-
The Vast and the Tiny
May 29, 2013 | 22 comments
-
My Fair Lady T.
April 9, 2013 | 36 comments
-
Heavens to Betsy!
June 20, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Heavens to Betsy!
June 20, 2012 | 107 comments
Sympathetic unbeliever John Derbyshire visits Dover Beach with Roger Scruton.
Our Church: A Personal History of the Church of
England
By Roger
Scruton
(Atlantic Books, 224 pages,
$32.95)
When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England.
Thus Rev. Thwackum, the schoolmaster in Tom Jones. That was the 1730s, or about halfway through Roger Scruton’s Our Church. The Rev. Thwackum is drawn satirically, but his smugness was well justified.
The religious passions of the previous century had subsided or been pushed off to inconsequential border territories in Ireland and the North American colonies. The Church of England had been incorporated into England’s unwritten constitution. Her—the gender of that pronoun is explained by Scruton—bishops sat in Parliament. Her clergy, typically younger sons of aristocrats or landed gentry, were comfortably knitted into the English class system. (“The Church or the Army” was the rule for those drawing short straws in the primogeniture lottery.)
The Church’s core documents, the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, were known at least in part to all educated Englishmen and had lent innumerable phrases to the common language. She coexisted peacefully with numerous Nonconformist sects and with remnant patches of Roman Catholicism. (That “Roman” prefix is necessary in this context: Reciting the Nicene Creed in their Eucharist service, Anglicans declare their belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”)
Roger Scruton’s book sufficiently covers the 200 years of the Church’s history previous to Rev. Thwackum, and the following 280. Our Church is not really a history, though. Scruton keeps to a chronological sequence, but takes off on long diversions into theology, literature, hymnology, architecture, and entirely personal reflections. The book is, as Scruton says of the Church herself, “a creative muddle.” Possibly some readers will dislike it on that account. For myself, I found it charming, very English.
The Church of England is easy to mock. The English themselves have never taken her very seriously, as that Tom Jones quote illustrates. The silly vicar has been a stock character in English comedy and satire through Jane Austen and Trollope to P.G. Wodehouse, Benny Hill, and Beyond the Fringe. (“Life is rather like opening a tin of sardines: We’re all of us looking for the key…”) Not just silly either, but also sexually eccentric: Choirboy jokes were a staple of playground humor in my own English schooldays.
Not all the mockery is well founded. Roman Catholics jeer that the Church only exists because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. There is much more to be said than that. Henry’s father had become king after decades of strife over who should succeed to the throne. Henry wanted to ensure a clear succession for the peace of the nation, but his wife was barren. Scruton: “The refusal of the Pope to grant an annulment of Henry’s first marriage was experienced by the King as a threat to his sovereignty.” Henry was driven by rational statecraft, not—or not only—by sexual boredom.
Henry’s break with the papacy was, in any case, only the last act in a centuries-long record of restlessness against Roman authority among England’s political elites. The English barons, pushing back after King John’s groveling to Innocent III in 1213, made John sign the Magna Carta, in which the Church is referred to as Ecclesia Anglicana. A half century before that, there had occurred the colorful dispute between Henry II and Thomas à Becket, his archbishop of Canterbury, centering on clerical immunity to the king’s laws. (Having mentioned Becket, I want to thank Scruton for including the “à,” which is nowadays usually dropped for reasons of footling pedantry.)
Henry’s reforms did not go unchallenged. Among the common people of England there was still much devotion to the Roman religion, which they perceived in terms of relics, images, pilgrimages, fasts, and the doctrine of Purgatory. Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars describes all this in superb detail. It also, however, supports Scruton’s point that “the parish priest, rather than the wealthy bishop” was seen as the true representative of the Church. “Heaven is high, the Emperor far away,” murmured the Chinese of old; 16th-century Englishmen seem to have felt the same about the pope. Given the great piety of the medieval English, noted by many foreign visitors, the surprising thing is how little resistance Henry met. This was, remember, a regime with no standing army or police.
A key point of difference at the intellectual level was the doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserts that the Communion bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Anglican authorities were still thundering against this in Queen Anne’s time (early 18th century). Scruton makes much of the dispute, arguing that:
The revulsion that the doctrine aroused among the Elizabethan divines derived not from any rejection of sacraments but, on the contrary, from a desire to retain them—to establish a sacramental church that honestly explained itself to its members. This, in a nutshell, was the Anglican mission, and it began with Wyclif [an Oxford theologian, late 14th century], long before the Reformation had turned the order of Christendom upside down.
I am not sure why transubstantiation is less “honest” or harder to explain than its Anglican competitor, the “real presence” doctrine. As with those centuries of aristocratic restlessness, though, it is useful to be reminded that revolutions, including religious revolutions, are usually culminations of a long process, not thunderbolts from blue sky.
And when Scruton returns to his point about a sacramental church, as he does several times, he clarifies it with each returning. Thus 80 pages later we read of Scruton in the organ loft of the 15th-century English country church whose instrument (it “has one manual, three stops, and no pedals”) he plays. He is musing on the institution for which he is “pumping out” hymns.
The Anglican communion is a form of sacramental religion…in which anathemas and excommunications long ago ceased to have a point. And I rejoice that the Church to which I belong offers an antidote to every kind of utopian thinking. The Church of England is the Church of somewhere. It does not invoke some paradisal nowhere; nor does it summon the apocalyptic destruction of everywhere in the manner of the seventeenth century Puritans.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
gene| 3.15.13 @ 6:29AM
If you are not living for Him today, you will not die for Him tomorrow.
Appleby| 3.15.13 @ 7:01AM
I was a well contented Anglican until they decided to worship the male sex organ intead of God. The music above all else was a reason to attend an Episcopal Church in America; there is nothing like 14th century Latin during Holy Week to stir the heart and the bones toward Heaven. The one thing I miss about the Anglican communion is the music. Catholics mulishly refuse to sing. I sing in our small choir (which is not especially liturgical except at Easter -- "Jesus Loves Me" in two parts is usually the best they can do) and nothing disappoints so much as watching the congregation stand with mulish expressions and remain obstinately silent as the choir does all the singing. Heck, even the Mormon Church, which had more failings than world enough and time to detail them, could blow the roof off with "Come, Come Ye Saints." It was a sad day when the Anglican Communion decided to abandon the wonderful musical tradiion that sustained us so well, by dropping its collective pants instead.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.15.13 @ 10:33AM
That is probably the worst thing about most evangelical (non-Anglican or Roman) churches today: abysmal music. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these so-called churches adopt rap versions of hymns, so bad has it gotten.
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 1:01PM
Strange. I haven't seen any of that nonsense. perhaps you should go to a real Evangelical Church instead of one that claims to be Evangelical but has given into the spirit of the age.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.15.13 @ 10:31AM
I was reading James Madison a few months ago and came across something he said that was very interesting. He said that prior to the Revolution, much of the clergy (imported from England) was insipid. However, after the separation of church and state, the churches began to flourish again in America with a much better quality of minister.
As someone who is more in favor of Cromwell and the Independents (displaced Americans perhaps), I think it's sad to see the choice England made in keeping with a denomination that was little more than a somewhat pious bureaucracy.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 3:30PM
Structure is useful in all things.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 11:21AM
The Derb is a lovely gentleman and writer. I do not always agree with him, but he is a simply superb human being. Let everyone here rejoice in that he is recovering from his Cancer and that he has strength again to write well.
Petronius| 3.15.13 @ 11:38AM
Once more into the ? Maybe Professor Scruton should have just published the Title. In this our age of Faith and faithful-more-or-less adrift, the somewhere is redolent of the song in West Side Story. Cut to the chase. The Faith bound up in altruism is sublime but the institution Sucks as all institutions do. Church goers want validation. And who gets it is determined by the rest of the congregation more than the clergy. My last parish was in reality a litter box decorated with crosses and statuary. The late comic Flip Wilson did The Church of What's Happening Now. Was he ever ahead of his time. What christian denominations have become is a corrupt cross between that and exemption from reality. Soon, the Fatima Prophecies may come true. And from what I see going on around me, we've got it coming. Papa Francisco might have the inside skinny on that.
pigdog| 3.15.13 @ 12:13PM
Re: "She coexisted peacefully with numerous Nonconformist sects and with remnant patches of Roman Catholicism. (That “Roman” prefix is necessary in this context: Reciting the Nicene Creed in their Eucharist service, Anglicans declare their belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”)"
I don't understand Derb's clarifying parenthetical about Anglicans declaring their belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Those of us who are Roman Catholics pray the exact same thing. Correct?
Quartermaster| 3.15.13 @ 2:06PM
Richard Dawkins could recite the same thing, but would mean anything? What it comes down to, who is a christian and who is not? In the final analysis, that's above the pay grade of anyone in the Church, including the Pope. Christ is the one that will decide that.
I will say, that I have met very people that have Borne the Roman catolic label that can be considered Christians in light of scripture.
Red Phillips | 3.17.13 @ 10:07PM
Although I don't agree with Derb's atheism, props to AmSpec for publishing Derb after the PC whipped squemish "cons" at National Review fired him.
JCS| 4.12.13 @ 5:45PM
Re: The para re: Roman Catholics "jeering" that "the Church only exists because Henry VIII wanted a divorce." Mr. D. tells us that Henry’s father wanted to ensure a clear succession for the peace of the nation, but his wife was barren: “The refusal of the Pope to grant an annulment of Henry’s first marriage was experienced by the King as a threat to his sovereignty,” i.e., Henry was driven by rational statecraft, not—or not only—by sexual boredom.
That the king thought he was above the rules set down by Christ regarding marriage and divorce and was entitled to institute a church in order to bypass rules he dislikes is sufficient to accuse the English king of inventing a religion in order to advance a immoral object forbidden to mere Christian mortals. OF COURSE, he perceived it as as a threat to his sovereignty: but that's the point, isn't it? He was NOT sovereign in this regard, was he? He was to be submissive to Christ. This is, by far, the emptiest attempt to rationalize Henry's (father or son) decision to defy the Pope.
The C of E will never be anything but the temporal plaything of the English royalty.