"The Christian system of religion and virtue": Secker on the Church as public religion

This extract from Secker's Sermon XXVII - with its characteristic High Church emphasis on Christianity as religion, as public cult - offers a useful rebuttal to those presently urging a 're-imagining of Church'. As a recent (and all too predictable) Church Times article proposed, this would "release us, at last, from the prison of our church building", "liberate us from our habitual routines" of attending public worship, and allow a new focus on prayer via "Facetime, Whereby, or Zoom".  It may all sound edgy and trendy for clergy of a certain generation, but what it actually means is a withdrawal of the Church into the private sphere, an abandoning of public presence.  It would be spirituality, not religion.

By contrast, Secker's sermon reminds us that the habitual routine of public worship is integral to Christianity as religion, to the Church as sign of and witness to public truth - "the Christian system of religion and virtue":

But we are to measure the value of owning our regard to religion, not only by the benefit, which we may receive from it, but the service, which we may do by it. One branch of it is, frequenting public worship. Now it is very true, that many who stay at home, can use the same prayers, and read as good sermons in private, as they hear in the congregation. But ... were every single good Christian to spend the whole time, which they employ in religious exercises here together, just in the same manner separately; still the mutual animating of each other, the instructive example, the awakening call to a thoughtless world, these things would be lost; the Christian church, the pillar and ground of the truth, would fall to ruin, by quick degrees; the Christian system of religion and virtue would die and be forgotten with the present believers in it, or even before them; excepting so much of it, as might perhaps be imperfectly preserved by methods less effectual.

Comments

  1. Thank you for your very insightful thoughts. If I may add some of my own, I find myself perplexed by the desire for certain people to dispense with the tradition of physically gathering for public worship. This goes against the grain of broader historical Christian practice and certainly the traditional Anglican understanding of the Church and its way of worshipping. I would agree with the authors of the Church Times article that we don't necessarily need the church building but having one greatly helps putting Article XIX on the Church into practice. The Books of Homilies lend much thought on this subject as well. The slightly expanded definition of the Church from the second part of the homily for Whitsunday states the marks of the church by which it is known is, "pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline." These marks are not divorced from physically gathering because both the article and homily use the word "congregation." Indeed, even the other rites and ceremonies of the Church (those five commonly called Sacraments) are commended for "godly states of life, necessary for Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity by the ministry of the Church" as expressed in the homily on common prayer and sacraments. If that isn't enough to convince anyone of the importance and necessity of publicly gathering for worship, then we ought to read the entirety of the homily of the place and time of prayer and ponder its words, especially those of its conclusion: "...if we will shew ourselves true Christians...we must both willingly, earnestly, and reverently come unto the material churches and temples...whereby we may reconcile ourselves to God, be partakers of his reverent Sacraments, and be devout hearers of his holy word; so to be established in faith to Godward, in hope against all adversity, and in charity toward our neighbors...". May we think twice before we forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tim and many thanks for your comment. Yes, I strongly agree and heartily endorse this reading of the Homilies.

      Where I might slightly dissent, however, is on the matter of church buildings. While, of course, not *necessary* they nevertheless have become a normative and meaningful part of assembling together. The Homilies, for example, state:

      "the material church or temple, is a place appointed, as well as by the usage and continual examples of expressed in the Old Testament, as in the New, for the people of God to resort together unto".

      Needless to say, that use of 'temple' (and it is not the only one) is rather significant. Similarly, the Homilies urge:

      "And shall we be so mindful of our common base houses, deputed to so low occupying, and be forgetful toward that house of God, wherein be ministered the words of our eternal salvation, wherein be intreated the Sacraments and mysteries of our redemption?"

      This aspect of the teaching of the Homilies has, I think, been endorsed by experience in parishes over this time: that prayerful meaning attaches itself to place.

      Brian.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts