Homilies

Back to Homilies menu

   Through the symbolism of Jesus’ first miracle in Cana of Galilee, the Fourth Evangelist makes a polemical point. The implication of this narrative is that Jesus brings the new wine which replaces the water used in the Jewish rites of purification (verse 6). Until recent times Christianity regarded Judaism as obsolete and claimed to be the “fulfilment” of the covenant which it sought to replace.

   This dialectic between old and new recurred at the time of the Protestant Reformation. The Puritans who smashed the stained glass windows of the English cathedrals were seeking to remove all vestiges of “the old religion,” as Catholicism was called. But this iconoclasm was in the service of something still older, the “pure” gospel of Jesus Christ.

   Old and new are very much a part of current discussion in our own church. Michael Ingham’s introduction to the Book of Alternative Services is entitled Rites for a New Age. But the purpose of the new rites of the BAS is to recover the “original” shape of the ancient Christian liturgy, a task in which the English Reformers had only partially succeeded.

   Today, as we conclude the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity, the dialectic between old and new suggests another polarity which is important for ecumenism: the polarity betweeh universalism and particularism. The pioneer of Roman Catholic ecumenism, Pope John XXIII, cited the saying: “In essentials, unity; in indifferent matters, diversity; in all things, charity.” But who is to decide which matters are essential?

   The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission attempted to go beyond the controversies of the 16th century, in order to reach formulations which would do justice to the faith of both communions in the 20th century. The Anglican members of the Commission manifested an extraordinary openness to Roman Catholic doctrinal positions, even to the extent of ignoring certain historic formulations of their own tradition.

   But the Vatican had its own verdict on these efforts: not good enough. Rejecting, in effect, a carefully worded statement by the Commission concerning papal primacy, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith reaffirmed the teaching of Vatican I concerning the absolute and universal authority of the Roman Pontiff, and made acceptance of this specifically Roman Catholic teaching the sole basis for a reunion of the churches.

   With this return to ecumenical hard-ball, I think there must be a swing of the pendulum from the universalistic hopes of the past to greater attention to Christian particularism. As Archbishop William Temple wittily observed, “I believe in the holy Catholic Church, and I deeply regret that it does not presently exist.”

   There is no such thing as “no-name” Christianity. In the absence of any prospects for church union, Christianity does not exist except in the particularities of our divided traditions. For us, Anglicanism is our way of being Christian. Since the Anglican Church affirms the sufficiency of scripture, tradition, for us, must be a secondary matter. Nevertheless, over the four and a half centuries of our existence, we have developed an Anglican tradition, a characteristic way of doing things, an Anglican ethos, which, at its best, is marked by tolerance, modesty, and an ability to see both sides of controverted issues.

   These are truly unique gifts on the ecumenical scene, and we should not become so pre-occupied with our internal differences that we allow these gifts to be obscured. For this Anglican Church which we love is the earthen vessel which contains our love for God in Jesus Christ.

January 30, 2005

back to top