From here:
The prospect of something codified and named Anglicanism I find unsettling. Roman Catholicism provides an ecclesial authoritarian structure and demands subservient obedience from its adherents. Protestantism provides several forms of confessional authoritarianism, requiring subservience to refined interpretations of scripture and doctrine. Biblical Fundamentalism, of course, comes across as absolutely absolute in its biblical interpretations, that is, according to whomever the pastor or preacher may be. What is disturbing is the concept of subservience to humanly contrived authorities that seem to me to be the antithesis of the liberation and freedom that is the gospel (good news) of God’s redemption through Jesus Christ who we know as Saviour and Lord.
This comes as no surprise, since once you codify – systematise or define – what Anglicanism is, you also define what it isn’t; and that would exclude many Western Anglicans: to be Anglican requires a person at least to be a Christian.
Canon Gordon Baker seems to think that the Bible is a human contrivance and is disturbed by those who think it isn’t. Although he claims to know Jesus as Saviour and Lord, I can’t help wondering where his knowledge comes from since he doesn’t accept Biblical accounts as fundamental and absolute.
The truth is, his “liberation” is the familiar antinomian bad news of “if it feels good, do it”.
The Canon is clearly talking about so-called “liberals” when he refers to “subservience to humanly contrived authorities”, since “liberals” almost exclusively take their ideas and beliefs from purely-this-worldly human ideologies, and the values of human institutions, and question them not at all.
Those who are hesitant to “define” Anglicanism are most likely motivated by a desire to be “all things to all people”. Part of the “draw the circle wide, draw the circle wider”, and “the big tent” mentallity. What they are too foolish to realize is, that in trying to be all things to all people they end up being nothing, and appealing to no-one.
They also ignore the actions of Jesus Christ as recorded for us in Mat 19:16-28, Mar 10:17-31, and Luk 18:18-31. In each of these passages a man who could not accept what Jesus Christ offered him was allowed to go away, and Jesus Christ did not go chasing after him. Niether did Jesus Christ change what God was offering. He did not draw the circle wider! The circle remained the same! The young rich man chose to not enter the circle that God has made.
What is intriguing in Canon Baker’s style of thought is that it presents as a post modern and completely relativistic view of the world, when in reality it is held with as much rigidity as any fundamentalist:
What some post moderns call ‘discussion’ may not be what it seems:
https://thereluctantsamizdatwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/discussion-as-disinformation/