Anglican splits and conflicts
Jul. 11th, 2008 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbI do not have a dog in this fight. As a Catholic with a strong experience of English history, I can at best regard Anglicanism as one of those families which, having risen from dismal and even criminal beginnings, nonetheless have managed to produce a crop of likely and even outstanding heirs, and to embed itself graciously and gracefully in the landscape. But this is not religious praise; it is a worldly compliment. And indeed, as a religious body, Anglicanism hardly exists. The doctrinal differences that have existed in England's state Church from its foundation are too notorious to be rehearsed; but the elements that allowed for some balance, for that breadth of which Anglicans boasted even as other, more cohesive bodies, found it unnatural - those elements are going or gone, and a reckoning is at hand.
What the recent Synod has proved is that the Church of England is overwhelmingly Liberal in its composition, and that the Liberal majority is no longer in any mood to tolerate any compromise. Anglo-Catholics and other opponents of women bishops have been, not to put too fine a point on it, delegitimated. Church law will from now not make even an effort to recognize theirs as a valid position within the Church of England. If they stay, they will have to stay under obedience to a body that denies beliefs and attitudes they have fought for. No wonder the Catholic press is full of accounts of a coming defection to Rome, including the names of leaders and details of meetings - including meetings with Anglican leaders, to arrange a peaceful division of Church buildings. And that is not surprising. Rowan Williams did his best to stop the complete delegitimation of the anti-priestess party, and was comprehensively defeated; now, the only thing he can do is to arrange for its swift and decorous removal. It is actually better even for the newly Liberal Church of England that the process be speedy and untroubled. To surrender a few parish church buildings is cheap compared to the problems posed by long litigation - that would keep the issue of Anglo-Catholics in the public eye, and perhaps encouraged groups sympathetic to them to keep fighting within the Established Church. In the nineteenth century, the long-bleeding, unstaunched wound of Tractarianism not only provided Rome with a stream of distinguished converts, but paradoxically strengthened the Anglo-Catholic party in Anglicanism itself. One good sharp cut is better.
However, this is just the beginning of the fun. The slaughter of the Anglo-Catholics has proved that the overwhelming Liberal majority in the Church of England is no longer in any mood to compromise. Ultimately they do not accept the validity of opposing positions; if they had, they would have heard the appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury and made some sort of provision, however minor, for the Anglo-Catholics. The mood at the Synod was punitive (probably due at least in part to the large number of ordained women who had experienced snubs and a general sense of delegitimation from Anglo-Catholics in their neighbourhoods): far from being respected, the Anglo-Catholic position was interpreted as a vicious prejudice that had to be atoned for.
Now, the issue with the Anglo-Catholics was strictly local. With the odd individual exception, the issue of women priests and bishops was only siginificant to people who saw the Anglian Church as ultimately Catholic, and took Catholic tradition seriously. It has little importance to the Evangelicals. However, practically everything else that Liberals stand for does. And the Evangelicals are not, like the Anglo-Catholics, an aged minority clinging desperately to fading positions, and with no real position outside of England. Outside of England, there are precious few Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Communion; certainly not enough to form a worldwide party. The Evangelicals, on the other hand, do. They represent more than half the membership of worldwide Anglicanism, and they are no less up for a fight than the Liberals – more so, if anything. At Gafcon, they disappointed the not-so-secret hopes of Liberals throughout Anglicanism by resolving that they intended, not to leave the Anglican body, but to take it over. They are already on the offensive in North America, where the tiny but immensely rich Episcopal Church is being savaged by schisms led in part by bishops sent from Rwanda and Nigeria. One thing about Evangelicals is that they have no great notion of fixed, sacramental church leadership; if a Bishop fails, they think nothing of sending another to round up the lost sheep. I have no doubt that England is next.
In this fight, it will be the Liberals who will be on the defensive. Except perhaps for South Africa, where the Anglican leadership is notoriously Liberal (but I would not be surprised if pressure from below did not end up changing its character), the liberal party has no purchase on the power base of the African and Asian Evangelicals. Even if they were willing to use the tactics of Peter Akinola and send Bishops to minister to local supporters, they would be highly unlikely to find any. The trajectory of the Liberal mind is only possible in a Western environment. In Africa, in India, in Malaya, it makes no sense; a man who ceased to believe in the Evangelical or Catholic God would cease to believe in Christianity, period. Australia is the exception, but in Australia the local liberalism is tired and declining, and Evangelicalism is everywhere on the offensive. The Evangelical Anglican archbishop of Sydney actually emerged as the effective world leader of Evangelicals at Gafcon. And this shows that, while Liberalism has no visible way to make inroads in the Evangelical power base at present, Evangelicalism has plenty of ways to do the opposite.
Do not think I am speaking only of Australia or North America. After this synod, the English church has decidedly seized the leadership of the Liberal cause from the tiny and divided North American bodies; and from now on, it will be England as much as America and Canada that is in Evangelical crosshairs. And do not think that they stand no chance. To begin with, the English Anglican man in the pew has been changing in complexion and character with remarkable speed. The rural congregations that used to form the backbone of the Church have been emptying out, as the results of centuries of urbanization, skepticization and anti-Christian state education finally took their toll. Conversely, urban parishes have been swelling with dark-skinned immigrants with almost uniformly Evangelical backgrounds. It is no coincidence that the second man in the Church of England is Ugandan by birth, and the most famous of its bishops Pakistani in origin. But it is not even the case that Evangelical success needs to be limited to such areas. An all-out missionary assault, treating England as a missionary country, would in my view have remarkable results. The traditional view of the Englishman as a person of low religious passion is not only unhistorical, but really not useful even to describe today’s England. It is true that the country has not experienced one good, full-bodied, thunderous blast of revivalist preaching since the visits of Billy Graham in the fifties and sixties; but revivalism was born here, and it has deep roots. While the other Christian churches decay and fade, in particular, anyone who goes around the country with his eyes open will notice a number of large, well-kept, and certainly well-attended Baptist churches. Once virtually unknown in Britain, the Baptists have been experiencing a steady, unspectacular growth across all social strata. The Baptists, of course, are the Evangelicals’ Evangelicals, the most Protestant of Protestants, and if they did not invent revivalism, they certainly perfected it. Their quiet growth in unnoticed places where TV journalists and fashionable pundits don’t go is evidence, if any were needed, that England is perfectly open to a really committed and well-managed Evangelical campaign.
However, an uncompromising mood is not something that will just go away. Liberals are going to hate the anti-gay, sexually rigid attitudes of Evangelicals just as much as they hated the prejudice against women they perceived in Anglo-Catholics. Any such Evangelical arrival will be fought by all means, including the vigorous support of mass media and possibly of Parliament and the judiciary. The English chattering classes loathe Evangelicalism even now that it is primarily distant and foreign; a strong manifestation of Evangelicalism in power in England would rouse anger and opposition such as now most people can hardy imagine. Public opinion will indubitably be on their side. But Evangelicalism will have all the advantages of being on the offensive. The result, at present, cannot be guessed.
What the recent Synod has proved is that the Church of England is overwhelmingly Liberal in its composition, and that the Liberal majority is no longer in any mood to tolerate any compromise. Anglo-Catholics and other opponents of women bishops have been, not to put too fine a point on it, delegitimated. Church law will from now not make even an effort to recognize theirs as a valid position within the Church of England. If they stay, they will have to stay under obedience to a body that denies beliefs and attitudes they have fought for. No wonder the Catholic press is full of accounts of a coming defection to Rome, including the names of leaders and details of meetings - including meetings with Anglican leaders, to arrange a peaceful division of Church buildings. And that is not surprising. Rowan Williams did his best to stop the complete delegitimation of the anti-priestess party, and was comprehensively defeated; now, the only thing he can do is to arrange for its swift and decorous removal. It is actually better even for the newly Liberal Church of England that the process be speedy and untroubled. To surrender a few parish church buildings is cheap compared to the problems posed by long litigation - that would keep the issue of Anglo-Catholics in the public eye, and perhaps encouraged groups sympathetic to them to keep fighting within the Established Church. In the nineteenth century, the long-bleeding, unstaunched wound of Tractarianism not only provided Rome with a stream of distinguished converts, but paradoxically strengthened the Anglo-Catholic party in Anglicanism itself. One good sharp cut is better.
However, this is just the beginning of the fun. The slaughter of the Anglo-Catholics has proved that the overwhelming Liberal majority in the Church of England is no longer in any mood to compromise. Ultimately they do not accept the validity of opposing positions; if they had, they would have heard the appeal of the Archbishop of Canterbury and made some sort of provision, however minor, for the Anglo-Catholics. The mood at the Synod was punitive (probably due at least in part to the large number of ordained women who had experienced snubs and a general sense of delegitimation from Anglo-Catholics in their neighbourhoods): far from being respected, the Anglo-Catholic position was interpreted as a vicious prejudice that had to be atoned for.
Now, the issue with the Anglo-Catholics was strictly local. With the odd individual exception, the issue of women priests and bishops was only siginificant to people who saw the Anglian Church as ultimately Catholic, and took Catholic tradition seriously. It has little importance to the Evangelicals. However, practically everything else that Liberals stand for does. And the Evangelicals are not, like the Anglo-Catholics, an aged minority clinging desperately to fading positions, and with no real position outside of England. Outside of England, there are precious few Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Communion; certainly not enough to form a worldwide party. The Evangelicals, on the other hand, do. They represent more than half the membership of worldwide Anglicanism, and they are no less up for a fight than the Liberals – more so, if anything. At Gafcon, they disappointed the not-so-secret hopes of Liberals throughout Anglicanism by resolving that they intended, not to leave the Anglican body, but to take it over. They are already on the offensive in North America, where the tiny but immensely rich Episcopal Church is being savaged by schisms led in part by bishops sent from Rwanda and Nigeria. One thing about Evangelicals is that they have no great notion of fixed, sacramental church leadership; if a Bishop fails, they think nothing of sending another to round up the lost sheep. I have no doubt that England is next.
In this fight, it will be the Liberals who will be on the defensive. Except perhaps for South Africa, where the Anglican leadership is notoriously Liberal (but I would not be surprised if pressure from below did not end up changing its character), the liberal party has no purchase on the power base of the African and Asian Evangelicals. Even if they were willing to use the tactics of Peter Akinola and send Bishops to minister to local supporters, they would be highly unlikely to find any. The trajectory of the Liberal mind is only possible in a Western environment. In Africa, in India, in Malaya, it makes no sense; a man who ceased to believe in the Evangelical or Catholic God would cease to believe in Christianity, period. Australia is the exception, but in Australia the local liberalism is tired and declining, and Evangelicalism is everywhere on the offensive. The Evangelical Anglican archbishop of Sydney actually emerged as the effective world leader of Evangelicals at Gafcon. And this shows that, while Liberalism has no visible way to make inroads in the Evangelical power base at present, Evangelicalism has plenty of ways to do the opposite.
Do not think I am speaking only of Australia or North America. After this synod, the English church has decidedly seized the leadership of the Liberal cause from the tiny and divided North American bodies; and from now on, it will be England as much as America and Canada that is in Evangelical crosshairs. And do not think that they stand no chance. To begin with, the English Anglican man in the pew has been changing in complexion and character with remarkable speed. The rural congregations that used to form the backbone of the Church have been emptying out, as the results of centuries of urbanization, skepticization and anti-Christian state education finally took their toll. Conversely, urban parishes have been swelling with dark-skinned immigrants with almost uniformly Evangelical backgrounds. It is no coincidence that the second man in the Church of England is Ugandan by birth, and the most famous of its bishops Pakistani in origin. But it is not even the case that Evangelical success needs to be limited to such areas. An all-out missionary assault, treating England as a missionary country, would in my view have remarkable results. The traditional view of the Englishman as a person of low religious passion is not only unhistorical, but really not useful even to describe today’s England. It is true that the country has not experienced one good, full-bodied, thunderous blast of revivalist preaching since the visits of Billy Graham in the fifties and sixties; but revivalism was born here, and it has deep roots. While the other Christian churches decay and fade, in particular, anyone who goes around the country with his eyes open will notice a number of large, well-kept, and certainly well-attended Baptist churches. Once virtually unknown in Britain, the Baptists have been experiencing a steady, unspectacular growth across all social strata. The Baptists, of course, are the Evangelicals’ Evangelicals, the most Protestant of Protestants, and if they did not invent revivalism, they certainly perfected it. Their quiet growth in unnoticed places where TV journalists and fashionable pundits don’t go is evidence, if any were needed, that England is perfectly open to a really committed and well-managed Evangelical campaign.
However, an uncompromising mood is not something that will just go away. Liberals are going to hate the anti-gay, sexually rigid attitudes of Evangelicals just as much as they hated the prejudice against women they perceived in Anglo-Catholics. Any such Evangelical arrival will be fought by all means, including the vigorous support of mass media and possibly of Parliament and the judiciary. The English chattering classes loathe Evangelicalism even now that it is primarily distant and foreign; a strong manifestation of Evangelicalism in power in England would rouse anger and opposition such as now most people can hardy imagine. Public opinion will indubitably be on their side. But Evangelicalism will have all the advantages of being on the offensive. The result, at present, cannot be guessed.
