As one of the only theology blogs that is self-consciously Anglican, or as we are now (informally) referring to ourselves, “Catholic and Anglican”, we try to steer clear of the political debates that seem to pre-occupy most other Anglican and Episcopalian bloggers. It’s our way of maintaining the original focus of TLOU, that is, to assist in bringing Anglicanism’s voice to the theological table. Not that there’s anything wrong per se with the polity conversation. Rather, many of us perceive an imbalance overall between polity conversations and theology dialog (although, we give big thanks to sites like Project Canterbury for helping to restore this balance).
Today, however, I think it’s important to draw your attention to the newest conversation at Per Caritatem, “What is Anglicanism?” Cynthia refers to the article in First Things by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda, which some of you might remember from one of our posts back in August. Cynthia cuts right to the chase and asks what’s at stake in Orombi’s overt dismissal of Anglicanism’s essential Britishness. “The long season of British hegemony is over,” he says, and calls for a significantly more decentralized and radically Evangelical notion of Anglicanism. (Mark Noll, the Reformation is apparently not over.)
So, I’m bringing this to your attention today not to ruffle political feathers, but because I think what is at stake is Anglicanism’s unique theological voice. As Orombi would have it, one is either akin to the non-denominational, non-episcopal churches of Evangelical North America - this seems to be where his own church is heading - or one might as well be stuck in an hegemonic relationship with Canterbury or Rome. Either way you have it, I suggest, here’s no distinctive Anglican voice for Orombi.
Please read Cynthia’s post, and if you feel so inclined, join the conversation.
Here I am getting migraines over and over again by this continuing assault on Anglicanism. I was particularly struck by Abp Orombi’s remark that we need to get back to the Reforamation view : “Holy Scripture: its primacy, clarity, sufficiency, and unity” The Scriptures are the Church’s books written by and for the Church. Scripture is not some Koran descending by the hands of angels. What descended in perfect form was Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God. That is where the faith of Anglicanism - Catholic Anglicanism - rests, not in words.
In regards to the British “hegemony” - Anglicanism which forgets or looses it’s roots is as meaningless as Roman Catholicism would be without the tradition of Roman (secular) Law.
Davis, thanks for your comment. I, too, am getting irritated by some of the ridiculous assertions about Anglicanism made by people who seem to care little for its history or its particularity. In many ways, Orombi’s sentiments reflect a much more American religious sensibility than an Anglican on.
I recommend the Archbishop’s speeches and papers site for any of you that would care to get an authoritative Anglican approach to the issue, particularly the papers entitled:
Archbishop’s Presidential Address at General Synod, ‘One Church, One Hope’, and (probably the most appropo) Archbishop’s reflections on the Anglican Communion
dan
I am by no means an expert on these topics, but I thought a blurb from our opening convocation here at Princeton Seminary would be appropriate. When asked by one of the students why the seminary was so reformed, the dean of students said (and here I’m paraphrasing from memory), “because it’s only in maintaining our unique identity that we’re able to remain open to other voices.” I have to agree with her. You have to hold onto distinctives and identity or else the center cannot hold. It would thus, on my account, be foolish to dispel the unique “british” identity of the Anglican church as unnecessary. You may as well call yourselves something entirely if you’re going to do that.
Thanks. That sounds much like a theme repeated by Stanley Hauerwas and, more recently, Benedict XVI.
Stratkey and DWM,
I appreciate the comment that we must maintain our ‘unique identity’ else we are unable to ‘remain open to other voices’, yet I fear your comment almost appears to define ‘unique idenity’ along nationalistic or racial lines, whereas I’d bet the P dean intended to indicate confessional lines. Could you clarify how ‘british’ness is important to Christ’s gospel, and do so without sounding the nationalistic tone embarassing and damaging some Eastern European Orthodox communities? Thanks.
Matslacker, I’m not quite sure how “unique identity” necessarily construes “Britishness”. This was Orombi’s assertion, too. But after reading Abp Williams’s sermons and speeches on the Identity of Anglicanism, and works by Austin Farrer and Michael Ramsey on the same, I don’t see any case to be made that they mean Britishness. In fact, there’s such an openness on Williams’ part to the voice of America and the Global South as Anglicanism tries to come to a communal definition. I think stratkey’s comment is best construed in the strict sense of a response to Orombi’s dramatic claim that his church is throwing off the hegemony of the English Church. In this regard, one has to ask what exactly he sees as the heritage of his church if not “Anglican”? Canterbury doesn’t exhaust the unique identity of the Anglican communion, but it does constitute an important part of its history and constitution just as Constantinople and Rome loom large in the histories of their respective churches.
Thanks, DWM. It’s a hard issue, an ongoing one, and not one to be nutted out on a blog, ultimately. But thanks for the helpful clarification. I’m really pulling for Abp Williams–he’s got quite a job these days. I suppose I should try to remember to pray for him, too.
matslacker, thanks for the comments; keep them coming! I agree that this is a hard issue to tackle in as ad hoc a fashion as blogging. Although, I think some clarification can come through the blog medium. Besides, while academia is able to give expression to these issues in really nuanced ways, it’s ultimately parishioners and congregants that have to live out those differences. So, since you won’t move to DC, we’re going to have to make do with the blog.
Cheers,
Dan