It might well be impossible to prevent a break-up of the Church’s traditional governing structure. The opposing forces within Anglicanism might prove too strong. And it would certainly be a mistake for the liberal leadership of the Church to jettison the principle of equality for women and homosexuals in a desperate pursuit of a deal. Yet the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, is surely right at least to attempt to hold the ring. Unity is preferable to a schism. If a deal acceptable to all sides can be achieved, it should be energetically and tirelessly pursued. And it is by no means an impossible task. The Church of England’s leadership is attempting to hammer out a deal on special arrangements for those Anglicans who feel that their consciences would be offended by being preached to by female bishops.
Appeasing the hardliners will be difficult. And a rival grouping, headed by female clergy, is also warning that it will not back any deal that proposes discriminatory laws. Yet there would seem to be a way through. Those who have a problem with the authority of women bishops should be encouraged to attend churches under the control of male bishops. This kind of discreet, ad hoc “parish-swapping” already takes place in areas where there are women priests.
The issue of African objections to homosexuality in the American church is more problematic. The ideological chasm between these two wings of Anglicanism will be very difficult to bridge. The church leadership would seem to have no option but to float the idea of a looser association that permits doctrinal differences on the ordination of female and gay bishops.
The prize of unity is worth fighting for. The Anglican Communion can still be a force for good in a volatile world. And if this major Christian denomination manages to accommodate such differences of opinion, it could provide a stimulating example to other religions experiencing similar tensions.
Perhaps we should remember history. The Church of England was reformed in the 16th century with an extraordinary amount of doctrinal compromise. The task of reconciling England’s former Catholics with its hardline Protestants makes today’s disagreement look trivial in comparison. Elizabeth I said she did not desire to “make windows into men’s souls”. Global Anglicanism needs that kind of humane pragmatism today.
If Elizabeth I were Queen today, Peter Akinola would have already been kidnapped, tortured in the Tower of London, and hanged, drawn, and quartered – perhaps not at Tyburn which is now a traffic island, but at Wembley while simulcasst on JumboTrons.
“The task of reconciling England’s former Catholics with its hardline Protestants makes today’s disagreement look trivial in comparison.” Quite wrong, I think. Both parties believed in a supernatural, revealed religion. They disagreed violently on how that was to be interpreted, but shared a basic assumption. Today we are faced with a powerful lobby that regards revealed religion as, at best, anarchronistic and, at worst, a demented fantasy. There could be reconciliation between Catholic and Protestant. Believer and unbeliever cannot be unequally yoked together.
Always remember that Elizabeth had the power of the state behind her to settle these questions. A large and powerful army, the forfeiture of title, fortune, land, and life make good reasons for compromise.
Also, The Elizabethan Settlement is often used to conjur up images of live and let live, or better yet pluralism. This was never the case and the 39 articles proves the lie of this position. Besides, loyalty to the state was what she was after, and loyalty to the church was loyalty to the state.
The Anglican Communion: May the Force (for good) be with you!
What a sad assessment.
Oh, I agree … let’s imprision or deport those who disagree with the official position, as Elizabeth I would have done.
I’m amused when people take apart Elizabeth I, for it is her stamp that really made Anglicanism what it is.
It’s always a bit dangerous to read our own morality into the past. Not sure if Elizabeth was much worse than her opponents, who probably would have liked to see her fail.
But the point “make windows into men’s souls” might be useful. Too many people think they know what God thinks about others. Better to offer charity, which seems in short supply. Better charity than self-righteousness.
Another poor and simplistic analysis of the Elizabethan Settlement. libraryjim has a great point! The Elizabethan Age was NOT one for milquetoasts, no matter what one’s belief.
John Wilkins: I strongly disagree. ‘Tis is better to offer the Christian Faith and Gospel message of transformation and renewal of life, rather than some lukewarm pottage which simply reflects the surrounding narcissitic culture.
typo: ‘narcissistic’. Thanks.
Little Cabbage: I admit, I think of charity as anything but Lukewarm. In fact, it seems very difficult.
Besides, in a narcissistic culture, we all think we offer the gospel message, don’t we? I imagine you think you know the gospel better than I do. Perhaps we could both receive the gospel a bit better than we think we do.
I’m pretty sure Elizabeth did NOT say “I would not make windows into men’s souls.” As far as I know, a later historian (Trevelyan, maybe?) used that phrase to describe Elizabeth’s approach to governing the church and the nation.
Pax,
Chuck Bradshaw