One of the most delightful figures in 19th century Church history is the Most Rev. William Alexander, 1824-1911, who was Bishop of Derry and Raphoe 1867-1896 and Archbishop of Armagh 1896-1911. I briefly mentioned in a blogpost about the High Church movement in Ireland, but I hope I can now do a little more judice to this half-forgotten bishop.
William was born in 'Derry April 13 1824. His father was a clergyman of the Church of Ireland, and his mother, though raised Presbyterian had converted to Anglicanism upon her marriage. Like many of the more active clergy in the 1820s, Mr Alexander was an Evangelical. However, his son's theological development was to be influenced greatly by his father's choices regarding his education for he was sent up to Oxford in 1843 just at the close of the Oxford Movement and experienced the magnatism of J H Newman, then still an Anglican, and of Pusey. William Alexander, though influenced by them, seems to have gotten more poetry than theology out of the Oxford Movement, and became no mean hand as a poet himself. On the other hand, his theology bore the stamp of the moderate "Bisley" school of Tractarianism throughout his life. Like many of that school, he put great faith in the idea of putting the Prayer Book into practice, and he read widely not just Anglican Divines, but also some French and German writers. However, Alexander's health did not allow him to pursue an honors degree, but he did so well in the examinations that he was granted an areogatat degree. Ordination followed in 1847, and after a brief curacy he was Rector successively of Derg, Camus, and Fahan parishes in the northwest of Ireland.
His daughter's memoir refers often to the affection in which he held his parishioners, and contains many humourous references to the somewhat dour Ulster character. It is evident from the surviving record that he was a zealous parish priest, and that his wife, Cecil Francis (Humphries) Alexander (1818-1895) was a devoted parish visitor and an invaluable help to her husband in his ministry. It is evident that the two of them took great pains not us over visiting the sick, but indeed all in the parish who claimed some sort of connection with the Church of Ireland, and they also visited many dissenters of both the Protestant and Roman varieties where they felt they would be welcomed. Alexander also retained some links to Oxford with his poem dwelling on the character of the University being recited at the installation of Lord Derby as Chancellor in 1853. He was also, periodically, a university preacher who was popular for the simplicity and warm of his style. Alexander's extensive parish - Camus - had some drawbacks, one of which was the fact that he had to give up walking in favour of riding in order to undertake his parish rounds. As a result, he became rather stout, and the familiar rotund figure of "Billy" Alexander came into being.
For William Alexander the road to preferment came through his connection with the Marquis of Abercorn. His name was there-or-thereabouts in discussion about patronage throughout the early 1860s unlike he eventually received the Deanery of Emly (essentially a sinecure) in 1864. This welcome addition to the family economy carried little in the way of duties, but not so his next preferment which was the Bishopric of Derry and Raphoe.
At the time the Diocese was a difficult one to administer. The only railway in the diocese was the Irish Northwestern which ran from Omagh to the Maiden City, which in turn had a short branch, in the form of the Finn Valley Railway from Strabane to Stranorlar. This meant that unlike many of his colleagues, Bishop Alexander would be jogging around his diocese on a horse, or in a gig like a bishop of fifty years previously. The Bishop's palace was no great bonus either being crammed into a narrow site within the walls of the old City of Londonderry. Add to this, the debate concerning the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland was raging just at the time when William Alexander was consecrated.
Disestablishment was undoubtedly the 'right thing to do' in what was an is an overwhelming Roman Catholic island, but the accompanying disendowment was something that all Churchmen feared, as was the prospect of evolving a form of democratic government to replace the old Establishment. The Irish bishops, including William Alexander opposed the measure, but tended to take a statesman-like attitude figuring that disestablishment on good terms was better than prolonging the Establishment at the price of a further suppression of Bishoprics by the government. The first reduction, from 22 to 12 had been accomplished in 1833-1846 and had sparked the Oxford Movement, and it was felt that a further reduction, from 12 to 8 was adversely affect the efficiency of the Episcopate even though it would bring the size of Irish dioceses somewhat into line with those in England. In the event, the Irish Church Disestablishment Act gave the Church fairly generous terms, and the Church was able to reconstruct its finances on a fairly firm foundation which allowed reasonable salaries to be paid to the remaining dignataries, as well as to parish rectors. It was only towards the end of the long agricultural depression of the late-nineteenth century that the Church of Ireland began to feel the pinch.
Administering the Church was a different matter, and Bishop Alexander, along with Marcus Beresford of Armagh, Lord Plunkett, John Gregg, and R C Trench of Dublin played his part in derailing a variety of crackpot schemes in the new Representative Church Body which would have given the newly disestablished Church of Ireland a government more Presbyterian than Episcopal in its structure. The same crossbench combination also derailed schemes to radically revise the BCP, so that when the shouting was over in 1878, the Church looked much the same, but had representative bodies at Diocesan and National levels, and also a new, simpler Canon Law designed to thwart the sort of Ritual riots that were so much a feature of English Church life in the 1860s.
Bishop Alexander did not always appreciate the cautious tone of the Irish Canons in ceremonial matters, but the survival of the BCP almost intact encouraged him, as did the enthusiasm of the laity for making the new arrangements work. He set about administering the Diocese of Derry and Raphoe in conjunction with the new Diocesan Synod with enthusiasm, whilst his reduction in stipend seemed to him to be fair, and fitting in a disestablished Church. His wife, though, was never reconciled to disestablishment, and continued to pine for the old days until her death in 1895.
Bishop Alexander understood that the heart of the Church was parish life and he did everything he could to encourage good quality worship and promote clubs and socueties within every parish in his diocese. Despite his High Churchmanship he was popular with his colleagues, so when Robert Gregg died in 1896, Alexander was elected as Primate of All Ireland and removed from Derry to Armagh. It has be to said that his translation to the smaller diocese of Armagh came as something of a relief to the aging Alexander, who, at 72 was having increasing difficulty getting about. He could move around rather more of his new diocese by train, and this made the burden of travelling somewhat less, and he soon became a popular and familiar figure in the diocese.
He finally retired in Lent 1911 at the age of 87, and briefly retired to Torbay where he passed away in September 1911. Although he made no spectacular contributions to the life of the Church his concern for sound theology, good worship, and lively parishes made him one of the most effective influences on the newly disestablished Church of Ireland setting the pattern for a vigorous, and successful life as a minority Church. The two great secrets of William Alexander's ministry were his love of souls and his love of parish life, and if the Church is to remain a vital force in the lives of men all its ministers need to remember those things.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
A Bishop's Lot...
My "bishopping schedule" varies between empty, which are the periods when I can get on with being rector of St Paul's, Prescott, AZ - and totally insane. The period after Easter tends to be totally insane as Churchmen have a habit of fixing meetings by the date of Easter, or in the early part of May so that we can contrive to miss both Easter and Ascension. Most years it spreads out a little, but with Easter being early this year everything has fallen in April. In the past ten days I have flown to Springfield, Mo, on the way to Branson; Charleston, SC, for a FACA meeting; back to Phoenix; and then out to Charlotte, NC, for the UECNA House of Bishops and National Council. As usual this sort of travel is exhausting, but as the matters I was dealing with were mainly positive, satisfying as well.
The first trip was out to Branson. Now I know other folks contrive to fly directly into Branson, but that never seems to happen for me. As usual, it was to Springfield, MO, via Atlanta courtesy of the tender mercies of Delta. Also as usual there was some sort of a problem - this time an FAA snap inspection - which led to a 3.5 hrs late arrival in Springfield, and an unscheduled night there. Having been duly collected the next morning, I was taken to Branson, and had a very happy time dedicating their new Church Building. The Very Rev. Jim McTaggart, the Rector there, his vestry and congregation have worked tremendously hard for the last nine years to get to this day. and it was quite an occasion. As is usually the case, there was quite a bit of laughter. On of my pet peeves it the way in which as a society we distract ourselves from the important with the trivial - cue someone's cellphone going off! As usual for St Joseph's there was quite a bunfight afterwards and I enjoyed meeting friends old and new in the congregation.
As I do not particularly care to be a "hit and run bishop" I stayed for Sunday service and preached again, this time on the Epistle for Low Sunday. They had an extremely good turn out - I counted 36, including children - and I told Fr McTaggart afterwards that he would soon be needing some more pews! Again a gang of us went and ate - this time at the Olive Garden. I am not sure about the old orthodox proverb about "a bishop never hearing the truth or eating a bad meal" - but so far the second half has been fairly accurate!
Monday morning Fr McTaggart took me back to the Springfield Airport and I caught a flight back to Atlanta, and then on to Charleston, SC. The Charleston connection was - you guessed it - late, but contained no less than three bishops. Two were identifiable as such - but one was in mufti! The episcopal invasion of Charleston was for the Federation of Anglican Churches in America meeting, which is held at Cummins Seminary, Summerville, SC, the Tuesday after Low Sunday.
FACA was created to continue the process begun by the Bartonville Accords of 2000. The general idea behind them was to promote communion, co-operation, and fellowship between traditional Anglicans in the USA with an eventual view to bringing the fragment together. Depending on what else is going on, enthusiasm for FACA as grown and waned, but I believe that in the long term it will prove to be very important in linking the strands back together. Approaching the topic of Anglican unity in a top-down, jurisdiction orientated way has tended to increase, rather than decrease the mischief. The tendancy of mergers in the continuum has been "two in; five out" producing much of the alphabet soup we see today.
The meeting itself was good and positive. There was an awful lot of discussion of ecumenical outreach to/from Rome, Orthodoxy - both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans. It certainly seems that orthodox Christians are increasingly looking at ways in which to help one another and present a united front in the face of an increasingly secular West, and the need to re-evangelize large parts of Europe and North America. There was also a lot of good and positive stuff from within the traditional Anglican world, with cooperation and resource sharing between jurisdictions becoming more common.
After FACA it was home to Arizona for a coupel of nights, not for a break, but to teach a couple of classes in my own parish. After that it was back to the airport - this time at a sensible hour, not 06:00 to fly to Charlotte, NC for National Council and the UEC HOuse of Bishops. However, I will save the upshot of those meetings for another post.
The first trip was out to Branson. Now I know other folks contrive to fly directly into Branson, but that never seems to happen for me. As usual, it was to Springfield, MO, via Atlanta courtesy of the tender mercies of Delta. Also as usual there was some sort of a problem - this time an FAA snap inspection - which led to a 3.5 hrs late arrival in Springfield, and an unscheduled night there. Having been duly collected the next morning, I was taken to Branson, and had a very happy time dedicating their new Church Building. The Very Rev. Jim McTaggart, the Rector there, his vestry and congregation have worked tremendously hard for the last nine years to get to this day. and it was quite an occasion. As is usually the case, there was quite a bit of laughter. On of my pet peeves it the way in which as a society we distract ourselves from the important with the trivial - cue someone's cellphone going off! As usual for St Joseph's there was quite a bunfight afterwards and I enjoyed meeting friends old and new in the congregation.
As I do not particularly care to be a "hit and run bishop" I stayed for Sunday service and preached again, this time on the Epistle for Low Sunday. They had an extremely good turn out - I counted 36, including children - and I told Fr McTaggart afterwards that he would soon be needing some more pews! Again a gang of us went and ate - this time at the Olive Garden. I am not sure about the old orthodox proverb about "a bishop never hearing the truth or eating a bad meal" - but so far the second half has been fairly accurate!
Monday morning Fr McTaggart took me back to the Springfield Airport and I caught a flight back to Atlanta, and then on to Charleston, SC. The Charleston connection was - you guessed it - late, but contained no less than three bishops. Two were identifiable as such - but one was in mufti! The episcopal invasion of Charleston was for the Federation of Anglican Churches in America meeting, which is held at Cummins Seminary, Summerville, SC, the Tuesday after Low Sunday.
FACA was created to continue the process begun by the Bartonville Accords of 2000. The general idea behind them was to promote communion, co-operation, and fellowship between traditional Anglicans in the USA with an eventual view to bringing the fragment together. Depending on what else is going on, enthusiasm for FACA as grown and waned, but I believe that in the long term it will prove to be very important in linking the strands back together. Approaching the topic of Anglican unity in a top-down, jurisdiction orientated way has tended to increase, rather than decrease the mischief. The tendancy of mergers in the continuum has been "two in; five out" producing much of the alphabet soup we see today.
The meeting itself was good and positive. There was an awful lot of discussion of ecumenical outreach to/from Rome, Orthodoxy - both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans. It certainly seems that orthodox Christians are increasingly looking at ways in which to help one another and present a united front in the face of an increasingly secular West, and the need to re-evangelize large parts of Europe and North America. There was also a lot of good and positive stuff from within the traditional Anglican world, with cooperation and resource sharing between jurisdictions becoming more common.
After FACA it was home to Arizona for a coupel of nights, not for a break, but to teach a couple of classes in my own parish. After that it was back to the airport - this time at a sensible hour, not 06:00 to fly to Charlotte, NC for National Council and the UEC HOuse of Bishops. However, I will save the upshot of those meetings for another post.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Keeping Things Tidy
One of the things that has always fascinated me about Anglicanism in the USA is the way in which folks always seem to want to draw the boundaries tighter in the hope that they will eventually have an unambiguous, error-free Church. Chances are that you will also have a dead orthodoxy, but that does not seem to bother that particular school of thought. On the other hand, there are those that believe that success for the church lies in making one more concession to zeitgeist, and after that the people will come flooding back. Both approaches are inherently wrong because they fail to understand that Anglicanism has an integrity, and, moreover, an integrity which is not altogether its own.
Now why do I make that strange claim. Well, if you take a look at the documents that came out of the English Reformation, one can only reach one conclusion. That the Church of England avoided the Confessionalism of the Continental Reformed Churches, whilst reaching the same broad conclusions about the nature of the Ancient Faith. I have been known to quip that the 39 Articles are 'broadly Reformed; but narrowly Augustinian' which is intended to draw attention to the fact that whilst the XXXIX are broadly in line with the moderate Reformed theology, the actual reference is back to St Augustine of Hippo. It is also interesting to note that one of the few non-Biblical references or allusions in the XXXIX is to St Jerome. A casual look through the two books of Homilies will reveal an alarming tendancy to quote not the magisterial Reformers, but rather the Early Fathers. Jewel and Hooker, and also their less contempories like Whitgift, quote extensively from the Early Fathers - especially the four Latin Doctors, all of which should give you a clue about the general orientation of English Reformed theology, which was away from the mediaeval Church and towards the Early Fathers.
Now I am often accused of being insufficiently deferential towards the Affirmation of St Louis, but that may not be unrelated to the fact that I seem to have run into more than my fair share of Bishops and Priests who used it as a billy-club for battering those who disagree with them and for transforming Anglicanism into something that it never was. Anglicanism was never intended to be a "Western Orthodoxy" or a "Non-Papal Catholicism" constructed out of the fancies of Twentieth Century clergymen, but the old Ecclesia Anglicana cleansed of the abuses that had arisen during the Middle Ages continuing in the theological tradition set by the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church. There is both continuity and change in the reformation settlement. The XXXIX Articles and the Book of Common Prayer were intended as a blunt instruments to strip away the abuses of the Papal Church, but in no way were they intended to contradict or undermine the basic Catholicity of the English Church which lay in its acceptence of the Scriptures, Creeds, and Early Councils of the Church. Indeed, this was the whole justification behing the Reformation - let's ditch the Papal Church, which is corrupt - and get back to the Apostles' fellowship and teaching as relaid to us by the Early Fathers and Councils. As a result, Anglican theology, both Evangelical and High Church developed along Patristic, Creedal lines, not along narrowly Confessional lines. In many ways, the XXXIX Articles became a nail on which Anglican theologicans hung what they had learnt from the Fathers.
The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is what happened between 1820 and 1970, which is basically the development of first Liberalism, and then modern Relativism both of which have, in theological circles, been very corrosive to the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, and the Fathers and Councils of the Church. This process has culminated in the bleat of liberal theologians today who preach the Gosppel of Inclusion, not the Gospel of Christ, and who claim that as the Church wrote the Bible (in a sense true, but...;) it can re-write (not true, because Scripture is inspired by God.) Needless to say, the 1970s version of this attitude of mind was the backdrop to the Episcopal Church's great act of forgetting and the creation of the new Episcopal Religion over the 35 years following 1967. So when the mainstream of the Continuum (in terms of numbers) came to organize in 1977 it was natural that they should produce a document that presented the answer of the orthodox that had recently left ECUSA to the modernism that had driven them out. The 'big surprise' is that, apart from a few clauses intended to prevent Anglo-Catholics becoming the whipping boys of the new Church as they had been (in their own opinion) in the old, the solution to the problem of "Modernism" was exactly the same one as was presented by in the 16th century to solve the problem of "Papism." In short, when you wish to understand the doctrine of the Church as expressed in the BCP and the Articles, go to the Bible, the Creeds, the Fathers, and the Councils; don't make it up as you go along.
What bugs me about the Affirmation is not what it says, but the way in which some folks have used it to stage a supposedly catholic counter-revolution against the Old Anglicanism, and the way in which in their eyes it has become the only formulary of modern orthodox Anglicanism. The stated purpose of the Affirmation, and in my view its only legitimate purpose, was to maintain, preserve and continue the catholicity of the Old Anglicanism, and address the abuses ushered in by 1960s and 70s liberalism. In other words, it was written to keep things tidy by exclusing the neology of the 1970s from the new jurisdiction. Unfortunately, things did not quite work out that way as politics took over and the Movement become divide. However, that does not diminish the usefulness of the Affirmation of St Louis in excluding revisionist interpretations of the Bible, Creeds, BCP, Articles, etc., from the Continuing Churches. Doubtless I shall again be accused of inconsistency, but if you care to read more than two articles in this blog, you will actually find that I am fairly consistent - at least as consistent as most other folks - in my theological position. I admit I was a little sloppy in my last post, but anyone reasonably familiar with my scribbling would doubt that my basic position is that in order to maintain an orthodox Anglicanism one has to reference the formularies of the Church against the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and base the teaching of the Church upon what the ancient Fathers and Councils taught as they explained the Scriptures and the Creeds back in the great age of Orthodoxy. What I am very resistent to is changing the worship of the Church, or totally trashing what happened under Elizabeth I, because the enduring Refromation in England, and the one that created the conditions for Anglicanism to mature theologically was not Henry's or Edward's - both of which lasted slightly longer than the proverbial wine gum - but Elizabeth's. Never forget, it was Matthew Parker, the Reformer, who told us to interpret that Articles and Homilies in 'the most Catholic sense.
Now why do I make that strange claim. Well, if you take a look at the documents that came out of the English Reformation, one can only reach one conclusion. That the Church of England avoided the Confessionalism of the Continental Reformed Churches, whilst reaching the same broad conclusions about the nature of the Ancient Faith. I have been known to quip that the 39 Articles are 'broadly Reformed; but narrowly Augustinian' which is intended to draw attention to the fact that whilst the XXXIX are broadly in line with the moderate Reformed theology, the actual reference is back to St Augustine of Hippo. It is also interesting to note that one of the few non-Biblical references or allusions in the XXXIX is to St Jerome. A casual look through the two books of Homilies will reveal an alarming tendancy to quote not the magisterial Reformers, but rather the Early Fathers. Jewel and Hooker, and also their less contempories like Whitgift, quote extensively from the Early Fathers - especially the four Latin Doctors, all of which should give you a clue about the general orientation of English Reformed theology, which was away from the mediaeval Church and towards the Early Fathers.
Now I am often accused of being insufficiently deferential towards the Affirmation of St Louis, but that may not be unrelated to the fact that I seem to have run into more than my fair share of Bishops and Priests who used it as a billy-club for battering those who disagree with them and for transforming Anglicanism into something that it never was. Anglicanism was never intended to be a "Western Orthodoxy" or a "Non-Papal Catholicism" constructed out of the fancies of Twentieth Century clergymen, but the old Ecclesia Anglicana cleansed of the abuses that had arisen during the Middle Ages continuing in the theological tradition set by the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church. There is both continuity and change in the reformation settlement. The XXXIX Articles and the Book of Common Prayer were intended as a blunt instruments to strip away the abuses of the Papal Church, but in no way were they intended to contradict or undermine the basic Catholicity of the English Church which lay in its acceptence of the Scriptures, Creeds, and Early Councils of the Church. Indeed, this was the whole justification behing the Reformation - let's ditch the Papal Church, which is corrupt - and get back to the Apostles' fellowship and teaching as relaid to us by the Early Fathers and Councils. As a result, Anglican theology, both Evangelical and High Church developed along Patristic, Creedal lines, not along narrowly Confessional lines. In many ways, the XXXIX Articles became a nail on which Anglican theologicans hung what they had learnt from the Fathers.
The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is what happened between 1820 and 1970, which is basically the development of first Liberalism, and then modern Relativism both of which have, in theological circles, been very corrosive to the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, and the Fathers and Councils of the Church. This process has culminated in the bleat of liberal theologians today who preach the Gosppel of Inclusion, not the Gospel of Christ, and who claim that as the Church wrote the Bible (in a sense true, but...;) it can re-write (not true, because Scripture is inspired by God.) Needless to say, the 1970s version of this attitude of mind was the backdrop to the Episcopal Church's great act of forgetting and the creation of the new Episcopal Religion over the 35 years following 1967. So when the mainstream of the Continuum (in terms of numbers) came to organize in 1977 it was natural that they should produce a document that presented the answer of the orthodox that had recently left ECUSA to the modernism that had driven them out. The 'big surprise' is that, apart from a few clauses intended to prevent Anglo-Catholics becoming the whipping boys of the new Church as they had been (in their own opinion) in the old, the solution to the problem of "Modernism" was exactly the same one as was presented by in the 16th century to solve the problem of "Papism." In short, when you wish to understand the doctrine of the Church as expressed in the BCP and the Articles, go to the Bible, the Creeds, the Fathers, and the Councils; don't make it up as you go along.
What bugs me about the Affirmation is not what it says, but the way in which some folks have used it to stage a supposedly catholic counter-revolution against the Old Anglicanism, and the way in which in their eyes it has become the only formulary of modern orthodox Anglicanism. The stated purpose of the Affirmation, and in my view its only legitimate purpose, was to maintain, preserve and continue the catholicity of the Old Anglicanism, and address the abuses ushered in by 1960s and 70s liberalism. In other words, it was written to keep things tidy by exclusing the neology of the 1970s from the new jurisdiction. Unfortunately, things did not quite work out that way as politics took over and the Movement become divide. However, that does not diminish the usefulness of the Affirmation of St Louis in excluding revisionist interpretations of the Bible, Creeds, BCP, Articles, etc., from the Continuing Churches. Doubtless I shall again be accused of inconsistency, but if you care to read more than two articles in this blog, you will actually find that I am fairly consistent - at least as consistent as most other folks - in my theological position. I admit I was a little sloppy in my last post, but anyone reasonably familiar with my scribbling would doubt that my basic position is that in order to maintain an orthodox Anglicanism one has to reference the formularies of the Church against the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and base the teaching of the Church upon what the ancient Fathers and Councils taught as they explained the Scriptures and the Creeds back in the great age of Orthodoxy. What I am very resistent to is changing the worship of the Church, or totally trashing what happened under Elizabeth I, because the enduring Refromation in England, and the one that created the conditions for Anglicanism to mature theologically was not Henry's or Edward's - both of which lasted slightly longer than the proverbial wine gum - but Elizabeth's. Never forget, it was Matthew Parker, the Reformer, who told us to interpret that Articles and Homilies in 'the most Catholic sense.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Barking up the Wrong Tree?
Some of you will be aware of the recent letter to the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America that was composed by Archbishop Haverland, and co-signed by several other heads of jurisdictions including the present writer. Whilst I would agree with almost everything in that letter, especially the fact that it highlights that the ACNA policy of 'local option' on the Ordination of Women prevent substantial dialogue with the older Continuing Groups, there were a couple of things in the final paragraph from which I strongly dissent. In retrospect I probably should have encouraged Archbishop Haverland to drop those references, rather than put myself in a position where I have to clarify my position.
Firstly, whilst I would agree with the idea that the ACNA take a look at the Affirmation of St Louis, I would suggest that they do so with a critical eye, and reject those parts of it which are contrary to traditional Anglicanism. The seven sacraments, and the seven Ecumenical Councils, whilst widely referred to as teaching tools in traditional Anglicanism were never accorded official status. The Articles require that dogma have Biblical warrant creating a hierarchy of authority which subordinates the Councils to Scripture. More mischieveous than those provisions is the call in the Affirmation that all older Anglican formularies be interpreted, not in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, but with the Affirmation itself. This has always stuck in my craw because it strikes me as just as revisionist as the party line from 'Miss Kitty Cat House' (aka "815") condemning Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina for schism when in fact he is faithful maintaining the doctrine, discipline and worship of the post-'79 Episcopal Church! Taken with the clause in the Affirmation allowing liturgies 'containing the BCP' (you ain't foolin' me; you mean the Missals) these clauses constitute an assisted suicide programme for all forms of orthodox Anglicanism except Anglo-Catholicism. Therefore, if classical Anglicanism is to survive and flourish, and a united Continuum is to emerge, we need to eschew the Affirmation of St Louis at least in part.
Secondly, I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and missed the reference to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks when I first read it. This is my own fault because Eastern Orthodoxy is something that exists at the far side of the Baltic so far as I am concerned. However, having educated myself a bit, it seems that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks were in fact a trashing of the whole Western theological tradition, and especially the Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed traditions. As I believe quite firmly that Anglicanism is, in the words of the Church of Ireland Constitution, a 'Catholic and Apostolic, Protestant and Reformed' Church, I am compelled to say that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks are just another trip down that familiar road - when dealing with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - of convert heretic scum! Whilst I do not have a problem with that position; as it is (in liberal theologian speak) "their integrity;" I do not see why we should be so daft as to agree with them. After all, Anglicanism has its own integrity based on Scripture, the ancient Creeds and Council, the Articles and the BCP.
In calling the ACNA to take heed to the Affirmation of St Louis and the remarks of Metropolitan Jonah, I think the letter ends on a false note in what is otherwise an excellent letter by basically asking ACNA to bark up the same wrong tree as most of the older Continuing jurisdictions. Personally, I think they should use the Affirmation of St Louis as a warning and make no new formularies. The old American Episcopal Church, to which the Anglican Province in America and the Anglican Church in America are successors, had it right with their Declaration of Principles which affirmed the male character of Major Orders, the Sanctity of Life, and the nature of Christian Marriage. It was a sort of 'off side rule' which put the "neology" of the 1960s out of play so far as the AEC was concerned. The UECNA pursued a very similar path by subordinating the Affirmation of St Louis (which is not mentioned in our Constitution and Canons) to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the BCP (which are.) Both approaches are intended to mark a straightforward return to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the old Church without restoring to the 'invisible mending' indulged in by the Affirmation.
My great fear is that unless a united and uniting Continuing Church firmly subordinates the Affirmation of St Louis to the Articles, BCP and Homilies, that Church will not remain united for long. The original ACNA(E) of 1977 was torn apart by politics steming from the 'revisionist' clauses of the Affirmation of St Louis. As a 'non-party Anglican' - Central Churchman, as we would say in England - I have come to distrust some of the implications of the Affirmation of St Louis. On the face of it, it is a fine document, but there are some subtle revisions of orthodox Anglican theology and practice which are dangerous, not just to Evangelicals, but to Classical Anglicans as a whole. Its aim is not to maintain the Elizabeth Settlement as revised in 1662 and 1787, but more the Church a good distance along the roads to Rome and Byzantium. Whilst I am not opposed to Ecumenical Dialogue and understanding, I do oppose shifting one's own position in a dishonest way. My own fear is that if a new Continuing Church emerges based on the Affirmation of St Louis rather than the Articles and the BCP, Classical Anglicanism will be tolerated for a generation and then progessively eliminated. You say it cannot happen - well, the history of the Continuum says it can. As a Prayer Book clergyman, firstly in the ACC Diocese (MDEW) where I served in the mid-1990s, then in the Hepworth version of the TAC from 2000-2007 I was very much a second class citizen, and then later a more or less tolerated eccentric laughed at when he was gauche enough to mention the Articles and the BCP. I believe both organisations have got over those teething troubles, but there is always a danger of it re-emerging. As both jurisdictions were following pretty much the same glide path, and and both accepted the Affirmation of St Louis, I came to the conclusion that the problem was largely managerial and partly the Affirmation itself. The Affirmation of St Louis, when put into the hands of dedicated party men, can so easily become a way of excluding as unsound those who come from other orthodox Anglican traditions. If the pathology that can be fostered by the Affirmation of St Louis' revisionist clauses is allowed to continue in a united Continuum we will doom ourselves to bark up the wrong tree forever, as we will be calling for unity, then finding we have enshrined a cause of disunity in our midst!
Firstly, whilst I would agree with the idea that the ACNA take a look at the Affirmation of St Louis, I would suggest that they do so with a critical eye, and reject those parts of it which are contrary to traditional Anglicanism. The seven sacraments, and the seven Ecumenical Councils, whilst widely referred to as teaching tools in traditional Anglicanism were never accorded official status. The Articles require that dogma have Biblical warrant creating a hierarchy of authority which subordinates the Councils to Scripture. More mischieveous than those provisions is the call in the Affirmation that all older Anglican formularies be interpreted, not in accordance with the Ecumenical Councils, but with the Affirmation itself. This has always stuck in my craw because it strikes me as just as revisionist as the party line from 'Miss Kitty Cat House' (aka "815") condemning Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina for schism when in fact he is faithful maintaining the doctrine, discipline and worship of the post-'79 Episcopal Church! Taken with the clause in the Affirmation allowing liturgies 'containing the BCP' (you ain't foolin' me; you mean the Missals) these clauses constitute an assisted suicide programme for all forms of orthodox Anglicanism except Anglo-Catholicism. Therefore, if classical Anglicanism is to survive and flourish, and a united Continuum is to emerge, we need to eschew the Affirmation of St Louis at least in part.
Secondly, I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes, and missed the reference to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks when I first read it. This is my own fault because Eastern Orthodoxy is something that exists at the far side of the Baltic so far as I am concerned. However, having educated myself a bit, it seems that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks were in fact a trashing of the whole Western theological tradition, and especially the Evangelical (Lutheran) and Reformed traditions. As I believe quite firmly that Anglicanism is, in the words of the Church of Ireland Constitution, a 'Catholic and Apostolic, Protestant and Reformed' Church, I am compelled to say that Metropolitan Jonah's remarks are just another trip down that familiar road - when dealing with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism - of convert heretic scum! Whilst I do not have a problem with that position; as it is (in liberal theologian speak) "their integrity;" I do not see why we should be so daft as to agree with them. After all, Anglicanism has its own integrity based on Scripture, the ancient Creeds and Council, the Articles and the BCP.
In calling the ACNA to take heed to the Affirmation of St Louis and the remarks of Metropolitan Jonah, I think the letter ends on a false note in what is otherwise an excellent letter by basically asking ACNA to bark up the same wrong tree as most of the older Continuing jurisdictions. Personally, I think they should use the Affirmation of St Louis as a warning and make no new formularies. The old American Episcopal Church, to which the Anglican Province in America and the Anglican Church in America are successors, had it right with their Declaration of Principles which affirmed the male character of Major Orders, the Sanctity of Life, and the nature of Christian Marriage. It was a sort of 'off side rule' which put the "neology" of the 1960s out of play so far as the AEC was concerned. The UECNA pursued a very similar path by subordinating the Affirmation of St Louis (which is not mentioned in our Constitution and Canons) to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the BCP (which are.) Both approaches are intended to mark a straightforward return to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the old Church without restoring to the 'invisible mending' indulged in by the Affirmation.
My great fear is that unless a united and uniting Continuing Church firmly subordinates the Affirmation of St Louis to the Articles, BCP and Homilies, that Church will not remain united for long. The original ACNA(E) of 1977 was torn apart by politics steming from the 'revisionist' clauses of the Affirmation of St Louis. As a 'non-party Anglican' - Central Churchman, as we would say in England - I have come to distrust some of the implications of the Affirmation of St Louis. On the face of it, it is a fine document, but there are some subtle revisions of orthodox Anglican theology and practice which are dangerous, not just to Evangelicals, but to Classical Anglicans as a whole. Its aim is not to maintain the Elizabeth Settlement as revised in 1662 and 1787, but more the Church a good distance along the roads to Rome and Byzantium. Whilst I am not opposed to Ecumenical Dialogue and understanding, I do oppose shifting one's own position in a dishonest way. My own fear is that if a new Continuing Church emerges based on the Affirmation of St Louis rather than the Articles and the BCP, Classical Anglicanism will be tolerated for a generation and then progessively eliminated. You say it cannot happen - well, the history of the Continuum says it can. As a Prayer Book clergyman, firstly in the ACC Diocese (MDEW) where I served in the mid-1990s, then in the Hepworth version of the TAC from 2000-2007 I was very much a second class citizen, and then later a more or less tolerated eccentric laughed at when he was gauche enough to mention the Articles and the BCP. I believe both organisations have got over those teething troubles, but there is always a danger of it re-emerging. As both jurisdictions were following pretty much the same glide path, and and both accepted the Affirmation of St Louis, I came to the conclusion that the problem was largely managerial and partly the Affirmation itself. The Affirmation of St Louis, when put into the hands of dedicated party men, can so easily become a way of excluding as unsound those who come from other orthodox Anglican traditions. If the pathology that can be fostered by the Affirmation of St Louis' revisionist clauses is allowed to continue in a united Continuum we will doom ourselves to bark up the wrong tree forever, as we will be calling for unity, then finding we have enshrined a cause of disunity in our midst!
Saturday, November 17, 2012
A Broad Orthodoxy
One of the difficulties that the Continuum has faced over the five decades has been a tendancy to want to unncessarily narrow the boundaries of what constitutes Anglicanism. Our biggest difficulty is that we fail to distinguish the wood from the trees with liturgical orthodoxy being confused for doctrinal orthodoxy. Now I would conceed that there is a link between orthodoxpraxis and orthodoxy, I would also point out that two of the most theologically peculiar congregations I have worshipped in had very proper, correct, and I have to add quite "catholic" ceremonial. That would lead me to believe that the two - right practice and right belief - are not quite so tightly bound together as we all like to think. I also have to confess that I am a veteran of the Liturgy Wars, and have seen and heard learned and experienced clergy derided because they did not hold their hands quite right at Mass, or have the correct red bound tome upon the altar. All of this seems to be a case of majoring on the minor stuff to the detriment of the Gospel of Christ.
If there is something that I would say characterizes the 'Old Anglicanism' it was the ability to tolerate differences of opinion without it spinning out of control into the modern cacaphony of diversity for diversity's sake. The difference was that until the 1950s, the tolerance rested no upon an indifference to doctrine - as it tends to do today - but upon a broad consensus as to what constituted the essentials of the Christian Faith, and what was a matter of local custom. The success of the Old Episcopalianism in the USA was very largely due to this tolerant orthodoxy. One parish might be 'High and Crazy,' the next 'Low and Lazy' and the three after that 'Broad and hazy' but they accepted the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry, they used the same Book of Common Prayer whatever their variances of ceremonial, emphasis and outlook.
Although to a large extent the UECNA started out as 'a Low Church jurisdiction' it has mainly been peopled by orthodox Broad Churchmen. Today we have some Anglo-Catholic congregations among us, and I certainly do not hear any complaints about that development in our spiritual life together. Anglo-Catholics, Central Churchmen, and Low Churchmen are able to peacefully coexist within the UECNA, and it is a bit of a mystery to me why this principled tolerance is not more widely accepted in the Continuum. After all, provided the service is not sloppy or irreverent and the Book of Common Prayer is used, then we have nothing to worry about so far as the efficiency and validity of what is being done is concerned as we share the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry.
Anglicans share with the Lutheran tradition - that other great 'Evangelical Catholic' tradition - the concept of adiaphora. External matters are indifferent, regulated to edify the faithful. However, back in the 16th and 17th centuries neither Lutherans nor Anglicans contemplated or foresaw the sort of erosion of traditional practice that took place between 1660 and 1810. The concept of 'adiaphora' was essentially a traditionalist one, allowing the customs and ceremonial of the Church, including its sacramental worship, to survive in the face of the attempts of the 'Hot Gospellers' to turn the Church into a lecture theatre. Familiar signs and symbols were used to enable the 'eye gate' as well as the 'ear gate' to be used in the service of orthodoxy. As a mentioned in a previous post (Northernness) the Old Lutheran service in Leipzig or Hamburg was quite Anglo-Catholic to our eyes, yet in a village church using the same Ordnung, the service would have been much simpler - adapted for local needs, but preserving the substance of the Faith entire.
This mention of 'local adaptions' serves to bring me to my next point which is that the frontline so far as Christian ministry is concerned is parish ministry. To use a vulgarism 'that is where it's at.' As we all know, every neighbourhood is not the same, and in the same way not every Anglican parish - never mind Christian congregation - is the same. Therefore there is a virtue in letting each parish develop along its own lines within the basic doctrinal and liturgical framework of the Church. One parish may choose to be Low - having Communion at the early service most weeks, and usually Morning Prayer as their main service. Another may have the staff and the tradition to have a High Mass. Still another will be content to hit the happy medium with a simple Sung Eucharist on Sundays. Yet for all these differences it is still the same Church.
What we try and encourage congregations to do in the UECNA is to be the Anglican parish in their community. In some places this will mean one thing, and in others another. Yet, to return once again to the theme of this post, if we maintain the basic doctrines of the Church, and use her liturgy then we should welcome a diversity of ceremonial usage as the sign of an active, growing, and vibrant Church. To my mind, a tidy house is a house for show; whilst a messy house, with evidence of hobbies, books and so forth, is a house that is truly lived in. In the same way I believe the Church should be something that is a little bit messy with High, Low, and Broad Church parishes all working together to bring people to Christ and to be the Anglican Church in the Communities they serve. That sort of determination to witness brings a certain amount of mess and imperfection, but it is the sort of mess and imperfection that goes with life. In a sense, we have to be, as St Paul wrote 'all things to all men' so that men and women can make a connection with the Gospel and with Jesus Christ who alone saves us. On the other hand, an outwardly perfect Church is inevitably a dead or a dying Church because everyone is afraid that they might make a mess and as a result they have become self-obsessed. Our ceremonial should be an expression of our parish's life in Christ, something that lifts upwards towards the throne of grace and not an end in itself. We need to recover that Broad Orthodoxy where, whatever our ceremonial preferences, our primary work together is to proclaim the Catholic Faith revealed in the Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and Father which leads us to Jesus, who is the Wat, the Truth and the Life.
If there is something that I would say characterizes the 'Old Anglicanism' it was the ability to tolerate differences of opinion without it spinning out of control into the modern cacaphony of diversity for diversity's sake. The difference was that until the 1950s, the tolerance rested no upon an indifference to doctrine - as it tends to do today - but upon a broad consensus as to what constituted the essentials of the Christian Faith, and what was a matter of local custom. The success of the Old Episcopalianism in the USA was very largely due to this tolerant orthodoxy. One parish might be 'High and Crazy,' the next 'Low and Lazy' and the three after that 'Broad and hazy' but they accepted the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry, they used the same Book of Common Prayer whatever their variances of ceremonial, emphasis and outlook.
Although to a large extent the UECNA started out as 'a Low Church jurisdiction' it has mainly been peopled by orthodox Broad Churchmen. Today we have some Anglo-Catholic congregations among us, and I certainly do not hear any complaints about that development in our spiritual life together. Anglo-Catholics, Central Churchmen, and Low Churchmen are able to peacefully coexist within the UECNA, and it is a bit of a mystery to me why this principled tolerance is not more widely accepted in the Continuum. After all, provided the service is not sloppy or irreverent and the Book of Common Prayer is used, then we have nothing to worry about so far as the efficiency and validity of what is being done is concerned as we share the same Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Ministry.
Anglicans share with the Lutheran tradition - that other great 'Evangelical Catholic' tradition - the concept of adiaphora. External matters are indifferent, regulated to edify the faithful. However, back in the 16th and 17th centuries neither Lutherans nor Anglicans contemplated or foresaw the sort of erosion of traditional practice that took place between 1660 and 1810. The concept of 'adiaphora' was essentially a traditionalist one, allowing the customs and ceremonial of the Church, including its sacramental worship, to survive in the face of the attempts of the 'Hot Gospellers' to turn the Church into a lecture theatre. Familiar signs and symbols were used to enable the 'eye gate' as well as the 'ear gate' to be used in the service of orthodoxy. As a mentioned in a previous post (Northernness) the Old Lutheran service in Leipzig or Hamburg was quite Anglo-Catholic to our eyes, yet in a village church using the same Ordnung, the service would have been much simpler - adapted for local needs, but preserving the substance of the Faith entire.
This mention of 'local adaptions' serves to bring me to my next point which is that the frontline so far as Christian ministry is concerned is parish ministry. To use a vulgarism 'that is where it's at.' As we all know, every neighbourhood is not the same, and in the same way not every Anglican parish - never mind Christian congregation - is the same. Therefore there is a virtue in letting each parish develop along its own lines within the basic doctrinal and liturgical framework of the Church. One parish may choose to be Low - having Communion at the early service most weeks, and usually Morning Prayer as their main service. Another may have the staff and the tradition to have a High Mass. Still another will be content to hit the happy medium with a simple Sung Eucharist on Sundays. Yet for all these differences it is still the same Church.
What we try and encourage congregations to do in the UECNA is to be the Anglican parish in their community. In some places this will mean one thing, and in others another. Yet, to return once again to the theme of this post, if we maintain the basic doctrines of the Church, and use her liturgy then we should welcome a diversity of ceremonial usage as the sign of an active, growing, and vibrant Church. To my mind, a tidy house is a house for show; whilst a messy house, with evidence of hobbies, books and so forth, is a house that is truly lived in. In the same way I believe the Church should be something that is a little bit messy with High, Low, and Broad Church parishes all working together to bring people to Christ and to be the Anglican Church in the Communities they serve. That sort of determination to witness brings a certain amount of mess and imperfection, but it is the sort of mess and imperfection that goes with life. In a sense, we have to be, as St Paul wrote 'all things to all men' so that men and women can make a connection with the Gospel and with Jesus Christ who alone saves us. On the other hand, an outwardly perfect Church is inevitably a dead or a dying Church because everyone is afraid that they might make a mess and as a result they have become self-obsessed. Our ceremonial should be an expression of our parish's life in Christ, something that lifts upwards towards the throne of grace and not an end in itself. We need to recover that Broad Orthodoxy where, whatever our ceremonial preferences, our primary work together is to proclaim the Catholic Faith revealed in the Scriptures, Creeds, Councils, and Father which leads us to Jesus, who is the Wat, the Truth and the Life.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Why Central Churchmanship was - and is - important
One of the down sides to Anglican ministry is the tendancy of churchmen, and especially the clergy, to divide themselves into warring factions. Most of my ministry before I joined the United Episcopal Church was conducted against the background of the liturgy wars. This particular manifestation of fracteousness led to those of us who preferred to 1928 BCP being told by the self-appointed 'Liturgy Police' that we were doing it all wrong. What used to really annoy me was the fact that the folks who called you out for being disobedience to Catholic Tradition did so for using the official liturgy of the Church. They also tended behaved as though they thought that if you used the right Missal or the right vestments people would come flocking in. Occasionally, I used to consider telling them that I thought their point of view was delusional. However, I have a strong suspicion they would not have understood what I was on about. What they seemed to miss that what makes folks keep coming to Church is the idea that they are loved and that they are involved in what the Church is doing, so in the end Churchmanship and Liturgical Fetishism does not matter, but a strong loving parish Community that gets on with being Anglican can really make a difference.
This brings me to why Central Churchmanship is important. Its importance lies in its being 'Mere Anglicanism" with all that implies about loyalty the Church's formularies and ways of doing things. So So often today we are faced with hyphenated Anglicans - catholic-anglicans, anglican-evangelicals, Anglican-progressives, Charismatic-Anglicans, and so on and so forth. It seems as though unhyphenated Anglicanism has gone out of the window, and along with it the glue that used to hold the Church together! The trouble with so many of these hyphenated Anglicans is that they believe that their particular version of Anglicanism is the whole enchilada, and they have no room for, or tolerence of, other expressions of our common tradition. This has contributed greatly to the dysfunctional nature of American Anglicanism, and it is only with the reemergence of a strong 'unhyphenated Anglicanism' that the Continuing Church can begin to resolve its problems and move towards greater unity and thereby gain in effectiveness.
I am not quite sure what exactly Archbishop Doren had in mind when he established the United Episcopal Church 31 years ago, but it is quite clear with the Constitution and Canons that he had drafted that whatever he envisioned in terms of Churchmanship in the short term, there was nothing to prevent the UECNA from becoming a church where 'mere Anglicanism' would be the dominant expression of our tradition. It seems to me that, inspite of the pressure to merge, there is a need to build a proper foundation so that the whole structure does not crack and fall apart again. There is a very real sense, in which this structure cannot be built by human hands at all, but rather by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that much of the time, because of our human dislike of messy solutions, the Holy Spirit is not given breathing room when we think about the church's future, and I would venture to suggest this is partly because so many folks seem to be obsessed with remaking Anglicanism in their own image. However. just as remaking God in our own image leads to heresy, so remaking Anglicanism in the image of whichever party you belong to leads to something that just is not Anglicanism.
Of course, I am now going to prove what a hypocrite I am by following a pitch for the non-partisan approach, but pitching for my own outlook. On the other hand pleading for 'mere Anglicanism' in the context of pleading for more cooperation and mutual forebearance cannot really be construed as true hypocracy as what I am asking for is a greater focus on what makes us Anglicans, that is, what unites us, rather than what divides us. We need to focus on, and teach our common heritage in terms of the Bible, the Creeds, the Ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and also about the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion and the history of Anglicanism so that we have a common platform, a common foundation on which to build. In effect, we need to spend less time being different and more time being Anglican!
So why am I so hung up on Central Churchmanship?
A lot of the answer lies in what it says about Anglicanism. One of things that creates instability in Anglo-Papalism, Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement and Liberalism is the fact that they all seem to be looking to something outside of Anglicanism in order to find their validity. In the case of a lot of Anglo-Papalists they have at least one eye on Rome - usually, in the USA, the Rome of Pius XII. Many Evangelicals and Charismatics seem to behave as though they believe 'Big Box Revivalism' to be the one true Faith. The Liberals look either to Christian Socialism (with Socialism as the dominant party,) philosophical relativism, or psychology as being the bigger truth to which Anglicanism must conform. Then they are surprised when folks pass through their versions of Anglicanism to join either what they are pointing to - Rome, the Big Box, the Polit Bureau or the Academy - or to some more focussed Christian tradition. Central Churchmen, on the other hand, should be saying, "this is Anglicanism and this is what we do. Come join us!"
Of course, there is a sense in which Anglicanism should always point beyond itself. We need to direct attention away from ourselves towards Christ as every Christian should. We also need to point beyond ourselves and reference our theology against that of the Early Fathers and Councils so we do not lapse into heresy or revisionism. But other than that we need to just get on and be Anglican. We have a glorious tradition that we do not need to muchj about with. The decline of Anglicanism in America in some respects reflects the declining confidence that we have displayed in our own tradition. We need to reverse that, and one again get on with being the Church.
This brings me to why Central Churchmanship is important. Its importance lies in its being 'Mere Anglicanism" with all that implies about loyalty the Church's formularies and ways of doing things. So So often today we are faced with hyphenated Anglicans - catholic-anglicans, anglican-evangelicals, Anglican-progressives, Charismatic-Anglicans, and so on and so forth. It seems as though unhyphenated Anglicanism has gone out of the window, and along with it the glue that used to hold the Church together! The trouble with so many of these hyphenated Anglicans is that they believe that their particular version of Anglicanism is the whole enchilada, and they have no room for, or tolerence of, other expressions of our common tradition. This has contributed greatly to the dysfunctional nature of American Anglicanism, and it is only with the reemergence of a strong 'unhyphenated Anglicanism' that the Continuing Church can begin to resolve its problems and move towards greater unity and thereby gain in effectiveness.
I am not quite sure what exactly Archbishop Doren had in mind when he established the United Episcopal Church 31 years ago, but it is quite clear with the Constitution and Canons that he had drafted that whatever he envisioned in terms of Churchmanship in the short term, there was nothing to prevent the UECNA from becoming a church where 'mere Anglicanism' would be the dominant expression of our tradition. It seems to me that, inspite of the pressure to merge, there is a need to build a proper foundation so that the whole structure does not crack and fall apart again. There is a very real sense, in which this structure cannot be built by human hands at all, but rather by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that much of the time, because of our human dislike of messy solutions, the Holy Spirit is not given breathing room when we think about the church's future, and I would venture to suggest this is partly because so many folks seem to be obsessed with remaking Anglicanism in their own image. However. just as remaking God in our own image leads to heresy, so remaking Anglicanism in the image of whichever party you belong to leads to something that just is not Anglicanism.
Of course, I am now going to prove what a hypocrite I am by following a pitch for the non-partisan approach, but pitching for my own outlook. On the other hand pleading for 'mere Anglicanism' in the context of pleading for more cooperation and mutual forebearance cannot really be construed as true hypocracy as what I am asking for is a greater focus on what makes us Anglicans, that is, what unites us, rather than what divides us. We need to focus on, and teach our common heritage in terms of the Bible, the Creeds, the Ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, and also about the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion and the history of Anglicanism so that we have a common platform, a common foundation on which to build. In effect, we need to spend less time being different and more time being Anglican!
So why am I so hung up on Central Churchmanship?
A lot of the answer lies in what it says about Anglicanism. One of things that creates instability in Anglo-Papalism, Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement and Liberalism is the fact that they all seem to be looking to something outside of Anglicanism in order to find their validity. In the case of a lot of Anglo-Papalists they have at least one eye on Rome - usually, in the USA, the Rome of Pius XII. Many Evangelicals and Charismatics seem to behave as though they believe 'Big Box Revivalism' to be the one true Faith. The Liberals look either to Christian Socialism (with Socialism as the dominant party,) philosophical relativism, or psychology as being the bigger truth to which Anglicanism must conform. Then they are surprised when folks pass through their versions of Anglicanism to join either what they are pointing to - Rome, the Big Box, the Polit Bureau or the Academy - or to some more focussed Christian tradition. Central Churchmen, on the other hand, should be saying, "this is Anglicanism and this is what we do. Come join us!"
Of course, there is a sense in which Anglicanism should always point beyond itself. We need to direct attention away from ourselves towards Christ as every Christian should. We also need to point beyond ourselves and reference our theology against that of the Early Fathers and Councils so we do not lapse into heresy or revisionism. But other than that we need to just get on and be Anglican. We have a glorious tradition that we do not need to muchj about with. The decline of Anglicanism in America in some respects reflects the declining confidence that we have displayed in our own tradition. We need to reverse that, and one again get on with being the Church.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Reformed Face of Anglicanism
The English Reformation is often glossed over by modern Episcopalians, especially those of an Anglo-Catholic bent. Yet there is no denying that reformation of the Church of England fits in, doctrinally, with the moderate end of Reformed Christianity. Cranmer evolved theologically from a Roman Catholic interested in the new learning, firstly into a Lutheran, and then, because of the shift in his views on the Eucharist in 1547, into a moderate exponant of the Reformed Faith. Cranmer's personal journey of faith left its mark on the Church of England in the form of a Liturgy that remains to this day more closely allied to Lutheran practice, but that liturgy is couple to a doctrinal stance that is broadly, but decidedly Reformed. You could almost say that the Church of England reverses the the position of the Landeskirche of Saxe-Wurttenburg, which, like several other Lutheran churches in Southwestern Germany has a Reformed Liturgy coupled to a Lutheran Confession.
Although modern Anglicans try to ignore the fact, both the Edwardian and Elizabethan Settlements took a reformed stance. The creative phase of the English Reformation covers the period 1538 to 1565, which is precise the time frame in which the Reformed Faith, as exemplified by Geneva, takes over from the more moderate reform of Luther. However, the English Reformation was not quite as radical as that of Geneva in its final form, and this did much to set up the tension between Churchman and Puritan in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. However, it has to be understood that the quarrel between Whitgift and Cartwright, and later generations of churchmen and puritans was not an argument between theological systems, but a disagreement (to use a mild word for it) within the Reformed Faith.
The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth. Although the Lambeth Articles of 1595 never received royal sanction, they do reflect the theological reality of the Church of England in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. It was a Calvinist Church, but one with Bishops and a Liturgy. The double pre-destinarian theology of the Lambeth Articles may not have found favour with the Queen and with the moderates, but apart from a few eccentrics - whose opinions the Article were meant to refute - the English Church was commited to a reformed and predestinarian theology. This is a contrast to today where may Anglicans identify as Reformed Catholic, but their Reformed Catholicism is not that of the Articles, but a form of Old Catholicism. This is a direct consequence of the attempts made by Anglo-Papalists and Anglo-Catholics to Unreform the Church.
Now I have to conceed at this point that not all Anglo-Catholics reject the Reformation, and, as you will have noticed if you have read older posts on the Old High Churchman, some are indeed sympathetic to the positive principles of the Reformation, but there has always been what I call 'the Hurrell Froude' element who speak of the Reformation as a 'limb badly set.' I have to be very honest and say that I do not concur with their very negative view of the Refomation as I believe in taking our formularies of our Church at their face value. That is to say, in reading the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the BCP in their natural, grammatical sense. In doing that one comes to the unavoidable conclusion that Anglicanism is indeed a Via Media, but not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It is also pointless to deny the evidence of a continuous series of prominent clergymen in the Anglican tradition who have been Reformed in their theology. Even after the Restoration, when Calvinism was clean out of fashion, Bishops like Edward Reynolds of Norwich and George Morley of Winchester held to their Predestinarian views and a basically Reformed theological framework. Therefore the Calvinism of early Evangelicals - like George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, and Samuel Walker was not an innovation, but a manifestation of a reinvigorated, living, Calvinist tradition in the Church of England.
From the time of the great Revival of the mid-eighteenth century through to today there has been no lack of professors of the Reformed faith in the Anglican tradition. Folks like Henry Venn, Charles Simeon, C R Sumner, J C Ryle, Charles McIllvaine, William Meade and John Johns all identified with Calvinism, but were unstinting in their devotion to the Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church. Growing up in the Church of England I could rely on the fact that about 10% of the clergy, even in a relatively liberal diocese, would be Reformed in regard to their dogmatic theology. Given that pedigree it seems gratuitous to try and exclude those of us who hold to Reformed principles from the Anglican Continuum. However, there are those who have done their best to do so, and such unofficial doctrinal and liturgical 'tests' have done their share to promote schism in the Continuum. This seems a particular pity when one realises the power to convict and convert that has always been God's particular gift to the Evangelical and Reformed clergy of the Anglican Church.
I hope that you have gathered from the remarks I have made above that I regard the Reformed face of Anglicanism not as an anomoly, but as an essential element in our Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has Reformed roots, and when we deny those roots we are in a sense denying who we are. There is no doubt that God has not finished with the Anglican version of the Reformed tradition, but it needs a home. We also need to get back to the old Anglican Evangelicalism, an ordered, discipline, liturgical, but above all Biblical and Refomed tradition offering to men and women the gift of eternal salvation in Christ Jesus. I think it would be good for all of us if we sought out too books by J C Ryle which are intended to strengthen and inspire. The first is entitled 'Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century' which gives potted bios of such Anglican Evangelical luminaries as Henry Venn, William Grimshaw, and Daniel Rowlands. The other is 'Old Paths' a collection of essays about the Reformed faith which will do much to clear up any misconception one might have about the nature of the Reformed Faith.
Although modern Anglicans try to ignore the fact, both the Edwardian and Elizabethan Settlements took a reformed stance. The creative phase of the English Reformation covers the period 1538 to 1565, which is precise the time frame in which the Reformed Faith, as exemplified by Geneva, takes over from the more moderate reform of Luther. However, the English Reformation was not quite as radical as that of Geneva in its final form, and this did much to set up the tension between Churchman and Puritan in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. However, it has to be understood that the quarrel between Whitgift and Cartwright, and later generations of churchmen and puritans was not an argument between theological systems, but a disagreement (to use a mild word for it) within the Reformed Faith.
The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth. Although the Lambeth Articles of 1595 never received royal sanction, they do reflect the theological reality of the Church of England in the later years of Elizabeth I's reign. It was a Calvinist Church, but one with Bishops and a Liturgy. The double pre-destinarian theology of the Lambeth Articles may not have found favour with the Queen and with the moderates, but apart from a few eccentrics - whose opinions the Article were meant to refute - the English Church was commited to a reformed and predestinarian theology. This is a contrast to today where may Anglicans identify as Reformed Catholic, but their Reformed Catholicism is not that of the Articles, but a form of Old Catholicism. This is a direct consequence of the attempts made by Anglo-Papalists and Anglo-Catholics to Unreform the Church.
Now I have to conceed at this point that not all Anglo-Catholics reject the Reformation, and, as you will have noticed if you have read older posts on the Old High Churchman, some are indeed sympathetic to the positive principles of the Reformation, but there has always been what I call 'the Hurrell Froude' element who speak of the Reformation as a 'limb badly set.' I have to be very honest and say that I do not concur with their very negative view of the Refomation as I believe in taking our formularies of our Church at their face value. That is to say, in reading the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the BCP in their natural, grammatical sense. In doing that one comes to the unavoidable conclusion that Anglicanism is indeed a Via Media, but not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism. It is also pointless to deny the evidence of a continuous series of prominent clergymen in the Anglican tradition who have been Reformed in their theology. Even after the Restoration, when Calvinism was clean out of fashion, Bishops like Edward Reynolds of Norwich and George Morley of Winchester held to their Predestinarian views and a basically Reformed theological framework. Therefore the Calvinism of early Evangelicals - like George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, and Samuel Walker was not an innovation, but a manifestation of a reinvigorated, living, Calvinist tradition in the Church of England.
From the time of the great Revival of the mid-eighteenth century through to today there has been no lack of professors of the Reformed faith in the Anglican tradition. Folks like Henry Venn, Charles Simeon, C R Sumner, J C Ryle, Charles McIllvaine, William Meade and John Johns all identified with Calvinism, but were unstinting in their devotion to the Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church. Growing up in the Church of England I could rely on the fact that about 10% of the clergy, even in a relatively liberal diocese, would be Reformed in regard to their dogmatic theology. Given that pedigree it seems gratuitous to try and exclude those of us who hold to Reformed principles from the Anglican Continuum. However, there are those who have done their best to do so, and such unofficial doctrinal and liturgical 'tests' have done their share to promote schism in the Continuum. This seems a particular pity when one realises the power to convict and convert that has always been God's particular gift to the Evangelical and Reformed clergy of the Anglican Church.
I hope that you have gathered from the remarks I have made above that I regard the Reformed face of Anglicanism not as an anomoly, but as an essential element in our Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has Reformed roots, and when we deny those roots we are in a sense denying who we are. There is no doubt that God has not finished with the Anglican version of the Reformed tradition, but it needs a home. We also need to get back to the old Anglican Evangelicalism, an ordered, discipline, liturgical, but above all Biblical and Refomed tradition offering to men and women the gift of eternal salvation in Christ Jesus. I think it would be good for all of us if we sought out too books by J C Ryle which are intended to strengthen and inspire. The first is entitled 'Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century' which gives potted bios of such Anglican Evangelical luminaries as Henry Venn, William Grimshaw, and Daniel Rowlands. The other is 'Old Paths' a collection of essays about the Reformed faith which will do much to clear up any misconception one might have about the nature of the Reformed Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
