“Quidquid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem.”

The Rev’d. John H. Heidt posed the question “Where have all the catholics gone?” in his ‘Viewpoint’ article published in the 1^st July 2001 issue of ‘The Living Church’. He provides an excellent analysis of some of the difficulties facing ‘the liberal catholicism of the Anglican tradition’. The short answer to his question is that we are alive and well, sitting in the trenches with our tin helmets on, desperately trying not to draw enemy fire. The longer answer requires an examination of the direction in which the Church is being driven, it’s current treatment of Anglo-Catholicism, and our own reactions to this attitude.

I am an unashamed Tractarian: a traditional conservative high churchman who believes in a truly liberal catholic theology. Unfortunately, in today’s Episcopal Church, these are all pejorative terms. They are synonyms for being inflexible, outdated, bigoted or, ironically, unchristian.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines catholic as “Universal, of interest or use to all, all-embracing, of wide sympathies or interests.” The Rev.’d Heidt is quite correct in his assertion that “Anglo-Catholics need to remember that a catholic party within the Church is a contradiction in terms.” However, in addition to the Anglo-Catholics, the Church needs to be aware of his admonishment. At present, I [and those like me] am an outcast. As the Church hierarchy searches for “inclusiveness” in all areas, their first priority would appear to be the exclusion of those who find modern trends unappealing. I have no desire to become either a member of a faction or a member of an anachronistic church within a church. Nevertheless, frequently I find myself excluded from the mainstream by the endless tinkering with the rites, etc.

A good demonstration of the systematic elimination of my kind, is the language issue. The current obsession with inclusive language can be appalling. Admittedly, in some part, this is personal preference. I find “…But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun…” infinitely preferable to “Oh here’s Juliet. Isn’t she a babe?” Likewise, “Come, follow me and I shall make ye fishers of men” as opposed to “Come with me and I’ll teach you to catch people”. The latter version of Matthew [Ch. 4, v.19] at best, reminding one of the child-catcher in ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ and, at worst, sounding distinctly sinister. However, there is a deeper theological [and, dare I say, psychological?] compromise in this ‘trend’. To my mind, anyone who is disturbed at the prospect of saying or hearing the phrase “God the Father” is struggling with far more profound difficulties than mere semantics.

The advocates of inclusive language insist that we must revise all the “old-fashioned terminology” in order to appeal to Society and include everyone; everyone, that is, except those who disagree. “This is what the new generation of church-goers want,” they bleat. As someone who is a ‘thirty-something’ Rector’s wife, I can honestly say it is not what all church-goers [new or otherwise] want. These are the same people who gently, but insistently, correct me if I say that I am a house-wife. A reaction I find most baffling; if I do not object to referring to myself in that manner, why should they? It would appear they believe I am unable to comprehend what I am saying. At the risk of sounding like a ‘young fogey’, one could argue that such an attitude is decidedly offensive and patronizing. However, this does not seem to occur to most proponents of inclusive language, for theirs’ is the “modern” approach and thus, cannot be wrong. For the same reason, the ‘Our Father’ must be re-written – clearly Christ did not know what He was saying either.

Does this mean that I long for a return to the days of the 1549 or 1928 Books of Common Prayer? No, as previously stated I believe in a liberal, catholic theology. If the only church in my vicinity was a ‘guitar-ridden, happy clappy’, affair, I would still attend. It may not suit my personal taste, but I am convinced of the need to receive grace through the Sacraments and to place my relationship with Christ above all else. However, when examining the state of the Episcopal Church today, it would appear that some of those in charge have a different agenda.

One of the greatest strengths of the Anglican Communion is its inherent diversity. The Church offers a wide range of styles and services, but the emphasis here is on breadth, not homogeny. I stand up and cheer for anyone who is able to draw people to Christ. However, and this is the core of my dissatisfaction, tolerance is a two-way street. Sometimes, it feels as if we are being forced into a Roman-style uniformity. I am unable to fathom why there is an almost pathological insistence that all we sing from the same, sometimes ghastly, post-1960’s hymn sheet. Surely, it is possible for all concerned to accept each other’s differences and realize that ‘equality’ does not mean ‘identical’? To quote Bishop Griswold: “…one is always saddened when one part of the Body of Christ says to the other, ‘I have no need of you’” [Time magazine 09/07/01]. He was speaking with reference to the controversy surrounding the rebel bishops. However, his comment is most appropriate within this context. I find it deeply regrettable that many, in positions of influence, within the Church seem to think that one’s devotion to the 1928 [or, God forbid, the 1662!] Book of Common Prayer, traditional hymns, and services is all part of a misguided, misogynist conspiracy. Such preferences seem to be an inappropriate and unwelcome part of today’s modern liturgy. This observation is perplexing: any potential affront to an Anglo-Catholic’s faith is, peculiarly, ignored by those constantly proclaiming ‘we must appeal to everyone, be open and accepting of all, and exclude no-one.’ The current fad at many Diocesan conferences, national conventions or other official functions, for using the latest local re-write of the Book of Common Prayer for liturgical services must stop. There must be intelligent, sympathetic inclusion of the Anglo-Catholic point of view – otherwise mutual exclusivity, by both sets of agitators, will be the inevitable result. A truly ‘inclusive’ approach would be to alternate the rites, e.g. one year to use an experimental liturgy and the following year rite I.

If we, Anglo-Catholics, are content to allow all members of the Anglican Communion to worship according to the dictates of their personal preferences, why deny us the same privilege? There is a dangerous misapprehension in the theory that adherence to the traditional heritage of Anglicanism impoverishes the Church. Granted, the criticism offered by The Rev.’d Heidt in his quote from B. I. Bell is often justified. Anglo-Catholics have been guilty of throwing our toys down in a fit of pique and walking away. Similarly, we cannot seek to exist in splendid isolation, veiled from the rest of the Church by an impenetrable cloud of incense. Nevertheless, if the Episcopal Church is to regain her true ‘catholick’ [Cranmer] identity i.e. “all-embracing, of wide sympathies or interests”, there must be an adjustment on both sides.

The crises facing the world and the Church today are multiple and complex. Unfortunately, the continued battles between the Revisionists and the Fundamentalists on issues of feminist theology, same-gender unions, etc…. to name but a few, are the ecclesiastical equivalents of ‘re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic’ – distracting but ultimately pointless. Tolerance and liberalism, in the truest sense of the word, are both necessary and desirable for the Church if she is to meet the challenges of the 21^st century. However, such adaptability must not be at the expense of her ancient traditions, heritage, and interpretations. If the Episcopal Church loses sight of her history she will, by definition, lose her identity – and then, who would be drawn to join her? We would all be wise to bear in mind the old axiom: “Quidquid agis, prudenter agas, et respice finem”. [Whatever you do, do cautiously, and look to the end.]

Mrs. Mary Thérèse Scott-Hamblen, Evansville, Indiana.