BREXIT AND THE REFORMATION

Having listened to Mrs. Emily Thornbury MP being questioned by Evan Davis on Newsnight recently I began to understand the Labour Party’s position on Brexit.  Unlike the Tory Party (which seems to have wholeheartedly embraced a ‘hard’ Brexit) or the Liberal Democrat Party (which clearly opposes it) the Labour Party, containing as it does large numbers of both Leavers and Remainers, recognises it needs to be a Broad Church.  Whilst the country voted by a margin of less than 10% to leave the EU, it needs to accommodate members of both camps.  And, in that, I see clear parallels with the Church of England.

Whilst I am not a Church historian I recognise (as I am sure others do) the similarities between Brexit and the age of Reformation.  Until the 16^th cent. the Church in England had owed allegiance to the Roman Church and many of the laws of this country were dependent on decisions in Rome.  Both the separation of the Church in England from the Church of Rome and Brexit were preceded by many years of agitation.  Popularist preachers, like John Wycliffe and the Lollards, stirred up anti-Catholic feelings and prepared the way for the Acts of Supremacy which gradually made English law supreme and led to the declaration that ‘the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England’ (Article 37). 

In spite of this formal separation there was a substantial minority who objected and wished to remain part of the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a fact that Henry VIII (1509 – 1547), inspite of initiating the separation of England from Rome did not intend to adopt Protestantism in its entirety and religious doctrine didn’t change ⁽¹⁾.  Whilst Henry persecuted extreme Protestants there were many views as to what separation meant.  As has sometimes happened in the aftermath of Brexit those who wanted to remain part of the Roman Church were abused and persecuted and some were killed.

It was under the Regency Council which governed during the minority of his successor, Edward VI (1547 – 1553), that Protestant teaching began to change the faith of the English Church and eroded much of the Catholic heritage which Henry VIII had desired to retain.  This resulted in unrest and a number of protest marches including the Western Rebellion (1549).

Mary I (1553 – 1558) was declared Queen by popular demand (clearly not a Referendum but something similar) after people re-acted against the perceived excesses of Edward.  Many realised she would reverse most of the previous legislation that had separated England from Rome and those who had financially benefited from the break were determined that would not happen. ⁽²⁾  This only caused greater division, persecution and disorder in the country which lasted until her death.

The genius of Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603) was to unite a divided country.  This she did by enabling the Church of England to be broad enough in its doctrine to hold various views whilst maintaining the separation that had occurred.  The ‘Elizabethan Religious Settlement’ was a response to the religious divisions in England.  A series of Acts and revisions to the Prayer Book intended to avoid adopting any one theology to the exclusion of another with the intention of enabling people with many different theological perceptions to belong to the one Church.  The Church of England was not part of the Roman Catholic Church (thus fulfilling the desires of the Leavers) but nor was it wholly Protestant and its teaching was still rooted in much Catholic theology.  Thus, hopefully, appealing to remainers. 

It seems to me that the present difficulties faced by the Labour Party are not dissimilar to the situation in England in the late 16^th cent.  Both leavers (Protestants) and remainers (Catholics) were struggling to dominate society and Catholics were hated for wanting to remain united with Rome.   Is it overly simple to say that whilst ‘Leavers’ have a clear home with the Tories and ‘Remainers’ with the Liberal Democrats the Labour Party is, like the Church of England, seeking to offer a place for all.  And, like the Church of England, is accused of not knowing where it stands?  Or not having any clear teaching?  It seemed to me that Mrs. Thornbury was saying that the Labour Party was trying to find a way for people with different views to live together realising that if we don't we may be eternally divided or dominated by one view.  It is not an easy choice – to try and be broad enough for all – it won’t satisfy those seeking a clear choice and it might anger those who can’t cope with difference.  It is not easy to create a home where those with different views can live together.  But, like the Elizabethan Settlement, it may offer an umbrella under which many can shelter and the Labour Party might take heart from looking into this period in the history of England which occurred almost exactly 400 years ago.

⁽¹⁾ ‘The Religious Policy of King Henry VIII’; Jeff Hobbs

⁽²⁾ ‘The Church 1553 to 1558’; C. N. Trueman

IN CHRIST ... THERE IS NO LONGER MALE OR FEMALE. WE ARE ALL ONE IN HIM

On May 9th St. Andrew's Church hosted a meeting of the Havering Deanery Synod who were considering the provision of Episcopal oversight consequent to the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate. One speaker put forward the reasons that this should be delegated by the Ordinary (i.e. Diocesan Bishop) and provided by a Code of Practise the other (a woman deacon) argued for ‘co-ordinate jurisdiction’ with the diocesan bishop (jurisdiction conferred directly by the Measure rather than by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop.) The Synod was only asked to indicate which of the two methods it would support and at the end of the meeting, on a show of hands, rejected a Code of Practice by a majority of 2 to 1.

Whatever the theological or ecclesiological reasonings behind these two proposals I found myself deeply disturbed by a particular line of argument from many of those who wished for alternative jurisdiction. After the two speakers had presented their views (and it was interesting that the woman who spoke against the Code of Practise spent most of her time explaining why she could not support the ordination of women as either priests or bishops) members of Synod were invited to express their views. Of the app. 12 people who came forward, only two were women. All representatives of the leading ‘Reform’ (i.e. conservative evangelical) parish spoke and it was what they said which cause me such unease.

The main argument they put forward concerned their inability to recognise the authority of women in the church. As conservative evangelicals they frequently referred to S. Paul’s injunction ‘wives, be subject to your husbands … For the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church…’ (Eph. 5:21) Most of those who spoke were young (men) with a “passion for mission” who believed themselves called to ‘ministry’ and stated that unless their needs were provided for by the Measure, they did not feel they would have a place in the church. As they spoke I sensed a deep split in them whereby the feminine has to be subservient to the masculine. This matter of male-headship is so fundamental that it must emanate from a deep part of their psyche which is fed by such arguments proposed by St. Paul. Yes, they said that women and men are equal, but could not exercise the same functions. Many of their arguments, from a conservative point of view, seemed reasonable. But there was a sense of an iron fist in the velvet glove: a ‘passive-aggressive’ tone to their argument. What might happen to them if they allowed themselves to live under the authority of a woman? What would happen to their sense of power if they had to assume the feminine? 

I was saddened by the lack of women who spoke (those who did strongly supported the Code of Practice). Subsequently, talking with a woman priest she described the way that women, when faced with aggression, will become silent and retreat. And that is what I felt was happening at the Synod. What I sensed was an aggressive masculinity (cloaked in ‘reason’) that rejected the feminine. I also sense that many women seem to collude with this – after all, they have had to be subservient to men.

Beyond this what also concerns me is that the wider church seems unable – or unwilling – to confront this argument that men must have the power over women. There is no doubt that, whilst the number of churches that teach this principle is small, it is also flourishing and many of those being recommend and selected for ordination come from such backgrounds.

There is an elephant in the room, and it needs to be named – or does silence indicate our acceptance?

SABBATICAL MUSINGS (2)

When I first came to Italy with my parents, at the time Katherine Hepburn was spending a holiday in Venice, our encounter with beggars, usually outside churches, shocked us. In our very English way we felt our superiority, for there were no beggars in England, That was the consequence of being a Catholic country! How times have changed. There are still beggars here, but fewer and mostly of the traditional kind - ancient women with toothless faces and haggard looks.

It was all part of the way we viewed unreformed Italy - probably Europe. But what this visit has reminded me is of the devastation of art and architecture wrought by the Reformation and Commonwealth. One can hardly recommend Italy for its political life, but what did we loose in England? Might we now be able to boast of our 14th and 15th century art? We may never have bred a Brunelleschi or Giotto, but what was destroyed by similar nameless and unknown artists whose works we admire in Tuscany? Works of which we have no record, just a few traces of the wonders that once enriched our churches and cathedrals by men whose names are not known. Florence gives an idea of what we lost.

However, I will be glad to leave this place! The BB Republica is fine, but the noise from the cafe on the other side of the Piazza has beaten me. So-called jazz blares out each night from 11pm to 1.15am. It is amplified to a point that it must be heard in Pisa and echoes down the side streets and into my window. Complaints have brought shrugs from the manager - "an artist from Verona - you know him?" I didnt and I would not recommend him to anyone who isnt deaf. So I have decided to move to Siena on Wednesday. I planned to visit there but realise I need more than a day to discover the city. And it will give me the chance to explore further afield. So it seems a sensible, if unplanned, move.