1. Let us not forget from where our tradition of local expression, territorial basis, and community commitment comes. Someone, perhaps Thomas Cromwell, had the bright idea during the presenting dispute of the Henrician Reformation that there was just something about being emperor. It was not a particularly illogical idea. The Pantheon in Rome was not converted to Christian worship until the early 7th century, because temples were regarded as property of the Emperor, and it was not until the 7th century that the Popes felt sufficiently independent of the Emperor to subvert his jurisdiction. In Cromwell's time, Henry's nephew-in-law was the Emperor and was using his imperium in the form of an army to compel a decision in favor of the legitimacy of his aunt's marriage. If Henry became emperor in England, Ireland, Scotland, and France, the latter two realms being conceits of his, Cromwell theorized that Henry by virtue of his crown imperial (can you tell that I'm listening to Sir William Walton at the moment?) would have similar jurisdiction as the "Roman" Emperor over spiritual matters. (It's entirely possible that this theory pre-dates Cromwell, considering that Henry was anointed like a bishop at his Coronation contrary to papal legislation), and the Coronation crown was referred to as "Imperiall.") But the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) leaves no doubt as to a fundamental belief that England was an Empire and therefore entitled to a certain parallelism between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction,
"This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same."
The founding values of popular sovereignty and religious disestablishment (less ubiquitous but of the same antiquity) likewise have shaped American Episcopalians, in theology, outlook, and polity. The reconciliation of the schism over Secession would not have been so easy without the instinct to do things spiritually as it were temporally, asking only for conformity and accession to the equivalent to Constitution and Laws of the church. If Lincoln had evaded his assassin, the civil arrangements might have been nearly as amicable. As beautiful as the 1865 General Convention sounds, one only needs to read Dubois's The Souls of Black Folk and the records of South Carolina's wartime Diocesan Conventions to realize that brotherly reconciliation should have been mixed with some frank discussions. The same sins of the polity with respect to racism were visited on the church, time and time again.
It goes without saying that the influence of Anglicanism in many parts of the world including the United States can be traced to the strong association of the Church of England's missionary work with British colonization.
But there is something more to the local adaptation of Anglicanism than the spectre of Erastianism. For instance, wherefore the Episcopal Church of Scotland? The existence of such a church should have ceased after 1689 if Anglicanism simply was locally adapted to the temporalities. Anglicanism also bears the character of catholic Intramontanism. While the Pope was resisted by Henry, because Henry considered himself Supreme Head, his bishops generally held a limited view of papal power, something that surely would apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope of Alexandria: the Church Catholic decentralized but united somehow. And it is in this odd, much-controverted, and wholly unresolved quality of "catholicity" that allows the Episcopal Church of Scotland to exist among Established Presbyterianism or the head of the Anglican Center at Rome to confirm or receive native Italians. And indeed the latter is so odd that some sort of Anglican distinctiveness must be invoked or else it must be asserted that Anglican adaptation is not merely local or territorial but catholic in the looser sense that is not solely credal or conciliar or episcopolitical or sacramental etc. but one that embraces the fullness of affairs in the name and in service of Christ as present locally. Many Anglicans don't seem to want that.
But Father Clavier is right to point out Anglicanism is not a sect etc. The definition of a sect really must be the assertion of nulla salus extra nos as opposed to nulla salus extra ecclesiam or nulla salus extra Christum. There is salvation outside of Anglicanism.
2. "It follows that we do not own our ecclesial reality..." Indeed, the Body of Christ is wider than Anglicans. Moreover, we do not construct an ecclesial reality owned only by us. Anglicans generally recognize the orders of some non-Anglicans, though limits vary. But what is important is that our concerns about the orders of others stem from concerns about apostolic succession and sacramental character and not truth games of about such things that really boil down to issues of authority. I fear that Rome's greatest objection to our scattered reception of women being valid matter for Holy Orders has little to do with the nature of the controversy (which often brings both sides close to heresy) but they really do believe our orders are valid, fear they might be wrong about women's ordination, and fear that those with certain spiritual gifts might realize this, thus weakening their authority.
"Neither our claims to be the Church, our formularies (doctrine, discipline and worship), nor our sacramental rites and ceremonies are self-generated: we didn't invent them."
And if there should be sort of re-alignment in Anglicanism, it would behoove liberals to consider these words carefully. And I would further warn that our reception process should be critical.
"Anglicanism rejects the sectarian ideal that churches are for like-minded 'saints' who agree about each others' virtue, or election, or enlightenment, or on an agenda other than the Catholic Faith as described in the Liturgy and other documents, and in the living voice of scripture, the living experience of the Tradition and the living application of sanctified reason."
It is this demand that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason be alive that is particularly interesting. Whenever someone asserts something other than a view of Scripture enthroned among the cherubim on the grounds of a trilateral or quadrilateral understanding, the common rhetorical tack becomes that Hooker or Wesley (or whoever) intended Scripture to be the final and unquestioned authority, no matter what. Let us be clear. The obsession with authorial intent is a fully modern concept, which if explained in its full sense and implications likely would dismay many of our fathers and mothers in the faith. It is closely akin to taking everything in its plain and grammatical sense as understood by English Protestants and believing that absolution by the Pope from reading something otherwise was still utterly damnable.
3. This item is a fun item. Father Clavier describes the just society grounded in Christian truth and Jesus' sovereignty. Ruth Gledhill has a story in the Times of London today about a study showing that the most irreligious democracies (i.e., those most fallen from Christian practice) have lower abortion and teen pregnancy rates, lower sexually transmitted disease rates, lower rates of juvenile and young adult mortality (like this week...), and lower homicide rates than the "religious" democracy, i.e., the US. Mayhap, it sounds that those in power honor the words of the Gospel but do not respect its power. The irreligious democracies, however, have lower birthrates...
But these points are not exactly germane, because the Lord instructs us that it will always be a losing battle. The Empire always strikes back, even if it means that the Christians become the Empire. The world will end in a big fiery cock-up, no matter what we do. I do not say this as a encouragement to inaction but because I fear what would happen if the religious left ever became the kind of political force the religious right is. The lust for mastery consumes us all. Father Clavier reminds us that Christians are the Disloyal Opposition to the Powers That Be and Emissaries of the Servant Emperor. Most Anglicans really feel drawn toward one role rather than the other. The Episcopal Church is leaning toward Disloyal Opposition, while its discontents yell that we aren't being Emissaries. The balance is slightly better in Africa, where even the Church of Nigeria's Pastoral Letters have fairly equal measures Great Commandment and Great Commission. But we're in a bad state when conservatives demean "Reign of God" as a liberal buzzword in the Presiding Bishop's correspondence to the Primate of All Nigeria.
Anglicanism as a whole might be better off reflecting how the Gospel might come with the Holy Spirit and with power in a world facing a variety of problems that will require greater cooperation among many kingdoms, peoples, and nation, not as something confused with particular national identities. We are the salt of the Earth, not the food, the leaven, not the bread. The Body of Christ is a network for good and for God. Too bad about those bonds of affection, no?
4. The Church Year is a discipline. It's a discipline we share with much of the rest of the Body. However, I do understand that is not shared with everyone. Easter and Christmas are universal (though strict Calvinists might not celebrate the latter), but the idea of season and of commemorations still strikes many originally non-Anglican evangelicals oddly in their bones.
5. One of the major tests facing Anglicanism is how corporate is corporate and to whom are we really accountable. Is it the local parish? Is it the clergy who set the corporate bar? Is it the lay leadership? Is it the diocese? The Province? The Primates? Lambeth? Father Clavier perhaps takes the approach I would take, in which the rule of belief is founded on the liturgy. It is an idea that Anglicans intuit fairly easily. But as Father AKMA points out, the divergent eucharistic liturgy of the Church is making the corporate level increasingly congregational. And Father AKMA is merely assuming that the authorized liturgies are followed. What happens when the General Confession and the Nicene Creed are no longer heard? The best question being asked by the re-asserters is "How much must 'my orthodoxy' be purged in order to fit into the corporate liturgical life of the Church?" It's not as shaggy a dog as they make it sound. Will the new arrangements of the Network mean the 1662 BCP? Will you purge those who believe in Real Presence thereby?
6. This item seems to relate the foundation of corporate practice on the Scriptures with the Triunity of God. I would add to this item that Anglicanism is really built on a careful tension between three Books: the Book of Life, the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Nature (in that order, too). This is a concern of both Hooker and Donne, but it's not one that is really getting too much attention these days. I would argue that the natural sciences have a special status as a mediator of ecclesial discernment within our tradition, though not to the subjection of the Scriptures. This is why I have spent the last few years trying (and failing) to cultivate that sanctified mind of which Father Clavier speaks. "Caeli ennarrant..."
7. I'm not really sure what some of this item means. The basic model of Anglican clergy training is to ground the postulant for orders in the liberal arts and then treat divinity as a higher science requiring the skills developed within the septivium, but which is ideally done in combination with pastoral training. There was always a bit of tension between the Universities and the facere of the Church with this one. But I always appreciated how so many of the great bishops of the early American church received their training like apprentices with a master workman. Bishop White trained Muhlenberg and others in this way. It very much agrees with St. Hilda of Whitby's approach to theological education with its emphasis on a balance between study and pastoral work or with Benedictine ideas about balance. It also was a training in prayer as well. Muhlenberg began his training by saying Morning and Evening Prayer in St. Peter's Church. Later, he was allowed to preach under the old man's supervision. Yet he also followed White all over the place, shadowing him like an intern or a resident. Perhaps, clergy training needs to return to this model, which really did tend toward an Apostolic College. See my past comments about apostolic succession being more than laying on of hands.
8. We're still fairly new at the canonization game yet... But our tendency to speak of the laity as a particular order (rather than a general order) of ministry is suggestive of something. The fact that I can consider being a layman as my vocation for now, and the tradition of being "a churchman" is also suggestive. Is this pan-Anglican? Oh, wait, the Mother's Union is a byword in Africa...
9. This item is troublesome territory, because churches that are inclusive of the community they serve will be inward-looking. It's hard to maintain a catholic church this way. Only by citing Dominical authority does Father Clavier provide any way forward. He really should clarify what kind of inclusion he thinks the Reformers were performing, though I suspect he means something about making the Bible and the liturgy more accessible to the masses, which is now uncontroversially the kind of reform with which the Lord would agree, "The word is very near to you..." suffuses the readings for the Feast of St. Andrew. But the disagreements that consume the community presently concern the will of the Lord. My radical priests believe they have Dominical authority on their side and probably could quote copious Scripture on that score if forced to it. What keeps Anglicanism vital is the ability to listen and the ability to critique and be critiqued, to be drawn by one another toward Dominical authority. That is the only way to build an inclusive community under "the servant Emperor." A community of like-minded "right-thinking" people does not listen to dissent and does not know how to critique it, nor to accept critique.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may not stay up all night musing about divinity because that just makes it ever so much harder to awake for Lauds
No comments:
Post a Comment