> Quoting Mark Clavier+: Jack,
>
> To the vast majority of us it doesn't.  While few of us wish it to be a
> confessional document (and that Joint Statement avoids calling it such),
> most of us respect and esteem its place among our formularies and its
> historical role within Anglicanism.  At the same time, most of us don't give
> the Articles a primary role among those formularies, as though all the
> others somehow had to conform to them.  To the best of our abilities, we
> attempt to remain faithful to the formularies as a whole, as spelled out in
> our Solemn Declaration.
>
> Mark+

Fr Mark:

Maybe this little exchange here between Frs Jack & Mark Clavier has helped to
bring some of the discussion on this list into a little better focus.  It seems
the perspective of most of the APA is that the 39 Articles are good, but
not absolute.  In other words, they define points that all Anglicans should be
aware of, and maybe even strive for, but not necessarily be restriced to on all
points.  We, as Anglicans, are perhaps free to not take them so legalistically
binding.  You don't mean to "dis" the Articles, or ignore them, so from your
perspective you are giving them their place w/o elevating them above what that
place should be.  Thus you are confused why any in the REC would seemingly
challenge your claim to allegience to them.  This is my interpretation when you
say that you esteem them, but they are not confessional.  Please correct me if
this is inaccurate.

My experience in the REC, and it appears others too, as to the proper
perspective on the Articles seems to be different.  When I was ordained a
deacon, I was required to take an oath that I believed each Article, and that
if I ever changed my beliefs I would let my bishop know.  They were a
confession (at least as I understood it).  I didn't seek ordination in the REC
in spite of this requirement, but because of it.  Thus, at least some of us in
the REC, when we see what others might consider a slight "bending" of
allegience to the Articles, consider it a slippery slope.  We wholeheardly
agree w/all the 39 Articles and want a communion in which all other clergy do,
too.  Maybe this is too legalistic on our part, but that's how we
(or at least I and some others) entered this communion.  If I have a
wrong-headed REC view, others please correct me.

In giving this summary of both sides, I'm not trying to "dis" one side or build
"straw men", but to see if I can clearly and consisely state how the APA and
the REC view the Articles.  This will help me to understand both sides.  Perhaps
it will help others, too.  Please understand w/this post I'm not trying to
define how we interpret what the Articles mean (ie, should they be given an
Anglo Catholic or Evangelical "spin"), but what authority they have in the
canons, etc, of the Anglican church.

Thanks,
Mark Woolsey