Perhaps we are seeing three develÂopÂments, overlapping and reinforcing each other. First, increasing numbers of able ecclesiastical historians in England have for some time been Roman Catholics ”” Aveling, Bossy, Duffy, Gilley, Hastings, Ker, Mayr-Harting, Morrill, Nockles, Questier, Riley-Smith, Scarisbrick, and others ”” and the Church of England has found no adequate reply.
This cannot just be chance. Increasingly, the Anglican history of the years since the 1530s is implicitly emerging as a phase, not a norm.
Second, the Church of England is increasingly indifferent to its hisÂtorical dimension, neglecting the teaching of its history, unconcerned at the fate of ancient libraries, actively resistant to promoting scholarly clergy who might have historical views that would threaten a reigning consensus established on other evidential grounds than the historical.
Third, the few Anglicans who are historically aware now often depict the Church of England as essentially a radical Protestant denomination with a revolutionary foundation in the early 16th century, and revolutionary implications for morals and manners in our own day.
In my review on Amazon.co.uk of Canon Edward Norman’s fine book ‘Anglican Difficulties’ I wrote: ‘After reading Anglican Difficulties with care, one can only conclude that the whole enterprise has always been not much more than an erastian sham which finds itself (now that most people are educated and well-informed) finally unable to convincingly sustain the pretense of being an authentic Church at all, as distinct from the ecclesiastical pastiche which it truly is and always was. As a senior Anglican priest I was able to see the truth of what Canon Norman says quite clearly, alas.’
Where are the Anglican historians? This is a useful challenge to the current circumstance; where are the few that must be at work, why is their work so little known or noticed, and what factors have de-emphasized this area of church life so?
You can argue many aspects of the “current unpleasantness,” but the fact that there are so few overtly Anglican historians of Anglicanism is an objectively interesting fact.
We are around, even in the United States. Think Gillis Harp and David Hein on the conservative side and Diana Bass and Miranda Hassett on the progressive side. Hassett, in particular, seems set to define Anglican paradigms for a while and has the added recommendation that she can describe accurately and sympathetically the world view of those with whom she profoundly disagrees.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]