By: David Kellett

David Kellett — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:55:51 +0000

As a 68 year old Anglican living in Vancouver, I am troubled by this writing of Bishop Nicholls. She means well in presenting updates about the current Catholic-Anglican dialogues. But Bishop Nicholls seems dismissive towards church history. To describe Luther’s 95 theses as “simply a symbol of a much larger movement of reform and transformation happening across Europe” is to blend the Renaissance with the Reformation. Let us describe Luther as a phenomenon. His 95 theses were intended to cause a debate about the penitential system. But it changed into a debate about authority. Where is clear and consistent authority to be found in the earthly Church? who has the authority or the ability to settle disputes? Does authoritiy lie with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope? Or does it lie with a Council of the Universal Church? So, Luther and his fellow supporters developed the belief that clear and consistent authority was to be found in the Scriptures.
The Reformation in England was a confused and disorganized process. When did the Church of England clearly emerge? Was it in Queen Elizabeth 1’s reign, 1558-1603? Or was it later, around 1689, when King William and Queen Mary came to England from Holland? Was the Church of England really a reformed Church? It claimed to be both catholic and protestant. Or, it claimed it was not too catholic, and not too protestant. Apologists spoke of the Church as a “via media”.
I taught an eight week course on Luther this past May and June. I immersed myself in this history. As I learned again all this history, it occured to me the Anglican Church of Canada bears some resemblance to the 16 century church. Here in the Diocese of New Westminster, there is a whole array of clergy dress. I observed one woman cleric with a purple streak in her hair. And we have several male clergy wearing ear rings. We have one male priest with a mohawk haircut. And we have clergy wearing normal, expected clothing. But isn’t the mix of worldliness and holiness amongst today’s clergy similar to that which existed in the 16 century? I am tempted to make comparisons between 16 century bishops and modern day Canadian bishops. Back then, especially when the Reformation got underway, it could be dangerous for a Bishop. We Anglicans remember Bishops Latimer and Ridley and Archbishop Cramner, executed by Queen Mary. But there was a Bishop John Fischer who refused to swear allegiance stating King Henry 8th was the governor of the Church in England. (Act of Royal Supremacy, 1534). Catholics remember Fischer as a man who died for his faith.
Hasn’t the Anglican Church of Canada inherited this problem of authority which Luther caused? Are our three yearly National Synods the forum where clear and consistent authority can be found in our Church?
In 1520, Luther wrote several essays. One was titled “Freedon of a Christian”. This concept Freedom implied promise, as well as danger. German peasants, reading Luther’s essays, in 1524 began a violent uprising. It was violently suppressed. The word Freedom comes from a Latin word “liber”, and it is the root of the word “Liberal”. Yes, in 1521, when Luther appeared at the Diet of Worms, he refused to recant his writings. He was acting with courage. Good biographers say Luther knew he risked being labeled a heretic and being executed. His new teachings meant change and danger, both for himself, as well as for others. I think modern day Anglican Liberals ought to talk about change carefully. I am suspicious of today’s Christian Liberals. I think there has been far too much change, innovations, novelty and gimickry in our Church these past fifty years.

Comments on: Changing the legacy of the Reformation

By: David Kellett