a blog by howard jameson @ gatheringgrace.org

Chelsea...a blip or the beginning of the end?

Interesting week in soccer from a people watching point of view. Who would have expected Mourinho to be the first Premiership Manager out of the door this season?

Although I am not a big fan of Chelsea (and I fully expect that a similar conclusion can be drawn watching any of the bigger teams rise and fall in the league) I wonder what we can observe and learn. The problem with being top dog as Chelsea certainly have been until the end of last season (and they were only a whisker off winning the Premiership) is that after a couple of seasons that position becomes expected. As a result when things don't go to plan the easiest thing is to blame decisions and other factors that went against the team than to look within and seek the resources to build again afresh. I was horrified to see professional sportsmen on Saturday protesting about a bad decision by trying to prevent the referee from raising his red card towards Mikel. Another area which can arise and cause concern is the dressing room bust-up; when things are going well cohesion between the players is easy to sustain, but when blame needs to be placed then disagreements soon come to the fore and relationships crumble. Once this happens off the pitch it is not long before it spreads onto the playing area as well, one becomes less likely to trust a player or one loses confidence about whether they will make a certain run or clearance.

I know we don't have seasons as short as a football team (perhaps we ought to!!!) but the Church is not immune from similar pressures.

We see (in the Church of England at least) a large organisation that was once pretty much top dog. It had influence on the public stage and had access to the major decision making processes. Broadly, I think, its opinion was respected. These times are now past (contrary to the head in the sand perspectives of some of the things I read). This may be uncomfortable, but its where we are...

...and this fills me with real hope, although I know this comes at a price.

We have an important choice to make about whether our future lies with rebuilding in a new world or protesting with the referees decisions.

Authentically Anglican (...this is intermission)

As I have been thinking through the things listed by others as identifying factors of what it means to be an Anglican I think I need to reiterate something.

I am an Anglican by choice, but if push came to shove and it was a all or nothing toss up between the Church of England and the Kingdom of God then the Kingdom would win hands down. What I am trying to express here is not a strategy for world domination in which everybody has to become an Anglican, rather I am trying to prove to myself my gut feeling that amongst the denominations Anglicanism has some of the methodology built in which will be most useful for advancing the Kingdom for the current and future generations.

This may also be intermission as vacation time looms and whilst I often find working out ideas as a therapeutic means of letting go and unwinding it may not be thinking about this.

Authentically Anglican (part v (b) - Scripture, authority...and a sideboard?)

There's good news and bad news. The good news is that you've inherited that beautiful Chippendale sideboard from your maiden aunt who used to live on the Isle of Wight. The bad news is that the removal men have been unable to get it into your house. We'll have to call in some experts...

...everybody agrees how beautiful and valuable your sideboard is, but the experts differ on the correct thing to do.

"What you need to do", suggests the first, "is dismantle the sideboard and then everybody can see the workmanship and how the wood was shaped and crafted to make the beautiful sideboard".

"No", interjects the next, "what's important is the beauty of the wood itself, look at the grain and the depth of the colours in the polished surfaces. Let's show the sideboard off for the wood".

"You can't dismantle such a priceless piece of furniture", interrupts the third, " it belongs in a museum where it can be appreciated by other experts and then it won't get damaged or misused".

"That's all well and good", starts the fourth, "but if you want that in your house then I suggest cutting a couple of inches off the end and then we'll be able to get it down the hallway and round into the dining room".

Not very promising, is it? Trim six inches off the sideboard and the room would be enhanced considerably, but the sideboard would be damaged forever.

This is the second half of two posts concerning the relationship between Anglicanism and the authority of Scripture. In the previous one I commented on the Anglican view, coming as part of its Reformed DNA that Scripture should be read in the vernacular (although I suggested that there is more to the vernacular than just the vocabulary of the text). By demanding reading the Scriptures in the native language one is asserting from the very beginning something of the power and potency of the collection of texts in different genres that we call the Scriptures.

Authentically Anglican (part v (a) - in the vernacular)

I love going to France on holiday. We went in late May again having been unable to go in 2006 due to the proximity of children's exams to the half term break, however my French was a little rusty for the first few days. My ear returns pretty quickly, that is I can identify most of the important words in a sentence spoken to me, but my brain cannot process the correct meaning quickly enough until we've been immersed in French language for a couple of days.

The English Reformers' call for the Bible to be read in the lingua franca (sorry, one of my favourite jokes) is well documented, as referenced in the introductory post to this series. The reference I made to one of the identifying characteristics of Anglicanism made by +Rowan has, to my mind, two elements. Firstly a view of the authority of the Bible and secondly the reading of it in the vernacular. If I may tackle the second of those two first.

Prior to the Reformation the use of Latin as the language of worship and Church is well recorded. I have previously referred to...

"The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England,1400-1580" (Eamon Duffy)

...in my (not particularly nuanced) critical post here. I think what I meant to say then was that Duffy highlights a series of characteristics of the spirituality of a pre-Reformation worshipper in a typical (therefore rural) English Church, and this list would include items such as an active sense of participation (following the activities of the Priest even if from afar), an awareness of the Liturgical cycles, a sense of ownership of and belonging to the Village Church (and therefore Village community) and so forth. My argument had been that this is does not automatically qualify as a Christ-centred spirituality. It has been observed of some contemporary village Churches that there is sometimes a correlation between incomplete payment of Parish Share (as one indicator) and a sense of spiritual dis-ease. If one went to one of these hypothetical villages I am sure one would be able to note several of Duffy's listed items, for example a strong sense of ownership and belonging, but we are saying at a wider level that such a Church may not be as Christ oriented as we would like, and therefore the core spirituality of the place might want to be examined.

Having said that I am sure there was much vibrant healthy spirituality in the pre-Reformation Church, even if (from the Reformers' perspective) the lack of knowledge of the language of Church meant that the congregations could be hood-winked into the purchase of indulgences and the Clergy had an authority based upon an understanding unattainable to the hoi polloi. And, of course, the Bible was only part of the story. With Cranmer's liturgy, Luther's hymns and Calvin's teaching the Reformers created a complete Church experience to be participated in and understood by the man and woman in the pew.

Probably one of the main criticisms of Modern patterns of Church made by the post-Modern generation is that there is vernacular language in abundance but even this is no guarantee of actual engagement with a text or a Sacrament. I frequently ask where else would a non-Churchgoer experience a learning event in which one expert spoke uninterrupted either during or after by questions and utilised mostly no visual aids (or if any are used they are predominantly unsophisticated compared with an interactive whiteboard, for example). We may use vernacular language, but we don't use vernacular means of communication.

Much of the content I have seen in Alternative styles of Worship have been precisely this encouragement to engage with a text in a method as well as a language which the worshipper is familiar with and so whilst terms like multi-sensory may be overused they have something to teach us about the way in which we should be instinctively putting across our message(s) so that the means no longer acts as an unnecessary barrier. Like my attempts to be fluent in French people might recognise the individual words we use in our technical descriptions of (for us) everyday Church things but the combination of the words generates a haze of unclarity.

I think the fact that much has been written about the advent of post-Modernism and so we are much more aware of the arrival of this new worldview that we are much better placed than the Reformers to develop means of communicating the essential content of Christianity in the vernacular of post-Modernity. That is unless we are too scared to risk letting go of things we understand (even if we agree they are a bit cheesy). As I mentioned in a previous post the certainties of the Archbishop's view of the role of the Priest have unravelled before our eyes. I am merely asking for engagement with change in a way which allows us to develop the way we do it rather than a hasty reactive process.

I think I have said enough on this post and haven't touched on the other part of this, the authority of Scripture, so I'll do a part v (b).

Authentically Anglican (part iv - of Creeds and Councils)

The fourth component of my thinking concerning the (in my view) good fit between something which can be described as authentically Anglican and which also communicates with a post-Modern generation centres on the value placed on historic formulations of Doctrine, especially (according to +Rowan) those of Nicaea and Chalcedon.

One of the fist books I read on Church history was...

"Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church (Theology)" (Basil Studer)

...and it really excited me; seeing a proper evaluation of the history of the development of Doctrine alongside the growth of the Church in those first centuries. I think that seeing those third and fourth Century Bishops and theologians as real people was a wonderful antidote to the two views of Church history which I had been vaguely aware of previously. In one view the early Church in the generations immediately after the Apostles themselves was a time of schism; the Church became established and grew numerically, but it was a pale imitation of Apostolic vigour. (This is a view from a more Evangelical perspective and one which I have seen illustrated a both a graph and a cartoon in which every villain was wearing Bishop's robes). The other view borrows from a Modern view of history in which the Church (like other things such as technology or civilisation) have been on a steady incline called "progress", thus "tradition" is a continual trajectory heading off to infinity with advance after advance. (This is a caricature of a more Catholic view, but hinted at in an uncritical and unhistorical adherence to tradition as if that is all there ever was).

Both these views are, of course, bunkum. The former is shown as such when books like the one above are read, and also when one remembers that the Reformers themselves were happy to refer back to the Church Fathers as a point of reference against the excesses they observed in Catholicism. The second view falls to pieces somewhat again when history is read properly and when books such as...

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (Thomas S. Kuhn)

...are brought into the equation and the actual track of developments in historical thought are followed in spite of their eddies and dead ends.

Thus a post-Modern perspective on history is most valuable; by which I mean history is read not as stories about simple people lacking our understanding, nor is it read as concerning bad people seeking to distort the Church, but it is read as the real lives of real people (strikingly similar to us) who just happened to have lived in periods of turmoil or whatever.

Authentically Anglican (part iii - of Bishops, Priests and Deacons)

I have found this quite a stimulating area to think about in the last day or so. I think many would be excused, at least at first glance, for saying that thriving examples of worshipping communities operating distinctly within post-Modernism (here I am recalling those alternative worship communities I have been part of over recent years) have no obvious role of Bishops, Priests or Deacons. However, scratch a little deeper by reading round the blogs and one finds cases where the relationship with this traditional three-fold pattern of ministry offers something of value.

I think I need to tackle this question in two steps; from a seemingly traditional view to a contemporary one, and then from contemporary to post-Modern. To begin with I referred back to one of the classics on the question of Priests...

"The Christian Priest Today" (Michael Ramsey)

Authentically Anglican (part ii - Reformed)

I must say this one surprised and stumped me a little as the first one on the ABC's list. I have heard Anglicanism referred to quite frequently as being both Reformed AND Catholic, but in his list +Rowan only refers to Reformed.

This refers to the discontinuity which occurred in Western European Christianity during the 16th Century; a moment which impacted upon both the new Reformed Churches as well as the Catholic Church from which they sprung. I would want to try to explain the Reformation as being both a move of the Holy Spirit to bring about corrections to the Church inseparably linked with a move of humanity as new ideas developed and gained force. In the Creation story we often use that powerful poetic image of the Spirit brooding over the waters, and I like to think of the Reformation as the result of just such a brooding as the chaos of the Dark Ages receded and the Holy Spirit brooded patiently, biding His time for the right moment to move the hearts of men and women. A joy of having read...

"Reformation : Europe's House Divided" (Diarmaid MacCulloch)

...recently is that by saying the Reformation was a move of the Spirit does not mean that I am suggesting automatically that Reformed Churches are "of the Spirit" whilst Catholic Churches are not; the Church of Rome experienced its own renewal as a result of trying to define and critique the Reformers.

From my post-Modern perspective the important piece of the jigsaw I wish to hold from this idea is that Anglicanism grew from a moment of crisis within Western Christianity as, it seems, hearts and minds were stirred in a new way. The birth of Anglicanism suggests that there is a model for a new way of being Church which maintains its links with a historical predecessor, a link which spans the schism in society as a new world-view comes into being.

The history of this Reformed Church we think of as the Church of England (please forgive me concentrating for a moment on one portion of Anglicanism) is that there was also continued struggle and development. Herbert and Hooker (whom +Rowan refers to later in his book on Anglican Identities) were a generation or so after Cranmer and subsequent swings of emphasis from Protestant through to Catholic and then the rise of Liberalism show a Church willing to continue to grapple with the zeitgeist in the world around and also to look within itself for the dynamism to move forward (thinking here for example of the quest for holiness which triggered the Oxford Movement).

One of the big areas of friction in contemporary Christianity is between those who are seeking to find new patterns of Church and those for whom Reformed means a one-off and strictly past tense event. Reformation, like Renewal, cannot rest on its laurels and past successes but must remain an on-going process. Therefore the history of the Church to which I belong by choice demonstrates that Christianity can survive and flourish beyond the fault-lines which changes in society can create. I find great challenge in the words of assent used by Clergy about desiring to tell the Gospel afresh to each new generation. So if I have set myself a challenge of trying to make some positive definitions of the flavour of Anglicanism in a post-Modern environment I can take comfort from the fact that we are merely treading in the footsteps of previous giants, even if our task is much simpler and less life threatening. This reinvention can be done, and it needs to be.

Authentically Anglican (part i - introduction)

What does it mean to be authentically Anglican and yet "post-Modern"?

Its always much easier to deconstruct than to be more positive. The question above bangs round my head most of the time, to be honest.

The problem with the question to my thinking is that any definition of Anglicanism is so broad that it cannot be answered in a couple of paragraphs. I found...

"Anglican Identities" (Rowan Williams)

...helpful at least as a start. +Rowan gives a list of components to Anglicanism that have some form of historical integrity (page 2 in my edition), and these are...

• Reformed Christian in outlook and history
• a church order grounded in the historic ministry of Bishops, Priests and Deacons
• a valuing of the classical early formulations of doctrine - e.g. Nicene Creed and Chalcedon
• Reformed - it assumes the governing authority of the Bible, made available in the vernacular
• repudiates the necessity of a central executive authority in the Church’s hierarchy
• committed to a radical criticism of any theology that sanctions the hope that human activity can contribute to the winning of God’s favour
• suspicious of organised asceticism...and of a theology of the sacraments which appears to bind God too closely to material transactions

My gut feeling (before I write a post about each of these and any other which spring to mind) is that Anglicanism is well suited to making contact with a post-Modern generation because it is less rigidly defined than other denominational viewpoints, even if we are pretty badly represented amongst those age groups at present. I suppose there is also a corollary to this question, one which also goes round and round in my feeble brain. The question asked the other way round is "what bits of Anglicanism are not authentic but merely elements brought about and related solely to Modernity?

So my starting point is that the bits of Anglicanism as we know it today which put off my generation are things like being filled with old people eating soggy biscuits in damp and dingy halls and doing things the way they always have been done; and these parts are not key to being an Anglican.