One of the questions that Sandra McColl asked on the Continuum was "has the Anglican Experiment failed?" which is why I think the above quote is relevant. So why should I, a non-historian and semi-reluctant member of the C of E, consider the question of failure of Anglicanism.
First of all, we must ascertain really what that phrase "Anglican Experiment" means in order to understand if and where it has failed. I think that its clear that this refers to answering the question of "is it possible to tread a middle way between Rome and Protestantism?" However does this question really mean anything?
It is painfully clear that Anglicanism is separate from Rome - it is an issue that has recently been shoved down Anglican throats, first by His Holiness' affirmation of the Catholic Church subsisting in the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently and personally by recent ex-Anglican Tiber-swimmers who reinforce their decision by attacking their erstwhile home.
As Fr. Hart says, the term "Protestant" is used in a meaningless way usually as a term to mean "not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox". However, some would argue that to say that Anglicanism is Protestant is erroneous in that Anglicanism exists in the same manner as the Eastern Orthodox Church. If "Protestant" means the churches that broke away from Rome at the Reformation, well that again makes life unclear about Anglicanism which a) was not initially set up as a rival church to the Holy See b) was separated from Rome for political and not doctrinal reasons and c) has always had groups within it which have looked to Rome for guidance and influnce. That is significant.
Another aspect of Anglicanism was recently crystallised for me by Young Fogey, namely the idea of Tolerant Conservatism defined as "Charity and discretion about people’s failings while at the same time not making excuses for those vices either." This has served the Anglican Church well as a defining aspect of identity. Thus the hope of a tolerantly conservative Anglicanism is that Protestants might have a home under its wing but find that they have to respect the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Faith.
Th trouble is, was the Anglican Church deliberately set up to be the famous via media? The answer is no. Was the Anglican Church deliberately set up to espouse tolerant conservatism? Initially, no, but the idea must have arrived within the Church soon after with Elizabeth I's reluctance to "make windows into men's souls". That she had respect unto the Roman Catholics is evident in the way that she treated some of the composers of the time such as Tallis and Byrd who clung to their catholicism. Of course the tide of public affection was certainly anti-Catholic by the close of Elizabeth's reign, but, as Eamonn Duffy explains in the Stripping of the Altars the people were deeply reluctant to break from Rome.
Can we then really talk of Anglicanism as an experiment to tread the via media? I don't really believe we can - it was not set up to be so. It exists as a strange accident of history. If we have to talk of the Anglican experiment, then it is my opinion that it has failed for the simple reason that it is ideally a fully Catholic body that has a need for reunion with the Holy See and the Eastern Orthodox Churches- Rome first because it broke most recently from Rome. It has failed in reality since it has failed to stand up to the test of time in which the right to private judgment has torn it into rapidly divergent sections. As I say however, it is not clear that we can attribute this raison d'etre to the Anglican Church - if it were an experiment, then we should have set it up to be so more carefully.
As for tolerant conservatism, well, that is still there, even in the Continuum where many critics say that it has evaporated. In mainstream Anglicanism, tolerant conservatism has just been replaced with unequivocal acceptance. To tolerate means to put up with, not to accept as being consonant which seems is the modern ethos. Protestants and Roman Catholics are more than welcome into Anglican communities and should be made to feel part, however the Protestants should realise that the Anglican Church teaches the authority of Scripture, Tradition and subordinate Reason, and the Roman Catholics should realise that Anglicanism has an indefinable identity independent from the Vatican in the same way as Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.
Again if we try to see Anglicanism as being an experiment in tolerant conservatism, then we should have set up the experiment better. As I said above, with tolerant conservatism being replaced with unequivocal acceptance, the Anglican Church falls to bits. However, it isn't over yet. Things are happening that may surprise us all. Let's not leave God out of the equation - after all isn't He the definition of perfect Tolerant Conservatism?
I'll end with the words to a song by William Byrd commenting on the Reformation. Do they say anything to us about the existence of the Anglican Church?
Ah silly Soul how are thy thoughts confounded
betwixt two loves, that far unlikely are?
Lust's love is blind, and by no reason bounded.
Heaven's love is clear, and fair beyond compare.
No wonder though this love light not thy mind,
whilst looking through false love thine eyes are blind.
Is there indeed such a thing as an 'Anglican Experiment'? Did anyone at any time set about to invent something called 'Anglican' or to attempt to prove or disporve any point of doctrine or practice?
ReplyDeleteFrankly I find the term itself a little patronizing and a little demeaning. I am firmly convinced that there never has been an 'experiment' Anglicans, like any other grouping of Christians, are people, called by Christ into the power of the Cross and Resurrection. and Anglican churches, like all Christian assemblies, consist of two very distinct kinds of followers: those who know their calling and follow it (and Him) regardless of cost or discomfort, and those who allow themselves to be led by the world. All of us are sometimes one and sometimes the other, likewise all our churches, assembiles, and jurisdictions.
What is success? Does it lie in becoming the largest grouping of Christians on the planet? Does it come from political power? Does it come from tidiness of organization? Does it come from having the most rationally presented systematic theology? Or even the most beautiful form of worship? Success for a church, I maintain, comes in the leading of men and women to holiness, the reclaiming of sinners from assured condemnation, the manifestation of Christ H8imself in this world.
Has Anglicanism succeeded? Yes, and no. We've spawned saints and we've spawned heretics. We've manifested, in some of our people, the blinding light of real holiness, and we've harbored sinners unchallenged. We've taught the Cathoilic and Apostolic Faith, and some among us have denied it. We've worshipped God with deep reverence and rare beauty, and we;ve dishonored Him with public irreverence.
Has Rome succeeded? Well, yes and no. Every statement I just made about Anglicans applies just as well to Rome -- and, for that matter, to the Eastern Orthodox.
Catholic Christianity is alive and well in this world. Catholic Christianity is also very diseased in this world, its divisions being a major symptom.
There are no experiments. There are Christians attempting to follow Our Lord (or, sometimes, attempting to flee Him). We do our very best (except when we don't) and He continues to call us all. This holds even when we are in error, so long as our search is for Truth. What we see as truth is certainly a matter to discuss, a matter that (if we truly seek Him) will lead us all to change, and to leave behind errors we thought to be true and to accept truth we thought to be errant.
I'm not experimenting. I did not become an Anglican in order to experiment. I'm seeking. God help us all so to do.
ed