Tags

, ,

disestablishmentWhen Struans finishes his most interesting series of posts, I want to address full-on the question of how we apprehend God, but at this stage I want to do a couple of things: one, in the next post, is to address some of the comments about the context within which the Scriptures were written; the other, here, is to address some of the points in Struan’s post about a ‘Puritan God’.

To think that Puritanism started in the sixteenth century is analogous to those who say the Church of England started then, something I know Struans would (rightly in my view) dispute. From the very beginning of the Faith we can discern within it a continuous and continuing strand of those who see in Jesus’ willingness to let those who cannot accept His ‘hard sayings’ go, an exemplar.

To begin with apprehending the word of God with our own experience may well be, for many of us, natural, but it is not enough. Struans sees his church as a check on any tendency to over-personalisation, and certainly, if many Anglicans acted as though they believed in their XXXIX articles and their canons, those of us watching what appears to be an inevitable degringolade might be less depressed when we look at its bishops. But despite what the articles say, it has within its ranks those who practice Marian veneration, believe in Purgatory and talk about the Mass. These things are not compatible with the XXXIX articles, as its bishops told Newman in the 1840s; no-one appears to care nowadays. Is that being comprehensive or imitating the boneless wonder? On the other hand there have been bishops who have not believed in the physical reality of the Resurrection – and carried on collecting their stipend; indeed, if we are to believe Richard Holloway, he stopped believing in God some time ago, but found no incongruity in remaining an Anglican bishop. This is what I mean when I say I wonder what the C of E actually believes; if it can comprehend everything from Romanism to Infidelity, that stretches the boundaries to a point at which, in effect, they mean nothing.

it isn’t that I would want that Church to nail down what it believes, it is that it would be nice to know it believed in something. It has XXXIX articles, but how many Anglican priests abide by them and really believe them? It is the bagginess and lack of shape of the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism which makes me unsure what it believes.

When Struans writes that there is no ‘changing the boundaries of the church catholic, and never is there compromise away from that life with God’, I can see that latter, but not the former. The boundaries of the church catholic are set firm, as the Orthodox and the Catholics (and others) affirm on matters such as women and the ministry, and on the question of the sinfulness of homosexuality. It takes a certain sort of Englishness to unilaterally change these things and then announce they are not part of the boundaries of the church; well they are for most of the world’s Christians; perhaps we have just not caught up? Or, Heaven forfend that we should entertain the idea, it is not the case that everyone is our of line but the Anglicans? Could the Anglicans be wrong and everyone else right?

The Gospel, unlike Islam, was never spread from the beginning by the sword, and if Strauns’ Church has used it (as it has, and against my ancestors, but I forgive the C of E, it knew not what it did) and the rifle, then it must make due apology. My lot spread the Gospel as the Apostles did – by preaching and working with folk where we find them.

I simply find, as do so many, the Establishment of the Anglican Church unnecessary. I do not know how much time Struans spends in this country, but I can’t say it seems notably more Christian for the presence of an Established Church. The Founding Fathers of the United States were far wiser in their day. They put not their trust in princes, and the USA is far more attached to Christianity than we are in the UK. We should put our trust in the Holy Spirit and forget about lawn sleeve, palaces and the like. I suspect soon Parliament will do in England what it did in ireland in 1869 and Wales in 1914. Free of such fripperies, I would look forward to a church with men of the character of Malcolm here doing what it does best – spreading the word of God.

As for disestablishment, well, as Chesterton put it in response to F.E. Smith’s synthetic outrage:

Are they clinging to their crosses,
                      F. E. Smith,
Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses,
                      Are they, Smith?
Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,
   Wait the news from this our city?
Groaning "That's the Second Reading!"
   Hissing "There is still Committee!"
If the voice of Cecil falters,
   If McKenna's point has pith,
Do they tremble for their altars?
                      Do they, Smith?