This is designed to be a place for online conversation between sessions of the Seminar on Episcopal History and Polity being offered in the Spring 2015 term. The syllabus for the course may be found here.
This first post will endeavor to answer (or at least reflect on and direct to additional resources) some questions that have recently been raised.
First set of questions:
"I am interested to hear more of the distinction between the post enlightenment low ecclesia (high individualism?) and the high ecclesia communion of saints? How has the liturgical movement theology (or has it) implicated the way we live together in the world (Monday through Saturday incarnating our Christian identity) outside the institutional liturgical structure prescribed for gathering the faithful? Do we have a low liturgy, low "institution," high ecclesia (fellowship/koinonia) model within our context of "church" (maybe like the Methodist Band or Class). Can our missionary societies and cloisters be properly considered members of the ecclesia?"
I (Molly) think that perhaps one downside of the way we have embraced the liturgical movement is that we have put too much emphasis on the liturgy part of it. For much of our recent history, many Episcopal churches were used only on Sunday morning for liturgy and stood empty the rest of the week. One fault of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer that Bishop Laura brought to my attention is that it puts too much emphasis on the role of the laity within the liturgy. It talks about their ministry as readers, chalice bearer, etc. rather than ministry being how they live their lives in the world as faithful Christians. I do think that Bible Studies, EFM courses, fellowship groups - any gatherings within a parish community that helps people to build community and connect their faith with daily life (presumably liturgy is always doing this) can be counted as part of church life that help to build up the Body of Christ, and do so with a greater emphasis on fellowship and ecclesia than liturgy or institution. I do think our missionary societies and cloisters are a part of the ecclesia. Ecclesia is the whole gathered body, the community of the faithful, and so it is bigger than just individual parish communities. Missionary societies generally (like SPG) were concerned with expanding the church and historically are responsible for many of our parishes in CT. Now in CT, all Episcopalians members of our Missionary Society. And even though those who may choose to withdraw from the world to the cloister of a monastery are still engaged in building up the body of the faithful, and so they are in important part of the Church.
Back to the liturgical movement, one of the pieces that I think we are doing more of is the more missional side. As we discussed in the seminar on Tuesday, High Church liturgy is associated with more "liberal" social and political views. There is a strong emphasis in Anglo-Catholic theology on caring for the poor and marginalized, of being the Church in the world. With our more recent move toward a missional focus and asking questions about what God is up to in the neighborhood, we are regaining more of the fullness of the liturgical movement.
Second set of questions:
"If the Oxford Movement was born, at least in part, in reaction to “liberalism” in the COE, who are the “liberalists?” Are they the more radical Protestants who are in Parliament(and thus, controlling the church?) Are they the same as the evangelicals? And are those the same as low church folks? And are evangelicals in the COE the similar to the evangelicals in the 19th c. American church?
Also,
if part of the evangelical outcry in the US (like McIlvaine's) was that
Tractarian theology was “against…the scriptural doctrine of
justification by faith” (Hein,70), was that an accurate accusation? My
feeling from reading John Henry Newman’s sermon was that he was arguing
that salvation IS, indeed, by faith-- that faith is the starting point,
and that good works both help you practice your way into that life of
faith, by cultivating a changed heart, and openness to God (in tandem
with reverent, embodied, inspired worship… because “outward acts create
inward habits” (Rowell, 411)), and then, they are also the product
of a life of faith. So, in essence, grace is a gift and we are
justified by faith, however, faith is the imperfect and on-going "work
of a life" (Rowell, 410) spent practicing, and opening to God’s
way. Works don’t earn you grace, they simply help to open you to
receive what is already freely given. Is that a fair assessment of
tractarian (or at least Newman’s) theology of grace and salvation?
If
so, aren’t there some similarities here between Anglo-Catholic worship
theology and evangelical worship theology? Aren’t they both trying to
curate space for the “experience” of God in worship, albeit perhaps,
through different means?
Did evangelical
episcopalians believe they were more similar to other, more strictly
Protestant, denoms, in their espousal of the Wesleyan “heart strangely
warmed” conversion experiences than they were to other Anglicans? I’ve
downloaded McIlvaine’s charge to General Convention in 1839 on
Justification by Faith to get a better feel for this. https://play.google.com/
In terms of the CofE and liberalism, the Oxford Movement was a reaction against liberalism in the sense that it promoted a more church-centric view and a more Catholic style of worship. It was reacting against those in the Anglican Church who really wanted to be Protestant (focus on individual piety, less ornate worship space/style, etc.) For a brief overview movements within Anglicanism, see the introduction to Love's Redeeming work here.
The other questions have hit upon an age old debate in the Church over faith and works. Anglicanism, as you might expect, holds to a both/and on this. Faith and works matter. Just like Luther, we acknowledge our own wretchedness and believe that ultimately we are saved only by God's grace. Yet we also believe in the creativity, capacity and capability of humanity. Good works are an essential part of our faith life. They do not "earn" us grace, we are called to a life of good works as a response to God's grace.
The heated debates about the Oxford movement and Anglo-Catholic vs. Evangelical/Protestant views are, I think, more reflective of the social views and prejudices of the 19th century than they are of deep theological differences. Blessedly Anglicanism has been able to hold the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical strands together throughout all this and draw from the rich gifts in both movements. It is worth remembering how deeply discriminated Roman Catholics were in 19th century America. This is evident in our city architecture. Note the prominence of the Protestant Churches (including Episcopal ones) in the center of CT cities and towns. Roman Catholic churches are more hidden or on the fringes of towns and cities. Despite the fact that we are a majority Roman Catholic state, our Protestant heritage is strong, and sometimes that has been lived out in harmful ways. Since the liturgical movement emphasized elements of Roman Catholic worship and piety, as well as a high view of the Church, many rejected it outright for fear that it seemed "other" or threatened their cherished American ideals of liberalism and individualism.
Additional Resources, if you would like to dig more deeply into these topics:
J. Moorman's History of the Church in England
William Hutchison's Religious Pluralism in America
Robert Pritchard's A History of the Episcopal Church
