I thoroughly enjoy the UK’s Catholic Herald publication. In comparison, it’s faithful to the Catholic faith and it’s fairer than National Catholic Register in regards to those who are considered to be heterodox by the respective publications. In the last week, I’ve seen articles pop up on the topic of the removal of capping on religious schools in England, which requires 50 percent of the enrolled students to be of the school’s faith.
Naturally, secularists and humanists in England have been leading the charge against the removal of said capping. The surprise of many writers at the Catholic Herald is that the retired Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has joined their ranks citing that these newly formed schools would lack diversity and promote a monocultural. The particular commentary that I’ve read this morning argues that Catholic schools do, in fact, promote diversity within their schools. Read via: Catholic schools are diverse and successful. How did Rowan Williams end up opposing them?
My response, “Who cares?” “Why do you feel the need to argue this point?”
I argue this because at stake here shouldn’t be necessarily a religious issue, it should be a personal issue based on the parents’ rights to choose what they feel is the proper education for their children. If an Anglican, Lutheran, Muslim etc. parents believe that a Catholic school gives their child the best education, they have the full rights, as afforded by their human dignity as parents of children to decide where their child is to best educated and not the state.
And here we find the most pressing matter, why is it up to the law, or for that matter ‘the state’ to decide such matter against the parents’ wishes? During my time within academics, I took a class on the Soviet Union in which I learned that the Soviet Union did all that it could to take parental rights away from parents. In fact, the Soviet propaganda machine would create poetry and songs that told of children snitching on their parents for not being loyal to the state! Naturally, the motive was to instruct children to tell on their parents and create fear among the parents. And this where both 20th century, and it appears the 21st century, fascism and socialism/communism become blurred. More or less, communism has always been about economics (albeit distributed and managed by the state), but fascism is about a growth in state power as opposed to more localized forms of government including self-autonomy. It’s about forming, unnaturally a uniformed sense of allegiance to what the state deems as the appropriate culture, which ironically the UK secularist and humanists are forging when they seek to limit parental rights over the education of their children.
So, who cares if Catholic schools teach Catholic beliefs, so long as this is the parents choice, the state should never have any say on the matter.
This has been a week when most of the news in Christianity has been by the Anglican Communion. Jess has ably (as always) defended her church, and its very unwieldy mandate as the Church of England. In a very diverse country, such as England, that’s a recipe for a continuous uproar, made worse by parts of the communion being apt, in her memorable term, “to throw their toys from the pram”.
I’m always sympathetic because I was brought up in the American form of the Evangelical State Church of Prussia that hot mess that Kaiser Frederick William III of Prussia made when he force brigaded the Lutheran and Reformed churches together after the Napoleonic Wars. It too had the uneasy mission of both serving God, and being all thing to all (Protestant) people. It actually fared much the same with the same forces tearing it apart, until the second world war pretty much killed it. Remember much of Prussia is now Poland. In Germany it is now part of the Union of Evangelical Churches, and in America part of the steeply declining United Church of Christ, an even worse product of the go-go sixties.
But the CofE soldiers on, and the baton is increasingly passing to the much more orthodox African-led GAFCON, which includes the breakaway Anglican Church in North America, which is small but growing.
But this is about Jess’ continued and continuing defense of her church, which puts her amongst probably the majority of her sensible and tolerant co-religionists. She started early as this post from 2012 shows
English: Flag of the Anglican Communion (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Church of England seems to attract few defenders. Some from the Catholic wing have crossed the Tiber to the Ordinariate; others on the liberal wing seem indistinguishable from secular liberals; and there is always the Archbishop of Canterbury to criticise when all other news fails. Sometimes it seems as though ‘the centre cannot hold’; and yet it does.
The Church of England is a compromise. It is not the hard-line Protestantism of Edward VI, neither is it the return to Catholicism of Mary I. To those who like firm lines of definition, this looks like a fault; to those of us who wish for a degree of comprehensiveness, it is a virtue. It reminds me of the definition of Christ’s two natures agreed at Chalcedon. The ancestors of the Copts found it too Nestorian, whilst the Nestorians found it made insufficient concessions to their position. Any such comparison should not be pressed too hard; but the point is that any widely accepted set of formulae will have within them things which those who want sharp definitions won’t like – and that in dealing with the Infinite Mystery of the Economy of our salvation, we should beware of thinking that granularity is necessarily to be had.
Newman may have abandoned his idea of the C of E as the via media, but that does not mean he was wrong to have formulated it. Much as I admire the Roman Catholic Church, there is something in it unduly attached to legalisms and definitions, or at least that is my impression. From experience, at least at secondhand, its approach to divorced people taking communion seems to fall into that category. Annulments are a long and complex process, and whilst clearly designed to help deal with the tension between what Our Lord said and pastoral needs, they seem at once cumbersome and lacking in appreciation of the needs of the repentant sinner; the C of E’s approach recognises the latter and lacks the former.
Of course to those convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, these things are, rightly, secondary, but to those of us still of the view that the C of E is the branch of Catholicism practised in these islands, they give cause for hesitation.
My Orthodox acquaintances push their argument about legalism far too far in my view, almost to the point of it becoming their version of anti-Catholicism. There is much wisdom to be gained from studying the Orthodox tradition, as there is from really knowing the Catholic one. For me, one of the virtues of where I am is that I do not have to choose between them, or reject men like Wesley, who I also regard with veneration. A typical muddled Anglican? Perhaps, but a position shared by many. That does not make it right to those for whom it seems like persistence in error; but it allows me to persist in my journey, and the Anglican Church which formed me, offers me a way of love which seeks to comprehend all who will take it.
I’m going to start a series here on the biblical origins of the American character. We all know, or should, that the early settlers, especially the ones we call the Pilgrims, felt a close affinity with the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. But why? I’ve always felt it was a disenchantment with the King of England, not least because of their sympathy for Oliver Cromwell. Turns out that I was fairly close to right. Kenneth Hanson has studied in far greater depth than I have ever seen, this paper was published in the New English Review. It’s a fascinating story as well, which sheds light not only on American History but on early Jewish history.
Here you will find the biblical basis of what we as Americans hold sacred.
Abram and Lot Depart Out of Haran (illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“Go ye!” – Patriarchs and Pioneers
by Kenneth Hanson
“Liberty, next to religion has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime… In every age its progress has been beset by its natural enemies, by ignorance and superstition, by lust of conquest and by love of ease, by the strong man’s craving for power, and the poor man’s craving for food.” – Lord Acton[1]
Open the pages of the Bible. Pull it off the dusty shelf, and whom do you meet from the outset? The Patriarchs – biblical “pioneers” – rugged individualists in search of a new land. They were the ancestors of Israel’s twelve tribes, just as America’s Pilgrims and early colonists were the founders of the thirteen separate states that would one day comprise a federal union.
We’re all familiar with the story of Abraham, the revered father of three world faiths and progenitor of the people who came to be known as Israel. According to holy writ, he hailed from ancient Babylonia, today known somewhat ignominiously as the country of Iraq. He didn’t, however, follow the advice that most people today would give a son: “Get an education. Become a professional, perhaps a doctor or a lawyer. Find a nice Jewish girl. Settle down. Raise a family. Put something away for retirement.” Surprisingly enough, ancient Mesopotamia boasted such an advanced culture that young Abram, as he was called before his famous name-change, could have done just that.
In reading our discussions lately, it has struck me that sometimes we conflate words to get to places we didn’t really mean to go.
We have discussed much how the church relates to the congregant. Webster’s defines relate this way.
: to show or make a connection between (two or more things)
: to understand and like or have sympathy for someone or something
: to tell (something, such as a story)
For our purposes though, I think the definition from the medical dictionary is perhaps more useful:
: to have meaningful social relationships : interact realistically <an inability to relate emotionally to others—Willow Lawson>
In many ways, when we look for a church, that’s what we are looking for, isn’t it? A place that will try to understand “where we are coming from”. And not this: if we are coming from, it’s likely that we are not satisfied with where we are, so we’re unlikely to be looking simply for validation that we’ve been perfect, are we?
So we’re not merely looking for validation that we’re doing everything right, we’re most likely looking for something better. Perhaps an example, perhaps someone to follow.
People are unchurched for many reasons, some have never been told anything about Christianity, some have come away from a lukewarm experience that left them unsatisfied, there are as many reasons as there are the unchurched.
It is our mission to listen to them, to help them to understand the Good News and help them make the journey to Christ. Note that i am not saying (nor have I ever) that we should compromise our beliefs (or our churches’) but we should, nay we must, listen to them carefully to understand what is troubling them.
No doubt if we are active in this, we will hear all manner of folly, and things that we know are nonsense. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that they learn that we care about them and will listen to them. If we don’t have that relationship, and that trust, we will be ineffective, not least because we will never understand why they are looking for something,.
But once they have learned that we can be trusted, and trusted not to denigrate them for what they say, we can begin to lead them to the Cross. Without that, we will simply drive them away, at least in my experience, from both sides.
Earlier, I said I think we sometimes conflate words. The phrase I had in mind is moral relativism. The Basics of Philosophy tells us:
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/oruniversal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It does notdeny outright the truth-value or justification of moral statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do), but affirms relative forms of them. It may be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.
Moral Relativists point out that humans are not omniscient, and history is replete with examples of individuals and societies acting in the name of an infallible truth later demonstrated to be more than fallible, so we should be very wary of basing important ethical decisions on a supposed absolute claim. Absolutes also tend to inhibit experimentation and foreclose possible fields of inquiry which might lead to progress in many fields, as well as stifling the human spirit and quest for meaning. In addition, the short term proves itself vastly superior in the ethical decision-making process than the relatively unknown long-term.
Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly different concept is that ofMoral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other (e.g. the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rationalmeasure of which is preferable).
An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning at all, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. Some philosophers maintain that Moral Relativism dissolves into Emotivism (the non-cognitivist theory espoused by many Logical Positivists, which holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions and personal attitudes) or Moral Nihilism (the theory that, although ethical sentences do represent objective values, they are in fact false).
Moral Relativism generally stands in contrast to Moral Absolutism, Moral Universalism and to all types of Moral Realism, which maintain the existence of invariant moral facts that can be known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition.
There’s quite a lot more, as I’m sure you are aware, and it’s interesting, especially the history. But since we are Christians, we can’t really go there, in my opinion, without abrogating our faith. Christ taught us that there is objectively right, and wrong, in all times and all places.
Yes, things change. Christ was not pressing for the abolition of human slavery, but Christianity was the driving force in its abolition in the west. Nor did He agitate for the equality of women but we have come to see that as a Christian value.
In other words he taught us the basics, and we have taken the ball and advanced it, with due regard for tradition, we have come to see that the dignity of the individual human being is paramount, and that human rights (as we perceive them) are an objectively good (and ethical) thing.
But to come back to where we began, it is not our role to judge others, God will take care of that in His own good time. And in truth, as I get older, I have less and less desire to judge others. More and more I realize that everybody’s experience is different and I’m simply not qualified.
What our mission is once we have a person’s trust is to teach him what God says and does, and give him the tools to judge himself. This is the role of confession. And then God will participate with forgiveness and mercy.
A reminder for all of us though, although our churches don’t seem to stress it as much as they used to, Christ ended almost all of his lessons with this, in one form or another:
Go and sin no more
That’s key!
And since today is 23 April, I thought I would add a reminder that it is the Feast Day of St. George. He’s a busy guy, he’s the patron saint of Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Portugal and Russia, but above all in our minds: England.
Sir Winston Churchill said:
There is a forgotten -nay almost forbidden word,
. . . . a word which means more to me than any other. . . .
That word is
“ENGLAND”
Seems to me he’s wasn’t far wrong. We hear much of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and even of the former Empires: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, and even India, but we hear little of the source of the glory: England. For without the driving force of English ideas, our world would simply not exist.
There was a saying, not heard today so often as formerly . .
“What do they know of England who only England know?”
It is a saying which dates. It has a period aroma, like Kipling’s “Recessional” or the state rooms at Osborne. That phase is ended, so plainly ended, that even the generation born at its zenith, for whom the realisation is the hardest, no longer deceive themselves as to the fact. That power and that glory have vanished, as surely, if not as tracelessly, as the imperial fleet from the waters of Spithead.
And yet England is not as Nineveh and Tyre, nor as Rome, nor as Spain. Herodotus relates how the Athenians, returning to their city after it had been sacked and burnt by Xerxes and the Persian army, were astonished to find, alive and flourishing in the blackened ruins, the sacred olive tree, the native symbol of their country.
So we today, at the heart of a vanished empire, amid the fragments of demolished glory, seem to find, like one of her own oak trees, standing and growing, the sap still rising from her ancient roots to meet the spring, England herself.
Well, I seem to have become the town crier for the AATW community. It’s something I relish, since it nearly always means that I am conveying good news, related to The Good News and it doesn’t get much better than that.
Today marked Jessica’s last day on her old job, in which we watched in awe as she staged a demonstration of how meteoric one’s career could be if one, was honest, forceful and not cowed by a bureaucracy. From a part-timer to the PA of the big boss in a bit more than a year, and probably the best PA a man has ever had.
Congratulations, Dearest Friend 🙂 xx
As all of us who have worked in a corporate environment know, the strain is great, and all of us who know her well cheered in relief when she decided to go back to teaching the little ones. Not to mention that it is her first love, and now she carries an immense amount of administrative know-how that I suspect her new employer will be most grateful to have.
And this is where I get to tell you that she will be MIA for the next week as she reprises her pilgrimage to Walsingham. Rather than me telling you about it, there are several articles about Walsingham on the site from her last visit, nearly two year ago. It hold a deep personal meaning for me as well, because it was on that trip, that our friendship deepened immeasurably, this was when something other-worldly moved both of us and we became in our terminology, ‘dearest friend’ rather than merely good friends. Being a rock ribbed Protestant, I have no especially good argument, but Jess found me much more open to The Lady after this.
And so, that you’ll know one or the other of us wrote this, a bit of the poem we have both quoted so often, from Sir Philip Howard
Weep, weep, O WalsinghamWhose days are nights,Blessings turned to blasphemies,Holy deeds to despites.Sin is where Our Lady sat,Heaven turned into hell,Satan sits where Our Lord did sway,Walsingham, oh farewell!
And yet for those of us at the watchtower and especially perhaps for me, Walsingham turned out not to be about the past and regrets and destruction but about new beginnings, and deepening relationships between people and their God.
This would be the point to say how much we all, and I especially will miss her for the week. As I told her yesterday, I will miss the emails from the McDonald’s along the way, but it is a time for her and her Vicar to really get to know each other. and so
And so, in some ways, we mark an ending, but we also note a joyful beginning, as when she returns she will be returning to her first love, as the Assistant Headteacher of a Church of England primary school. I’d call those some very lucky students because if she can teach us old curmudgeons, she can surely teach the bright young children, and so our heritage is passed on. Mathew Arnold says it well I think.
Go, for they call you, shepherd, from the hill;
Go, shepherd, and untie the wattled cotes!
No longer leave thy wistful flock unfed,
Nor let thy bawling fellows rack their throats,
Nor the cropped herbage shoot another head.
But when the fields are still,
And the tired men and dogs all gone to rest,
And only the white sheep are sometimes seen
Cross and recross the strips of moon-blanched green,
Come, shepherd, and again begin the quest!
Go, and enjoy, and we shall surely miss you, and when you return, refreshed as before, we shall begin again, dearest friend.
Too often I find myself frustrated with young men (and it does seem to be mostly men), it often seems that they have no idea of things that have gone before. It also strikes me that they are much too given to teleological argument in history. Especially since the history of English (and American) resistance has been almost invariably a desire to go back to “the good old law”. Eventually, I cool off and remember how smart my dad got when I went to college, and even more so, work. But, I have long since decided that I tell the truth as I see it, if you don’t want it with the bark on, don’t deal with me.
This will go somewhat off topic, although it is as applicable to our faith as it is anything else, so if you’re reading it, it was because Jessica in her kind heart approved the digression.
In comments the other day Pancakes denigrated American exceptionalism with the catch phrases we always hear, and as always, it set me off, so let look at it a bit.
Firstly, American Exceptionalism is a bit of a misnomer, in reality it is transplanted British Exceptionalism. As Alexis de Tocqueville told us: “The American is the Englishman left to himself.” But in addition to that, the whole theory runs in a nearly straight line from King Alfred the Great through that meadow at Runnymede, through Henry VIII, through the first British Civil war and the Glorious Revolution, and didn’t split until what many call the Second British Civil War (that’s what is popularly called The American Revolution). That why I often say that American history started in 1776, until then it was just a facet of British history. In truth, hopes of a reconciliation didn’t die until the Hessian mercenaries landed, it never pays to use foreign troops in an internal Anglo-American dispute. And as Edmund Burke said on 22 March 1775
First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation, which still I hope respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles.
He was right. We should probably note that in the English Civil War many (especially New Englanders) went back to England to take up arms with their families. And for Parliament, most of the New England colonists were from what has come to be called the Eastern Association. And there have always been rumors a couple of the regicides were sheltered for the rest of their life in New England. Virginia was mostly settled by low church Anglicans, who also supported Parliament. In the Revolution, we see the same split, both in America and in England as well. This may well be the only time when Edmund Burke, William Pitt the Elder and Charles James Fox found themselves on the same side of anything, and it was the American side, opposed to the North Ministry. George the Third referred to it for the rest of his life as “my Presbyterian War”.
As a bit of aside, Geoffrey wondered last week why we conflate political terms into church politics, and this may well be the answer, we’ve been doing it since the English Civil war, maybe since Magna Charta, and maybe even longer.
The American Revolution pitted the same sides against each other as the Civil War had, even many of the same families.
Did you notice that I called Henry VIII a major waypoint in American history? I did that for a reason. Henry is amongst other things the man who turned England’s face away from Europe out into the world. This is the major effect of the English Reformation. When England has thought itself to be an adjunct of Europe, it has always demeaned itself, during the Norman occupation, during the Angevin Empire, and now as well. England (in the classical sense meaning Great Britain, actually) has at almost all other times, during the Anglo-Saxon age when England came close to establishing a Nordic confederacy before “1066 and all that”, and after the Reformation, when the Royal Navy, which Henry VIII established, came to rule the waves, everywhere, only giving up that rule for parity with the United States in 1921. The British Empire, especially the first empire is quite simply, a Tudor enterprise
I also think that the Protestant faith(s) themselves have contributed greatly to the spread of English values, with the emphasis on vocation and hard (and superb) work in any sphere being very pleasing to the Lord, especially as compared to the ascetic tradition of Catholicism.
I think it probably important to note that the industrialization of the United states was heavily underwritten by British firms and banks. Why? I’d say most likely because here, like there, the rule of law prevailed, even above the government. Their money, if their investment was wise, was safe. Some tin pot dictator was not going to steal it.
Daniel Hannan, in his latest book, speaks of that day in August of 1941 when Roosevelt walked (really he did) across the gangplank from USS Augusta to HMS Prince of Wales for Church parade, as the band of the Prince of Wales struck up the Stars and Stripes Forever. Churchill later exulted, and correctly, “The Same Language, The Same Hymns, the Same Ideals. The lesson for the day came from Joshua 1:
As I was with Moses, so I will be with you
I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee
Be strong and of good courage
I can’t remember for sure but I am quite sure that the final hymn that day was this:
After all the former First Sea Lord and the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy would have known that it is the official hymn of both navies. They also both knew on that foreboding Sunday morning that freedom had become a fugitive in the night, she existed almost no place where English was not spoken. From Brest through the Japanese home Islands, from the North Pole to Africa all was either communist, nazi, fascist or some other variant of totalitarianism. Freedom in the world is a gift from the English Speaking peoples, and none other, purchased at a very high price, in both blood and treasure.
On that day, and on many others they pledged themselves, and us to make the world safe for
Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.
And no, I didn’t quote Lincoln here, he borrowed the quote himself. It was originally written in 1384 by John Wycliffe. Such a phrase in the 14th century could not have been written in anything but English.
Reformation and Counter Reformation in Europe. Protestant lands in blue, Catholic in olive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
[It strikes me upon reading this that it reads more polemical than I meant it to be. For that I’ll have to say that we are talking here of our historic churches, and they were polemical, and very definitely able to see the evil in each other. And so, as always, if we are to understand the past; we must see the past through its own eyes. That does not mean that our current churches are like that, for indeed they are not. As we have written here, all of us, over and over, we share very much the same belief system. But this is part of how we got here.]
Geoffrey and I have both touched lightly on something that seems to keep coming up. Namely, the Petrine authority and why we don’t accept it. It seems that some have a bit of trouble understanding why that is. Our beliefs do parallel the Orthodox but there is a lot of western history tied up in it as well.
Most Protestant churches to a greater or lesser extent resist authority, outside of the congregation, Anglican and Lutherans both have a smattering of Archbishops and do have bishops but, at least here in the States ours have little authority, really. As far as I remember the only extant Lutheran Archbishop is in Sweden.
But one of the main things I have noticed is that Protestant doesn’t mean what you think it does. It does not refer to us protesting Rome. Instead as Peter Escalante, writing on the Calvinistinternational.com reminded us the other day, it originally meant
[Do not take]“Protestant” to mean “protestor” in the modern sense, when in fact it originally meant “confessor,” “proclaimer,” “testifier.” A brief consideration of this point can be found here. The Reformers were not defined by protest against Rome, they were defined by protestation of the truth.
Protestants are “evangelical” Christians, and evangelical means “of the Gospel” (Remember, the Lutherans were the original “evangelicals.”). This indicates that we stand on the plain meaning of the Old and New Testaments regarding the Gospel, in a way which is less mixed than churches which have not been reformed, although we warmly acknowledge that they are Christians too despite their imperfect understanding or problematic practices. Our faith is Biblical, and therefore “catholic,” which means, “universal.” We are also called Protestants, because the Christians who called the church back to a purer Biblical faith in the 16th century had to bear witness to Biblical truth, and originally, “protest” meant just that: to testify before an audience. And this is what our fathers in faith did.
As we still do. And to be completely honest, that is also what drove the Reformation. Because the one thing that the medieval Roman Church did in all times and in all place was to suppress the Bible from the people, We saw it with Wyclif, we saw it with Tyndale, and we saw it with Luther as well.
Although it’s not strictly necessary to the discussion the following video lays it out well, from the English side.
And I have seen reports that by the time of the Act of Supremacy, roughly half of all English people were more or less literate.
As Geoffrey will tell you, although it mandated putting the Bible in the hands of the people, the Church of England wasn’t necessarily much friendlier to dissent, and neither was the Lutheran church, it’s a function of a state church.
As an aside, the famous religious freedom in the United States came to be to try to tamp down religious conflict. Otherwise you would have Congregational New England, fighting with Catholic Maryland, Episcopal Virginia, Quaker Pennsylvania, Methodist Georgia and all the other variants. And note that originally our Constitution did not restrict the states from any religious test, the only prohibition was a prohibition on a religious test for an office of the United States. States could still have an established church, and some did. In other words, they quite rationally and consciously swept the whole mess under a rug in Philadelphia and got on with making a country.
But if we believe, as we all do that
John 1
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Why would a church of that God seek to suppress that Word. The only reason that seemed to be in the mind of those reformers was that that church was not preaching the Word properly. That perhaps that church was
Not educating it’s clergy well enough. Wyclif particularly commented on this
Had become corrupt with worldly power (and pleasure) Luther particularly began to doubt the church after his summons to Rome, when he observed the practices of the clergy there. and/or
Had corrupted the message for its own corrupt ends.
Not to put too fine a point on it, we hold that we did not leave the catholic church, Rome did. In American Constitutional terms, we are an originalist church, going back to the origins of the Faith.
In short, while we are perfectly willing to grant the Bishop of Rome respect, often even Primus inter Pares, perhaps even Patriarchal status, we do not recognize his authority as authority, any more than the Orthodox or the Copts do.
It strikes me further that there is an interesting side issue here. The Protestant lands, almost without exception are those which, never acknowledged the Emperor of Rome either. Is there also a folk memory acting here? You disagree because of England? Why? Yes, there was Roman Britain, but Britain was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes) after that; pushing the Celts into Wales, leaving little trace, and then again by the Normans, who while they came from France were by blood also Scandinavian. I don’t have any theory here, it’s merely an interesting set of facts, which may or may not be relevant to anything.
And some to make mirth · as minstrels know how,
And get gold with their glees · guiltlessly, I hold.
But jesters and janglers · children of Judas,
Feigning their fancies · and making folk fools,
They have wit at will · to work, if they would;
Paul preacheth of them · I’ll not prove it here — Qui turpiloquium loquitur · is Lucifer’s hind.
Tramps and beggars · went quickly about,
Their bellies and their bags · with bread well crammed;
Cadging for their food · fighting at ale;
In gluttony, God knows · going to bed,
And getting up with ribaldry · the thieving knaves!
Sleep and sorry sloth · ever pursue them.
Pilgrims and palmers · pledged them together
To seek Saint James · and saints in Rome.
They went forth on their way · with many wise tales,
And had leave to lie · all their life after —
I saw some that said · they had sought saints:
Yet in each tale that they told · their tongue turned to lies
More than to tell truth · it seemed by their speech.
Hermits, a heap of them · with hooked staves,
Were going to Walsingham · and their wenches too;
Big loafers and tall · that loth were to work,
Dressed up in capes · to be known from others;
And so clad as hermits · their ease to have.
I found there friars · of all the four orders,
Preaching to the people · for profit to themselves,
Explaining the Gospel · just as they liked,
To get clothes for themselves · they construed it as they would.
Many of these master friars · may dress as they will,
For money and their preaching · both go together.
For since charity hath been chapman · and chief to shrive lords,
Many miracles have happened · within a few years.
Except Holy Church and they · agree better together,
Great mischief on earth · is mounting up fast.
There preached a pardoner · as if he priest were:
He brought forth a brief · with bishops’ seals thereon,
And said that himself · might absolve them all
From falseness in fasting and of broken vows.
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris
This has been a week when most of the news in Christianity has been by the Anglican Communion. Jess has ably (as always) defended her church, and its very unwieldy mandate as the Church of England. In a very diverse country, such as England, that’s a recipe for a continuous uproar, made worse by parts of the communion being apt, in her memorable term, “to throw their toys from the pram”.
Well, I seem to have become the town crier for the AATW community. It’s something I relish, since it nearly always means that I am conveying good news, related to The Good News and it doesn’t get much better than that.
