I should confess here – that I go to a Church of England Church congregation to receive communion and so my thoughts here are coming from one within the communion – not from outside of it; therefore this is not a sectarian complaint; but rather a deep groan of a communicant of the Church of England; about how his own Church is so profoundly compromised – and now you know! However, I want to start off by observing that the Church in these isles predates the Church of England; and the Church in England; is much bigger than the Church of England; and so I will give a short history of the Church in England and of; to highlight that the problem of compromise is systemic to the Church of England but not intrinsic to the Church in England; before moving onto highlight the differences between authentic Christianity and Liberalism; before finally highlighting what Christians can do to change things around.
The Church first arrived in these islands sometime in the 2nd century; and is first commented upon by Tertulian in his work; Against the Jews; and Origin in his Sermons on Ezekiel. It seems from archaeological evidence that the Christian faith was brought here as a Roman faith; brought by Roman soldiers and Roman traders; as evidence by the Notita Dignitatum, taking advantage of the Pax Romana; and the Roman road network; the church establishing its self in Roman settlements like Verulamium, Londinium, Eboracium; by the fourth century, when Christianity was the force to be reckoned with across the empire – we see the emergence of Christian Mosaics and other overt expressions of the faith such as the Chi Rho at St Mary’s Hinton or the Water Newton Treasures – which are liturgical vessels of the eucharist; showing that Christianity was well established amongst the Roman Elites of the time; this Church however, suffered the Roman Persecution – as all Christians did – as the story of St Alban confirms; who was these islands first known martyr. The council of Arles in 314AD references Bishops from these Isles showing that a full episcopal structure was present within the Isles prior to or quickly after the Edict of Milan in 313AD. When in the early to mid fourth century; Emperor Honorius ordered the withdrawal of the legions from the province of Britannia; calling upon the province to ‘look to its own defence’; the Roman Church (please note – I do not mean Roman Catholic Church) in the islands quickly collapsed – as did the Roman Urbanisation and Roman culture. The Saxon invasion of the 5th century, resulted in an independent Celtic Church emerging out in the countryside apart from urban settlement. as the faith indigenised; the Saxon invasion lead to the retreat of both Celts, Celtic Culture and Christianity alike; as the new arrivals established a Saxon paganism in the land; and it is in this milieu the fable of King Arthur is set. Archaeological records – for great swathes of England see a disappearance and discontinuity of Christian influence; that in places becomes total; like the abandoned Church of Silchester, or pagan replacing Christian burial practices after 410AD in Winchester Lankhill. Christianity survived in of course in Wales, Cornwall, and Devon; where the Celts managed to hold out from the Pagan Saxon onslaught. The historian John Morris – argues, somewhat controversially; in line with the Arthurian legend; that Christianity formed the basis of an emerging Celtic resistance to Pagan Saxon invasion; however, the main response of the Celtic Church was to begin a missionary enterprise.
There were missions launched by the newly emerged Roman Catholic Church – that developed a unique sense of its self from 410AD onwards; as did the Celtic Church; due to the collapse of the Roman empire in the west. St Patrick – who evangelised the Celts of Ireland, gave birth to a missionary movement – rooted in monasticism – that let to the foundation of Lindisfarne by St Aidan – who evangelised the Saxons, Iona by Saint Colomba – who evangelised the Picts. These monasteries giving us many of our cultural literary jewels; such as the Lindisfarn Gospels; and the book of Kells; they were the cradles from which a later identity would emerge. Rome independently sent her own missionary; St Augustine of Rome, to evangelise the ‘angelic’ looking Saxons – whose missionary effort lead to the conversion of King Aelthelberht of Kent; (the islands were now split into various Saxon and Celtic domains. Canterbury; became eventually the seat of the Roman Catholic Church in the islands; whilst Celtic Christianity was strongest in the Northwest; in places like Northumbria. These two churches, both of whom developed from the fall of the western empire; began to develop different liturgical practices; but had enough in common to recognise one another as Christian communions, despite the differences over easter, tonsure and other practices; they agreed to meet at the council of Whitby in 664Ad and ‘have it out’ before King Oswiu, who for astute political reasons; and some sound religious reasons, submitted his kingdom to the Church based in Rome. Celtic Christianity was eventually; absorbed into the Roman tradition and disappeared; just as the Celts, and Celtic culture, began to disappear from view, as the more dominant Saxon culture eclipsed it (there are many lessons here for people to think upon). The Church became an intrinsic part of the various heptarchy (the separate Saxon kingdoms). Canterbury became the focus of Christianity within the Heptarchy in the 7th century. The monasteries, were not just centres of religious life, but centres of learning and kingdom administration; such as at Jarrow and Glastonbury. One here could speak of English Christianity, and a Church of Saxons, but not of England; as England did not exist yet.
In a replay of history; that echoes again in our modern times – a new pagan horde descended on the islands; from the north; as North Men; or Norsemen; latterly known as Vikings; began at first to raid and then to settle in the islands, smashing the Saxon kingdoms and forcing them into retreat from the 8th century and Christianity along with them; the Church was forced backwards and eradicated as a foreign religious law called the Danelaw established itself across swathes of north East and South East England. The Church was not without its champions; the greatest of which became King Alfred; latterly acclaimed ‘The Great’; whose war with the Great Heathen Army; culminated in his victory at the battle of Edington in 878AD. King Gunthran of the Danes, was forced to accept Baptism; Alfred himself becoming his godfather; as well as overlord; and the Danelaw was forced to tolerate Christianity; as part of the treaty of Wedmore. Alfred began a civilisational project of building an new Saxon Kingdom more deeply Christianised than before, he wanted an intrinsically Christian kingdom – coded into every part of its life; it was centred around monarchy and Church; this model of nationhood, was forged from his defence of Christianity; and was the foundation of what was to become the Kingdom of England under his grandson Athelstan; who after defeating firstly the Norsemen and then a Pict/Norsemen alliance at the Battle of Brunanburh; adopted the title Rex Anglorem, ‘King of the English’. The Saxon Church – therefore – gave birth to England; and it is from 937AD that we can finally speak of a Church of England; though it was at this time a Roman Catholic Church.
The birth of the Church of England as we think of it today was the project of King Henry VIII; who the historian G. W. Bernard argued in his work ‘The King’s Reformation’ that Henry was not a radical reformer, but only sought control over Church governance, for personal reasons; that being the “Great Matter” of the king; his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which he believed to be invalid due to Catherine’s prior marriage to his brother Arthur; a conclusion he came to due to the trauma of after having no male heirs. Pope Clement VII refused to grant an annulment; Henry therefore, with Thomas Cromwell, used the Acts of Supremacy in 1534 to create a novel Church jurisdiction under the king in England. Thomas Cranmer, who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533, a true Reformer, was the one that introduced Reformed doctrines during the Regency of Edward VI and drafted the 42 Articles in 1553; which led to a blending Protestant and Catholic elements – and the creation of a protesting; partially Reformed – but structurally Catholic Church; which latterly understood itself to be a via media between the two opposing spectrums of western Christendom. During the Elizabethan religious settlement (which was brutally and cunningly enforced) fashioned in the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity of 1559 (which followed a concerted effort to reunite England to Rome under ‘bloody Mary’), this protesting catholic church became a fossilised part of the state. This new Church of England was a creation of the state – and from that time onwards and into the present – has always served primarily the nation’s elites; if Alfred forged an England to serve the Church; the Reformation, saw a Church forged to serve England (as interpreted by its social elites).
I have told you this story to explain – why – the Church of England is so utterly slavish, to the elites (even when they and their agenda is not Christian), and has always had a propensity to go with the culture. We see this immediately at the birth of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment a process starting in 1685 and finishing arguably in 1815, is characterized by rationalism, empiricism, and individual liberty, nationalism, the devotion to technological innovation, all which embody a common motif of a turn to the self; and a focus on life in this world. The reorientation towards empiricism and the rationalisation of society; pushed by the self-evident power to affect change through increased mastery over nature – revolutionised the world primarily through the industrial revolution; urbanisation; and a resultant de-mystification of nature. The elites of England were captured by this new way of thinking; that prized innovation over tradition; and organised all aspects of life around the state – rationally. Old ways of life were stripped away to forge new ones. Thinkers such as John Locke, Samuel Clarke, Matthew Tindal, placed reason in natural theology as primary over reasoning from revelation and tradition; to create the new doctrines of the new states emerging from the collapse of Christendom; and resultantly the values that also then emerged; thus natural theology properly became the organising authority for society and life; the vision of god this theology could arrive at was more deist than theist; leading increasingly to an epicurean culture. This saw the emergence and influence of Deism; into the Christian matrix of society; which was crucial to the creation and formation of Liberal societies in the early modern period. David Hempton in his work ‘The Church in the Long Eighteenth Century’ notes that the Church of England increasingly accommodated Enlightenment rationalism in its thinking, but only up to the point where it threatened established authority; which tells you very clearly of the sentiments permeating the Church of England and what it thought important. There was none the less a reactionary response rooted in a more traditional Christianity – that engaged polemically and apologetically with this Deist heresy; such as Bishop Joseph, and William Law; who attempted to counter the drift towards natural theology and reaffirm in various ways the supremacy of revealed theology and traditional ways of thinking; however it was a lost battle, and most began to think from within this new Liberal matrix; it was quickly internalised and formalised within the Church of England; and remains so today.
I tell you this to now highlight some of the core differences between Liberalism; in its two principle forms; and authentic full fat Christianity. I will split Liberalism into two forms; two epochs, the classical liberalism in the modern period 1765 – 1960; and progressive Liberalism in the post modern period of 1960 to the present; and I will contrast each of these forms to Christianity in its truest sense.
Christianity, places your story, within the story of the Church – and frames your identity theologically as a militant – for the new covenant community – to which you belong – which is the truest definition of the church. Classical Liberalism, frames your story, within the story of the nation state to which you are said to belong; each of these kingdoms demands – your sacrifice and fealty; which results in no conflict, if the nation itself understands itself – as a servant of the blessed Trinity – like in Alfred’s time; but becomes increasingly problematic – if a nation Christianises (as the UK has) and sets goals and ambitions that are opposed to the good of the new covenant community; which begins happen increasingly from the time of Elizabeth onwards; such as the Crimean war for instance. This can be best understood by thinking which kingdom are you pursuing, which kingdom is your concern; the United Kingdom or the Kingdom of Heaven? the Christian must pursue the kingdom of GOD; an ideal, that debases, a this world concern; but is none the less is to expressed fully in the reality of this world. Liberalism from the 1700s onwards discipled the churches (particularly the national protestant church) it (not Christ’s teachings) formed the concerns, values, and instincts of the people of the Britain; Christians abandoned claims that Christianity should rule the state and its agenda, and that instead – the state should pursue its own concerns; even if they contradicted Christianity or the values of the new covenant community; as an end itself, apart from any sense of the Kingdom of GOD! The concept of the Kingdom of Heaven was dually, and overly, spiritualised as a response to this shift. Christendom – was a forgotten idea; now the Church would accept that faith was a private matter; and not the concern of the state – which resulted in the religious tolerance fashioned by the Whig party, influenced by John Locke, through The Toleration Act of 1689 and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828, and the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829; granting equal rights for religious minorities. This resulted in an uncoupling of the pursuit of the Kingdom of GOD, Christian values; and Christian beliefs; from the concerns of the state; which gradually drifted further away from them, and replaced them with the outworking of Liberalism. This is the foundation upon which a later faux multicultural society would be built from the 1950s onwards.
The framework through which decisions would be made and the concerns of the state decided; were shifted from the process of reasoning from revelation (however understood) to reasoning from nature; and latterly just reasoning from the early values of this proto- liberalism. The concern for freedom from ‘Christian’ interference by the state became an inherent concern of Liberal states; it was established by revolutions in France and the USA; and everywhere else as Liberalism took hold, it became part of the DNA of Liberalism to be anti ‘Christian politique’. In England these same principles worked themselves out more slowly – as England managed to avoid the spirit of revolution sweeping the world! The power of the new sciences – in mastering nature, and the development of new technologies; opened up new possibilities never before imagined; it had enchanting affect – resulting in a concern to pursue innovation; capitalise upon it, and focus improving life in this world – which became a telos in own right. Society – was increasingly rationalised, to the function of increasing and maximising productivity; in the service of the economy; which was the life blood of the power of the state. This was a dramatic shift away from the traditions and rituals and understandings of life and the world; built up through centuries of reflection upon revelation and which had been inculcated into agricultural life. Rationalisation impacted all areas of life; including ethical and moral concerns; the pursuit of happiness – replaced the pursuit of holiness, utilitarian concerns replaced virtue in social policy’ morality increasingly became centred on the new god, humanity itself; rather than the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, civic fraternity, equality, and above all freedom (from Christianity) replaced a concern for virtue, holiness, the Kingdom of GOD; and the worship of GOD. The doctrine of human rights which arose out of a deformity of the doctrine of the Imago Dei; a common doctrine between the moderns and the Christians; shows that Liberalism is a deformity of Christianity. The shift of concern as highlighted; forced Christianity to be practiced not as state doctrine but as a private individual enterprise; ever subservient to the needs of, and never able to challenge the god like primacy of the state. This position was accepted by many Christians who moulded new forms of Christianity to this reality. Groups like the Methodist movement and Evangelicals and later Pentecostalism arose in part as reaction to this modernity, and partly as a syncretic adoption of it; with accommodation to a personal and private faith, marked primarily by personal piety, whilst still asserting scriptural authority, and personal conversion through revelation. The sense of self was framed – as Christian, – but accepted as given the normativity of the Liberal Secular State; and worked in those areas permitted by Liberal Secularism; namely as keeper of civic ritual, and charity; and occasionally conscience to the nation. The Roman Catholic Churches; attempted to resist these shifts; with its society within a society approach; that emerged out of Vatican one; a social structural enterprise that was possibly the right idea, but was poorly executed by Bishops who did not understand properly, how people are formed by society; a liberal society; resulting in, the eventual liberalisation of many of their institutions, that were precisely set up to prevent it; due to poor catechism and not seeing the importance of recruiting committed Catholics to the post; and a poorly formed and not different enough, attempt to create a Catholic culture.
If the wars of the Reformation were the trauma that gave rise the Enlightenment’s Liberalism and the modern world; then the traumas of the World Wars; back to back; gave rise to a new trauma, that resulted in an increasing shift from modernity, to postmodernity, from Classical Liberalism to Progressive Liberalism.
This metastasised form of Liberalism; stripped away any need for a greater meta narrative and dropped the idea of national identity, now life was framed entirely in the journey of the individual self, as existentialised individual; apart from all else! Christianity stands in mark contrast to this idea as the Christian must have a communal identity in the body of Christ; and their individual story is to be interpreted therein, the people of GOD in the new Covenant is the vessel of our personal journey. Though one can see how – from Christian beliefs and practices; like baptism, confession; and pursuit of vocation, the sense of the individual existential journey is present within the Christian faith; in progressive Liberalism it is taken to new extremes. This stripping away to the individual as existential subject, gives a space in our post modern culture – for the Church to advance in fresh ways as we claim Christianity as our full identity, and the people of GOD once again as our people – this is the faith of the fathers of the church, and the sense of the people of the Covenant; can give rise to a new and recovery of an old Christian culture for the Englishmen, and other ethnicities in the one covenant people of GOD. Where as life is framed in personal modernity, of people ‘discovering who they are’ – one thinks of the proverbial child – who has discovered that they indeed a cat in the wrong body (a status that can not questioned or subject to scrutiny in post modern sentiment); within the Christian faith, by contrast, one discovers who GOD calls them to be – through particular – but not unique vocations; for the service of the Kingdom of GOD and the people of GOD. A priest, an evangelist, an industrialist; a father or mother and so on. Postmodernity, has lead to the collapse in culture – of hard scientific facts – gender, is said to be a construct, rather than something intrinsically tied to chromosomes, men are said to be able to menstruate and breastfeed; the fetus is said not to be alive or human, hard science has given way to hard feelings; and their is a subjectivity to truth in which all are said to have their own intrinsically, which is to be discovered and shared. All cultures are deemed relative to one another, and equally valid, even those that marry children, practice slavery, and practice female genital mutilation can not be questions as to do – would be racist – which is the new doctrinal heresy. Christianity, by contrast; holds that personal truths are framed and prismed through the life of Jesus Christ whom himself is the embodiment of all truth; who has formed the universe, to contain truth and as such it holds within it indisputable facts; that are there to be discovered. These once discovered and established – do not care about your feelings. That there are certain values, built from His truth, which lead to certain unchangeable and superior values, which if followed to lead to a matrix by which one culture can be judged as superior to another. Human rights are being organised according to a priority of victimhood, as how does one weigh conflicting rights; in which some groups, receive special preferences in the law and culture – and structures of the state; above that of what is said to be the majority group; which in England is said to be the white Christian male. Christians by contrast maintain – that the point of life is not to construct the laws of the land to allow for personal fulfilment- however subjectively defined – which has lead to a destructive epidemic of abortion, divorce, and the erosion of the social fabric; but rather; to cultivate virtue in the life of the subjects – pointed towards GOD as end. The Church of England whilst at times trying to act as the conscience of the nation; has with increasing speed, simply accommodated itself to this Liberal drift.
What then, can we the Church of the 21st century do in the wake of these realities; both within the Church of England and as the Church in England; how can we respond to the replacement of our Christian heritage, values, doctrines, customs and beliefs, over the last two and half centuries. We must begin, by recapturing our identity as ‘full fat’ Christians holding to an undiluted Christianity; in an unsullied and pure way – this means to see ourselves; as the Bible describes us; such as; the priests of GOD, the brethren to one another, in a new holy nation; part of a heavenly kingdom; whose defining feature is the new Covenant; not ethnicity, language, gender, or class. We must then begin, to construct from this identity, both a new Christian culture; and most importantly a Christian political agenda; from which a new society can emerge. We can do this best, by looking critically into the history of Church, and bringing forward aspects of the past, some with revision, some as they are found; into the present and live them out boldly and if necessary confrontationally with the world around us; and form new practices of the faith – given the modern context; where necessary. These practices (and it really is all about practices and organisation) should be based squarely on Christian doctrine and values that have not been adapted to the modern world; but seek to make a world adapted to them. We should express our life as Christians, as a distinct people – emphasising our differences to others, not our similarities; making common cause with all those who call themselves by the name Christian; and not with humanity in general. We must embody, confidence in our identity as Christians – shown in a culture of our own a resolute willingness to defend our rights to be Christians; fearlessly and with zeal inspired by the martyrs of past and present! We should actively pursue a new Christendom; and cultivate virtue ethics, a knowledge of Church history, a resoluteness in our Christian identity, a zeal to suffer for Christ; and a Christian politique – as part of what discipleship should look like in our congregations. We should organise our communities accordingly. We must in short be committed to the triumph of the Christian Church over all other contenders in society, and the triumph of a new Christendom over other visions of society; and not seek a liberal accommodation with others, but a catholic integration of all. Learning afresh how to build Christian families from first encounter to the birth of the greatest grandchild, is an essential part of this new Christian culture; as families are the recipients of culture and pass them on; and this is nothing short of a four hundred year project! Christians should always prioritise solidarity with other Christians above all else; and in the face of all enemies to the Church militant. We should accept as a starting point to our 400 year journey – that the UK is post Christian, and organise ourselves as a minority community – seeking to activate – where we can – latent Christian sentiments in the wider population; which may shorten the time to rechristianisation if demographic collapse can be reversed in the general population. We need to consolidate our resources, people, and energies; into smaller geographical spaces; and once again begin to build outwards. I recognise that some denominations can not easily be reconciled; and so I would each denomination to adopt this strategy and may the best denomination win! Discipleship, needs to include, not just knowledge of doctrines, but also of history, culture, ritual, ethics, values, political agenda, and a sense of a new identity on a mission to transform and change the world around it generationally. The deliberate capturing of institutions – including the Churches, being a key part of such a strategy; and so we must enter institutions particularly HR and the seminaries; with missionary purpose, recruiting and backfilling with those who are from amongst us, or at least sympathetic; whilst filtering out our ideological opponents. The church has been here before – and we have overcome twice before; if we can reject Liberalism; we can be more than conquerors a third time.
