The words are from a recent post on The North American Anglican. To some extent, the statement is correct. After all, the Formularies - BCP, Articles, Ordinal, Homilies - have a solid theological core that is robustly Augustinian, a theological school which (with some understatement) we might not immediately identify with Latitudinarianism. That said, from both a Hookerian and Laudian perspective, it is right to be very cautious indeed about an account of Anglicanism which separates Formularies from history, which stands apart from the experience of how Anglicans have received these Formularies.
Alongside this, we might also consider if we would want Anglicanism to be 'liberated' from Latitudinarianism. The humane, civic virtues of Latitudinarians have both reflected a certain moderation within the Formularies and taken root within the Anglican soul. To quote Wordsworth: "The golden mean, and quiet flow/Of truths that soften hatred, temper strife". The conclusion to the Preface of the 1878 Irish revision of the BCP similarly gives voice to a Latitudinarian spirit:
what is imperfect, with peace, is often better than what is otherwise more excellent, without it.
Mindful of this, let me suggest five reasons why we might praise Latitudinarianism.
1. Latitudinarianism has been part of the historic Anglican tradition. Its first flowering was to be seen in the Great Tew Circle and the Cambridge Platonists, groups Wordsworth lauded as "Charged with rich words poured out in thought's defence". As Diarmaid MacCulloch also reminds us, the Great Tew Circle could claims roots in Hooker's appeals to reason and moderation. The Latitudinarianism of the late 17th and early 18th centuries has been admirably summarised by Maurice Fitzpatrick as "a combination of Protestantism and Christian humanism", a noble and attractive combination.
While a radical minority railed against subscription to the Articles, the vast majority of Latitudinarian clergy subscribed. As Fitzpatrick noted, the "principles of the Latitudinarians were intended to be healing principles ... they wanted reconciliation not confrontation". This echoes Burnet's description:
They declared against superstition on the one hand, and enthusiasm on the other. They loved the constitution of the Church, and the liturgy, and could well live under them; but they did not think it unlawful to live under another form. They wished that things might have been carried with more moderation.
2. Latitudinarianism had a role in engaging with enlightened opinion and communities shaped by such enlightened opinion. We might think, for example, of Benjamin Whichcote as incumbent of St Lawrence Jewry - described by Charles Taliaferro and Alison Teply as "the renowned Latitudinarian living" - with John Locke in his congregation. Similarly, William White as chaplain to the Continental Congress and first Presiding Bishop of PECUSA. Such examples point to the importance of Latitudinarianism as a means of ensuring that Anglicanism did not retreat into a sectarian bunker in the face of Enlightenment.
3. There is a sense in which most Anglicans have accepted key aspects of Latitudinarianism. Sacheverell assaulted occasional conformity: we, like good Latitudinarians, practice Eucharistic hospitality. Our ecumenical dialogues with the Reformed traditions are an outworking of Latitudinarian convictions. Above all, some of our most basic assumptions about the state and the good of religious toleration are thoroughly Latitudinarian.
4. Somewhat ironically, and as hinted at in the article, accounts of Anglicanism based on 'three streams' - catholic, evangelical, charismatic - are themselves inherently Latitudinarian, requiring a diversity in interpretation of the Articles which the average 18th century High Churchman would have regarded as preposterous. For all the weaknesses associated with the diversity of contemporary Anglicanism, many of us benefit from this diversity in various ways. To give an example, a Laudian parson can be rather grateful that this diversity ensures that he or she does not have to slavishly conform to the latest episcopal notion or use the latest prayer devised by an ecclesiastical bureaucrat addressing a fashionable cause.
5. And related to this, it is surely the case that Latitudinarianism has a much greater claim to a place within Anglicanism that the 'enthusiasm' of the charismatics.
In all of this, of course, there is a danger - the danger of Latitudinarianism becoming the dominant theological tradition within a particular national Church. This would, as the article correctly cautions, result in "theological incoherence". Latitudinarianism, however, is a gift to Anglicanism precisely when it is held in check by other theological traditions.
Thus, to take the example of PECUSA in the early American Republic, the influence of the Latitudinarian tradition was checked by the Old High Church and the Evangelical traditions. The former ensured that PECUSA, rooted in episcopacy, liturgy, and sacraments, was not overwhelmed by the cultural forces of Jeffersonian democracy. The latter ensured that PECUSA had significant connections with popular Protestantism. The presence of the Latitudinarian tradition prevented PECUSA from being defined by a sectarianism (whether sacramental or evangelical) which would have significantly decreased its cultural influence throughout the 19th century and beyond.
In other words, Anglicanism needs Latitudarianism at its best (as opposed to the bargain-basement imitations offered by Spong). Not as a dominant theological tradition, but as a contributing tradition, which through the challenges it provides, its willingness to engage with the culture, and its historic commitment to theological inquiry, sharpens and enriches Anglican witness.
Comments
Post a Comment