The General Synod of the Church of England will consider a report on its ecumenical relationship with the Church of Scotland (the CoE is established (entangled with the government) and observes an episcopal polity (government with bishops) whereas the CoS is a national church (largely disentangled from government) and observes presbyterian polity (government with councils of elders)). That is all to the good; the relationship of these two ecclesial bodies has long been vexed, and rapprochement would count as a very good thing.
On the other hand, the report in question minimises ”” almost ignores ”” the relation of these two dominant groups to the middle term, the Scottish Episcopal Church (and I suppose it ignores English Presbyterians, too).
Presumably the point at issue has to do with being established churches. I saw lots of excited talk about the freedoms the SEC has that allow it to avoid ‘mitregate.’ Well exactly, the SEC is not the C of E and does not operate with canons finally regulated by Parliament.
Dr. Seitz,
Given your ten years living and teaching in Scotland, can you perhaps illuminate what Dr. Adam might mean by contrasting the CoE and CoS in terms of how “entangled” they are with the government? More importantly, would you agree with him in highlighting that alleged contrast?
The NT scholar clearly seems to suggest that since the CoS is a [b]national[/b] church, presumably more tied to Scotland’s culture than to Great Britain or the UK as a whole, that the CoS is less entangled with the UK government than the CoE is. But the Scottish Presbyterian Church still remains, as far as I can tell from this side of the Atlantic, very much a [i]volk kirche.[/i] And John Knox clearly intended that it should be so.
Has the Scottish Episcopal Church ever become truly indigenous, or does it remain largely a haven for English ex-patriates? Just curious.
Anyway, if the Episcopal Church of Scotland is as teeny tiny as I recall, with only some 15,000 members, it’s perhaps no wonder that it gets easily overlooked in this particular document attempting to foster better relations between the two larger churches. But I’d have to agree with Dr. Adam that the omission of the Anglican province in Scotland is troubling, whatever motivations may lie behind it.
David Handy+
It has been remarked that the biggest loser in terms of national spotlight, with the devolution of government in Scotland and the formation of a Scottish Parliament, was the Kirk. The Ch of Scotland thought of itself as a kind of spokesman for things Scottish. Indeed, when the devolved government first met, before their present lodgings were finished (at huge cost overuns and much controversy), they met in the General Assembly, loaned to them for this purpose. I’m not sure what ACMA’s point is exactly. The Scottish Parliament has no House of Lords. It does not regulate religious affairs in the Kirk, and did not exist until recently (and with very limited powers). When the General Assembly meets, the Lord High Commissioner and his entourage attend, but sit in the balcony. Of course there is a long and complicated discussion to be had over the asymmetry of a system which has Westminster MPs from Scotland, making laws for England (Gordon Brown most famously of recent note; his seat was in Kirkaldy in Fife), alongside a Scottish Parliament. Many in England rightly wonder why they don’t have a complement like that of their own, and indeed Yorkshire sometimes speaks like they want this. But the main point is that the counterpart for national purposes in Scotland is the Kirk, not the tiny SEC. The Queen worships at the Ch of Scotland when in the north and has ‘royal chaplains’ who are CofS ministers. She sends the Lord High Commisioner to observe (not enter into) affairs at the General Assembly (when I was inducted into a Chair at St As it was intriguing to observe this live). The SEC has none of this governmental linkage and yet in places like Fife is regarded as the ‘English Church’ — a kind of deep irony of history and present legal realities.
Dr. Seitz (#3),
Thanks for shedding a bit more light on a murky, confusing subject.
I must admit that this sort of paradoxical situation (to say the least) which seems to clearly subordinate church interests to national or state interests is not only perplexing to me, but extremely suspicious. I remain extremely skeptical about the legitimacy of Christendom era arrangements in the increasingly hostile, post-Christendom world we now live in (at least in the Global North). The whole system stinks and appears totally obsolete to me, as an American. Like the Tractarians, I fervently wish that Anglicanism would everywhere, but especially in England, see the real basis for its authority and mission as residing in its APOSTOLIC roots, and most assuredly NOT in its endorsement by a secular and increasingly hostile state and culture.
Please note: I am NOT passing judgment here on the venerable leaders of the long Christendom era in the past. When the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, the Church couldn’t evade the new responsibilities thrust upon it. Only Leo the Great could go outside the walls to negotiate a deal with Atila the Hun to avoid the sacking and burning of Rome. Only the monks and clerics of the Dark Ages could teach the illiterate Europeans to read and write, and function as “clerks” in government service when none but clerics had those skills.
But that was then. And this is now. And the long marriage of Church and State, or more generally of Christianity in general and western civilization in general, has moved beyond separation and has degenerated into a bitter divorce. And it’s high time for us Anglicans to face that grim reality, and all the glorious opportunities for recovering the vitality of the early patirstic Church that go along with it.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of fervently confrontational, post-Christendom style Anglicanism for the 3rd Millenium.
Every system has its challenges. Was ever so. What Paul did and said in Athens he did not repeat in Colossae or in Rome. State churches have the demands of apologetics forced on them, and may need to be martyred for standing for truth. Churches in the US have the challenge of privatization and individualization (me and my Bible or me and my radical this or that silver bullet). Postmodernity is eclecticism as much as anti-foundationalism, or ‘post-Christendom’ monoliths.
Yes, of course, there is no one ideal relationship between Christ and Culture. I’m not suggesting a one-size-fits-all approach here. All five of the main types that Richard Neibuhr highlighted back in 1951 in his immensely influential classic, [b]Christ and Culture[/b] have their strengths and wekanesses, as you say. But my point is that sometimes our social context limits our options.
Today, Niebuhr’s favorite, “Christ the Transformer of Culture” is NOT a viable option anymmore, since western culture no longer allows it as a realistic possibility. I’ve come to believe that we are all practically forced, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not (and of course, mostly we don’t), into a confrontational, adversarial, “Christ against Culture” model, similar to the Age of the Martyrs. I wouldn’t go as far as Tertullian and ask, “[i]What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?[/i]” I prefer the more irenic Cappadocians myself to hardcore isolationists like Tertullian or Hippolytus.
But surely, as an academic, Dr. Seitz, you know better than I that Athens for the most part refuses to allow spokesmen of Jerusalem any voice. Or as George Marsden put it in his devastating critique of the evolution of public universities in America, [b]The Soul of the University[/b], our leading schools of higher education have morphed from representing a Protestant Establishment to what amounts to “Established Unbelief.”
Awareness of that fundamental shift in western culture, from favoring Christianity to now disfavoring it in manifold and increasingly hostile ways, is the main factor in fact underlying my insistent call for a New Reformation. Given the state church heritage of Anglicanism, it will be nothing less than revolutionary, in the most radical sense of the term, for us to move, as I ardently believe we MUST, from a volk kirche model of church life to an unabashed “gathered church” model. With all the far-reaching and momentous changes that inevitably involves.
It’s not that I’m an Anabaptist in Anglican clothing. It’s that such a drastic overhaul of the way we do church in the West is literally being FORCED on us by an increasingly hostile culture.
David Handy+
Having lived in a variety of cultures, I think you are insufficiently aware of there being no ‘one size fits all.’ State Churches God calls to certain duties, and He speaks equally to those with a different set of imperatives. It’s a big world out there, and He’s got the whole thing in his hands. So says Mr Academic.
Came to this late; I was reading in a KJV St John’s Gospel read-through last night, and got home too late and tired to comment coherently. Greetings to you both (and you also, Kendall)!
Â
As I moved here less than a year ago, my acquaintance with the topic David raises is fresh and malleable. I gather (from several nationalistically-inclined Scots) that the Kirk is “national,” in the sense that it’s the official church of Scotland for state occasions, for consultation by the government, for the royal family when they’re in Scotland, and so on. At the same time, the Kirk is self-governing and is not accountable to the government for its policies, etc. Her Royal Majesty is a member of the Kirk (when in Scotland), but she is [i]just another[/i] member, not its Supreme Governor. In the Church of Scotland Act, Parliament specifically disclaimed authority over the Kirk.
Â
The Church of England is “established”: bishops are appointed by the government (not being an insider, I don’t know how much influence the government has; but even just minimally, the PM and the monarch have legally defined roles in the process), several bishops have seats in the House of Lords (and there used to be more), and of course the reigning monarch is Supreme Governor of the CoE. Some of this distinction involves the divergence in polities; presbyterian governance is less congruent with monarchial and ministerial interference than is episcopal polity. Likewise, the distance between Westminster and Edinburgh (and Scotland’s sense of national autonomy) diminishes the sway that the government might have.
Â
But the most dramatic such difference may involve the ramifications of establishment in parish churches, where (since all citizens of England are implicitly members of their local parish church) anyone can be married, buried, or baptised in their parish church regardless of their more general relation to the church — a condition that horrifies many Kirk theologians.
Â
I don’t care much about “mitregate” apart for a general sympathy for the beleaguered Archbishop of Canterbury, whose grocery lists are no doubt subject to withering criticism from those who think he ingests too little roughage, too much meat, not enough meat, not enough British produce, too many leeks, or whatever. If he subsisted only on the Sacrament, he would be denounced as malnourished or a show-off. If he eats richly and well, lo, a glutton and drunkard.
Â
So Chris, I think the point [i]for the Kirk and the CoE[/i] is the role of the culturally-dominant, governmentally-interested churches — but for the SEC, it feels a bit like we’re presupposed to be just an adjunct of the CoE, rather than a distinct body with a distinct heritage. That’s especially important, and especially relevant in this context, since neither the CoE nor the Kirk has been especially kind to the SEC. Some of that is understandable; since the CoE is (and was even more so) integrated into the government, it couldn’t very well act against the interests of the officially-recognised Church of Scotland even when the Church of Scotland was harassing and restricting Episcopal observance. As a result, the SEC subsisted for a long time as something of a loosely-joined patchwork of congregations under the oversight of English bishops, congregations under the oversight of Scottish bishops, Englishmen being consecrated to Scottish sees, English clergy who moved to Scotland, Scottish clergy educated in England, and a relatively few Scottish clergy without strong English ties. (Since most of the good ecclesiastical jobs were in England, the SEC tended to gather the less upwardly-mobile clergy and bishops; and unless one had some sort of English connection, there were canonical impediments to an ordained Scotsman’s being employed in England. To a certain extent, then, Scotland was an ecclesiastical sidetrack, if not a one-way street.) The history of being treated as an enemy by the Presbies and as an unruly stepchild by the Anglicans facilitated the Scottish willingness to consecrate Samuel Seabury, and continues to generate the sense that we are a distinct province, thank you very much, with the dignity of our own identity — and when the Kirk and the CoE take counsel about the future of their relationship (but don’t take any account of us) that only furthers the sense that our larger neighbours and siblings simply disregard our existence.
Â
At least, that’s the way it seems to this sojourner.
RE: “Today, Niebuhr’s favorite, “Christ the Transformer of Culture†is NOT a viable option anymmore, since western culture no longer allows it as a realistic possibility.”
Yes, it is a viable option, and the fact that the Church in the US has singularly failed over the past 50 years to be such a transformer of culture is largely the fault of our own reductionistic and heretical theology — and here I’m speaking to the evangelicals and conservatives, not the liberals, who don’t even count as “the Church” anyway.
The Church’s muffing of the ball of culture transformation is not at all the fault of “western culture” — it is the fault of us and our own immensely flawed theology. In fact . . . evangelicals as a rule have not desired to “transform culture” preferring rather to do exactly as David Handy proclaims he desires . . . or to ape it shamelessly.
AKMA, with respect, you are going to have to spend a longer period of time in Scotland to understand what is a very complex issue. Much of the dissolution of the SEC is unrelated to the history you describe and has instead to do with facts in the present, having nothing to do at all with the CofE. Poor giving, no seminary, rural parishes with aging populations — these are but a few. The Kirk has its own challenges, trying to appear culturally with-it. The big and growing parishes (St Silas in Glasgow, Ps/Gs in Edinburgh, Trinity Westhills) neither leave the SEC nor identify with it (and there is an intriguing history there, going back into the late 19th century). In addition, the scottishness of the SEC varies from diocese to diocese. The SEC has a fascinating history at many levels (early conversations with the Eastern church, whence the epiclesis) much of it born of the desire to have an identity apart from the BCP tradition of England. But its present malaise will not change because the CofE treats it differently, and frankly I have never heard anyone inside the SEC speak that way. I also don’t think there is major communication or concern flowing between the CofS and CofE, and never much thought about it. The SEC is a small church with a lot of challenges, with the predominant church going, such as it is, shared between the Kirk and the RCC. There were efforts at ecumenical cooperation over the last decades, but again, one wonders whether the theological and ecclesiological differences are just too great. My sense was Chillingworth was appointed Primus because no one much wanted the job, and the times are parlous. grace and peace.
BTW, I received this forward but do not see it in the thread above. I agree with the comment about liberal Bishops and the growing congregations. It may also account for Chillingworth’s appt, as he is more likely to care about this than previous colleagues.
**
I noticed the marginalisation of SEC in this report as well. But it has to be said that like other areas of life, your voice is listened to according to how you perform as well as which clubs you belong to.
Like the Church in Wales, what we see is decline probably related to past primates who used their position not to grow the church and shepherd their congregations, but to promote their own liberal agenda, while neglecting the real hope in their growing [mainly evangelical] congregations. One has slightly more hope with the new Primus, but not much.
Sadly the CofE is not far behind it seems looking at some of the recent
bishop appointments.
Thanks to Dr. Adam (#8) for chiming in here and helping to clarify his concerns and views. I’m glad you managed to find another academic appointment after your year at Duke was up, even if you had to go to Scotland to find it.
Alas, blogs don’t provide a venue for discussing complex topics very well, as I’m sure we can all agree. And the wisest or most fruitful relationship between the Christian Church and its surrounding culture is surely a highly complex and debatable one. I freely admit that my experience is very limited, having only lived in the US. But having conceded that, I stand by what I said above, especially contra Sarah’s #9.
Richard Neibuhr could still take for granted the “mainline” status of the historic major Protestant denominations back in 1951. But things have changed drastically since then, and Christianity (in all its various forms) has clearly been relegated to the margins of society in the US, and even more so it appears in Canada and Europe. That is not to deny that even as a small, misunderstood and often maligned minority that we Christians can’t have a transforming influence on our culture. It doesn’t take much salt or leaven to wield significant influence. But my point is that whatever positive impact we do have as Christians on our increasingly secularized, pluralistic, relativistic, and amoral culture will come about as we cultivate our separate and distinct identiy as an emphatically counter-cultural minority group.
I’m not by any means condoning our American tendency toward an individualistic, privatistic faith, nor am I suggesting that we Christians withdraw into a ghetto of our own, like the Amish say. But I am insisting that we wake up and face the grim (and exciting) reality that the Constantianian era is finally over, and will never return in the West. Christendom-style religion had a great run for about a millenium and a half, but it’s now high time to face facts and come to terms with the stark fact that a completely different approach to evangelizing and transforming our post-Christendom world is now necessary. And the changes that will involve may well end up making the changes brought about by the 16th century Reformation look small and tame by comparison.
David Handy+
With respect, NRA, everyone of Niebuhr’s types can be found in North American Christianity today– his typology is not dependent on the Christendom model.
Some evangelicals (particularly the Reformed) are wholeheartedly committed to what Niebuhr describes as “Christ transforming culture.” This is evident in the cultural engagement we see in both the Christian right (the late Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson) and the Christian left (Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al).
Others take the view that you are advocating for– the Plymouth Brethren, to some extent, the Mennonites, and others.
There are other types as well, though. In [i]Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World[/i], (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), John G. Stackhouse Jr. argues very persuasively for Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture in Paradox,” albeit with some modification (Stackhouse doesn’t feel that Niebuhr did justice to this type).
There’s a whole lotta respect going around on here; permit me to repeat and emphasise my own respect for all in the thread.
I’m not sure what (if anything) Chris and I are disagreeing about in this thread. I mean, I know several things about which we disagree, but I don’t think they pertain specifically to the report on Kirk-CoE relations. I can’t quite account for where the “liberal Bishops” and “decline” topics came from; though much of what liberal bishops say is disappointing, they don’t hold a monopoly on that characteristic. I suspect that most of the decline in question has more to do with an aversion to excellence in ecclesiastical expression and practice (an affliction that may befall clergy and congregations regardless of where they fall on a doctrinal spectrum, though there are ideological reasons for “liberals” to be more susceptible than “conservatives”).
But let’s not argue about that here — let’s stick to what I think we agree on. The history of the SEC is intricately complex; the CoE and CoS awkwardly neglected the SEC in “Our Fellowship”; both houses are beset by disorderliness of various sorts at the moment; and we can pray (I trust) that the Spirit be known with sufficient vitality and clarity to alleviate any bickering among us, to lead us all to repent of our errors and uncharity, and so to draw us [i]together[/i] closer to the heart of Christ.
“the CoE and CoS awkwardly neglected the SEC in “Our Fellowship” — I guess I don’t see how the CofE discussion with the CofS is a snub of the SEC. It is simply on a different plane and for a different purpose.