rather glad that I don't have a dog in this bloody fight, but I would like to comment on a couple of things. The idea of correlating Wesley to the current Charismatic/Pentecostal movement is a theological stretch in my opinion. Granted, local practice here was far less formal than the ritualistic liturgy of the CoE, but there was great temperament and restraint in their gatherings. The Holiness church buildings that survive here, all have the same architecture with separate entrances for men and women, and chaste conduct in worship and public encounters was always stressed. The Pentecostal/charismatic churches we see today are a direct result of the Azuza Street revival in the early 1900's, while the Wesleyan churches today more resemble the Nazarene or Evangelical Methodists. As a side note, I'm completing my bachelor's degree at a Wesleyan college with plans to enter their seminary immediately following, and my local diocese has given it's blessing.:think: Jeff
The point I'm making, no matter how badly, is that methodists are divisive, no more , no less than pentecostals, or Romans! All are innovaters! The Church, we have to accept is not a big barrel wherein one dips fingers and fashions the result in to whatever better pleases us. There was Christ, Apostles, scripture, bishops priests and deacons with the Councils! All the rest are intrusive as far as I can understand. Truly, I can see where some bishops have been less than helpful, never-the-less, I believe Christ provided and the Holy Ghost guided! We didn't need alternatives. All the best with your studies> The examiners sent my piece back in a cardboard folder, tied with a pink ribbon in the form of a fetching bow! Across the cardboard plates was written" Simply traditional Anglicanism!" I was over joyed, 10,000 words simply described as ,"Anglicanism." It was like Birthday and Christmass together! Till I was brought down to earth,'The tutor said, it's a ,'criticism,' you've added nothing and they are disappointed!" One of the best essays I've ever put together.
I don't follow Highcurchman. Methodists accept the bible, the councils, the creeds, bishops, elders, deacons. They follow a formula very similar to that embraced by modern Anglicans, but instead of a 3-legged stool they have a 4-legged one: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Jeff, you make a good point. I've seen a movement in the Wesleyan tradition to strengthen/redoscivery its liturgical roots, which is rich...and a direct descendent from the 1662 BCP: http://books.google.com/books?id=7M...ge&q=the sunday service of methodists&f=false Here's a blog by a Nazarene minister who embraces the liturgical and sacramental side of Wesleyanism: http://wesleyananglican.blogspot.com/
I do believe that we need to keep in mind that the Methodist tradition in the UK and the US is somewhat different and how the churches came to be as independent churches is different as well. I have been told that Methodists in the US and those in Britain are quite different. Our viewpoints on here are being colored by which side of the "pond" where from.