The Changing Marks of Anglicanism
The Very Rev. John A. Simpson
Claggett Lecture
Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Introduction

To be the Clagett Lecturer this year is an honor and a privilege. As a former Dean of Canterbury, I am conscious of the Clagett family's links with that city. A Clagett was Mayor of Canterbury twice in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and once in the reign of King James 1. In the Cloisters of Canterbury Cathedral there is a Clagett Memorial recording the family's Canterbury origins, and the fact that a Thomas Clagett was the first Bishop to be consecrated in the newly independent United States. But as John Simpson,, I have a long-standing personal friendship with the present Thomas Clagett, a friendship I have valued and continue to value very deeply, and a friendship which he has expressed by being willing to be one of the Trustees of Canterbury Cathedral, and by his support for the Canterbury Cathedral Education Center, formed to develop and sustain links across the world-wide Anglican Communion, and in which there is, at its center, a Clagett Auditorium. Mr. Clagett my very deep thanks to you for your friendship, your support and for your contribution to the Anglican Communion.

Anglicanism

My subject for this lecture reflects what has, to a great extent, been at the center of my work over the past fourteen years. I have been Dean of the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion; I have seen two Lambeth Conferences; I have traveled, not to many, but to certain parts of the Communion; and I have each year been involved *in organizing courses on 'The Nature of Anglicanism' for groups of potential leaders from across the whole of the Communion, in order to foster understanding and cross-fertilization,, and so, hopefully, help prevent divisions. My subject is; 'The Changing Marks of Anglicanism'.

There is no getting away from it: the Anglican Communion has grown out of the Church of England, and the Church of England as it emerged from that decisive and convulsive period of the sixteenth century Reformation. I put it this way, because the Church of England and many of its outlooks and theological insights predate the Reformation by many centuries. However, certain crucial things happened in the sixteenth century which determined some of the distinctive stresses of the Church of England and what was to become the Anglican Faith which through British expansion and the missionary movement was to spread to so many different parts of the world. But every Church changes, the Roman Catholic Church as much as the Fundamentalist Churches, as much Anglicanism over the past four and a half centuries. The Church is a as dynamic institution, and unless it is to die, it has to relate its theology to the situation in which it is placed, and this, almost inevitably, brings with it new insights and understanding into the beliefs, which it holds as basic. A doctrine of development is implicit in a New Testament understanding of the Church, and in this lecture I want to survey this in relation to Anglicanism.

Autonomy

The first mark of Anglicanism which I select for comment is autonomy. The sixteenth century saw the abolition of the power of the Pope in England. There were many reasons for this, both of a political nature and because of the influence of ideas from German and Swiss theologians. But it is nonsense to say, as it is still said in certain quarters, that because of his marital desires King Henry VIII created the Church of England by abolishing the power and supremacy of the Pope. Henry VIII was doing no more than many of his mediaeval forebears. William 11, when he appointed St. Anselm to be Archbishop of Canterbury, was following his father's precedent and recognizing no Pope. Eighty years later, in the Becket controversy, Becket received no help from Pope Alexander 111, who was afraid of Henry 11, at that time the most powerful monarch in Europe. Alone among mediaeval kings, Henry 111, a weak king with big domestic problems, was subservient to the Papacy. Otherwise there was a tradition of independence. What Henry VIII did was to give this independence a legal form. My point is that autonomy, a sense of independence, a belief that each national Church ought to be free to order its own affairs is basic in Anglicanism. In the sixteenth century, it took the form of independence from Rome - today, because of changes in Rome and a different world,, social position, this is up for re-assessment. At other times,, this autonomy has taken the form of independence from England. The Episcopal Church of the United States is a prime example of this. The Declaration of Independence made it impossible for an Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate bishops for the new United States, for to do that in England he needed a Royal Mandate. Hence Samuel Seabury had to go to Aberdeen to bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, who, because of the complex developments in Scotland over the previous hundred years, were not under the same restrictions.

As the Communion has expanded, belief in its nature as a fellowship of autonomous Churches has been fundamental. Yet autonomy has its problems which cannot be escaped. For instance, how is communion between autonomous Churches affected by divisions and splits within one of its autonomous Churches? Politically, it was very understandable that because of grave internal problems in the Anglican Churches in the Sudan and Rwanda, Resolution 13 of Section 4 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference should invite:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for him to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight) support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a Province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion within the said Province and between the said Province and the rest of the Anglican Communion."

The Archbishop to intervene and act as arbitrator - politically and practically very understandable - but that is precisely how the appellate jurisdiction of Rome began, which was to lead to a doctrine of infallibility.For the Archbishop of Canterbury to become a Pope is totally against Anglican tradition, and to my mind, ought to be resisted. But that is not to deny the problem posed by autonomy, and a problem accentuated when the Primates of certain Provinces have attempted to interfere in the life of another Province.

Let me say a little more about the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop is one of the focuses of unity in the Communion by the simple fact that he is the Primate and Metropolitan of the Church of England from which all the Churches of the Communion ultimately recognize their origin. But, as Primate of All England, he is only first among equals -primus inter pares- of the bishops of the Church of England. In the Roman Catholic Church, because of his perceived succession from St. Peter, the Pope is seen as above the bishops of that Church,and over the centuries, he has drawn to himself theological and juridical powers to cement this position. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no such position and no such powers. He is, as I have said, 'first among equals', and if that is his position in England, it is certainly his position within the Anglican Communion. He presides, he is chairman, he has influence, but he does not have power or authority over the Churches of the Communion or the Communion as a whole. Having said that, the Archbishop has to maintain contact with the Churches of the Communion as well as fulfilling his functions as Primate of All England and bishop of the diocese of Canterbury. This is, for any person, an enormous work load. At the present time, there is a special Commission, chaired by Lord Hurd,, the former British Foreign Secretary, examining the tasks of the Archbishop in order to give advice on priorities to Dr. Carey's successor, when the time comes for his appointment. The Commission has not completed its work, but one matter frequently suggested is that the Archbishop should relinquish his role as a diocesan bishop. To my mind this would radically change his position as well as being foreign to the Anglican tradition. No longer would he be 'first among equals', for he would no longer be doing the task of his equals. It would be a break with a tradition of centuries, for the pasturing of the flock of God, as opposed to the task of pasturing bishops, is integral to what a bishop is.

Worship

A second changing mark of Anglicanism concerns worship. The Reformation of the English Church in the sixteenth century was not established by doctrinal formularies, but by a Prayer Book. The Lutheran Reformation found its definition in the Augsburg Confession; the Swiss Reformation found its definition in the Helvetic Confessions; the Anglican Reformation, on the other hand, has its definition in a Prayer Book. Liturgy, for Anglicans, is the measure of doctrine. Various of the Anglican Reformers tried to produce doctrinal, theological statements on the pattern of the Continental Reformers. Cranmer in 1552 produced the forty-two Articles, and the bishops in the reign of Elizabeth I produced the Thirty-nine Articles, but in a State Established Church, these never had Royal Approval, so that they never became the definitive doctrine of the Church of England. They set boundaries within which theology could be explored, and, as John Henry Newman showed in Tract XC, it was possible to interpret the Articles in accord with Counter-Reformation doctrine. This may have been illegitimate, but according to the strict meaning and interpretation of words, it was possible. No - the fact is that Anglican doctrine is not formed by doctrinal statements, but by a liturgy. Where do we find what Anglicans believe about baptism, but through the baptismal services. Where do we find what Anglicans believe about the Eucharist,, but through the Communion service, as printed in the Prayer Book and the fundamental Communion Service is that as printed in the 1559 Prayer Book of Elizabeth 1, which by linking together the words of administration in the two Edwardine Prayer Books allows of belief in the Real Presence of Christ 'in the Eucharist as well as other approaches to Eucharistic doctrine.

Until the 1960's. it was frequently said that one of the key things holding the Anglican Communion together was the Book of Common Prayer. Although all churches did not use the same Prayer Book, the uniting elements of form, wording, content were far greater than those elements which divided. However, since the 1950's in all world Churches, save the Eastern Orthodox, there has been the liturgical movement. The 1958 Lambeth Conference laid down guide lines for liturgical change, and over the subsequent decades each Anglican Church has produced its own rites, and whilst structures are frequently similar, wording and, indeed content now are often different; and though many churches retain a traditional order alongside modem orders, it is within the realms of possibility that the traditional orders could fall 'into disuse. But even were that to be so,, something quite fundamental about Anglicanism could still survive.

In February 1992, just before Dean Baxter's installation as Dean, I took part here in a symposium on 'Anglicanism - Present and Future'. Subsequently, the Cathedral authorities were kind enough to reprint something I said 'in a small book entitled 'Cathedral Meditations'. What I said was this:

'What we as An Anglicans have to share is not a formula, but an outlook rooted and sustained in worship not answers to all the questions and problems which confront men and women, but an approach to life which depends on and draws from the discovery of God through prayer'.

Whatever the liturgical changes, this is still true, and I was interested to find it echoed in some of the things Dr. David Ford, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge said at the 1998 Lambeth Conference about - not the Prayer Book - but the Bible. I quote:

The Bible is a book which is not so much to be applied, as if it were an instrument or a recipe, as to be lived in, indwelt - through worship'. 'The Anglican tradition... is utterly clear about the primacy of God and of the worship of God which unites word and sacrament. The primary place of the Bible is in the direct worship of God. In worship above all, the living God of scripture meets us together and creates communion; the vitality of God finds us.'

For the Anglican, liturgy is the measure of doctrine, of theology. At one time this may have been expressed in a totally set form - today there may be greater freedom of expression, but either way, what we believe depends on and draws on our discovery of God through prayer.

Now I must add certain things here which cause me concern for the future.

There has been a revolution in the worship life of Christians in the twentieth century. Christians have rediscovered the centrality of the Eucharist to their faith and this is equally true of Roman Catholics and Orthodox as of other denominations. The Eucharist has become the central act of worship, with the full participation of believers. This is a wonderful thing -'it is the Mass that matters'. But something may have been lost. Our parents and grandparents, from whatever part of the Communion they came, were brought up on Matins and Evensong - services which developed from the monastic offices, services which, with the psalms, the canticles and the reading in order of the Old and New Testament, rooted people in the Bible element of the Christian and Anglican tradition. This has not totally disappeared. In the Eucharist there is often a psalm and there may be an Old Testament lesson, but in quantity these are substantially reduced. The Bible is no longer taught in schools, a generation of Christians and Anglicans is growing up, which does not have the understanding of Scripture which our forebears had. But in addition to this,, whereas it was easy for the uncommitted and for the searcher after faith to come into a Matins or an Evensong, their attendance at a Eucharist emphasizes for them their exclusion from the committed community of faith. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that we should lessen our stress on the Eucharist for those who are committed members of the community of faith, nor am I saying that we should necessarily return to Matins and Evensong, much as I value those services, but I am saying that there should be forms of worship which can embrace the less committed and the searchers for truth, for the Anglican tradition has always been to include and not to exclude, and if it is through worship that we discover God,, then it is through worship that the uncommitted may come to faith.

Comprehensiveness

A third changing mark of Anglicanism focuses on its comprehensiveness. Elizabeth I in her church settlement was intent on one church for the one nation,, and so she took the more Protestant of Edward VI's two prayer books, but made changes so small yet so significant that the majority of Catholics could use it. At the beginning of her reign she resisted the temptation of defining her attitude to the Pope, whilst at the same time making every effort to ensure that her bishops were in a true Catholic succession. She approved Catholic vesture, and read the Geneva Bible. Her aim, a church which could comprehend all, and to use her own words, she refused 'to make windows into other men's consciences'. A comprehensive Church with a freedom to believe: this is fundamental to what the Church of England, and subsequently, Anglicanism is.

But, not everyone has liked this. Under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts, certain wealthy Catholics resisted this, though more importantly because it was a major factor in the Civil War and led to the temporary abolition of the Church of England in 1645, Puritans resisted this. Catholics resisted because of their belief in obedience to Rome, and Puritans,, because of their belief in a particular interpretation of Scripture (a Calvinistic interpretation) and what they saw as the practical implications of this for Church order and worship and morality. The Church of England, as it was re-created at the Restoration, still had this mark of comprehensiveness which enabled the Church to contain elements of the Evangelical Revival in the eighteenth century, and elements of the Catholic Revival in the nineteenth century, and one puts it in this way because much of the enthusiasm of the Evangelical Revival was too powerful for the Church of England to cope with,, and so you have the emergence of Methodism, and with the Catholic Revival many saw their true home as Rome. By definition, Anglicanism is comprehensive.

Certain theologians have given expression to this. John jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, in the early years of Elizabeth was the first to attempt this, and his work was developed in the theology of Richard Hooker, who justifiably is the most accomplished advocate Anglicanism has ever had. He opposed the Puritans, who held to the literal following of the Scriptures as an absolute, in the sense that whatever is not expressly allowed or commanded in Scripture is unlawful. To Hooker, this was anathema, because by laying all the weight on Scripture, it ruled out the operation of reason, a divine gift, and the whole experience of history. Hooker's belief in the interaction of Scripture, reason and tradition has become the distinctive Anglican appeal, allowing as it does for development in theology, in morality, in Church order, in liturgy. Hooker has been the inspiration for all mainstream Anglican theology, whether it be the Caroline divines, the Cambridge Platonists, F.D. Maurice, the Liberal Catholics or present day theologians. However, as with all seminal minds, Hooker has been interpreted in different ways at different times. I well remember in the nineteen fifties and sixties,, the Hooke-rite trio of Scripture, Reason and Tradition being used to justify the presence in Anglicanism of Evangelicals who laid all their stress on Scripture, Catholics emphasizing tradition and Liberals or Modernists giving priority to reason - three separate traditions existing alongside each other and independent of each other. But that's not Hooker. Hooker's theology is about the interaction of revelation, reason and history. Three separate parties existing separately, each ? of the other) linked only by a form ofworship, or a particular Church Order, is not what Anglican comprehensiveness means, though this is what some may think - which leads me to certain problems in this area.

The first is that in the context of worldwide Anglicanism, there are certain Provinces which have been evangelized by 'party' missionary societies. As regards the spreading of Christianity this is superb. But, and this is particularly so in Provinces which owe their origin to the work of Evangelical missionary societies, their theology may be more 'fundamentalist or closer to what I said a moment ago about Puritanism, than it is to Anglicanism So you have a particular attitude to Scripture resulting in a very hard-line approach to specific issues facing the Church, and an unchurching of those who hold a differing view.

This attitude has emerged at different periods of Anglican history, though at no time more obviously than at the last Lambeth Conference in the discussions on homosexuality. But first let me say something about the Lambeth Conference. This conference meets every ten years, and it is a gathering of all the bishops of the Anglican Communion to discuss matters of common concern. It is not a legislative body which enacts what the Churches are to believe or not to believe, but a gathering to explore Christian thinking on many issues, and a bishop who may return to his diocese and say that the diocese must endorse the resolutions of a Lambeth Conference is treating those resolutions in the wrong way, for resolutions are not binding on the member Churches, but indicate how the Church may be thinking at the present moment. It is interesting tracing the attitude of bishops on particular subjects through a whole series of conferences. The ordination of women is a case in point where the Lambeth attitude has developed from hesitancy to a general acceptance. Or contraception, on which the attitude changed from rejection to permission according to conscience.

All this needs to be appreciated before anything is said about the homosexual debate. Lambeth '98 was the first occasion on which this subject was a major consideration at a Lambeth Conference. There was bound to be disagreement, for at Lambeth there were not only bishops of a conservative even fundamentalist outlook but also bishops of a more liberal all-embracing turn of mind. Further, the cultural diversity of the Communion was a significant factor, for many of the bishops were from cultures that had given little consideration to the homosexual condition. Debate was acrimonious. Many, I know, hoped that the Conference resolution would be to recommend the undertaking of serious, informed consideration of the matter by a commission. The more conservative, who were perhaps in a numerical majority forced more proscriptive resolutions - but - those merely reflect what a majority of bishops were thinking at that time. The wider examination of homosexuality is in its first stages. As with contraception and the ordination of women, the final approach has yet to be reached.

The second problem really emerges from this first problem. It is 'Are there limits to comprehension?' to even raise this question in a Church which seeks to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive may seem heretical, but it is a fact that the exclusive attitude of some, who by their actions unchurch others, forces a consideration of this.

This actually is the 'conservative - liberal' tension, a feature of Anglicanism from its start. Richard Hooker, when writing of the way God guides His Church from age to age, referred to God's method as 'an harmonious dissimilitude'. by which he meant that disagreement, conflict, debate are a normal part of Church life and of theological discovery, because it is through all this that God's mind is discovered. What this means is that we must stay together despite disagreements, even because of disagreements, because by working through these conflicts we advance in our understanding of truth. This has certainly been true of Anglicanism since the sixteenth century. Never forget the disagreement between Anglicans on one of the fundamentals of Christianity - the nature of the Eucharist. A disagreement which has come close to some sort of resolution in the past fifty years, and it is having stayed together which has enabled the achievement of understanding.

Conclusion:

Changing marks of Anglicanism. I want to end with the point that too frequently it is ignorance of the genuine Anglican tradition which has led to unnecessary tension and threats of division. We live in an age which has seen a decline in the teaching of history and this has resulted in seeing issues which arise as isolated from their origins. This is not I believe true in the Episcopal Church of the United States, but in many Churches of the Anglican Communion there is little or no teaching on what is the Anglican Tradition. There is, therefore, an enormous need for education in what Anglicanism is, for the bringing together of Anglicans from across the traditions and the cultures,, so that we can understand what we are and where we came from and how together we can go forward.