What is a Traditional Anglican Anyway?

I don't know what a traditional Anglican is. What does this label mean?

These is much talk about the views of this constituency in the present debate on women in the episcopate. 'Traditional Anglican' seems to be being used as a shortcode for 'Anglicans against women in the episcopate', just as it was often used in the debates over homosexuality, too.

But is it correct that the belief that sacramental ministry can somehow be tainted or lessened by the minister's gender, sexuality, sinfulness or downright evilness? No, this is not an orthodox Anglican doctrine:

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. (source)

Now this is the 26th Article of Religion for the Church of England, as appended to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Quite traditional, then. Unless, of course, one accepts Resolution 43 of the 1968 Lambeth Conference, that is:

The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled "Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles" (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context. (source)

But then you wouldn't really be a traditionalist if you accepted this, would you?

The BNP and the Church

I, like many people, watched the BBC's latest edition of Question Time this week, featuring Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. (UK residents can watch the programme online here.) It has been very interesting to observe the number of people who watched this program, and have an opinion on it, who otherwise have no real engagement with politics. On Thursday night, when the programme was originally aired, there were over 50 students packed into the lounge at the hall of residence where I live, watching the show in silence. I've lived here three and a half years, and I've not seen that much interest even in world cup finals.

One of the things that struck me about Griffin, was his desire to root his party's racist policies in a notion of white, Christian Britain. That there are probably more Christian worshippers amongst black and other minority ethnicities in Britain today than there are among white people might come as something of a surprise to Mr. Griffin, but one gets the impression he doesn't tend to base his opinions firmly in the factual.

Former Archbishop Carey, among others, has come out and attacked the BNP for trying to hijack the Church, rather in the same way that military leaders, et al., have objected to the use of their image being used in BNP promotional literature. However, as I watched Question Time, and read Lord Carey's response, I did find something particularly interesting.

Lord Carey states in his response that: "All of us who believe in tolerance and decency must stand shoulder-to-shoulder in rejection of Griffin's notion that 'Christianity' has any place in his bigotry." All well and good. But I wonder to what extent the Church, especially the Church of England, of which he and I are part, has any moral authority to take a position like that, when we, with all our rhetoric of tolerance and inclusivity, still refuse women to the episcopate, and practising homosexuals to the priesthood?

It seems to me that, in the eyes of the nation, the Church does not have a voice in this debate. It does not make sense to criticise bigotry on the one hand, and pander to it on the other. We risk appearing as the very worst kind of hypocrites. Very few people in Britain today can comprehend the nuanced arguments the church has about women and homosexuals; it just looks like bigotry, and, frankly, it probably is. What compounds this problem, is Nick Griffin speaking out on Question Time in favour of equal rights for women.

I think the Church needs to reclaim its voice; it is no use condemning parties like the BNP, abhorrent as they are, without us first actually walking on the moral high-ground we claim to speak from.

Why We Should be Encouraged by al-Megrahi's Release

It has been interesting to observe the various responses to the news that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, has been freed on compassionate grounds. Leaving aside any questions about a secret deal with Libya or over the original verdict, the various different responses have been quite enlightening.

The decision to release al-Megrahi, to me, shows that the justice system is capable of transcending popular opinion and public pressure, and that should be welcomed. It is always difficult for victims of crime, those close to them, and members of their community to have an objective viewpoint on justice matters; whatever our ethics look like on paper, when someone close to us has been wronged, most of us turn to thoughts of vengeance.

But, as a society, we have decided in those times when we are not personally affected by, nor emotionally stirred by a crime, that we aspire to something greater than vengeance; and this is why justice is carried out by an impartial jury and legal professionals, and not by those who have been wronged. For this reason, I find the decision to release al-Megrahi very encouraging, if very brave. It shows that our justice system has not slipped too far into a more vengeance-centred view of justice, and is not afraid to do what is right, even if doing so cuts right across the grain of public opinion.

The responses in some quarters that suggest this compassionate act is 'an outrage' (USA Today), or 'not appropriate' (Barack Obama) betray, I think, a view that justice should be more retributive. The problem with this is that retribution is a personal thing, coming from the victim(s)'s desire for vengeance; and when we are in that position, I think most of us must admit that we are not best placed to decide what is fair.

While the crime is of course as heinous as the critics of the decision remind us (and I don't think anyone is denying this, at least in Britain and the USA), this should not give us license to dispense with proper, fair legal practise. In other words, just because someone is incredibly unpopular or incredibly vile to us, does not give us the right to dispense with our normative ethics, hard-won as they are on distant battlefields and in times of sobriety.

Maggi Dawn is doing a great series of posts entitled Theology for Beginners (Click here to see them all, via google).

In each post, Maggi posts a link to a couple of useful books about theology, and explains a bit about why they are useful and worth reading. I think this is a great idea, and well worth taking a look at.

It never ceases to amaze me that the women preists 'debate' seems to keep cropping up- it does seem, as Maggi has said, so "last year". Maybe its because some of the best preists, theology teachers, mentors and family role-models I've had in my life have been female, but I have always found the idea that women should be barred from some/all ministries remarkably odd.

I remember remarking in a lecture on women and theology that, for me, the question is not 'should women be preists?', but 'why are we so keen to remain communicant with the bigots?' This is deliberately provocative, of course, but I do wonder why those of us who think women should be free to carry out all levels of ministry seem to constantly bend over backwards to accommodate the people who really don't. The same courtesy is rarely extended in return. Women attending these churches are expected to sit on the sidelines, whereas a female preist might be expected to humbly allow a male collegue to lead the Eucharist at an eccumenical event at her own church.

I think this double-standard is very wrong. I'm sure most of these people feel like they are taking the moral high-ground by bowing out of the way, but I'm not so sure. Ultimately, I'm not sure I want to be given the Eucharist by a preist who is against female ordination (at any level). I'm not sure I want to keep these people in the fold by accommodating them. I'm not sure I want them to come to eccumenical events if they can't accept the ministry of women.

This may not be an especially Christ-like sentiment, but that's maybe why the Church is run by men and women older and wiser than me.

Regina Spektor on God?

I'm a big fan of Regina Spektor, I like how both the lyrics and the music are often very interesting and diverse, and I like how her songs can often make me stop and think.

Check this out, from her new album, Far.


click twice to go to the larger version.

Today I have my final Theology exam, and then I'm going on holiday. Exam finishes at midday, I get the eurostar at 2.30pm, then connect from Brussels to Amsterdam. I'm away for just over 2 weeks, in which time I shall be going to Amsterdam, Berlin, Prague, Cologne and Brussels, and deciding what to do next.