It requires no leap of the imagination to see that what the Presiding Bishop has in mind here is the Episcopal Church itself. If one were, like medieval dramatists, to present the Synod of Whitby in contemporary garb, the Episcopal Church would play the part of Celtic Christianity and the “centralized authority” of the Anglican Communion would appear as Rome. Perhaps Bishop Jefferts Schori would play the part of Colman of Lindisfarne and Archbishop Williams the perennially despised Wilfrid. Such a setting for the Synod of Whitby would then carry the message that the current struggles in the Anglican Communion are simply another manifestation of the perpetual struggle between a powerful, hierarchical, and autocratic church against a vulnerable and egalitarian form of Christianity. Obviously, this is a heady message, calling to arms all who wish to resist the tyrant doing “spiritual violence” once again to those who wish freely to express their “Spirit”-led beliefs. Thus, the Synod of Whitby draws greater power by implicitly invoking the even older image of Babylon persecuting the faithful remnant. Strange how people can morph into a reflection of how they perceive their opponents.
That this is the myth by which the Presiding Bishop is operating is shown by her allusion to colonialism. This is the other governing metaphor of the letter, and in this sense the Synod of Whitby becomes an expression of ecclesiastical colonialism over a native, “Celtic” people. We have here a sort of theological variation on Avatar. The irony, of course, is that this claim is being made by the Presiding Bishop of the U.S.-based Episcopal Church: the world’s most powerful nation and one of the world’s most well-heeled churches. Likening the Episcopal Church to a weak and oppressed Celtic Christianity or to forcefully clothed Hawaiian women requires a degree of mental acrobatics that beggars belief. It is equally ironic that she thereby presents Archbishop Williams, a Welshman, in the role of an agent of the domineering Roman church seeking to suppress the wonderfully tolerant Celtic church!
As thrilling as all this may be to some, the problem is that it does violence (to use a recurring metaphor in the letter) to the actual history.
Sure, go and blow away another cleverly contrived myth for those with itching ears and feet by being historically and factually correct. It will not matter. True revisionists don’t stop at Scripture. Nothing is off limits, least making it up as you go.
I’m going to go into my den, close the door, sit down in my swiveling padded leather Executive chair, and quietly chuckle myself into a nap, while thinking of all of the ways that this woman has managed to thoroughly screw things up. I’ll also ask myself…..for the umpteenth time…..why in God’s name I stayed in TEC for as long as I did.
I like the article and am beginning to understand how a mythical culture can be cultivated right under our noses. [blockquote]Those same supporters will similarly find comfort in such phrases as “live in tension,†“contextual Christianity,†and “radical hospitality†that will mean little to most readers. The Presiding Bishop’s letter is therefore not pastoral but polemical, phrased in terms and with allusions that will ring in the ears of those who share her vision of an ideal Church.[/blockquote]Mark Clavier’s very point was demonstrated with the first negative response to what he had written. [blockquote]What part of ‘live in tension’, ‘contextual’ ‘double-standard, ‘continued dialogue’, diversity in fellowship and communion’, ‘transparent communication’ and ‘radical hospitality’ does the author not understand? The historical pedantry misses the forest for the trees and only serves to de-focus from the very real issues of unity amid diversity, inclusiveness and honesty that she ably and strongly expresses.[/blockquote] This helps me understand why I keep thinking there are two different cultures confronting one another and why I don’t understand the other culture speaking the same language. Maybe that is why we are continually asked to keep listening, not because we aren’t listening but because we don’t understand.
Not exactly, Fr Dale. Some of us “understand” all too well – and don’t like what we hear all too easily. For this reason, Clavier’s “mythic” analysis is very helpful. When [i]logos[/i] may not prevail, resort to [i]mythos[/i]. It’s an old and tried political strategy, from Ancient Greece to Nazi Germany, and beyond …
Upon further reflection, I find that the mis-use of the word mythic in this missive is indicative of the feeble understanding of myth. This does not rise to the level of myth. It is at best ahistorical and probably best characterized as an outright lie. The use of myth here gives myth a bad name. Apologies to genuine mythmakers everywhere!
As a student of Celtic Christianity, I’m offended by the authors attempt to equate TEC with the Celtic Church. The Celtic Christians were fiercely orthodox in their belief, with only a few glaring differences with Rome, and most of these were not theological, but a matter of practice:
their dating of Easter/Pascha which closer aligned with the Eastern Church;
The manner of tonsuring monks;
Ecclesiastic authority resting in abbots rather than bishops;
Rural rather than urban settings for cathedrals;
Focus on John not Peter;
etc.
But one only has to read the lives and writings of St. Patrick, Columba; etc. to know how much they expressed orthodox Christian belief and teaching.
#6,
Isn’t Pelagius the elephant in the room here?
Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440), seems to have been a Britain and most likely pre-dated Patrick (c. 387 – 17 March, 493). He appears to have taught in Rome and Africa. We are talking here about Ireland and Patrick and I have never read anything to hint that Patrick or the Irish were Pelagians.
No. 4,
I had to laugh at this. It reminded me of seminary when there was a senior level class entitled the “The Ethos of the Episcopal Church.” We always jokingly referred to it as the “The Mythos of the Episcopal Church” for the reasons you (and the article) enunciated.
8, I think you are conflating the Celts with the Irish. Pelagius wasn’t “Irish” (that term won’t work here) but he was most assuredly a Celt.
Hmm, I wonder is she ever submits her writing for [i]peer review[/i]?
But his (Pelagius –ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) teaching was never formally or widely accepted by the Celtic Christians, although some aspects resonated. But most sources affirm that Pelagius’ teachings were primarily circulated in Britain proper, not Ireland or Scotland. Richard Woods writes that: “Pelagius’s teachings were propagated in his native church by influential friends and were finally extirpated only through the evangelical efforts of papal emissaries, Sts. Germanus and Lupus, in 429 and 447.”
Again, reading Bede and the contemporary accounts of the day (340s-700’s), they are remarkably orthodox.
Although I should also point out that in the discourse on the teaching of St. Augustine on ‘original sin’, the Eastern Churches (Orthodox) have never accepted Augustine’s view, but prefer the concept of ‘ancestral sin’.
Peace!
Jim E. <><
Last time I looked the Irish are Celtic. Indeed when we talk about Celtic Christianity were are talking about the Irish Church and it’s subsequent spread throughout Europe. Pelagius may have had pagan Celtic origins but I cannot find that he had the influence on the Celtic Christian Community you seem to imply.
Actually, the original Irish (from which I am descended on my mother’s side) was actually not Celtic at the beginning. The red hair, et al, came from the Vikings when Dublin was a Viking sea port. It probably has all morphed together into Celtic these centuries on, but us original black Irish still resist the complete Celtization of Irish culture, as those of lowland Scottish heritage bristle at the Highlandization (of which I am descended on my father’s side) of Scottish culture. Lowland scots never had anything to do with kilts and bagpipes.
#13
I am Irish and I’m afraid you are gravely misinformed if you believe that it was the Vikings who introduced red hair to Ireland. Also the “Celtization” of Ireland as you call it occured during the Iron Age. Tacitus even made reference to the “red haired inhabitants of Caledonia”.
Scotland and Ireland have the highest proportion of redheads per capita of any nations.
libraryjim (#6),
The author does [i]not[/i] try to equate the “Celtic Church” with TEC. The author’s main point is that Schorri makes this (ridiculous) link in her letter. The author actually takes exception to her doing this.
Others…
“Celtic” is a catch all term originally used by the Greeks to refer to an [i]ethne[/i] living in Central Europe and France. Victorians noticed that there seemed to be some linguistic and cultural links between the languages of the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish on the one hand , and the Celtic/Gallic peoples of mainland Europe on the other. Thus they– rightly or wrongly– included the ancient British and Irish peoples under the heading, “Celtic.” With the exception of a few Belgic tribes in what is now SE England, this has been very hard to prove archaeologically. DNA analysis also suggests that there were no great migrations from those regions that the Greeks and Romans defined as “Celtic.” The peoples of the British Isles are largely of the same stock, the Atlantic modal haplotype
In a strict historical sense, then, modern archaeologists (and most historians) prefer to call the ancient Irish, Welsh and Cornish “Irish” and “British,” respectively, rather than Celtic.
Archer_of_the_Forest, the gene that governs red hair is an ancient one in Britain– which is to say it didn’t arrive with the Vikings. The “Black Irish,” are simply dark-haired Irish. They are not descendants of a distinct ethnic group. Most European populations have mixes between fair and dark haired groups. These have as much to do with localized mutations as they do with immigration.
With regard to the so-called “Celtic Church,” there were significant regional differences, but there was also a great deal of cross-fertilization, especially between Ireland and the north of Britain (including what is now Scotland). Brother Michael is right in noting that the Irish Church had the greatest impact, both on Scotland and N. Britain, and in Europe at large.
Thank tou sixteen. My son was seeking to point out that the North British church in St. Hilda’s day, conservative and rigorous in its disciple, as surviving Penententiaries demonstrate, is an unlikely paradigm for modern TEC. A myth is being constructed based on the dubious scholarship of romatic Celtites. Myths may not be untrue, but this one is emotive rather than accurate.
The church just celebrated the Feast Day of Columba of Iona (aka, Columcille) on June 9, one of the many Irish Christians who took on a life-long evangelistic mission to Scotland. There were many others of course, but it is clear that Scotland owes a great deal to the Irish Saints and evangelists who followed the call of the [i]”Wild Goose”[/i] (Holy Spirit) to leave the land they loved more than anything to bring the Gospel to the North.
For a great expository work on the work of the Celtic Christians, I would like to suggest [url=http://www.randomhouse.com/features/cahill/irish.html]”How the Irish Saved Civilization”[/url] by Thomas Cahill.
For a more romanticized version of history, the fictional works of Stephen Lawhead, including “Byzantium” and Morgan Llywelyn, who begins with Ireland’s pre-history and works up to the Easter Rebellion and self-rule for the Republic of Ireland, bring the eras of the past to life.
I would also suggest the wonderful historical/theological books of Edward C. Sellner that presents a look at the lives and wisdom of the Celtic Saints and explores the concept of “anam cara” (soul friending) and how that could apply to the Church today — his are a little dry at times, but well worth it.
And there is a new-comer on the scene, Liz Babbs, whom I met through other friends on Facebook, but has burst on the scene with several short books on Celtic Christianity.
A fuller, annotated bibliography on Celtic Christianity, which I created for the St. Aidan Trust, may be found on their web site [url=http://www.aidantrust.org/html/body_bibliography.html]here[/url]. Admittedly, it is limited to books I have actually read on the subject. And there is so much more out there. I would avoid the works of John O’Donoghue, as he cannot seem to distinguish between pagan traditions and Christian ones, and lumps them all together in a new-agey sort of way.
My apologies for equating the link above to the author instead of KJS. I corrected that oversight when discussing the article on other forums. Here, unfortunately, there is not the option of editing ones own posts.
Beannacht dé Leat!
Jim Elliott <><
Thanks Archer @ #9! I too often resort to Byron’s quote: “If I laugh, it is that I may not weep.” And yes, libraryjim @ #18: TC’s book is really great – especially now that it’s in Audio form and my Irish mother-in-law (at 94 these days) can hear it often!