Religion needs a temple, not the Church. The temple's origin is religion. Thus in the Gospel: ‘I will destroy this temple. . . .' The Church has a Christian origin. However, our Church has identified itself long ago with the ‘temple,' has dissolved itself in the temple, and (this means) has returned to the pagan temple as its religious sanction. Protestantism was an attempt to save the faith, to purify it from its religious reduction. But the Protestants have paid a heavy price for denying eschatology and replacing it with personal individual salvation; and therefore, essentially, denying the Church. The greatest anachronism, on a natural level, was to be found in the Catholic Church. Catholicism was possible only while one was able to deny and limit the freedom of the person, the basic dogma of the new times. While trying to change its course, to merge with freedom, Catholicism simply collapsed, and I do not see how its revival could be possible (unless fascism can get hold of the human race and deny the explosive synthesis of freedom and the person).

Alexander Schmemann, Journals, March 15, 1977

The strongest institutions are not only those that do evolve, but are built on evolving (and therefore carry a certain amount of redundancy - you never know when that becomes the aspect needed for survival). Institutions with nails banged in at the centre, as proposed by the Covenant, are the least flexible, as the shaking gets stronger and stronger. The institution needs to be flexible, and the connections many including informal. Even then, when differences become clear and among a few easily viewed differences, then a break-up could be the most rational approach, the rest of a flexible institution can cope.

Think of it like lots of dialects and occasionally the dialect becomes so much of its own that it counts as a new language and thus becomes its own giver of dialects.

The pre curser question to what will be considered failure and by whom? comes with the definition of Anglicanism.

Failure arrives with expectation and the introduction of aims and aspirations.

First and foremost being spiritually motivated brings about the thoughts feelings and actions required to create and be part of a "christian family" on a local and global scale.

The expectation of"Anglicanism" is to follow the set format of worship style which is shared all over the world, through doing so everyone works towards the same aim and therefore are likely to hear Gods will more clearly. However it is possible for a whole group to become misguided, traditionalism can become an exclusive club and "the free church" can be muddled in approach as it tries to "socialize" the gospel with the ever changing demographics of church.

Evangelicanism at its best can open the gospel to all, and at its worse can make it inaccessible to those who struggle with humanity and the "failure" of human condition as set by the "word"

Winnicot is probably my favorite approach in psychology to the dilemma of success and failure with the concentration on "the good enough" The failure to do things in the right order is not the same as failing to do anything at all, but of course it is not the same. It does of course bring to mind Eric and Ernie wise joke about i play all the right notes just not in the right order. Or as i have often said a weed is simply a flower out of place.

The institutions which are most resilient to failure are the detatched focused institutions with nothing to gain or lose in the way they operate and guide people to success. But they are only resilient to failure because they are emotionally detatched, and Church should not be and cannot be emotionally detatched, they should never be out of touch with the feelings of the people they are guiding.

Supporting institutions to be successful has to derive in the same way as they operate there has to be independance, places that are capable of being humanly in tune with the masses from an individual perspective, but can operate on an independant level.

Failure begins when any society and Anglicanism is no different are so confident in the way they work that they do not listen to certain parts of society and in so doing break down the co-operation that is required to make Anglicanism a successful institution in terms of how it is heard and what it achieves.

My experience is  Anglicanism is successful in part quite a large part, it is the tradition that slows down hot headed change , However it is not always as successful at seeing the hurt that is caused sometimes in innocence to those who "need change" because they are struggling. I have never liked the description High and Low church , because it denegrates both forms of tradition in Anglicanism. There is of course a need for different ways of worship to suit different lifestyles but both are valuable.

Angela

The experience of failure-- this rather than aspirational language is the main thing that shapes human institutions as they evolve. Failure drives the acceptance of structures, not because they feel good, but because they work when other arrangements fail. When we ask how Anglicans around the world should be related, we are really asking--

• What will be considered a failure and by whom?-- a social question about a mass religious phenomenon.
• What institutions are most resilient to that failure?-- a discernment with religious significance.
• Who will support those institutions?-- a pragmatic question that can only be answered by testing what is discerned.

Once there are resilient institutions that endure, then one can start to explore their meaning. Academic theology can sometimes be helpful for that. Frankly, however, a few good saints who inspired widespread trust and emulation would be immeasurably more consequential.

I like Michael Poon's essays, but it is not clear how his vision here fits into this natural process. In fact, it is not clear that most writing on the once and future Communion grasp that there is something more powerful and less malleable involved than the chatter of synods.

It often strikes me that, for all the industrious canonising that goes on liturgy committees, Anglicans do not have an agreed sense of what a saint is, and that nothing will endure until we do. That is, all these arrangements have to be seen as supporting a sort of life that everyone everywhere honestly and deeply admires.

The main task for a theologian interested in Anglicans is to find a way of healing the breach between the personal devotion of evangelicals and the traditional order. It may be that only a saint can do it. If a saint does do it, there will be, providentially, a renewed global community in some form.

How would this vision of fellowship would have prevented fellowship between the Christians and Gnostics in Collosae?

carl

Dear Friends

we have just published Michael Poon's 'A Vision for the Fellowship of Anglican Churches.'

please use this thread for discussion.

blessings, Jody