Redefining the Term Evangelical and Reevaluating the Relation of the Catholic Church to the Orthodox World

I. Redefining the Term Evangelical

Evangelicalism should include Catholic and Orthodox Christians in their definition of Evangelicalism. Such a step would be an important development for the Christian world, bringing Christians closer together so that we may act in greater concert, while neither denying nor downplaying our important differences. Such an attitude could more quickly lead to a situation of virtual unity in the Church due to a breaking down of barriers, which are rooted in prejudice. Each denomination would naturally maintain its integrity and doctrines, they would just extend the same dispensations to Catholics that they dispense to other traditional Protestants that they disagree with on major points of doctrine. 

            Evangelicalism’s exclusion of Catholics and Orthodox is superficial because it is based on prejudice rather than substantial differences. Evangelicals will go out of their way to condemn Catholics on certain points and differences that they happily overlook within other Protestant communities. For example, a high church Lutheran is accepted and praised as a fellow Evangelical, but a Catholic is not. Yet Lutherans believe many of the things a Southern Baptist might find damnable, or at least they will say is damnable when it is present in a Catholic. Lutherans profess the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, many believe confession is important to salvation, they believe in the Divine Liturgy, they believe in an all-male priesthood based on ordination, many even have a special place in their practice for the saints. Likewise, High Church Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) are essentially Catholic in every way except they do not believe the Pope has jurisdiction over the Church of England, and they believe that their Holy Orders is sufficient to pass on apostolic authority. Yet, Evangelicals either welcome Anglicans of all stripes into the fold, or at least don’t set about intentionally trying to bar them from association. If Evangelicals are so concerned over these issues of doctrine why are they not made clear, and in this way High Church Anglicans and Lutherans would also be barred? The real impetus behind the exclusion is a prejudicial attack on the Catholic Church rooted in deep-seated cultural bigotry.  The one key difference between Catholics and the various traditional Protestant groups, often referred to as Evangelicals, is that Catholic believe the Pope has a special charism as the prince of the apostles, the point of unity in the Church. But is this doctrine so much more repugnant than a far more central doctrine like the Real Presence? Or the efficacy of Baptism, which a Baptist and Lutheran will overlook in each other? The answer is clearly, no. Why make such a big fuss, just because Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome has a special role within the Church? This doctrine is not nearly as significant and substantial to as the doctrine of communion and baptism, which are truly basic, never mind the myriad of other points of doctrine that are overlooked when various conservative denominations join together under the banner of Evangelicalism.

            Evangelicals ought to truly organize a list out those doctrines which are necessary to be “Evangelical” and in so doing they will find that Orthodox and Catholics fit neatly into the Evangelical-bare-bones-Christianity of C.S. Lewis, who had great respect for Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Indeed, C.S. Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic and thereby virtually Roman Catholic in all but name. Many of the very best and most prominent Evangelicals respect Catholicism. They may rebuke it for certain points of doctrine, but do not set themselves to be radically at odds with it. Most prominent Evangelical theologians recognize Catholicism as one, among many, manifestations of “Mere Christianity”, and one such example is William Lane Craig, a leading apologist for Evangelicalism. Another manifestation of this sort of mentality is present in the Manhattan Declaration which was signed by many leading Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians. An Evangelical List that is already functioning with the removal of the prejudice against the Catholic Church would probably hold these points of doctrine:

·         God is one in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

·         God is the Creator of all things

·         Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and is fully God and fully man

·         The Holy Spirit is worshiped together with the Father and the Son

·         Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

·         He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

·         The Church is the body of Christ

·         One is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

·         Sunday is the Lord’s Day

·         Communion is at least an important symbol

·         One is saved by the faith and the grace of God apart from works of the law, so that one does not in any way earn their salvation apart from God’s grace

·         The old Jewish law is fulfilled in the Christian law and as such certain restrictions no longer apply, for example, no pork, and other points of the Old Law

·         Homosexuality is a serious sin which requires repentance as is denying the complementarity and reality of man and woman

·         Marriage is between a man and a woman

·         Abortion is a serious sin which requires repentance

·         Adultery and every kind of fornication is a serious sin and requires repentance

·         Divorce is a serious sin which at least ought to be discouraged

I imagine I have missed a few critical points of doctrine of which all traditional Christians agree, that is High Church Anglicans, Southern Baptists (Low Church Anglicans), Traditional Lutherans, Presbyterians, and yes, even Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians.

Such a union would advance the cause of unity because we are able to come together on these points without diminishing the importance of the remaining points which divide the Christian world. It cannot be overstated that this article is not a call to make little of the very important doctrinal differences that still divides Christendom, rather it is a call for Traditional Protestants to treat Orthodox and Catholics the same way they treat Lutherans and Anglicans, and that is with a sort of latitudinarian attitude on those traditional issues of doctrine.

II. Reevaluating the Relation of the Catholic Church to the Orthodox World

            Orthodox Christians should open communion to Catholics. Such a step would be an important development for the Christian world, bringing Christians closer together so that we may act in greater concert, and allowing the Church to breathe with both lungs. Such an attitude could more quickly lead to a situation of virtual unity in the Church due to a breaking down of barriers, which are rooted in prejudice.

Orthodox will tolerate a rather large amount of disagreement between churches, to include disagreements over authority of bishops, for example is the Bishop of Rome still protos, whether due to the ancient dyptichs or because of his apparent unique role in the early Church, or is that position open to change? What kind of authority and responsibility is proper for the representative of the universal church? What are the duties and rights of the office of Ecumenical Patriarch? What disciplines apply to the issue of divorce; is divorce even possible? And other local disputes of Church government and, to a lesser degree, some minor differences over doctrinal questions and practice. Yet, they all acknowledge communion with each other despite these differences. Why not allow Catholics into the fold of their communion, while still recognizing that they believe the “Roman Patriarch’s” claim to a special Petrine Ministry is incorrect?

The reality is there are already some Orthodox churches which allow intercommunion between orthodox and Catholics. Opening communion between the Catholics and Orthodox would be no less difficult than maintaining communion in the Orthodox World despite the disagreements already present between Constantinople and Moscow, Moscow and Kiev, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc. If the Orthodox remove prejudice from the equation there will be a far more united Christendom that will be far more effective at organizing resistance to the evils of modernism, while also removing blocks to a yet more perfect union, so that we may all be one.

What is the best Catholic Bible in the English language?

I know many of you are interested in what is the best Catholic Bible in the English language. Look no further. My little study will not only reveal to you what my favorite Bibles are, but it will also allow you to make a more educated assessment on what your favorite Bibles are (for this part skip to the bottom of the page).

Disclaimer: Some of the content and graphics I borrowed from scouring the internet, others are original. Also, I did not include the Knox Bible which I am sure is many people's favorite, in the future I might get around to adding it in.

Let me begin with the bottom line up front. My favorite English translations of the Catholic Bible are as follows:

1. 1752 Challoner Douay-Rheims (DR) (http://tinyurl.com/op8thuc)\

1. 2006 Second Catholic Edition, Revised Standard Version (RSV2CE) (http://tinyurl.com/off2y7h)

3. 1966 Catholic Edition, Revised Standard Version (RSVCE) (http://tinyurl.com/ortjc8q)

4. 2011 Catholic Truth Society New Catholic Bible (CTSNCB) (http://tinyurl.com/pnr5s8t)

5. 2011 New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) (http://tinyurl.com/pjdvb95)

*** Note that the DR and RSV2CE are tied; also I recommended my favorite presses to include the Ignatius Press and the Benedict Press and finally the Catholic Truth Society


As a bonus I will list some of the best Catholic "Study" Bibles as follows:


Study Bibles:
1. Navarre Bible (http://tinyurl.com/ng7ufmw ; http://tinyurl.com/pl9pwmb)
2. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (http://tinyurl.com/oh2wert ; http://tinyurl.com/nbnkufn)

3. Didache Bible (http://tinyurl.com/q9h6ls6)\

One additional bonus to the bonus is a beautiful Latin-English Bible, sure to make any rad trad envious.

Latin-English Bible:
1. Vulgate DR side by side (http://tinyurl.com/pkych24)

And now for the wild card, even though I am a die hard Catholic, there is something special about the Authorized Version since it has so strongly permeated the English speaking world. It stands with Shakespeare as the books which most crafted the English language we know and love.

Wild Card:
1. Authorized Version (King James Bible) (http://tinyurl.com/nrpg9dw)

And now for the meat of the article, I did suggest above that I would present you with tools to help you make an assessment as to what is the best Bible for you. Below you will find a little table I put together with a summary of how strong each performs in each category with 10 being the best and 1 being the worst. Below this I have included a comparison of Scriptures from each Bible for your perusing and at the bottom of the page I have placed a description of the terms being used to compare the Bibles.

1609 D-R Douay-Rheims Bible

Description: The Douay-Rheims Bible is a more literal Bible than most Bible’s today, in staying faithful to the word-for-word translation style.

Textual Basis: NT: It is primarily based on the best Latin Bibles available at the time, but also made use of the best Greek available at the time. OT: It is primarily based on the best Latin Bibles available, but also made use of the best Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts available at the time. Both the NT and OT were also compared to English Bibles that had already been published, like the Geneva Bible.

Translation: It was translated mostly by the University of Douai, and part of the NT was translated by the University of Rheims.

Other: It was based primarily on the Latin Bibles available at the time, and therefore is more faithful to the Latin than to the Greek or Hebrew available at the time. For this reason it is sometimes criticized. Nearly everyone agreed that it was surpassed in all ways by the Authorized King James Version which would be published two years later.

1611 AV/KJV Authorized Version/ King James Version

Description: The AV is a more literal word-for-word based translation, but it maintains enough freedom so that the translation can have more room for aesthetics and provide for a richer translation.

Textual Basis: NT: It was based on the best Greek texts available, with some influence from the best Latin texts available at the time. OT: It was based on the best Hebrew and Aramaic texts available at the time, with some influence from the best Greek and Latin texts available at the time. Both the NT and the OT were compared to English Bibles that had already been published, including the Douay-Rheims.

Translation: It was translated by the Universities of Oxford, the collegiate Westminster Abbey and the University of Cambridge.

Other: The Authorized Version is "the most influential version of the most influential work in the world, in what is now its most influential language. For this reason the AV is a great work, but because of its age it does contain words that have literally completely changed in meaning, and sometimes have adopted a meaning which is the complete opposite of the meaning the word has today. However, it is still a very comprehensible English work, as those archaic words are few and far between, and can often be recognized so that the student can decipher the appropriate meaning of the word.

1752 CD-R Challoner’s revision of the Douay-Rheims

It is translated using the Vulgate, and the best NT and OT manuscripts available at the time, and is the same texts used by the Authorized Version (aka the King James Version). It makes great use of the AV and therefore is very similar to the AV. Keep in mind that the AV used the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims as significant sources.

Description: Challoner’s revision of the Douay-Rheims is very similar to the AV and is in general a much better translation. It is now the standard Douay-Rheims Bible that you will find being published today.

Textual Basis: NT: It was based on the Authorized Version and the Douay Rheims with reference to the best Greek and Latin texts available at the time. OT: It was based on the Authorized Version and the Douay-Rheims with reference to the best Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin texts available at the time.

Translation: It was revised by the English bishop Richard Challoner, who was a convert from Protestantism and therefore was very familiar and fond of the AV. 

Other: Challoner’s revision is closer to the AV then it is to the old Douay-Rheims. Challoner addressed much of the Latinisms of the old Douay-Rheims and he also improved comprehensibility by rephrasing obscure and obsolete terms and constructions, and he helped to remove ambiguities from the original Douay-Rheims.

1769 AV/KJV Authorized Version/ King James Version

            Updated the spelling and grammar.

1885 ERV English Revised Version

1901 ASV American Standard Version (Jehova)

1952 RSV Revised Standard Version

Based on the AV/KJV with reference back to the original manuscripts to include new manuscripts that had been discovered between the time the KJV was written and the RSV was written.

1966 RSV-CE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

It is based on the Protestant RSV Bible. It is very similar to the RSV but it does not remove verses that modern scholars have removed from the Bible, like the end of Mark for example, or the story of the woman caught in adultery. It also makes a few minor translation changes in the NT to make it more Catholic, for example instead of translating Mark 1:19 to say “divorce her” it says “send her away.” The RSV-CE is permitted for liturgical use in the U.S. along with a modified version of the NAB. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes use of the RSVCE and so does other English translations of Church documents.

1966 JB Jerusalem Bible

It was first translated by a number of Dominicans into French. The French translation was used to write the English translation. The English translation was an original translation of the early manuscripts available at the time. It uses the French translation as a primary aid in translating the ancient manuscripts. It is famous because J.R.R. Tolkien translated the book of Jonah for the JB. It is used in Europe for liturgical use.

1969 CFY Confraternity Bible

            It is an update of the Challoner Version of the Douay-Rheims Bible and uses more modern English and is more paraphrastic.

1966 JB Jerusalem Bible

It was first translated by a number of Dominicans into French. The French translation was used to write the English translation. The English translation was an original translation of the early manuscripts available at the time. It uses the French translation as a primary aid in translating the ancient manuscripts. It is famous because J.R.R. Tolkien translated the book of Jonah for the JB. It is used in Europe for liturgical use.

1970 NAB New American Bible

            The NAB has undergone 3 updates. 

1985 NJB New Jerusalem Bible

1989 NRSV New Revised Standard Version

1989 NRSVCE New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

2006 RSV2CE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Second Edition

Based on the RSV which was based on the AV/KJV with reference back to the original manuscripts to include new manuscripts that had been discovered between the time the KJV was written and the RSV was written. Sounds and feels much like the classic KJV.

It was an update from the RSVCE in that it dropped the use of the familiar voice and it went further to make the RSV2CE more faithful to traditional language in key places, like the Hail Mary or the Lord’s prayer.

Liturgical use and endorsements
The Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic (Ignatius) Edition is emerging as a popular study and devotional Bible for Catholic scholars and laity with an appreciation for the formal equivalence approach to the translation. The English translations of the works of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) typically cite Biblical texts from the RSV-CE or its Second Edition, and many Catholic commentators, authors, and scholars use it as well, including Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Steve Ray, Jimmy Akin.
Although "the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible [NAB] is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass" in the United States, the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition has been approved for liturgical use in Anglican Use Catholic parishes of the U.S. Pastoral Provision and Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans around the world. To that end, Ignatius Press has published a lectionary based on the RSV-2CE, approved for use by the Episcopal Conference of the Antilles and by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for use in the personal ordinariates. The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the United Kingdom has adopted the RSV-2CE as "the sole lectionary authorized for use" in its liturgies.
 

2008 CTSNCB New Catholic Bible

The CTSNCB is the Jerusalem Bible but it uses the Grail Psalter for the Psalms instead of the JB’s translation of the Psalms, and it replaces “Yahweh” with LORD. It is approved of for use in Europe.

2011 NABRE New American Bible Revised Edition

The NABRE is the updated version of the NAB. It is updated to comply with Vatican standards, and therefore is a more faithful translation. The NABRE does not use as much inclusive language (gender neutral language). Both the OT and the NT were updated but are close to the NAB.

Dynamism refers to how well a translation transfers the function, or the meaning to the new language. A high score in this category indicates that idioms in the source languages are translated into idioms in the target language. This is often called dynamic or functional equivalence.

Literalness refers to how closely a translation follows the grammatical forms and wording of the source language. This is often known as literal translation.

Reading level refers to how easy a translation is to read. This should not be confused with reading grade level. A children's Bible would rate a 10 here, while a scholarly version using many theological terms would rate a 1.

If the translation is to be used in public reading, for example as a pew Bible, how well does it flow orally. A translation that lacks dignity or is clumsily worded will rate poorly here; one with dignified vocabulary but also smoothly designed will rate well.

For serious study, often a more formal translation is required, even when a more functional translation is easier to understand. This is especially true if one wants to do word studies or make effective use of a concordance in other ways. This rating combines formality, good scholarly notes, and consistent translation practice.

Gender neutral refers to translations such as "brothers and sisters" for Greek adelphoi, or use of plurals rather than singular masculine references, and not to use of gender neutral terms for God. A translation is considered gender neutral if groups of mixed gender are referenced neutrally where allowed by the source texts.

Uses Familiar means that it uses the familiar voice to include words like thee and thou.

Divine names and pronouns are capitalized in some modern versions. This is strictly a matter of translator practice as there is no capitalization in the original. The rating indicates whether words such as "Son" referring to Jesus, and pronouns referring to God or any person of the trinity are capitalized.

Cultural references always require some translating. I only rate a Yes for cultural translation when extensive items such as species of animal, or even geographic references (such as in the Cotton Patch version) are transposed..

Committee simply means that more than one translator was involved in producing the translation.

Interdenominational means that translators from more than one Christian denomination were involved, even if they came from one broader group, such as evangelical denominations.

Interfaith means that there was interfaith cooperation. Generally this means both Jewish and Christian translators were involved in some way.

The Anglican Union Flag of the Anglican Union
Anthem: “God Save the Queen/America the Beautiful”
Location of the Anglican Union
Capitals:     Largest City:		London, Washington D.C., Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington, Dublin / 51.500; -0.117   New York City
Official language:		English
Demonym:		Anglican
Member Nations of the Anglican Union:		United Kingdom of Great Britain United States of America Canada Australia New Zealand Ireland
The Executive Council:		The Queen of the UK (Observer) The Prime Minister of the UK The President of the US The Prime Minister of Canada The Prime Minister of Australia The Prime Minister of New Zealand The Prime Minister of Ireland
The Legislative Body:		Bi-Cameral: House of Lords and Senators (all six upper house legislative bodies); House of Commons and Representatives (all six lower house legislative bodies)
	Area:	27,887,689 km2 (1st) 10,767,496 sq mi
	Population (2015):	455,000,000 (3rd)
	GDP (2015):	£31 trillion (1st)
Currency:		£ Anglican Pound Sterling
Demographics: Race/Ethnicity:      81.7% White      9.1% Black      6.3% Asian      2% Mixed      1.1% Native American      0.8% Other* *(Pacific Islander, Maori, Native Australian et al.) Religion:      45% Protestant      25% Catholic      21% Unaffiliated      4% Other      1.1% Hindus      1.1% Muslim      1% Orthodox      1% Buddhist      0.8% Jews

The Anglican Ordinariate – Pregnant with Potential

The Anglican Ordinariate is pregnant with potential. The immense sagacity of Pope Benedict the humble is recognized among everyone whom you would care to hear from on the subject. He ingeniously acted as Pontiff by building a sturdy bridge for Protestants to cross the Tiber on. It captures the beauty inherit within Protestantism and gently corrects the errors. It is also an opportunity to recapture our English Catholic past and revitalize it. A little example of this is the growing interest in Our Lady of Walsingham, the patron of the Ordinariate. But the potential is there to capture it all. In a more tolerant and less virally anti-catholic English speaking world, could we see the restoration of the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury? Even such there would be no need to do away with the Archbishop of Westminster. What about the potential for a more united English liturgy present in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland etc.? How about a liturgy that prays for the Queen, and I suppose, the President, the revitalization of the Sarum Rite and a distinctly English (Sarum) Latin liturgy? Recently a law was passed allowing an heir to marry a Catholic (let’s hope for its hasty ratification)? Perhaps one day we will see a Catholic King of Britain, who may live up to the mantle, Defender of the Faith. Perhaps we could finally get back to one version of the Bible across the English speaking world, even if it is the Authorized Version (aka the King James Bible, or as we called it the King Jimmy) of happy memory with some very simple corrections, like only updated archaic language, not these crazy modern Bibles that add to, take away from, and wreckovate the Scriptures.

More technically with the right demand those within the Anglican Ordinariate could use it as a vehicle to recapture the imagination of the English speaking people by demonstrating the truly Englishness of the Catholic Church. Reintroducing the people to their past, demonstrating the compatibility with the present.

Some goals could be the following:

o Make the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite a key project of the Ordinariate

o Encourage a beautiful and healthy Latin liturgy based on the immemorial Latin Mass and Sarum Rite, and a beautiful and healthy English liturgy based on the ordinary form used in English speaking countries, the Book of Common Prayer, and the ancient Latin Mass (minus much of the Latin).

o Perhaps make celibacy a requirement for clergy but not all priests, like our Orthodox brothers.

o Encourage a revitalization of the old English Catholic traditions like Our Lady of Walsingham, a Catholic English monarchy (through love and prayer and loyalty), restoration of the old bishoprics of Canterbury, and York, etc., a standard liturgy and canon for the English speaking world that is deeply grounded and rooted in tradition without becoming a dead letter.

Our Lady of Walsingham

Coat of Arms of the Archbishop of Canterbury




















o Optimally much of this could be more easily accomplished if her majesty would return the Church of England to her proper custodian the Bishop of Rome instead of the Queen of Britain at which point all of the ancient bishoprics could be restored alongside the current structure and a new structure could be born incorporating and combining the current Catholic structure in the English speaking world, the current Anglican/Episcopalian structure in the English speaking world, and the Anglican Ordinaries.

Imagine a Church that captures all of the best of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Thomas More, Newman, Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, the KJV, the Book of Common Prayer, the Sarum Use, the Roman Missal, the extraordinary and ordinary form.

The Anglican Ordinariate has the potential to revitalize all of what was best about English Catholicism or rather English culture in general before the murderous and insane Henry VIII or his sad daughter Bloody Bess destroyed so much of our history and culture, combine it with what is best about Roman Catholicism as expressed in the various parts of the English speaking world, combined with beauty inherent in Protestantism without the mess within the English speaking world and in time perhaps the old tired institutions will give way into one English speaking Church in union with Rome, and organized throughout the English speaking world, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Anglican Union

 

I propose that the great English speaking nations of the world who share a common history and culture form a Free Trade Area and establish a pact for mutual defense. I would have this union be called the Anglican Union. Anglican is a natural fit since Anglican means English in Latin and English is the glue that would hold such a union together. The use of the term Anglican is in the broadest sense, and not in the more narrow sense of meaning those who belong to the Church of England presided over by the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In my mind, such a union ought to consist of the following nations: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland.

In the short run such a union could just be a Free Trade Area and a strong military alliance. Over time however the hope would be that a government would be established to preside over the member nations which would not infringe on the sovereignty of any of the members nations but instead would be restricted to addressing issues pertaining to the whole. As this union begins to blossom one would hope to see also a common currency and a shared Head of State, which of course would naturally be Her Majesty the Queen or one of her graceful descendants. After years of mutual trust and relationship building it would be sensible to create geographic zones of particular sovereignty. So for example the United States and Canada could form one government comprised of the two nations which could be modeled with great care taken to the sensibilities of both nations. Likewise, in the islands of the Southern Cross we could see a union of Australia and New Zealand, and in the motherland we could see the restoration of the UK and Ireland as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

So with all this talk of wishful I put together a little word document on what such a country would look like on a map and some ideas for flags and so on. And here it is:

The Anglican Union

Royal Standard of the United Kingdom of the Anglican Union Royal Coat of Arms

Anthem: “God Save the Queen”

Location of the Anglican Union (dark blue); Location of the Anglican Commonwealth (light blue)     Capital:     Largest City: London  / 51.500; -0.117 New York City Official language: English Demonym: Anglican State and Nations: The United Kingdom of the Anglican Union The United Kingdom of Great Britain America Oceania Leaders: Queen of the Anglican Union British Parliament American Parliament Oceanic Parliament Prime Minister of Great Britain Prime Minister of Anglo-America Prime Minister of Anglo-Oceania   Area: 27,887,689 km2 (1st) 10,767,496 sq mi   Population (2015): 455,000,000 (3rd) GDP (2015): £31 trillion (1st) Currency: £ Anglican Pound Sterling Demographics Race/Ethnicity:      81.7% White      9.1% Black      6.3% Asian      2% Mixed      1.1% Native American      0.8% Other* *(Pacific Islander, Maori, Native Australian et al.) Religion:      45% Protestant      25% Catholic      21% Unaffiliated      4% Other      1.1% Hindus      1.1% Muslim      1% Orthodox      1% Buddhist      0.8% Jews Flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Flag of America  Flag of Oceania