On Roman Overtures, Pt. 1
This series of essays owes its genesis to an excellent article written by Andrew Ford. In many ways, these posts could be considered the 'long-awaited' second post on my thoughts on the Anglicanism as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, it should be clarified that in the current state of affairs Rome is not acting the part of an opportunist. It is not a PR move to extend a hand to traditional Anglicans in this time of their crisis. The declaration from Rome is made in response to certain Bishops in England, particularly Bishop Burnham, requesting "magnanimous gestures" for those of the Anglican Church considering 'crossing the Tiber'. The Bishop of Rome is only acquiescing to the request of his episcopal, if not denominational, counterparts.
Mr. Ford has hit it on the nose when he states that it isn't a matter of practice that makes one a Roman or not, but rather it is the ethos of the individual. I couldn't agree more. Orthopraxy does not equal orthodoxy. Just because a man practices definite religious traditions doesn't necessarily connect him to a certain school of thought. This is in no way an accusation of hypocrisy - merely an admission that certain actions being the same do not necessarily proceed from the same source. All beauty queens walk with pose and maintain an attractive appearance, but not every one would believe in rubbing vaseline on their teeth or would say that Proposition 8 is a good thing.
However, even if orthopraxy is not the direct equivalent of orthodoxy, I do believe that the former is simply an organic outgrowth of the latter. T.S. Eliot, a very clever man and an Anglo-Catholic (as well as a personal hero of mine) stated that the clarity of one's religious practices attested to the clarity of their beliefs. If you were somehow able to take a picture of the religious life of a particular church at a particular moment in time, you would have a good idea of what is was the parishioners believed. You can be pretty sure that a church which recited the Westminister Shorter Catechism would be disposed towards the concept of Total Depravity, or that a church which celebrated Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament wasn't just doing it because they had a hankering for Wheat Thins. I'm not saying that all of the congregation would believe all of the church's doctrine all of the time. We are talking in terms of Original Sin, after all. But more on this later.
The Anglican Church is an anomaly in that it is the only church which doesn't fit this pattern. Its religious practices rarely fully reflect its religious leanings, and frustratingly so. As much as sociologists and reporters of the religious press may try, there is no simple way to associate along High Church and Low Church lines when it comes to the matter of social or theological beliefs. If anything, the Lower Church Camp has a more distinct, or shall we say definite brand of theology that its High Church brethren. High Church theology and policy, however, is a great deal more nuanced on pertinent issues than the Low Church because it understands that not every situation admits the same amount of complexity. There is much to be said for both sides in this argument, and the genius of the Church of England is that it admits to the veracity of both.
Or so it was thought until recently. Now the Church finds itself imbroiled in what might be described as the Great Divorce. The more Conservative branch of the church has decided to distance itself from its more progressive fellows - officially and obstentively because of issues of biblical criticism, but there is the unspoken accusation of the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy (as well as lingering antipathy towards the ordination of women).
Now we might ask ourselves where these different parties belong on the theo-liturgical map of Anglicanism. Where do political labels such as Conservative or Liberal generally lie in this map? Again, a precise outline is well nigh impossible, but admitting a fair degree of generalization, it is fair enough to say that the spectrum of Anglicanism forms a bell curve, with the Conservatives occupying the opposite ends of the pole and the body of Liberalism lying largely in the center or apex of the curve. Thus we have the distinctly Anglican body known as Broad Church Anglicanism.* Broad Church, being the largest mass of Western Anglicans, has decided to stay on. The Third-World Anglicans, those whom we can term the Traditionalists (whether they strive to maintain the so-called traditions of Hooker or Calvin), have decided to split off.
As we can see, the split from the body of Anglicanism isn't specifically from one group of either Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical. Reparations are being asked from the Kendell Harmons as well as the J.I. Packers. When this comes to matters of church property and jurisdiction, the stakes become infinitely more messy. So in many ways it is only sensible that certain groups outside the Church of England might look to provide a 'safe haven' for these breakaways, and some more than others. I have commented in an earlier post about Rick Warren's offer of his church facilities to breakaway Anglicans. And now, of course, this. Pope Benedict XVI offers breakaway Anglicans the right to convert to Rome and maintain their beliefs on ordination and scripture as well as certain practices. What the latter stipulation will fully amount to remains to be seen.
Mr. Ford offers the classic suggestion of the majority of Anglicans - work it out. Pray, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, engage in social justice, and so on. The attitude is very commendable; in fact, the inertia of this proposition arguably could be what has sustained the Church of England for almost five hundred years. Following Matthew Arnold's classification, It is the Judaic school (active, or 'doing'), as opposed to the Hellenic School (contemplative, or 'being'). Now, however, that the English Church is unsure about so many issues, it finds itself faced with the question all 'doers' must address: why are we doing this? Essentially, the Judaic school sooner or later must acknowledge the Hellenic, if it is to keep clear focus on its teleological purpose.
*Historically, there is also the option of Central Churchmanship, which could be considered the conservative equivalent of Broad Churchmanship, but at the present time the influence of the latter has increased greatly at the expense of the Central position.
NEXT TIME: WHAT IS TELEOLOGY TO THE ANGLICAN POSITION?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, it should be clarified that in the current state of affairs Rome is not acting the part of an opportunist. It is not a PR move to extend a hand to traditional Anglicans in this time of their crisis. The declaration from Rome is made in response to certain Bishops in England, particularly Bishop Burnham, requesting "magnanimous gestures" for those of the Anglican Church considering 'crossing the Tiber'. The Bishop of Rome is only acquiescing to the request of his episcopal, if not denominational, counterparts.
Mr. Ford has hit it on the nose when he states that it isn't a matter of practice that makes one a Roman or not, but rather it is the ethos of the individual. I couldn't agree more. Orthopraxy does not equal orthodoxy. Just because a man practices definite religious traditions doesn't necessarily connect him to a certain school of thought. This is in no way an accusation of hypocrisy - merely an admission that certain actions being the same do not necessarily proceed from the same source. All beauty queens walk with pose and maintain an attractive appearance, but not every one would believe in rubbing vaseline on their teeth or would say that Proposition 8 is a good thing.
However, even if orthopraxy is not the direct equivalent of orthodoxy, I do believe that the former is simply an organic outgrowth of the latter. T.S. Eliot, a very clever man and an Anglo-Catholic (as well as a personal hero of mine) stated that the clarity of one's religious practices attested to the clarity of their beliefs. If you were somehow able to take a picture of the religious life of a particular church at a particular moment in time, you would have a good idea of what is was the parishioners believed. You can be pretty sure that a church which recited the Westminister Shorter Catechism would be disposed towards the concept of Total Depravity, or that a church which celebrated Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament wasn't just doing it because they had a hankering for Wheat Thins. I'm not saying that all of the congregation would believe all of the church's doctrine all of the time. We are talking in terms of Original Sin, after all. But more on this later.
The Anglican Church is an anomaly in that it is the only church which doesn't fit this pattern. Its religious practices rarely fully reflect its religious leanings, and frustratingly so. As much as sociologists and reporters of the religious press may try, there is no simple way to associate along High Church and Low Church lines when it comes to the matter of social or theological beliefs. If anything, the Lower Church Camp has a more distinct, or shall we say definite brand of theology that its High Church brethren. High Church theology and policy, however, is a great deal more nuanced on pertinent issues than the Low Church because it understands that not every situation admits the same amount of complexity. There is much to be said for both sides in this argument, and the genius of the Church of England is that it admits to the veracity of both.
Or so it was thought until recently. Now the Church finds itself imbroiled in what might be described as the Great Divorce. The more Conservative branch of the church has decided to distance itself from its more progressive fellows - officially and obstentively because of issues of biblical criticism, but there is the unspoken accusation of the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy (as well as lingering antipathy towards the ordination of women).
Now we might ask ourselves where these different parties belong on the theo-liturgical map of Anglicanism. Where do political labels such as Conservative or Liberal generally lie in this map? Again, a precise outline is well nigh impossible, but admitting a fair degree of generalization, it is fair enough to say that the spectrum of Anglicanism forms a bell curve, with the Conservatives occupying the opposite ends of the pole and the body of Liberalism lying largely in the center or apex of the curve. Thus we have the distinctly Anglican body known as Broad Church Anglicanism.* Broad Church, being the largest mass of Western Anglicans, has decided to stay on. The Third-World Anglicans, those whom we can term the Traditionalists (whether they strive to maintain the so-called traditions of Hooker or Calvin), have decided to split off.
As we can see, the split from the body of Anglicanism isn't specifically from one group of either Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical. Reparations are being asked from the Kendell Harmons as well as the J.I. Packers. When this comes to matters of church property and jurisdiction, the stakes become infinitely more messy. So in many ways it is only sensible that certain groups outside the Church of England might look to provide a 'safe haven' for these breakaways, and some more than others. I have commented in an earlier post about Rick Warren's offer of his church facilities to breakaway Anglicans. And now, of course, this. Pope Benedict XVI offers breakaway Anglicans the right to convert to Rome and maintain their beliefs on ordination and scripture as well as certain practices. What the latter stipulation will fully amount to remains to be seen.
Mr. Ford offers the classic suggestion of the majority of Anglicans - work it out. Pray, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, engage in social justice, and so on. The attitude is very commendable; in fact, the inertia of this proposition arguably could be what has sustained the Church of England for almost five hundred years. Following Matthew Arnold's classification, It is the Judaic school (active, or 'doing'), as opposed to the Hellenic School (contemplative, or 'being'). Now, however, that the English Church is unsure about so many issues, it finds itself faced with the question all 'doers' must address: why are we doing this? Essentially, the Judaic school sooner or later must acknowledge the Hellenic, if it is to keep clear focus on its teleological purpose.
*Historically, there is also the option of Central Churchmanship, which could be considered the conservative equivalent of Broad Churchmanship, but at the present time the influence of the latter has increased greatly at the expense of the Central position.
NEXT TIME: WHAT IS TELEOLOGY TO THE ANGLICAN POSITION?