The seeming collapse of attempts to start an Anglican Ordinariate in Canada following some unfortunate remarks by Archbishop Hepworth have got me wondering about that old question - whither Anglicanism? It seems to me that yet again, no matter how hard the Anglo-Catholics try to make themselves acceptable to Rome, they are still met with the same response - convert! I hope that those Anglo-Catholics who sincerely believe that the Pope is the Head of the Church on earth do convert, because it will simplify matters back here in Anglicanland.
In the USA it seems that there are three strands to the Continuing Anglican movement that I would loosely characterize as being Moderate Evangelical, Old High Church, and Anglo-Catholic, though I suspect that a lot of folks would not use my labels, but there you go. To a greater or lesser extent all three depend on the Church as whole having a strong ANGLICAN identity with which to interact, and react. However, Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics tend to emphasize only those elements that they like - basically the Articles in the case of the former, and the BCP and the appeal to the Fathers in the case of the latter. Old High Churchmen have the fault that they tend to be rather insular and self-sufficient - but maybe that is not altogether a bad thing.
So, in what does the Anglican identity lie?
First and foremost, the Anglican identity is an expression of the Church Catholic - that congregation formed by Jesus Christ through His Apostles to be His Body. In terms of defining what that body believes we rely on the Bible, the Creeds, the Councils of the Undivided Church. This appeal has been one that has been made by Anglicans right from the beginning. Archbishop Matthew Parker told his clergy to interpret he Articles and Injunctions 'in the most Catholic sense.' Hooker, te Caroline Divines and the High Churchmen of the eighteenth century all wrote with one eye fixed on the Early Fathers. The Oxford Movement also appealed to the Father, as did the more learned of Anglican Evangelicals. Unfortunately, modern Episcopalianism seems to regard the Fathers as some dead dude who wrote about Chrstianity a long time ago, and only reference them when it suits ther revisionist agenda.
To me, the second plank of the Anglican identity is Common Prayer. In the sequence of Reforming measures introduced between 1534 and 1553 the first BCP comes third or fourth. The idea was to put the liturgy into English; to simplify it so everyone could participate; and to cleanse it of those elements at variance with the Scriptures and the Fathers. Unfortunately, during the second phase of the Catholic Revival, some began to argue that the BCP was incomplete when compared to the modern Roman Liturgy which in their minds had become normative. This led to them adding to the BCP on their own authority - something which, from the catholic point of view, was strictly a no-no. These additions were eventually codified in the form of the English, American, and Anglican Missals, to which the Bishops wisely did NOT authorize for the use of the whole Church. At the end of the day the Catholic Liturgy of that branch of the Church Catholic denominated 'Anglican' is the Book of Common Prayer in the edition authorized by the General Synod or Convention of the Province involved.
Thirdly, the Articles of Religion. Now I know a lot of Anglo-Catholics reach for the gin when I mention the Articles, but there are one of the defining documents of the Anglican Reformation. Unfortunately, some of us have been conditioned to reject them without making a serious examnation of their contents. The major roblem comes from the fact that they dea with the controversies of the mid-sixteenth century, and their theological currency is one that we use little today, but they are none the less instructive. The first thing thing that has to be remembered is that they do not explicitly deny any doctrine maintained by the first Seven Councils. Secondly, the Church has always demanded that, like the BCP, they be interpreted in 'the catholic sense.'
Fourthly, the Anglican Continuum preserves the Apostolic Ministry of (male) deacons, priests, and bishops. Like the Roman Church we can trace the mainline our orders back through the centuries to the fourteenth century - which is a couple of hundred years further back than Rome. Furthermore we have no evidence to suggest that there was a break in the succession then, or, as the Romans allege in 1559. We can therefore regard it as reasonably certain that our Orders go back to the days when the Apostles prayered over and then laid hands upon the men they sent out as overseers, elders and servants of the Church, just as they in turn had received the Holy Spirit and been sent out by Christ Himself. However, I would at this point like to remind you that you can have the most impeccible Orders in the world, yet it is worthless unless you also believe, live and preach that Catholic and Apostolic faith that was committed to your keeping at your ordination.
What I am suggesting here is that Anglicans have an inherently Catholic identity that is not to be found in its imitation of that eccentric Communion headquarted in the Vatican, but in its own Liturgy and Articles. The future for Anglicans lies not in becoming something, but in being what we already are - the English reform of the Catholic Church. This concept of Reformed Catholicism is one that was dear to the Reformer, the Caroline Divines, the Georgian High Churchmen, the Tractarians, and to good churchmen and women in every period of the Church's history. Reformed Catholicism is also the key to our future as one strand of the Church Catholic. We need to give up being embarrassed by our Anglican-ness and proclaim that which we have received.
If I have a vision for the coming Continuing Anglican Church it is that we stop looking over our shoulders and start looking only on Jesus Christ. Less poetically, we need to stop worrying about the fact we are different to Rome or Orthodoxy and just get on with being the Catholic Church of the English (-speaking) People. Of course our apeal is wider than that, and we must always be ready to embrace those who share the Reformed Catholic ideal whatever their language, but we need to be aways mindful of the fact that our roots lie in the Church of St Patrick and St Augustine; the Venerable Bede and Alcuin; of Cranmer and Laud; Simeon and Keble, and the untold millions who have found the most perfect expression of Catholicism to lie within her walls.
After four hundred years in which we have been in some sense "the Establishment" either by law or by culture, or in both, we are now in an era where we have to make our way by our profession of the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. We need to become a Missionary Church and an Evangelizing Church that exalts Jesus Christ - 'the way, the truth and the life' - in all that we do and teach. Cleaving more closely to Christ is the only way in which we can hope to overcome the challenges posed to the Truth by both secularism and Islam.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
General Convention
For those of you who are interested there is a report on the 10th General Convention of the UECNA posted at http://www.uecpb.angelfire.com/GC10.html
What does not come across very well in the report is the focus that we had on Mission and Evangelism at this Convention. I believe that there are two factors behind this. The first is that there are quite a few younger clergy in the UECNA who are mission-minded, rather than maintenance-minded. This represents a major shift from three years ago. Then the 'mission-minded' felt sufficiently marginalized that a number of them left the UECNA for the REC shortly after the 9th GenCon. Secondly, I think there is a general realisation in the UECNA that being God's chosen frozen is no longer enough, we have to grow in order to survive, and that this involves a measure of adoption. Please note, that I use the word adaption not change.
In 1978, when the first bishops were consecrated for the original ACNA, secularism and media technology was still only in their first flood. Since then a lot has changed, and the tide has risen much higher. The attacks made by the tiny secularist minority in the USA have grown ever more strident, and the media - especially TV - has promoted a entertainment culture that discourages serious thought - especially about the state of one's immortal soul. This does not apply only to religion. When did you last here a politician talk in a comprehensible way about issues?
Also unhelpful has been the mega-church phenomomen, which, whilst preaching a form of Christianity, tends to eschew the intellectually difficult, and fall into step with the entertainment culture. I suspect this strategy is successful with baby-boomers who at least received a veneer of 'real religion' before the entertainment culture really began to take over. For them, the spoon feeding works, and keeps them active Christians. However, it does not tend to promote profound commitment, though there is a certain element of the Walmart effect.
However, I think those who study Christianity are beginning to realize that the mega-churches, whilst having tremendous influence do not make deep disciples. Certainly a an unscientific survey of what I loosely refer to as 'Christian spam' seems to reveal an obsession on the part of Church growth gurus with deeping discipleship. Some of the big tin shed preachers I have talked to freely admit that only 5 to 10% of their people do more than turn up on a Sunday morning. This tells us that at the moment American Christianity is probaby more characterized by its quantity than its depth. That is not necessarily a bad thing, having lived in both the UK and the USA I have to say that even a veneer of Christianity makes for a far freer society.
I suspect therefore, that there is a significant group of believers and potential believers who want to connect with something deeper than entertainment religion. This bears some superficial resemblance to the situation as American Anglicans found themselves in during the 1820s and 1830s. At that time, there was a significant group of Christians who had been touched by the Second Great Awakening, but wanted something deeper. This was precisely the era when Evangelical Episcopalianism grew expontentially within the Protestant Episcopal Church. Why?
Well, the short version is that Evangelical Episcopalian offered a heart-felt religion that did not neglect the intellect, nor tip over into mere emotionalism. It was orderly and reverent, by contrat to the extremes of revivalism. It also learned to use 'the culture' against itself. Evangelical Episcopalians made use of Prayer Meetings and Street Preaching, but they centred it all in the worship of the Church, and in faithful preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. They connected the religious sentiment of the day, and harnessed it to something deeper - a presentation of Christianity which was deeper being not just Biblical, but Biblical, Creedal, and Liturgical. Anglicans are uniquely placed to supply the 'something deeper' - what we are less equiped to do is tell people about it.
So far, Continuing Anglicans have tended to remain stuck in the defensive mindset that they adopted in 1977, and have made no concerted effort to Evangelize. The prevailent belief is that we just need to continue doing what we have always done until the world comes to its senses and returns to us. Unfortunately, that is a very poor mission strategy, and something that the UECNA has decided it can no longer afford to do. Over the next six months we will be looking long and hard at Mission, and seeing where we as a church have been going wrong, and how we can do better. Hopefully that will produce a plan that we can begin to impliment next year.
One last note. As always, the UECNA GenCon was more of a family get together than a meeting. I think that we are very blessed as a church to have this freedom from rancour, factionalism, and Church politics. Long may it continue!
What does not come across very well in the report is the focus that we had on Mission and Evangelism at this Convention. I believe that there are two factors behind this. The first is that there are quite a few younger clergy in the UECNA who are mission-minded, rather than maintenance-minded. This represents a major shift from three years ago. Then the 'mission-minded' felt sufficiently marginalized that a number of them left the UECNA for the REC shortly after the 9th GenCon. Secondly, I think there is a general realisation in the UECNA that being God's chosen frozen is no longer enough, we have to grow in order to survive, and that this involves a measure of adoption. Please note, that I use the word adaption not change.
In 1978, when the first bishops were consecrated for the original ACNA, secularism and media technology was still only in their first flood. Since then a lot has changed, and the tide has risen much higher. The attacks made by the tiny secularist minority in the USA have grown ever more strident, and the media - especially TV - has promoted a entertainment culture that discourages serious thought - especially about the state of one's immortal soul. This does not apply only to religion. When did you last here a politician talk in a comprehensible way about issues?
Also unhelpful has been the mega-church phenomomen, which, whilst preaching a form of Christianity, tends to eschew the intellectually difficult, and fall into step with the entertainment culture. I suspect this strategy is successful with baby-boomers who at least received a veneer of 'real religion' before the entertainment culture really began to take over. For them, the spoon feeding works, and keeps them active Christians. However, it does not tend to promote profound commitment, though there is a certain element of the Walmart effect.
However, I think those who study Christianity are beginning to realize that the mega-churches, whilst having tremendous influence do not make deep disciples. Certainly a an unscientific survey of what I loosely refer to as 'Christian spam' seems to reveal an obsession on the part of Church growth gurus with deeping discipleship. Some of the big tin shed preachers I have talked to freely admit that only 5 to 10% of their people do more than turn up on a Sunday morning. This tells us that at the moment American Christianity is probaby more characterized by its quantity than its depth. That is not necessarily a bad thing, having lived in both the UK and the USA I have to say that even a veneer of Christianity makes for a far freer society.
I suspect therefore, that there is a significant group of believers and potential believers who want to connect with something deeper than entertainment religion. This bears some superficial resemblance to the situation as American Anglicans found themselves in during the 1820s and 1830s. At that time, there was a significant group of Christians who had been touched by the Second Great Awakening, but wanted something deeper. This was precisely the era when Evangelical Episcopalianism grew expontentially within the Protestant Episcopal Church. Why?
Well, the short version is that Evangelical Episcopalian offered a heart-felt religion that did not neglect the intellect, nor tip over into mere emotionalism. It was orderly and reverent, by contrat to the extremes of revivalism. It also learned to use 'the culture' against itself. Evangelical Episcopalians made use of Prayer Meetings and Street Preaching, but they centred it all in the worship of the Church, and in faithful preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. They connected the religious sentiment of the day, and harnessed it to something deeper - a presentation of Christianity which was deeper being not just Biblical, but Biblical, Creedal, and Liturgical. Anglicans are uniquely placed to supply the 'something deeper' - what we are less equiped to do is tell people about it.
So far, Continuing Anglicans have tended to remain stuck in the defensive mindset that they adopted in 1977, and have made no concerted effort to Evangelize. The prevailent belief is that we just need to continue doing what we have always done until the world comes to its senses and returns to us. Unfortunately, that is a very poor mission strategy, and something that the UECNA has decided it can no longer afford to do. Over the next six months we will be looking long and hard at Mission, and seeing where we as a church have been going wrong, and how we can do better. Hopefully that will produce a plan that we can begin to impliment next year.
One last note. As always, the UECNA GenCon was more of a family get together than a meeting. I think that we are very blessed as a church to have this freedom from rancour, factionalism, and Church politics. Long may it continue!
Monday, March 21, 2011
Cranmer - an Appreciation
It seems inappropriate to let the 455 anniversary of Cranmer's execution pass without saying something about his achievements as a reformer, a liturgist, and as a theologian. Today, Cranmer and his vision of what Anglicanism should be is deeply unpopular even with those who describe themselves as 'traditionalists.' I suspect this neglect of Cranmer by many who venerate tradition are only interested in preserving "the revolution before last," which, in the case of Anglicanism, is the Catholic Revival of the late nineteenth century.
Cranmer's family had lived for several generations on the border between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. Cranmer was born in 1489 in Aslockton, Notts., then as now a small village, not far from Grantham. Cranmer's father was a yeoman farmer, a class that had grown economically important since the Black Death, and was to remain the backbone of English society until the industrial revolution. These men passed on their farms to their eldest sons, but there was little they could do for their other sons than give them a good education.
Thomas Cranmer ended up at Cambridge where he came to embrace the principles of the Reformation cause at some point in his mid-30s. Already married and widowed, Cranmer had received major orders c.1519, and was pursuing an academic career in one of the University's lesser colleges. However, the ideas he heard discussed at the White Horse Inn converted him to the reforming cause, and providence - I cannot think of a better explanation - arranged his career so that he was in an unequalled position to push the cause of reform.
Cranmer first came to the notice of Henry VIII during his attempts to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Cranmer suggested putting the matter to the Universities of Europe, thus bypassing the Papcy and the Curia which were both under the control of Catherine's nephew Charles V. In return for being useful, Cranmer was made Archdeacon of Taunton, and was sent as one of Henry's representatives to the German princes. He settled in Nuremberg in 1531, and shortly afterwards married. This was an unusual step for a cleric from Catholic England, but natural enough in Lutheran Nuremberg where it seemed Cranmer anticipated spending the rest of his life. I think we can all imagine his surprise, and concern when he was recalled to England in 1533 to succeed William Warham as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Not surprisingly, Cranmer tended to lead quaite a retired life away from Court. He favoured his more rural residences as this made it possible to lead something close to a normal family life with his wife, Margaret, and their increasing brood of children. Meanwhile at Court, Thomas Cranmer did his bit as a faithful royal servant implementing the Acts of the Reformation Parliament which severed England, Ireland and Wales from the Papal obedience. He also signed off on Henry's annulment and crowned Anne Boleyn as Henry's consort in 1533. The one blot on Cranmer's career was his complicity in Henry's matrimonial adventures. However, one suspects that this was not something Cranmer lost too much sleep over given that Henry's lawyers could usually give his position an air of legal respectability.
Cranmer's ability to pilot through reform was limited whilst Henry lived. The smash and grab raid on the monasteries did not originate with Cranmer, but with Thomas Cromwell who wished to reduce the amount of property, and with it the power and influence of the Church. Cranmer's hand can be seen in the establishment of the New Foundation cathedrals - Gloucester, Chester, Peterborough, Bristol and Oxford - whose statutes placed a far more stringent requirement for preaching on the Dean and Chapter than existed in the Old Foundations. Also when it came time to reconstitute the Chapter at Canterbury - a former cathedral prior - he insisted on creating a college of preachers, funded from the old monastic revenues, which doubtless he intended to be the shock troops of the Reformation.
Cranmer's first hesitant steps towards a new liturgy came with the Litany of 1544, and his decision to make the Sarum Use standard throughout the Province of Canterbury, and possibly the whole of England in either 1534 or 1543. After Henry's death he formed a small committee to assist him with first 'The Order of Communion' which was to be inserted into the Latin Mass, and then with the first version of the Book of Common Prayer. The 1549 BCP became mandatory throughout England on June 10 1549 and marked the complete abandonment of Latin in the liturgy. However, it is a rather conservative looking document, even though on serious inspection, one has to dismiss the claims of Bishop Stephen Gardner, and modern Anglo-Catholics that the Communion service therein supports transubstantiation or consubstantiation as bogus. Cranmer's work endured mainly because of his masterly use of the English language and sound theology. It is interesting to note that those groups within Anglicanism keenest to abandon Cranmer's liturgy have also been the one's most eager to abandon Creedal Orthodoxy.
Cranmer revised the BCP again in 1551-2 this time into a more clearly reformed structure, but the actual wording changes are few and minor. The most significant being the replacement of the old words of administration with 'Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and be thankful." Cranmer's book on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper shows that he held to what he described as the doctrine of the 'true presence' as opposed to transubstaniation. Through his reading of Ratramnus and the Early Fathers, and the arguments of Nicholas Ridley, he had come to a doctrinal position close to that of Calvin - that is to say 'Receptionism.' He also gained much from his friendship with other Reformed moderates such as Martin Bucer.
Cranmer also has a measure of influence on the educations of Edward and Elizabeth, ensuring that they received a series Christian Humanist, and Protestant leaning tutors. Edward seems to have become a dedicated reformer, who doubtless would have developed into a definite Calvinist. Elizabeth, who was Cranmer's God-daughter, seems to have embraced rather more of Cranmer's outlook except in ceremonial matters.
Towards the end of his life, Cranmer's mature theology trod a via meia between Lutheranism and Calvinism. On most issues - Predestination, Baptism, the ministry, Church-state relations - Cranmer seems to have remained broadly Lutheran, but in terms of the Eucharist he had adopted a position similar to that of Calvin. Both the Forty-two Articles of 1553, which are directly Cranmer's work; and the Thirty-nine Articles of 1571, which were revised by Cranmer's protege, Matthew Parker, reflect this middle way between Lutheran and Calvinist. Cranmer's theological position can also be seen in his contributions to the Book of Homilies - a compendium of officially approved sermons - set forth in the reign of Edward VI as part of the ongoing programme of Reform.
After the accession of Mary in 1553, Cranmer's arrest and trial were to be expected. In order to secure his recantation he was placed in solitary confinement and was also a witness to the burnings of his close friends Latimer and Ridley. This has the neccessary effect on Cranmer, who broke under the strain and signed his recantation. Under normal procedures, Cranmer would have saved his skin by such a recantation, but Mary could not forget his part in the proceedings that had secured the annulment of Henry's marriage to her mother. As a result Cranmer was led out to burn on March 21st 1556 his final public act being to recant his recantation, and affirm his Protestant faith.
Cranmer is not in the ordinary sense an heroic figure, and is all the more interesting because of that. Whatever you may think of his role as a Tudor civil servant - an occupation that always makes the practicioner aquainted with forty shades of grey - one cannot fail to realise that Cranmer was one of the major architects of Anglicanism. In his reform of the liturgy, and his careful steering of a course between the competing Protestant ideologies, Cranmer laid the foundation for a national, liturgical, episcopal, Reformed Church that took its theological cue from this or that school of modern writers, but from the Scriptures and the Four Latin Doctors.
Cranmer's family had lived for several generations on the border between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. Cranmer was born in 1489 in Aslockton, Notts., then as now a small village, not far from Grantham. Cranmer's father was a yeoman farmer, a class that had grown economically important since the Black Death, and was to remain the backbone of English society until the industrial revolution. These men passed on their farms to their eldest sons, but there was little they could do for their other sons than give them a good education.
Thomas Cranmer ended up at Cambridge where he came to embrace the principles of the Reformation cause at some point in his mid-30s. Already married and widowed, Cranmer had received major orders c.1519, and was pursuing an academic career in one of the University's lesser colleges. However, the ideas he heard discussed at the White Horse Inn converted him to the reforming cause, and providence - I cannot think of a better explanation - arranged his career so that he was in an unequalled position to push the cause of reform.
Cranmer first came to the notice of Henry VIII during his attempts to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Cranmer suggested putting the matter to the Universities of Europe, thus bypassing the Papcy and the Curia which were both under the control of Catherine's nephew Charles V. In return for being useful, Cranmer was made Archdeacon of Taunton, and was sent as one of Henry's representatives to the German princes. He settled in Nuremberg in 1531, and shortly afterwards married. This was an unusual step for a cleric from Catholic England, but natural enough in Lutheran Nuremberg where it seemed Cranmer anticipated spending the rest of his life. I think we can all imagine his surprise, and concern when he was recalled to England in 1533 to succeed William Warham as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Not surprisingly, Cranmer tended to lead quaite a retired life away from Court. He favoured his more rural residences as this made it possible to lead something close to a normal family life with his wife, Margaret, and their increasing brood of children. Meanwhile at Court, Thomas Cranmer did his bit as a faithful royal servant implementing the Acts of the Reformation Parliament which severed England, Ireland and Wales from the Papal obedience. He also signed off on Henry's annulment and crowned Anne Boleyn as Henry's consort in 1533. The one blot on Cranmer's career was his complicity in Henry's matrimonial adventures. However, one suspects that this was not something Cranmer lost too much sleep over given that Henry's lawyers could usually give his position an air of legal respectability.
Cranmer's ability to pilot through reform was limited whilst Henry lived. The smash and grab raid on the monasteries did not originate with Cranmer, but with Thomas Cromwell who wished to reduce the amount of property, and with it the power and influence of the Church. Cranmer's hand can be seen in the establishment of the New Foundation cathedrals - Gloucester, Chester, Peterborough, Bristol and Oxford - whose statutes placed a far more stringent requirement for preaching on the Dean and Chapter than existed in the Old Foundations. Also when it came time to reconstitute the Chapter at Canterbury - a former cathedral prior - he insisted on creating a college of preachers, funded from the old monastic revenues, which doubtless he intended to be the shock troops of the Reformation.
Cranmer's first hesitant steps towards a new liturgy came with the Litany of 1544, and his decision to make the Sarum Use standard throughout the Province of Canterbury, and possibly the whole of England in either 1534 or 1543. After Henry's death he formed a small committee to assist him with first 'The Order of Communion' which was to be inserted into the Latin Mass, and then with the first version of the Book of Common Prayer. The 1549 BCP became mandatory throughout England on June 10 1549 and marked the complete abandonment of Latin in the liturgy. However, it is a rather conservative looking document, even though on serious inspection, one has to dismiss the claims of Bishop Stephen Gardner, and modern Anglo-Catholics that the Communion service therein supports transubstantiation or consubstantiation as bogus. Cranmer's work endured mainly because of his masterly use of the English language and sound theology. It is interesting to note that those groups within Anglicanism keenest to abandon Cranmer's liturgy have also been the one's most eager to abandon Creedal Orthodoxy.
Cranmer revised the BCP again in 1551-2 this time into a more clearly reformed structure, but the actual wording changes are few and minor. The most significant being the replacement of the old words of administration with 'Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and be thankful." Cranmer's book on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper shows that he held to what he described as the doctrine of the 'true presence' as opposed to transubstaniation. Through his reading of Ratramnus and the Early Fathers, and the arguments of Nicholas Ridley, he had come to a doctrinal position close to that of Calvin - that is to say 'Receptionism.' He also gained much from his friendship with other Reformed moderates such as Martin Bucer.
Cranmer also has a measure of influence on the educations of Edward and Elizabeth, ensuring that they received a series Christian Humanist, and Protestant leaning tutors. Edward seems to have become a dedicated reformer, who doubtless would have developed into a definite Calvinist. Elizabeth, who was Cranmer's God-daughter, seems to have embraced rather more of Cranmer's outlook except in ceremonial matters.
Towards the end of his life, Cranmer's mature theology trod a via meia between Lutheranism and Calvinism. On most issues - Predestination, Baptism, the ministry, Church-state relations - Cranmer seems to have remained broadly Lutheran, but in terms of the Eucharist he had adopted a position similar to that of Calvin. Both the Forty-two Articles of 1553, which are directly Cranmer's work; and the Thirty-nine Articles of 1571, which were revised by Cranmer's protege, Matthew Parker, reflect this middle way between Lutheran and Calvinist. Cranmer's theological position can also be seen in his contributions to the Book of Homilies - a compendium of officially approved sermons - set forth in the reign of Edward VI as part of the ongoing programme of Reform.
After the accession of Mary in 1553, Cranmer's arrest and trial were to be expected. In order to secure his recantation he was placed in solitary confinement and was also a witness to the burnings of his close friends Latimer and Ridley. This has the neccessary effect on Cranmer, who broke under the strain and signed his recantation. Under normal procedures, Cranmer would have saved his skin by such a recantation, but Mary could not forget his part in the proceedings that had secured the annulment of Henry's marriage to her mother. As a result Cranmer was led out to burn on March 21st 1556 his final public act being to recant his recantation, and affirm his Protestant faith.
Cranmer is not in the ordinary sense an heroic figure, and is all the more interesting because of that. Whatever you may think of his role as a Tudor civil servant - an occupation that always makes the practicioner aquainted with forty shades of grey - one cannot fail to realise that Cranmer was one of the major architects of Anglicanism. In his reform of the liturgy, and his careful steering of a course between the competing Protestant ideologies, Cranmer laid the foundation for a national, liturgical, episcopal, Reformed Church that took its theological cue from this or that school of modern writers, but from the Scriptures and the Four Latin Doctors.
Monday, December 27, 2010
On the Fourth Day of Christmas...
...we chuck out the tree and take down the lights.
Or at least that seems to be the way it is around here. This seems to me to be a pity, but I suppose it is inevitable given that most folks have been celebrating Christmas - or that great euphemism "The Holidays" since sometime around Thanksgiving. I have a suspicion a lot of people are 'Christmassed-out' long before the 25th. I sometimes wonder whether our delightfully full churches on Christmas Eve, and the relatively empty churches thereafter until the New Year are a reflect the fact folks feel they have reached the climax, and can now have a little break.
However, Christmas in the Church's calendar is a far more complicated thing. For a start, like Easterit has its time of preparation; the four Sundays of Advent in which we investigate the different ways Christ was proclaimed - for example, in Scripture and by St John the Baptist. During Advent the dominant themes are the need to reflect and make ready for the coming of the Saviour. The antipation is cranked up even further by the nine Advent antiphons ending with "O Virgin of Virgins" on the 23rd.
Then there are the two Christmas Eucharists - the early one reflecting on the historical circumstances of His birth, and then the main Mass at which St John invites us to meditate upon the mystery that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The next three days - St Stephen, St John Evangelist, and the Innocents Day - all have a particular connection with Christ. St Stephen was the first to give his life for the Gospel after the Resurrection; St John of all the evangelists sees deepest into the mystery of the Incarnation; and the Holy Innocents whose blood was shed because of the rage and fear of Herod who had heard that a new king, the true king, had been born.
The fact that two of three Holydays immediately associated with Christmas should concern martyrdom is a reminder that the the incarnation happens under the shadow of the Cross. Whilst the birth itself was a time of unalloyed joy, the Gospel accounts place it between two somber warnings. Firstly, if you cast your mind back to the Annunciation, the angel proclaims to the Blessed Virgin Mary that a sword shall pass through her own heart, that sword she felt almost 34 years later when she sees her Son crucified at Golgotha. Secondly, shortly after His birth the Magi bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh - the last being particularly associated with death.
The feast of the Nativity itself is followed immediately by the Martyrdom of Stephen, and then three days later by the account of the murder of the Innocents. Even the 'white' feast of St John in between is not completely untouched by persecution for the sake of the Gospel. John was exiled to Patmos for the sake of the Gospel, and there is an old tradition that someone tried to kill the Evangelist by poisoning the chalice.
In the context of our prayers on St Stephen's Day we remembered before God in our Eucharistic intentions the Nigerian Christians murdered as they attended Christmas services. A sobering reminder that men still fear and hate the Good News of Christ. The reason folks fear the Gospel so much is because it faces them with some Absolute Truths - particularly our need of God, and for the salvation that comes through Christ alone. People find it difficult to accept that they are sinners who need the grace of God, and in their denial of His grace, they are often driven to persecute those who live by His Gospel.
The Octave of Christmas closes on New Year's Day closes with the feast of the Circumcision. Modern liturgists tend to run scared from the Circumcision mainly, one suspects, because it brings them a bit too face to face with both the humanity and the Jewishness of Christ. It is a day on which one needs to remember both the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, which was so much of Christ's mission, and also give thanks for the his Holy Name, which proclaims or Salvation.
Or at least that seems to be the way it is around here. This seems to me to be a pity, but I suppose it is inevitable given that most folks have been celebrating Christmas - or that great euphemism "The Holidays" since sometime around Thanksgiving. I have a suspicion a lot of people are 'Christmassed-out' long before the 25th. I sometimes wonder whether our delightfully full churches on Christmas Eve, and the relatively empty churches thereafter until the New Year are a reflect the fact folks feel they have reached the climax, and can now have a little break.
However, Christmas in the Church's calendar is a far more complicated thing. For a start, like Easterit has its time of preparation; the four Sundays of Advent in which we investigate the different ways Christ was proclaimed - for example, in Scripture and by St John the Baptist. During Advent the dominant themes are the need to reflect and make ready for the coming of the Saviour. The antipation is cranked up even further by the nine Advent antiphons ending with "O Virgin of Virgins" on the 23rd.
Then there are the two Christmas Eucharists - the early one reflecting on the historical circumstances of His birth, and then the main Mass at which St John invites us to meditate upon the mystery that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The next three days - St Stephen, St John Evangelist, and the Innocents Day - all have a particular connection with Christ. St Stephen was the first to give his life for the Gospel after the Resurrection; St John of all the evangelists sees deepest into the mystery of the Incarnation; and the Holy Innocents whose blood was shed because of the rage and fear of Herod who had heard that a new king, the true king, had been born.
The fact that two of three Holydays immediately associated with Christmas should concern martyrdom is a reminder that the the incarnation happens under the shadow of the Cross. Whilst the birth itself was a time of unalloyed joy, the Gospel accounts place it between two somber warnings. Firstly, if you cast your mind back to the Annunciation, the angel proclaims to the Blessed Virgin Mary that a sword shall pass through her own heart, that sword she felt almost 34 years later when she sees her Son crucified at Golgotha. Secondly, shortly after His birth the Magi bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh - the last being particularly associated with death.
The feast of the Nativity itself is followed immediately by the Martyrdom of Stephen, and then three days later by the account of the murder of the Innocents. Even the 'white' feast of St John in between is not completely untouched by persecution for the sake of the Gospel. John was exiled to Patmos for the sake of the Gospel, and there is an old tradition that someone tried to kill the Evangelist by poisoning the chalice.
In the context of our prayers on St Stephen's Day we remembered before God in our Eucharistic intentions the Nigerian Christians murdered as they attended Christmas services. A sobering reminder that men still fear and hate the Good News of Christ. The reason folks fear the Gospel so much is because it faces them with some Absolute Truths - particularly our need of God, and for the salvation that comes through Christ alone. People find it difficult to accept that they are sinners who need the grace of God, and in their denial of His grace, they are often driven to persecute those who live by His Gospel.
The Octave of Christmas closes on New Year's Day closes with the feast of the Circumcision. Modern liturgists tend to run scared from the Circumcision mainly, one suspects, because it brings them a bit too face to face with both the humanity and the Jewishness of Christ. It is a day on which one needs to remember both the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, which was so much of Christ's mission, and also give thanks for the his Holy Name, which proclaims or Salvation.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Some Thoughts on Episcopacy
November 14th is the anniversary of Samuel Seabury's consecration as the first Bishop of Connecticut in 1784. He is also accorded first place in the sucession of the American Church though he did not align with the Protestant Episcopal Church until 1787.
Back in the eighteenth century, Episcopal consecrations were semi-private occasions. Seabury's took place in the large room over the bank in Aberdeen High Street which then served as St Andrew's Episcopal Kirk. The consecrations of White, Provoost, and Madison all took place in the relatively small Chapel in Lambeth Palace. This creates quite a contrast to the sort of consecrations we have seen in TEC recently - the jamboree that accompanied Ms. Glasspool's consecration in an LA area arena would not have been further from the semi-private affair at which Seabury was consecrated. The eighteenth century conception of a bishop was that of a 'Lord Spiritual' whose authority derived as much from the complicated web of rights and privileges accorded to him by law and custom as to his spiritual authority. Certain bishops - Canterbury, York and Durham, and Armagh - were great territorial magnates - who were expected to act in the government interest, and to be in London (or Dublin) during the Parliamentary season. Their spiritual functions tended to reduced to being 'Confirming and Ordaining machines.' It was not uncommon at the beginning of a bishop's tenure for him to have to make up the backlog left by his ailing predecessor, and confirmations at which several hundred candidates were presented to the bishop were not uncommon. However, above all else bishops were administrators licensing clergy, enforcing residence, administering clerical and moral discipline, and at time, cajoling vestries to repair churches.
The sort of Episcopate that Seabury, White, Provoost and Madison embarked on was different to that of both the Established Churches of England and Ireland, and that of the disestablished Scottish Episcopal Church. They lacked both the political clout of the English and Irish Bishops, and the absolute spiritual authority within their dioceses that the Scottish bishops enjoyed. They also had to work out what it meant to be a Bishop within a constitutionally governed Church.
As is so often the case, the role of an American bishop was defined by the familiar logical device of thesis; antithesis; synthesis.
The thesis seems to have been postulated by Seabury, who embraced the Scottish pattern of Episcopacy. Unlike say Pennsylvania where there was a State Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church that included both clergy and laity, Connecticut simply had an advisory council of priests. Seabury saw Church governance as a purely clerical responsibility, and acted accordingly by barring laymen from church councils. The flip side of his high view of the clerical office was that he devoted a good deal of his time to administering the neglected ordinance of Confirmation, and to examining candidates prior to ordination.
The antithesis was provided by both White and Provoost, both of whom acted much like the Commissaries of the Colonial Era. They saw themselves first and foremost as administrators, except that they did not just license clergy, they also ordained them. Confirmation would be administered to any who sought them out, but as yet they did not feel it incumbant upon them to go out on confirmation tours like their brother in New England. In addition to their clerical style, there was also a difference in the way in which they governed the Church in the States where they were bishops. White ran the Church in Pennsylvania in co-operation with the State Convention. Policy would be agreed and then implimented. Periodically, White would tour parts of his diocese ascertaining its general state, but his duties as Rector of Christ Church & St Peter, Philadelphia, kept him at home for long periods. However, he gradually embraced the more actie style of Episcopacy developed by Madison and later by Hobart.
The synthesis was provided to some extent by James Madison, Bishop of Virginia, who until his health began to decline in the late 1790s combined a little of both the Seabury and White approaches to the Episcopate. Madison toured a distinct area of Virginia each summer visiting parishes and administering confirmation. He also managed to work reasonably harmoneously with a Virginia Convention dominated by the FFVs. These landed gentlemen were hostle to 'too much bishopping' - which is probably why they chose the already overly busy Madison as their bishop. However they could accept Madison as he was one of their own and understood the complex elaionship between Church, Gentry and State in Virginia. Unfortunately for Madison, the disendownment of the Church in Virginia denied his diocese necessary funds and a serious decline set in during the mid-1790s. As his health declined, Madison largely gave up travelling, and this has led to the myth of his being a 'failed' Episcopate. It was left to the High Church Bishop Hobart and the Evangelical Bishop Richard Channing Moore to develop the Madison model of Episcopacy into the norm for the American Episcopal Church.
The traditional American model became one of the Bishop first and foremost as the chief sacramental minister of his diocese, but also as the one who put into effect the diocesan policy agreed between himself and and the Diocesan Convention. The bishop was expected to be the leader, but not a tyrant. Most of the great American bishops - the two Bishops Potter of New York, Manning - also of New York, several successive bishops of Pennsylvania during the early twentieth century, William Lawrence of Massachusetts, etc., understood this complex relationship between monarchical Episcopacy and Constitutional government and were able to bring to a high pitch of efficiency.
Sadly, today, the view of the role of bishop has changed again. The old understanding of the bishop as the 'chief priest' of the diocese has been replaced by a more secular model - that of the business world. Whilst the church, in the administration of its finances does need to embrace sound business practices, it should not allow secular management principles and ethic to become too entrenched in matters relating to mission and ministry. Sadly, the corporate church, with its boards, committees, and focus groups has become the dominant influence on the life of man dioceses. It is said of eighteenth century governments that 'politics was essentially personal' today, the personal often gets lost in amongst all the politics. I fear that the impotence of the Anglican tradition in the new mission fields of the West stems from the fact that we have organised the life out of the Church by creating so much dead bureaucracy.
The other great danger for bishops is - to borrow a word from sixteenth century polemic - 'prelacy.' The church has always had a few bishops who spent too much time standing on their dignity and paying too much attention to the outward trappings of their office. Sadly, that tendancy seems to be more marked today than ever. The world weary observation that "power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as true of bishops as any other class of men. As the office of a bishop has increasingly been aligned to the secular model of a CEO, so the stories of petty episcopal tyranny - the ecclesiastical equivelent of the Office horror story - seem to multiply. Bishops, especially in TEC, though we have had (more than) our share in the Continuum too. There seems to be a certain class of bishops who seem to regard it as ethical to either intimidate priests who disagree with them personally, or have their assistants do it for them. To act in such arbitary ways, often in defiance of centuries of Church tradition, seems to be a paticular malaise in those dioceses that have lost any real sense of mission.
I suspect that what the church needs now is a little dose of realism, and a return to that concept of the episcopate laid down in the Ordinal and the Constitution and Canons of the Church. The language of the Ordinal, which is largely that of Cranmer's 1553 revision, sees the role of a bishop as being that being a preacher of God's Word; a teacher and guardian of the Faith; a governor of the Church; and one to whom the work of raising up fit and proper persons for the ministry is specifically entrusted. The Constitution and Canons of Church give a framework to enable that work to be done. I suspect that any bishop who gives himself to conscientiously to fulfil those tasks will have his hands very full indeed. The words Cranmer uses to accompany the presentation of the Bible to a newly consecrated bishop are particularly important to understanding the true task of an Anglican bishop:
"Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in this Book. Be diligent in them, that the increase coming thereby may be evdent unto all men; for by doing them thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd and not a wolf; feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, hal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost. Be so merciful that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline that you forget not mercy; that when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you may receive the never-fading crown of glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Back in the eighteenth century, Episcopal consecrations were semi-private occasions. Seabury's took place in the large room over the bank in Aberdeen High Street which then served as St Andrew's Episcopal Kirk. The consecrations of White, Provoost, and Madison all took place in the relatively small Chapel in Lambeth Palace. This creates quite a contrast to the sort of consecrations we have seen in TEC recently - the jamboree that accompanied Ms. Glasspool's consecration in an LA area arena would not have been further from the semi-private affair at which Seabury was consecrated. The eighteenth century conception of a bishop was that of a 'Lord Spiritual' whose authority derived as much from the complicated web of rights and privileges accorded to him by law and custom as to his spiritual authority. Certain bishops - Canterbury, York and Durham, and Armagh - were great territorial magnates - who were expected to act in the government interest, and to be in London (or Dublin) during the Parliamentary season. Their spiritual functions tended to reduced to being 'Confirming and Ordaining machines.' It was not uncommon at the beginning of a bishop's tenure for him to have to make up the backlog left by his ailing predecessor, and confirmations at which several hundred candidates were presented to the bishop were not uncommon. However, above all else bishops were administrators licensing clergy, enforcing residence, administering clerical and moral discipline, and at time, cajoling vestries to repair churches.
The sort of Episcopate that Seabury, White, Provoost and Madison embarked on was different to that of both the Established Churches of England and Ireland, and that of the disestablished Scottish Episcopal Church. They lacked both the political clout of the English and Irish Bishops, and the absolute spiritual authority within their dioceses that the Scottish bishops enjoyed. They also had to work out what it meant to be a Bishop within a constitutionally governed Church.
As is so often the case, the role of an American bishop was defined by the familiar logical device of thesis; antithesis; synthesis.
The thesis seems to have been postulated by Seabury, who embraced the Scottish pattern of Episcopacy. Unlike say Pennsylvania where there was a State Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church that included both clergy and laity, Connecticut simply had an advisory council of priests. Seabury saw Church governance as a purely clerical responsibility, and acted accordingly by barring laymen from church councils. The flip side of his high view of the clerical office was that he devoted a good deal of his time to administering the neglected ordinance of Confirmation, and to examining candidates prior to ordination.
The antithesis was provided by both White and Provoost, both of whom acted much like the Commissaries of the Colonial Era. They saw themselves first and foremost as administrators, except that they did not just license clergy, they also ordained them. Confirmation would be administered to any who sought them out, but as yet they did not feel it incumbant upon them to go out on confirmation tours like their brother in New England. In addition to their clerical style, there was also a difference in the way in which they governed the Church in the States where they were bishops. White ran the Church in Pennsylvania in co-operation with the State Convention. Policy would be agreed and then implimented. Periodically, White would tour parts of his diocese ascertaining its general state, but his duties as Rector of Christ Church & St Peter, Philadelphia, kept him at home for long periods. However, he gradually embraced the more actie style of Episcopacy developed by Madison and later by Hobart.
The synthesis was provided to some extent by James Madison, Bishop of Virginia, who until his health began to decline in the late 1790s combined a little of both the Seabury and White approaches to the Episcopate. Madison toured a distinct area of Virginia each summer visiting parishes and administering confirmation. He also managed to work reasonably harmoneously with a Virginia Convention dominated by the FFVs. These landed gentlemen were hostle to 'too much bishopping' - which is probably why they chose the already overly busy Madison as their bishop. However they could accept Madison as he was one of their own and understood the complex elaionship between Church, Gentry and State in Virginia. Unfortunately for Madison, the disendownment of the Church in Virginia denied his diocese necessary funds and a serious decline set in during the mid-1790s. As his health declined, Madison largely gave up travelling, and this has led to the myth of his being a 'failed' Episcopate. It was left to the High Church Bishop Hobart and the Evangelical Bishop Richard Channing Moore to develop the Madison model of Episcopacy into the norm for the American Episcopal Church.
The traditional American model became one of the Bishop first and foremost as the chief sacramental minister of his diocese, but also as the one who put into effect the diocesan policy agreed between himself and and the Diocesan Convention. The bishop was expected to be the leader, but not a tyrant. Most of the great American bishops - the two Bishops Potter of New York, Manning - also of New York, several successive bishops of Pennsylvania during the early twentieth century, William Lawrence of Massachusetts, etc., understood this complex relationship between monarchical Episcopacy and Constitutional government and were able to bring to a high pitch of efficiency.
Sadly, today, the view of the role of bishop has changed again. The old understanding of the bishop as the 'chief priest' of the diocese has been replaced by a more secular model - that of the business world. Whilst the church, in the administration of its finances does need to embrace sound business practices, it should not allow secular management principles and ethic to become too entrenched in matters relating to mission and ministry. Sadly, the corporate church, with its boards, committees, and focus groups has become the dominant influence on the life of man dioceses. It is said of eighteenth century governments that 'politics was essentially personal' today, the personal often gets lost in amongst all the politics. I fear that the impotence of the Anglican tradition in the new mission fields of the West stems from the fact that we have organised the life out of the Church by creating so much dead bureaucracy.
The other great danger for bishops is - to borrow a word from sixteenth century polemic - 'prelacy.' The church has always had a few bishops who spent too much time standing on their dignity and paying too much attention to the outward trappings of their office. Sadly, that tendancy seems to be more marked today than ever. The world weary observation that "power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as true of bishops as any other class of men. As the office of a bishop has increasingly been aligned to the secular model of a CEO, so the stories of petty episcopal tyranny - the ecclesiastical equivelent of the Office horror story - seem to multiply. Bishops, especially in TEC, though we have had (more than) our share in the Continuum too. There seems to be a certain class of bishops who seem to regard it as ethical to either intimidate priests who disagree with them personally, or have their assistants do it for them. To act in such arbitary ways, often in defiance of centuries of Church tradition, seems to be a paticular malaise in those dioceses that have lost any real sense of mission.
I suspect that what the church needs now is a little dose of realism, and a return to that concept of the episcopate laid down in the Ordinal and the Constitution and Canons of the Church. The language of the Ordinal, which is largely that of Cranmer's 1553 revision, sees the role of a bishop as being that being a preacher of God's Word; a teacher and guardian of the Faith; a governor of the Church; and one to whom the work of raising up fit and proper persons for the ministry is specifically entrusted. The Constitution and Canons of Church give a framework to enable that work to be done. I suspect that any bishop who gives himself to conscientiously to fulfil those tasks will have his hands very full indeed. The words Cranmer uses to accompany the presentation of the Bible to a newly consecrated bishop are particularly important to understanding the true task of an Anglican bishop:
"Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in this Book. Be diligent in them, that the increase coming thereby may be evdent unto all men; for by doing them thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd and not a wolf; feed them, devour them not; hold up the weak, hal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost. Be so merciful that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline that you forget not mercy; that when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you may receive the never-fading crown of glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Friday, September 24, 2010
First Steps
I want to take a moment and look at the mechanics of bringing together the various strands of the Continuum. I tend to see this in terms of clearing the site and laying the foundations for a reunited Continuum, and unglamourous though it is, it is essential if we are ever going to get over the past.
The first thing we need to do is deal with past grudges and unfortunate incidents. There is a lot of clinging to the past done in the Continuing Anglican world. Much of it is good in terms of hanging on to traditional theology and liturgy, but there are a lot of old grudges that are still being trotted out whenever half a dozen clergy and a bottle of gin get together. All of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions have made mistakes in the past, and we need to 'man up' and accept our jurisdictions role in the disintegation of the original Continuum. We also need to forgive and forget the various 'sins' that the assorted jurisdictions have committed against each other. Once we have done that we can get down to the nuts and bolts of what it is going to take to get us all back together.
I see the first stage as being what I call CABC - the Continuing Anglican Bishops Conference - consisting of the bishops of those jurisdictions closest to the St. Louis Congress, and gradually expanding to incorporate more and more groups as various misunderstandings are cleared up. The first name I came up with was the Standing Conference of Anglican Bishops - but, as a former Union man, SCAB seemed, well, inappropriate. This would have a dual role. Firstly it would act as a clearing house for discussion about and actions towards unity. Secondly, it would act as a clearing house to allow clergy to transfer between jurisdictions without it causing mutual recrimination, and also impose discipline across jurisdictional lines. Too often bishops and clergy have escaped the consequences of their actions by quietly slipping away to another jurisdiction. This process has done little to promote mutual trust. Thirdly, it would facilitate joint action on matters of mutual concern, and be a forum for the bishops of the various jurisdictions to get to know one another. Nothing breeds fear and mistrust better than being strangers to one's colleagues.
There will also be a need to come up with a common Constitution and Canons. This will help dispel the notion that one jurisdiction is swallowing another. One difficulty which will have to be resolved is the balance of authority between the various Houses of Synod. At present, there are slight differences of emphasis among the various major Continuing groups, though in the final analysis we all function in much the same way.
The third string is mutual cooperation. UECNA already cooperates with the ACC and with the APCK in a number of areas, and this has helped to draw the various layfolks, clergy and bishops involved closer together. Last weekend I ordained a deacon for the UECNA, who will also serve in an APCK parish in San Diego. I am pleased to note that the local APCK clergy turned out and some old friendships were renewed. I for one, would like to see much more of this inter-jurisdictional cooperation, but there are still 'pure pond' Continuers who let their own worries and concerns (many of which are legiimate, but not important) get in the way of reunion.
The goal for the Continuum should, for the time being, to do everything together that we do not absolutely have to do apart from one another. In the meantime, let us pray, and pray hard for unity, making sure that the devil gets as little opportunity as possible to plant the seeds of mistrust. The Right Rev. Maurice Wood, C of E Bishop of Norwich back in the 1970s, used to warn his ordinands that they were "all marked men in the Devil's book." In much the same way, the Anglican Continuum is marked in the devil's book because we seek to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified without compromising with the prevailent political correctness of the age in which we live. As a result of this faithfulness to Christ, our infernal adversary will do his best to make sure that we remain fragmented and disorganised. Do we really want this to happen? If not, then we need to work for unity among ourselves that the fullness of the Gospel may be proclaimed, and souls saved to the Glory of God.
The first thing we need to do is deal with past grudges and unfortunate incidents. There is a lot of clinging to the past done in the Continuing Anglican world. Much of it is good in terms of hanging on to traditional theology and liturgy, but there are a lot of old grudges that are still being trotted out whenever half a dozen clergy and a bottle of gin get together. All of the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions have made mistakes in the past, and we need to 'man up' and accept our jurisdictions role in the disintegation of the original Continuum. We also need to forgive and forget the various 'sins' that the assorted jurisdictions have committed against each other. Once we have done that we can get down to the nuts and bolts of what it is going to take to get us all back together.
I see the first stage as being what I call CABC - the Continuing Anglican Bishops Conference - consisting of the bishops of those jurisdictions closest to the St. Louis Congress, and gradually expanding to incorporate more and more groups as various misunderstandings are cleared up. The first name I came up with was the Standing Conference of Anglican Bishops - but, as a former Union man, SCAB seemed, well, inappropriate. This would have a dual role. Firstly it would act as a clearing house for discussion about and actions towards unity. Secondly, it would act as a clearing house to allow clergy to transfer between jurisdictions without it causing mutual recrimination, and also impose discipline across jurisdictional lines. Too often bishops and clergy have escaped the consequences of their actions by quietly slipping away to another jurisdiction. This process has done little to promote mutual trust. Thirdly, it would facilitate joint action on matters of mutual concern, and be a forum for the bishops of the various jurisdictions to get to know one another. Nothing breeds fear and mistrust better than being strangers to one's colleagues.
There will also be a need to come up with a common Constitution and Canons. This will help dispel the notion that one jurisdiction is swallowing another. One difficulty which will have to be resolved is the balance of authority between the various Houses of Synod. At present, there are slight differences of emphasis among the various major Continuing groups, though in the final analysis we all function in much the same way.
The third string is mutual cooperation. UECNA already cooperates with the ACC and with the APCK in a number of areas, and this has helped to draw the various layfolks, clergy and bishops involved closer together. Last weekend I ordained a deacon for the UECNA, who will also serve in an APCK parish in San Diego. I am pleased to note that the local APCK clergy turned out and some old friendships were renewed. I for one, would like to see much more of this inter-jurisdictional cooperation, but there are still 'pure pond' Continuers who let their own worries and concerns (many of which are legiimate, but not important) get in the way of reunion.
The goal for the Continuum should, for the time being, to do everything together that we do not absolutely have to do apart from one another. In the meantime, let us pray, and pray hard for unity, making sure that the devil gets as little opportunity as possible to plant the seeds of mistrust. The Right Rev. Maurice Wood, C of E Bishop of Norwich back in the 1970s, used to warn his ordinands that they were "all marked men in the Devil's book." In much the same way, the Anglican Continuum is marked in the devil's book because we seek to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified without compromising with the prevailent political correctness of the age in which we live. As a result of this faithfulness to Christ, our infernal adversary will do his best to make sure that we remain fragmented and disorganised. Do we really want this to happen? If not, then we need to work for unity among ourselves that the fullness of the Gospel may be proclaimed, and souls saved to the Glory of God.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Politics of Fear
I am often asked, "Why is the Continuum such a mess of different jurisdictions?" I think in the final analysis the situation is was created by two differing understandings of what it means to be a 'Continuer' and it is perpetuated by the 'politics of fear.'
As I have written about the two different approahes before I won't bore you with a reprise other than to say that the initial divisions grew out of the suspicions that grew up between the "Middle to High Church" and Anglo-Catholic factions, and could have been avoided with better leadership. The Continuing Church became divided for much the same reasons that the Vikings never built an Empire. We had leaders, but, in the case of three of the original four, leaders who pulled in different directions. This led to the creation of the UECNA, APCK and ACC. The first tends towards a 'business as usual' interpretation of the Affirmation of St Louis within the context of a predominate "middle of the road" churchmanship . The Anglican Province of Christ the King has a similar tendancy, but within the context of a more Anglo-Catholic tradition coming from its founderers many of whom were associated with the American Church Union. The Anglican Catholic Church bridges the two in terms of worship tradition, but underwent an extensive revision of its Constitution and Canons which closed a lot of legal, jurisdictional and procedural loopholes, but left other matters, such as the status of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, studeously vague. All of this backroom work was done in the context of a church which was trying to establish congregations, acquire property, and establish a diocesan structure. To my mind, much of the work on the Canons (as opposed to the Constitution)could and should have been postponed until the church had achieved a measure of organisation stability. With hindsight (which as the song says 'is always 20-20) it seems to me that there was some significant misdirection of effort in the period 1979-1984 which may, and I stress, may have helped divide the Continuum. (I should perhaps add at this point, just so that you are all absolutely clear on this, that I have absolutely no animus against the ACC, especially as presently constituted. I was ordained in the ACC and only left because the Bishop of the Diocese in which I served had a high peculiar interpretation of the ACC Constitution and Canons.)
Having arrived at the point where the Continuum was divided, then the 'politics of fear' very largely took over. Although attempts at reconciliate were made, ultimately, what took over, and continues to divide the Anglican Continuum is what one might call "the fear of the other fellow." This is the down side of the sort of self-reliance that the Continuum has bred, and it tends to stop all attempts at union with negotiation sooner or later.
As a whole, the Continuum needs to get away from the 'politics of fear', and it will only do so if the bishops of the UECNA, APCK, and ACC meet on a regular basis. Unfortunately, that is not happening, and I think it is time that the bishops took note that, on the whole, the laity move between parishes in the different jurisdictions quite happily. They only note only that St. B's is a bit higher or lower, or a bit bigger or smaller, than St A's where they normally worship. Anecdotally, quite a few of the laity don't know which group their parish is in without looking it up. They are 'Anglicans' - they know who their bishop is and that is about it.
The paranoia about "the other fellow" seems to be largely a clergy thing. Though in all fairness I should perhaps note that there have been enough 'inter-jurisdictional incidents' for this paranoia to have some basis in fact. However, we need to forgive and forget, and in some cases a few well chosen words of apology would not go amiss either.
For the Continuum to survive into its third and fourth generations we to achieve a jurisdictional unity which reflects our unity of faith. That is the great task - after Mission and the Re-evangelisation of America - that faces us in the next ten years.
As I have written about the two different approahes before I won't bore you with a reprise other than to say that the initial divisions grew out of the suspicions that grew up between the "Middle to High Church" and Anglo-Catholic factions, and could have been avoided with better leadership. The Continuing Church became divided for much the same reasons that the Vikings never built an Empire. We had leaders, but, in the case of three of the original four, leaders who pulled in different directions. This led to the creation of the UECNA, APCK and ACC. The first tends towards a 'business as usual' interpretation of the Affirmation of St Louis within the context of a predominate "middle of the road" churchmanship . The Anglican Province of Christ the King has a similar tendancy, but within the context of a more Anglo-Catholic tradition coming from its founderers many of whom were associated with the American Church Union. The Anglican Catholic Church bridges the two in terms of worship tradition, but underwent an extensive revision of its Constitution and Canons which closed a lot of legal, jurisdictional and procedural loopholes, but left other matters, such as the status of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, studeously vague. All of this backroom work was done in the context of a church which was trying to establish congregations, acquire property, and establish a diocesan structure. To my mind, much of the work on the Canons (as opposed to the Constitution)could and should have been postponed until the church had achieved a measure of organisation stability. With hindsight (which as the song says 'is always 20-20) it seems to me that there was some significant misdirection of effort in the period 1979-1984 which may, and I stress, may have helped divide the Continuum. (I should perhaps add at this point, just so that you are all absolutely clear on this, that I have absolutely no animus against the ACC, especially as presently constituted. I was ordained in the ACC and only left because the Bishop of the Diocese in which I served had a high peculiar interpretation of the ACC Constitution and Canons.)
Having arrived at the point where the Continuum was divided, then the 'politics of fear' very largely took over. Although attempts at reconciliate were made, ultimately, what took over, and continues to divide the Anglican Continuum is what one might call "the fear of the other fellow." This is the down side of the sort of self-reliance that the Continuum has bred, and it tends to stop all attempts at union with negotiation sooner or later.
As a whole, the Continuum needs to get away from the 'politics of fear', and it will only do so if the bishops of the UECNA, APCK, and ACC meet on a regular basis. Unfortunately, that is not happening, and I think it is time that the bishops took note that, on the whole, the laity move between parishes in the different jurisdictions quite happily. They only note only that St. B's is a bit higher or lower, or a bit bigger or smaller, than St A's where they normally worship. Anecdotally, quite a few of the laity don't know which group their parish is in without looking it up. They are 'Anglicans' - they know who their bishop is and that is about it.
The paranoia about "the other fellow" seems to be largely a clergy thing. Though in all fairness I should perhaps note that there have been enough 'inter-jurisdictional incidents' for this paranoia to have some basis in fact. However, we need to forgive and forget, and in some cases a few well chosen words of apology would not go amiss either.
For the Continuum to survive into its third and fourth generations we to achieve a jurisdictional unity which reflects our unity of faith. That is the great task - after Mission and the Re-evangelisation of America - that faces us in the next ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
