Very Ethnic
UNDAY, Sitting in Christchurch Cathedral in Hamilton, it suddenly dawned on me: I’m Anglican because it’s so damned ethnic!
There is something so very British in this religion, so entirely un-American (whose religion looks, usually, like a cross between a praise band and a game show). It’s quite classist, really. I enjoy the crisp, dry corners, the wry Monty Python-esque humour of “evil livers” and “superfluity of naughtiness”, the humble pomposity of the 47-word sentence that opens almost all Anglican Eucharistic rites, firm in the knowledge that one must be able to speak English to properly navigate the subordinate clauses.
Yes, I enjoy Anglican theology with its incarnational emphasis and modernistic spin. But I also love being in on all the jokes on BBC America and the idea that, at least at some point in time, John Cleese, Winston Churchill, FDR, Elizabeth I, and I have all “erred and strayed like lost sheep”. I’m used – very used – to the cloud of polite coughing that follows the use of the censer, and the little clutch of women that gather around the coffee table, vetting all who draw near. I feel a tender part of that cloud of witnesses that encompasses the sceptred isle and any place else with a prayerbook.
There is an Anglican sound resulting from certain chords played on certain stops of the organ and simultaneously sung by boys’ choirs. And there are specifically Anglican-sounding hymns, most especially For All the Saints, Ye Holy Angels Bright, Ding Dong Merrily on High and the Marbeck Mass. But this sound pervades the work of David Herd, the organ masters of St John the Divine and the in-house compositions of many parishes around the nation.
It is an aesthetic more than anything else, and I’ve run into it in clergy apartments around the world, and even in Anglican-wannabe places. And I’ve run into the absence of it, as well. I know when I’m not among Anglicans, for what ever reason. For all the Anglican-style of the Orthodox Western Rite, most WRO are bear certain marks of style… I can’t quite pin it down but, the Monastery in Hamilton, for example, is clearly not Anglican while even the ultra Tridentine liturgy of St Clement Church, Philadelphia, was most certainly.
What I suspect, more and more, is that this sense of what is Anglican, this Anglidar, if you will, is my own internal sense of what is “traditional”. But it is clearly ethnically determined, equally influence by Richard Hooker and by Gerry Granger, as much as by Ralph Vaughn Williams as by Hyacinth Bucket.
I wish I could say “Anglican” means using the prayerbook or the XXXIX Articles of Religion, but it doesn’t. I wish I could, legitimately, say that it means “in communion with the Church of England” but I know it doesn’t – there are some Anglican places that are not. There are some places in communion that are missing this one thing needful.
Again, I think it’s ethnicity, more than anything. I write from a personal experience, but I’ve been “in the presence” in a Roman church in NYC, a Methodist church in London, and a “cathedral in the round” in Hamilton, Ontario. I’ve missed this thing in several places – all Episcopal Churches, however. Which leads me to believe that the thing I most like about Anglicanism isn’t Christ at all and, rather like certain Orthodox who very-much like to be able to sing “Many years” in Russian or Greek, I begin to think that it is a sort of WASP phyletism.
On the other hand, I recognise as Anglican (even though they do not *feel* as such) the rites at St Gregory of Nyssa, the Spanish-language rites of various parishes and dioceses, the services at Trinity Church, Buffalo, and sundry places in the Continuum and even beyond. These places are firmly grounded in that tradition started by Cramner and Elizabeth, even if neither party would recognise their children.
As I wrote once, The Episcopal Church is an American manifestation of the Anglican tradition and the local branch of the Anglican Communion. Even when I wrote that line, I doubt I was thinking of anything more than this phyletism. Today I think that line is still very true. Note that I said, “an American manifestation”. Note also that I made it clear a difference between the Anglican tradition and the Anglican communion. I think it’s possible to be neither Episcopalian nor in communion with the Church of England and yet still be Anglican.
What is the way out of this British fetish into an honestly Anglican theological understanding of the faith?
Tags: anglican, anglo-catholic, church, liturgy | Category: church geekery
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
I’d add, Huw, that liturgy at Christ the King, Soche, in Blantyre, Malawi felt VERY Anglican add Catholic Pentecostal and thoroughly African. Something recognizable was there. Meanwhile liturgy at the Ethiopian Cathedral in Addis Ababa felt equally African and equally Catholic but not remotely Anglican.
I’m also reminded of my friend Kieran’s wondering why the Institute for Religion and Democracy was so down on this minority religion. And for his answer he landed on the 1662 Prayer Book Evening Prayer that Winston Churchill himself planned – hymns readings and all – on the battleship where he and Roosevelt met to discuss U.S. entrance into the war in support of England. Kieran said Churchill was appealing to Roosevelt as Anglican to Anglican in support of liberal democracy – what Elizabeth had laid a foundation for, praying together while sustaining latitude for unresolved theological differences, a government that mirrored her settlement and could include debate and disagreement.
Maybe something like that is what I recognized at Soche. The liturgy was almost four hours long. The hymns were traditional African and Afro-pop, the mass setting was an adaptation of Merbecke and plainsong, the Prayers of the People were pentecostal – each person praying intercessions in the Spirit as they were moved (and everyone was praying full voice at once). And there was no feeling of contradiction. The whole thing was OUR tradition.
love,
donald
Of course it’s cultural, or why I’ve been a non-communing part-timer for five years at S. Clement’s. The ethos you’re talking about is something I miss when it’s not there.
It’s a culture worth saving but for Catholics a culture alone doth not a church make.
The only good from the ‘Reformation’ in England was the idea of services in English (and what English it is).
ISTM when I look at Anglicanism realistically ‘an honestly Anglican theological understanding of the faith’ is, I’m sorry, Protestant and thus untenable (self-refuting), a fallible church but one with the creeds and claiming the episcopate (Dr Williams’ theology for example). Everything else is up for grabs and even the authority behind the creeds and episcopate in Anglicanism is iffy because of the fallibility. So you get everything from old-school English Calvinism to Unitarianism (what happens when naturally brittle Calvinism shatters) dressed up, Dr Jensen to Dr Schori.
That said, again although I don’t agree with you I respect your intellectual honesty being where you are instead of trying to bend the Orthodox Church for example to your will.
Fogey – you raise the issue of a fallible church again, and in ways I understand, but it seems a corner into which one paints oneself: Anglicanism makes mistakes and she says “oops” and moves on. The claim of fallibility is built into our XXXIX Articles of Religion. Rome makes a mistake and she says “I meant to do that” rather like a cat. Orthodoxy does as well. In fact, if you challenge me to point at a mistake (and if I accept the challenge) you will find – most often in the Church’s documents – an excuse. “That was a Pope’s private opinion” or “that council was never really legitimate”.
I’m reminded of Thomas Hopko saying that clearly the Entry of the Theotokos never happened, that the festival, itself, is only mythologically true. He flumoxed a room full of people, (by Godson’s Dad asked why the man was even a priest) and gave me my first taste of the historical realism that is needed to look at Orthodoxy – and her liturgy – as well as at Rome, the church that brought us crusades, political shortening of fasts, and other excesses. They are not infallible. But they are terribly beautiful and terribly right – and terribly wrong, and terribly human while being gracefully divine, too.
I’m happy with that. You are right that, unless one is careful, it can devolve to Unitarian silliness or Calvinist scariness. This is what Christianity does: the entirety of the Holy Tradition includes that silliness, that scariness and seems to have from the very beginning.
Donald’s post is more to the point: the entire thing is OUR Tradition. Anglicanism at her best encompasses all of it that works. This is the Anglican Attitude towards the thing – neither taking every tradition at face value and making a fetish out of it nor rejecting anything outright until its usefulness in expressing and incarnating the faith once delivered to the saints is determined.
Yes, Articles XIX and XXI, the centrepiece of Protestantism as you and I agree, pro and con respectively.
Law of non-contradiction, a house divided against itself and so on.
I agree with Hopko. The story’s not heretical, so celebrating it is not a problem, but come on.
I agree with Hopko. The story’s not heretical, so celebrating it is not a problem, but come on.
Thus: an error in the EO tradition.
It’s ok, really. It’s one of my favourite feasts – up there with Mid-Pentecost. Both depict crucial elements of our salvation – that’s what the Church’s calendar is supposed to be about. But neither feast is historic, or real or even plausible.
As Hopko points out catholic (in the East) means not “covering the whole world” but “encompassing the whole faith”. The catholic faith is the whole faith – and we have a very wide tradition to embrace. Contradictions are ok. It doesn’t need to make logical sense, or have cold, crisp corners. It doesn’t need to stand up to philosophical examination: it needs only to save souls.
I don’t see this as a contradiction or even as a house divided – I see it as gloriously human, and God’s grace working in and through our world to accomplish what he wanted all along.
I like the 39 Articles, btw, but not to affirm them as a Creedal statement like the GAFCON folks want. XIX and XXI as you point out are the positive and negative poles of Protestantism. It makes it quite clear that the church – including GAFCON can err. XX is supposed to be the answer to that. But XX is Sola Scriptura, and I disagree with that very much for very Catholic reasons. The text is meaningless without the Church to read it.
We could go back and forth endlessly on this: I say ‘not doctrine’; you say ‘excuse’. That Hopko was not defrocked or excommunicated seems to give Orthodoxy’s view on the matter he was talking about.
Serge – you are right we could go back and forth.
As I said, it’s Church as a cat, saying “I meant to do that” over and over again. The catch 22 is “The Church is infallible, so if something is wrong, it clearly isn’t church.” I had the same experience over and over again in Orthodoxy.
The issue is faith. Either faith is believing a list of doctrines (which may or may not be illogical and evidently unprovable) or else faith is trusting in God to bring us home, no matter what the doctrinal mistakes are. Essentially if salvation is a case of “not going to hell” we’d better make sure all of our eggs are in the right basket (and all cooked according to order). WHat we think or imagine about God is terribly important because if we do not think or imagine exactly the right things about him he will not exactly like us at all.
Salvation may be something else, however.
Happily, I think this something else is shown forth in the feast of the Virgin’s Presentation as much as it is also shown forth in our Lord’s presentation and our own baptism.
Thank you, by the way, for the compliment. I pray I can actually live up to it.
Gentlemen,
Please desist from the spreading the calumny that the 39 Articles contradict the doctrine that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is fallible. You have bought into the Puritan revisionist reading, which is no older than the Glorious Revolution — prior thereto the Puritans denounced the Articles as “papist.”
Indeed, to the contrary, the Articles merely point out that all particular churches have erred. Even the See of Rome. All the scholarly commentators that neither burn a torch for Rome or Geneva explain and demonstrate the limited meaning and purpose of the Articles on this point. All particular churches need reform from time to time — this includes Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates.
Christ’s Peace
The Proto-Evangelium of James indicates that Mary did enter some chamber of the Temple. The witness of the Church, East and West alike, has been toward the historic authenticity of this text, if not the dogmatic canonicity thereof — as the question whether Mary entered the Temple is not a fact essential to the coherence of the Gospel.
But, I’ll take the considered judgment of the Church through at least 18 centuries of its history (and probably longer as James simply memorializes older, oral tradition) against an mere opinion of Fr. Hopko — though I do think he does have many good opinions.
Hmm. “Lord Peter” and “Death” both have the same email address – as proved by the identical Gravatar that they both generated.
Although i don’t usually address pseudonyms unless I know them personally, you’ll have to show me in plain English how this is a “fallacy”
The only way out of that is the Traditionalist trick of saying “When she errs, she is not the Church”. Sorry. That is exactly a trick: a bait and switch. Or you might want to play literalist and say “Well, this is only speaking of councils and we’re talking about something else…” Another trick, I think.
The XXXIX Articles clearly teach: the church may err, because sometimes we’re all too human. Period.
Since I addressed one of your pseudonyms, I will address the other, But now be forwarned – as the rules of this blog state over on the “about” page, I don’t really like pseudonyms unless I know you in the flesh. So, I have no problem outing you as double poster, but if you are warned – again as in the past when you’ve floated around these pages – that I reserve the right to just delete posts by silly pseudonyms.
On the feat itself, there is no reason to believe that Zacharias was ever a “high priest”, nor that a woman was ever let beyond the courts of the women (except in feminist fantasies about Goddess worship in the temple) nor that any pious Jew – who would have looked at the temple in awe and fear – would have let their daughter run headlong past Levites and other clergy.
It is a gentile myth constructed by folks who had no knowledge of Judaism and it can be disproved from scripture alone That’s assuming you want to imagine it as History, which I don’t think you need to do: as a myth it teaches rather a lot of truth – including why the Mother of God is a replacement for the Temple and why the hearts of Christians are, now, a further replacement. As I said, I like the feast because it is clearly an icon of an important part of our salvation. I think to stick modern, Western ideas of black and white, historical or worthless is silly. Equally silly is to stick some sort of pre-modern idea of “Church says it it must be true”. We can use our brains – God didn’t give them to us to put in a box defined by 4th century mythologies.
Actually, traditionalist usually do not conflate General Councils with the Church and also acknowledge that General Councils have erred — for instance the infamous “Robber’s Council.”
I have never found a scholarly Roman Catholic or Orthodox commentator or hierarchic to accuse the 39 Articles in themselves as denying the infallibility of the Church.
For Anglican authors point, try Bicknell or Middleton on the 39 Articles. The Articles may not be Roman Catholic or completely Eastern Orthodox (though its hard to find tension with the latter without a strianed Puritanical reading of the Articles, which requires the sort of conflation and special pleading in your comment), but they most certainly are not Protestant in the Capital “P” sense. Or was the English Civil War and the Cromwellian Interregnum just a figment of my imagination?
Again, I don’t like pseudonyms and if you wish to engage me, you may want to pick a name and a profile.
Or go away.