Homilies

Back to Homilies menu

 These familiar words from today’s second lesson have played a lively role in the history of Christian apologetics. For the pilgrim in St. Peter’s basilica in Rome the meaning of these words is obvious, as he sees them inscribed in gold letters around the inside of the dome that soars above his head. If prophecy belongs to the one who appropriates it, then, surely, the Church of Rome’s appropriation of this prophecy of Christ has shaped the course of Western Church history.

If these same words are read in the historical context in which they were written, their significance is somewhat different. For Matthew’s gospel was written a generation after Peter’s martyrdom in Rome under Nero. In the context of the gospel Jesus’ words to Peter serve not to foretell Peter’s future role but rather to legitimate the authority of the evangelist’s own community.

The power of binding and loosing which is conferred on Peter in chapter 16 of the gospel (v. 19) will be conferred, two chapters later, on all Christian disciples (Matthew 18:18). Nowhere in Matthew’s gospel is there any suggestion that an individual has taken over as Peter’s successor. Rather, the evangelist roots the authority of his community in the authority granted to the martyred apostle by the Lord.

Both these readings of our text are concerned, in different ways, with the problem of roots. The Roman Church’s self-understanding is rooted in an unbroken succession of bishops going back to Peter himself. The authority of the Matthean community is rooted in an appeal to the memory of the martyred prince of the apostles.

Where do we Anglicans find our roots?

In our second lesson the “rock” is Peter, but in our first lesson, the “rock” is God: “Ye that seek the Lord look to the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged” (Isaiah 51:1). What is the relation between these two rocks: the divine rock of our salvation and the rock of apostolic authority?

If all our hope on God is founded, does this eliminate the need for human roots? The reading from Isaiah continues: “Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah who bore you” (v. 2). In Judaism tradition plays an indispensable role, as you may recall from the song “Tradition!” in the musical “Fiddler on the Roof.”

What does tradition mean for us as Anglicans?

Is it enough simply to appeal to “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), or is there a need, in today’s marketplace of competing religious traditions, for something a bit more specific?

We Anglicans do not have the identifying characteristics of some other Christian traditions. We do not have the papal primacy of the Church of Rome. We no longer have the ethnic cultural identity which is both a bane and a boon to the Orthodox Churches of the East. We do not have the confessional allegiances which identify Lutherans and Calvinists. As a tolerant, undogmatic church, it does not come easily to us to say, collectively, with Martin Luther: “here I stand!”

The Anglican tradition of reason in theology may appeal to the mind, but it does not always stir the heart. If Professor Stephen Sykes is right in thinking that the identity of Christianity is to be found in worship, then should we not be cautious about jettisoning our 400 year old liturgical tradition, as found in the Book of Common Prayer.

These are some of the questions which today’s lessons raise in my mind. Perhaps the “Thou art Peter” text, which has sparked so much controversy in the past, may serve to focus our reflection on the present problem of our religious identity.

October 23, 2005

back to top