What does it mean to be Anglican?

Anglican – From ulta-reformed dispensationalist to charismatic – from evangelical to liberal. Is it all things to all people or is there something about being Anglican?

Richard Hooker is an interesting person who wrote a series of books which have influenced Anglican thinking down through the ages, yet is infrequently quoted or studied outside those studying theology. I've read extracts of what he wrote and commentary from others about him and my intention now is to read more of his works. This will be a seven-part mini-series blog of my journey into Richard Hooker.

It's important to see things in context and seeing Richard Hooker in the context historically and theologically is an important part to understanding where on the journey he fits in.

We know why it started – because King Henry VIII wanted to divorce (read that have the marriage annulled) Catherine of Aragon and the Pope refused so he separated the Church in England from the Church of Rome.

Thomas Cranmer was as much a liturgist as a theologian and pretty much a 'yes man' to King Henry. He did establish an English (as opposed to Latin) liturgy creating the now famous Book of Common Prayer. Though it might seem archaic today, it was certainly revolutionary in it's day. Of course, that wasn't the end of it, because Mary, a devout Catholic, became queen and Cranmer was executed as traitor and heretic.

But that is only part of the story. At roughly the same time as all this was happening in the UK, on the continent there was another separation from the Roman Catholic Church in what we call the Reformation. Cranmer made accommodations to many of the reformation changes, which were however rolled back when Mary came to the throne but swung back again when Elisabeth became queen. It was into this mix of theological separations taking place on the continent and in the UK that a person called Richard Hooker, who is described by some as the 'Prophet of Anglicanism', wrote and formed what is, by many, considered 'Anglican theology'.

This blog entry is an introduction, then I will write three entries based upon what I so far have gathered before reading him more extensively and deeply and will then write three more based upon what I read.

Why threes?

As I currently understand it Richard Hooker was looking for a 'via media' or middle way between the Roman Catholic Church and the new Reformed Church on the continent. That there was no discussion about the Orthodox Church (Russian, Greek or Coptic) demonstrates how Western Europe was already separated from Eastern Europe (the Great Schism 1054). 

In this 'middle way' there were, assuming I've read him right, and we will see in the coming weeks and months, three basic principles upon which he believed the Church of England stands: the Bible, Reason and Tradition.

For those that accuse the Anglican Church of being 'liberal' that the first principle is the Bible might well be a surprise, but it was the first and foremost thing that he started from. How he understood the Bible might be at variance to some in the Fundamentalist Evangelical church and to some in the 'liberal' church, though defining what the 'liberal' church is might take some doing since for Fundamentalist Evangelicals it's binary – all those who are not Fundamentalist Evangelicals!

When I read the third principle being tradition I get an earworm of Tevye singing the song Tradition from Fiddler on the Roof. The story of that musical is really one of seeing tradition within the battle between tradition and progression… the unstoppable march of time! But that is to miss what I see as the core context of that issue, being that of community, and tradition merely an attribute of community.

My biases

Seeing Hooker in context includes seeing my own biases. So I will start there, with my initial biased response to his three basic principles of the Bible, Reason and Tradition.

Born and raised Anglican with some time attending a Vineyard Fellowship and some time a Community Church this journey into Anglican theology will be interesting to see to what extent Hooker convinces or dissuades me.

Coming from a Charismatic Evangelical background my initial reaction to the Bible being a core principle is one of a pleasant surprise. But then the 6th and 7th of the 39 Articles of Religion established in 1801 lock in the Bible as…

'containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation'

Reason

That Hooker saw Reason as a core principle is both encouraging and worrying to me in my biases. I've seen too many people throw out reason as being the antithesis of faith. The whole 7 day creation vs guided (creation) evolution being one such argument. If we were created in the image of God then to deny reason a part in faith is to deny God is a God of reason.
So why is it worrying? Man's reason is imperfect…

we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Nevertheless I do find reason is being useful in redressing the balance which has tended towards irrationality in faith.

Tradition

What we have lost in the late 20th and early 21st century in much of Europe and the west is community. Community has been replaced with alienating cities and, as we move forward, both community and tradition are increasingly irrelevant to most people. This leaves a void. Filling that void with historic tradition may help some but will certainly not satisfy the majority. However, I would argue that finding some way of building community within the 21st century is essential if society is to continue. And building that community is part of the prophetic role of the church and in this case the Anglican church.

So if I'm rewriting Hooker I see the three principles as Bible, Reason and Community.  But that is the start of my journey. The next step is to unpack his ideas as I see them now in the next three blog posts, starting with what I understand to be Hooker's approach to the Bible. Then read more deeply and see how my perception of each has changed.

POSTCRIPT

I scan-read Hooker and realised that the more I saw the more uncomfortable I became. Not because of his theology, but because of his meta-theology. He was not taking a proactive approach, but rather a reactive approach. He didn't want to throw Rome (Catholicism) out with the bathwater but also didn't want to fully embrace Geneva, so created this via media.

Whereas there is some validity in this middle way, I was left feeling he didn't bring anything helpful to the table because he was too comfortable in his ecclesiastic structure. He was reading Scripture through the tinted glasses of centuries of the structural church having a position of importance in society. 

Maybe what he said was good, but it carried way too much historic baggage to make me feel that this was authentic to the way of Christ. Maybe in his time it was. But not in 21st century Europe.

So what does it mean to be Anglican? Many things. But for me the lifespring is not in the past tradition but in the Fresh Expressions movement. 'Fresh Expressions is a growing movement of everyday people forming new, vibrant Christian communities in every ordinary nook and cranny of life.' 

It's not about finding a middle way to hold back the new to the old, but about embracing the new, because as sojourners in this journey we call life, to quote John Bunyan in Pilgrims progress 'Do you not still carry some of the baggage from the place you escaped?' We do indeed, 'but against my will'. 

A game of chess?

It’s easy to see history as a game of chess, a battle between good and evil, between God and Satan. The story ends with God winning and good triumphing over evil. We are the pawns, castles, bishops, kings and queens in this giant game of chess; God and Satan the players. The Shannon number tells us there are 69,352,859,712,417 possible games of chess that could have been played. In history it’s a lot larger than that!

Because people believe they are on the winning side they hold on to phrases like ‘Do not be afraid, all things are in God’s hands’ or ‘Everything will work out. You don’t need to know how, you just need to trust God and believe that it will.’ But in the grand game of chess though there is winner and loser even the victor sacrifices many pieces to win the game.

This widely held way of looking at life has always concerned me. If you hold on to this way of thinking, to see it in the big picture of good against evil is easy, when it comes down to the mundane — should I eat cornflakes or frosties for breakfast — people are then mere automata; puppets controlled by the puppet masters or players in the game. This is broadly similar to the perception of the behaviour of the gods of ancient Greece and Rome. People are seen as the sacrificial pawns in this game of good versus evil. 

But if the game only applies to the eternal tournament and lesser things are not included, where do you draw the line?

However, this isn’t a game, nor are human beings mere pieces on the board. And when damaged they hurt or die. If it were a game with the result predetermined then the damage to those players is cruel in the extreme! 

This overlooks stories in history that put the rest into context. About 5,000 years ago there were cities on the side of evil that were so depraved the game player on the side of good decided not merely to remove the pieces from the game board but destroy them entirely. 

A man named Abraham, seen as the father of the Jews and of other religions, interceded for the righteous living in those cities. Starting at 50, he argued God down to not destroying the cities if there were only 10 upright people in them. The story goes that there were not even 10, though Abraham’s relative Lot and his family survived, save for Lot’s wife who perished.

The context of that story is that God had promised to bless all people on this sphere we call earth through him. These are not the actions of a puppeteer and marionette. Indeed through history we read of Abraham being described as a ‘friend of God’. This is not just for special people because Jesus announced ‘No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.’

The other flaw with the metaphor of a game or even a war between good and evil is it leaves unanswered the real question: ‘What happens after the game is over?’ Argued about by theologians using phrases like ‘pre-tribulation’, ‘postmillennialism’ and others the focus has been on the end of the game rather than  ‘What happens after the game is over?’

Assuming one believes in life after death (to make that a valid question) then the question splits two ways: Firstly, what happens to the good guys and secondly what happens to the bad guys?

The latter of those two questions has divided Christian thinkers down through the centuries. Some citing the Bible claim they will endure conscious punishment for eternity, others, also citing the Bible say they will be annihilated, and yet others, also citing the Bible that all people good and bad alike will eventually come to know and love God. The vitriol of debate about those options is such that one might not guess those deliberating all claim to be on the same side!

But it’s the first of those two questions that is clearer: Though some religions claim a sort of permissive paradise allowing activities not even considered acceptable by them in this life, returning to Abraham gives a better answer.  Abraham was described as a ‘friend of God’ and this is what God desired to be spread throughout the world — friendship with Him! The endgame therefore is about an eternal relationship mutually enjoying company with God, sharing food, interdependence and kinship with others also enjoying a relationship with God.

Thus to see history or life as a grand game of chess is to completely and dangerously misunderstand God and His-story. Platitudes and oversimplifications trivialise and hurt those suffering. Though the concept of a game played out between good and evil has been around for millenia, it is modernity than has trapped mankind into missing a relationship with God as a 'mysterium tremendum et fascinans'. It would be better to see it as a symphony conducted by God looking for harmony in the orchestra. The orchestral players then are God's friends.