Tag Archives: Anglicanism

Advantages of the English Reformation over Others?

dean-chapter

I am not sure a comparison between Cranmer and Hooker’s gradual approach and the Continental Reformers’ approach to the reformation of the Church is a fair one. The English Reformation already had the benefit of Reformers and Protestant states on the Continent with which to make alliances and unite as feasible in common cause. Whereas the Continent was rife with civil wars in both the Empire and France, England being peripheral to Europe could better afford to reform its part of the Church without being overrun by invaders. Thanks to English naval strength after the destruction of the Spanish Armada, even the existential threats faced by England for the next centuries seem more often to have been about the prospect than about the reality of being overrun by popish armies and (as ‘God Save the King’ originally said) popish tricks.

Nevertheless, the English Reformation does seem to have worked with the existing commonwealth in ways that the Continental Reformers seem not have done. The first vernacular piece of liturgy, the Litany, was introduced in 1544, and the Sarum Mass (in Latin) was retained until 1549, long after Protestant doctrine had begun to leaven English society in sermons and official statements of church doctrine. Even the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, though Reformed in its doctrinal basis, was so written that Bishop Gardiner was able to claim it plausibly for unreformed doctrine; and only upon that challenge, and with the advice of Bucer, Vermigli, and others for a clearer statement, did Cranmer put together the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. Even at this pace, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer sparked revolts in Devon and Cornwall; still less could a more sudden change have hoped to avoid convulsing the nation. Because of this politic pace and the place of the Prayer Book in reformation, Englishmen retained their old loyalty to the Church as such rather than to what appeared to be the doctrine of some particular men, which in my judgement remains a great asset today.

Indeed, a great deal of the Sarum mass and offices was not in itself unconscionable, but only relatively conducive to beliefs and practices that were unconscionable. These forms of services were, in other words, adiaphora: in themselves indifferent, though in need of alteration according to the freedom of the Church to frame services toward ædification according to the general teaching of Scripture. The concept of things indifferent in worship was recognized by the Continental Reformers, of course, since they were themselves able to accept local differences in worship and even to defend England’s forms as acceptable for a Reformed church. All the same, England’s emphasis on treating these adiaphora prudently has lent itself to an easily understood sense that no new church was forged in the Reformation, only a cleansing made of the extant Church. On the popular level, I think, such an understanding is necessary, especially in times when the world is changing fast; strangely, perhaps, this kind of careful conservatism helps the Church adapt to changes in the world because its members understand the organism as one that has survived through challenging times with its life and biblical witness intact.

Advertisements

Ask Not for What Name the Bell Tolls

Jokes aside, and for all my writing about Anglican stuff, I am not actually interested in being a better Anglican. And neither, I think, have most Anglicans been. In a short guide to the duties of church membership (1955; HT: Lee Gatiss), Geoffrey Fisher and Cyril Garbett, archbishops respectively of Canterbury and York, listed nothing that was distinctively Anglican:

Following this example, I think it is important for the clergyman to show the people what it means to be Christian, not what it means to be Anglican. To do otherwise is to reduce the Anglican churches to a sect, boxed away from the great treasure of the catholic faith. Such a narrowness, such a mean-minded concern with the honour of Anglicanism, is not of the Kingdom of God, but is rather an ‘I follow Paul’ or ‘I follow Apollos.’ It were a great irony that Anglicanism, named not after a man but only after a national culture and its enactment of the gospel truth, should become the subject of painful introspection rather than a framework in which the ordinary Christian could find himself most free to sit under the teaching of Christ and, through his holy word and sacraments, be united to him in body and soul for the life of the world to come.

So it is not for the growth of Anglican churches that we must look, but for the growth of the holy catholic Church. In Chinese, in fact, the Anglicans are the 聖公會, the holy catholic Church, because that is the Church to which we belong.

Why look for a soul of Anglicanism? Anglicanism has no soul; or rather it has no other soul than that of Jesus Christ himself, who gave himself freely and sent his Holy Spirit, even the Spirit of truth, to abide with us for ever. No name, no earthly power and glory, is the glory of Anglicans, but only the great and holy Name of the blessed Trinity, who is ever to be praised, world without end.