Yesterday I led a workshop for the Mississauga Congregation
of the Community of Christ. This denomination has just recently
changed its name. It used to be called "The Reorganized
Church of Latter-Day Saints," and its roots are in the
Mormon tradition.
In my
preparation for this workshop, I learned that the key problem
for Mormons today has become their relationship with their
nineteenth century origins, i.e. with their own history. They
have had to abandon not only the practice of polygamy and
the attempt to establish a theocratic state by violent means,
but also some of the more bizarre ideas of their founders,
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In consequence, modern Mormonism
may well soon become essentially indistinguishable from conservative
Christian fundamentalism.
The Anglican
Church too seems to be concerned about its origins, which
lie not in the nineteenth but in the sixteenth century. Anglicans
have always been embarrassed by the fact that our existence,
as an independent church, came about because of Henry VIII’s
marital problems. Henry may not have had as many wives as
the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, but he was scarcely a model
of Christian virtue.
Nothing
can be done to remove Henry VIII from Anglican history, but
recent years have seen a concerted effort to undo the religious
reformation which took place during the following reign of
Edward VI and which was ratified under Elizabeth I. The principal
target in this process has been the Book of Common Prayer,
which was the crowning achievement of the English Reformation.
Just as
the Mormons, by abandoning their nineteenth century history,
are being assimilated to conservative Christian fundamentalism,
so too the Anglican Church, by abandoning its sixteenth century
history, is becoming what might be called a "no-name"
brand of liberal liturgical Protestantism.
This facilitates
closer relations with other denominations which have gone
through a similar process--witness the recent approval of
full communion with the Lutherans, but it means that Anglicanism,
as Anglicanism, really has nothing to offer.
Now a
church which has turned its back on its own history may have
difficulty attracting new members. The Mormon Church has managed
to survive the process of revisionism and is actually stronger
now than ever. But, unlike the Anglican Church, they have
a tightly organized hierarchical structure and vast financial
holdings, as well as an efficient system for missionary outreach.
Without
these assets, Anglican revisionism faces a bleak future, in
my opinion. The Church of the Good Shepherd has not followed
this revisionist trend. We value Anglican tradition, as enshrined
in the Book of Common Prayer, just as we value our local traditions,
which are preserved in the windows and memorials all around
us.
Speaking
for myself, I am proud of the legacy of the English Reformation,
and it is my intention to teach a course in the year 2003
on the Elizabethan Church, to mark the four hundredth anniversary
of Queen Elizabeth’s death.
But for
those who wish to repudiate our religious heritage, I have
a suggestion: would it not be more honest to follow the example
of the Reorganized Church of Latter-Day Saints and to change
our name as well?
September
30, 2001
