Strict & Particular – Baptists & Anglicans!

A discussion starter

Back in the mid 1960s I published my first essay in an academic journal. It was entitled “Strict & Particular Baptists.” A little later I published my first book, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in England, 1689-1765.

“Strict” referred to a policy of admittance to the Lord’s Table – only baptized believers of certain faith and practice were admitted; “particular” meant “particular Atonement” and pointed to the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect and the Gospel should be offered only to the elect (i.e., not indiscriminately). A developed form of Reformed theology or Calvinism held by these “strict and particular Baptists,” together with some Congregationalists, was called by their opponents “hyper-Calvinism.” (Thus my first visits to the USA to give guest lectures and courses arose from my “expertise” in hyper-Calvinism!)

There are a few “strict and particular” Baptists left in the UK and in the USA, but I am not in touch with them.

However, there is something like them – groups taking a pious, doctrinal and practical stand-alone position for fear of heresy – amongst the Anglicans and Episcopalians at the very right end of the wide spectrum of Anglican faith and practice in the USA. That is, there are small groups who practice “strict” communion both in whom they admit and with whom they will participate; further, they are “particular” in that they insist that the content of the traditional BCP (1928 USA; 1962 Canada) is not sufficient and needs to be supplemented from the RC Tridentine Missal and Breviary in order for their doctrine espoused and proclaimed to be “orthodox.”

In passing we may observe that groups, denominations and jurisdictions which take very strong practical positions, especially on discipline, find it hard to grow in numbers in a society and culture which is “liberal” and “tolerant.” The English Strict and Particular Baptists were always a small minority in the Baptist family, and the American Strict and Particular Anglicans will always be a small minority in the Anglican family. And, of course, devout souls in each group held/hold that this is much to be expected, since the world around them is hostile to the true church and that the mainline churches have compromised in so many ways to become credible. They feel humble before God that they are the righteous remnant.

We may ask: IS THERE a middle way between “strict and particular” and “progressive, open and wholly inclusive” (ECUSA policy)? It appears that that “the Anglican Communion Network” would claim that there is, and that it stands for it.

What then is this middle ground? It is the modern Via Media, which apparently a number of Anglican Primates think is where Episcopalians & Anglicans should be standing in North America; and thus they urge The Network in this direction.

Let me try to provide an outline of this middle ground which is neither “strict” nor “without discipline” and which is neither “particular” nor “totally inclusive.” Then, perhaps others, who are on the “inside” of the Via Media leadership, can correct me where I am wrong.

1. The Via Media is tolerant –

• of both those who advocate that female priests are acceptable as Christ’s Ministers (of Word, Sacrament and Pastoral Oversight) and those who think that they are not;
• of both those who believe that the ECUSA Prayer Book of 1979 is really and truly an authentic edition of The Book of Common Prayer (first edition 1549) and those who think that it is a Book of Varied Services and Varied Doctrine, even as were the ASB of England (1980) and the BAS of Canada (1985);
• of both those who are anglo-catholic and those who are evangelical/charismatic in style and churchmanship;
• of the use of a variety of versions of the Bible – traditional translations, dynamic equivalency renderings and paraphrases;
• of the use of a variety of forms of music from rock to classical in church services;
• of variety in forms of dress for church, from the very casual to the formal
• in the practice of open communion inviting all who are baptized and “love the Lord” to share – including infants and small children;
• in the practice of the marriage of divorcees in church (after counseling) and of the deployment of divorced and remarried clergy as pastoral Ministers (after counseling);
• of the use of artificial birth control by married couples; and of the purpose of marriage to be either for mutual sharing or for procreation or for both;
• of the use of modern techniques of counseling, communication, marketing and managing to run the churches and to be used in evangelization and outreach.

2. The Via Media is intolerant –

• Of the ordination and ministerial deployment of persons who practice a “gay” lifestyle;
• Of the blessing of “same-sex” couples who claim they are in covenanted, faithful partnerships;
• Of the ECUSA insistence that all lay and ordained officers accept the ordination and deployment of women as of the faith and thus a compulsory belief;
• Of the excesses of the feminist and liberation movements as they press for and exercise the right to address Deity by whatever pronouns and names suit their feelings and convictions, so that God can be She, It or He, or all;
• Of the high-handed and tough CEO methods used by some ECUSA diocesan bishops to get their way and to persecute those parishes which are “traditional”;
• Of the general policy of total inclusiveness by ECUSA leadership which now sees “the Table” as open to all comers, especially to any of the “outcasts” of modern society, even and especially when the outcasts are not baptized;
• Of the practical theology of ECUSA which teaches that all human love is of God (or God in action) and that God is Love and radiates inclusive love which affirms and receives people “just as they are” without “repentance” (thus a kind of pantheism or panentheism).
• Of the doctrine that God, like the cosmos, is in a continual state of evolution and development and thus to keep “in relationship” with God the churches must keep moving and adapting to where the God of the Process is – and now She/He/It is way past where She/He/It was in the 1970s.

Conclusion:

The question arises as to whether The Network is sufficiently different in depth and detail to the moderate form of Episcopalianism, which remains within and loyal to the ECUSA, that the Network will be able to maintain, in the long term, a distinctiveness and thus be the basis for a new Province. Will the Via Media gradually veer left? It seems there is no chance of it going right.

Maybe the “strict” and “particular” Anglicans will be still around – howbeit a small group – when The Network has disappeared! Or maybe the “strict” and “particular” Anglicans will join The Network and give it more stability in depth!!

First Sunday in Lent 2006 The Revd Dr Peter Toon drpetertoon@yahoo.com