"The bounds of wisdom are large": Diwali, Canterbury, and Article XIII
The usual suspects, of course, were immediately attacking on Twitter/X: this was "contrary to the gospel ... there is only one light of the world who is Jesus Christ our Lord"; "praising an entirely different religion, without any reference to God, the incarnation or salvation"; "no Archbishop Welby, Jesus is the light we need. Why not point people to Christ rather than affirming them in their false beliefs?"
Yes, it is the usual, entirely predictable, theologically impoverished response. As if our Lord's declaration that He is the Light of the world means that we cannot recognise and affirm light in the created order or outside of the Church; as if an Archbishop of Canterbury serves the Gospel or furthers the Church's mission by publicly offending Hindus, as they celebrate Diwali, calling them to abandon their faith; as if Christianity does not recognise a natural, created order in which goodness is a cause for thanksgiving.
Recent weeks in the United Kingdom have seen bitter divisions over the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have witnessed a horrific increase in anti-Semitic incidents; our Jewish communities are fearful and vulnerable; there has also been an increase in Islamophobic incidents. So, yes, it is good to celebrate and give thanks for a community and a tradition whose contributions to our society aid the prophetic vision, "they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid", and what the Apostle described as "a quiet and peaceable life".
The example of Hindu communities in our society is indeed light in a dark time, an example of how faith traditions can serve and shape the common good.
What, then, of Article XIII? It addresses a particular Reformation-era controversy regarding the relationship between faith and works in the order of salvation: its purpose was not to deny that the good of the natural order and civil society is served by those outside of the Church. As Bishop Burnet explicitly stated in his commentary, "this Article is not to be made use of to discourage Men's Endeavours". Burnet also emphasised that the theological principle articulated by the Article was not to propose an absence of light, goodness, and truth amongst those who do not confess justifying faith in Christ:
By all this we do not pretend to say, That a Man in that state can do nothing; or that he has no use of his Faculties: He can certainly restrain himself on many occasions; he can do many good works, and avoid many bad ones; he can raise his Understanding to know and consider things according to the Light that he has; he can put himself in good methods and good circumstances; he can Pray, and do many Acts of Devotion, which though they are all very imperfect, yet none of them will be lost in the sight of God, who certainly will never be wanting to those who are doing what in them lies, to make themselves the proper Objects of his Mercy, and fit Subjects for his Grace to work upon.
Article XIII, therefore, is read and applied in a fundamentally incorrect manner when it is invoked to condemn the Archbishop's Diwali statement. We might add that is precisely such misuse of the Articles which deeply damages the case for the Articles continuing to have (as they should) a serious and meaningful place in Anglican life and thought.
Underpinning Burnet's commentary on the Article is a profoundly Hookerian vision. Against the claims of his opponents, "That the Scripture of God is ... the rule of human actions, that simply whatsoever we do, and are not by it directed thereunto, the same is sin", Hooker celebrated a rich sapiential theology in which nature and the created order is touched and blessed by the "wisdom of God", with sources and means beyond holy Scripture:
The bounds of wisdom are large, and within them much is contained ... The ways of well-doing are in number even as many as are the kinds of voluntary actions ... we show ourselves therein by well-doing to be wise ... wisdom hath diversely imparted her treasures unto the world ... As her ways are of sundry kinds, so her manner of teaching is not merely one and the same ... let all her ways be according unto their place and degree adored (LEP II.1.4).
In other words, it is the voices of Hooker's opponents we have heard online in recent days, attacking the Archbishop's Diwali statement, those who deny that "the bounds of wisdom are large", with a theological view no less grim than that of those against whom Hooker was writing.
We might also add a final point. The Archbishop of Canterbury's Diwali statement perfectly reflects the views of the past and current Supreme Governors of the Church of England. In her 2020 Christmas broadcast, the late Queen stated:
Last month, fireworks lit up the sky around Windsor, as Hindus, Sikhs and Jains celebrated Diwali, the festival of lights, providing joyous moments of hope and unity.
His Majesty the King in his 2022 Christmas address spoke in a fashion very similar indeed to the Archbishop:
Our Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples and Gurdwaras, have once again united in feeding the hungry, providing love and support throughout the year. Such heartfelt solidarity is the most inspiring expression of loving our neighbour as ourself.
Both Supreme Governors demonstrated a fidelity to a Hookerian vision markedly absent from those who criticised the Archbishop's Diwali statement. And both Supreme Governors have provided us with a wise theological outlook, a New Elizabethan Anglicanism which views and relates to other faith traditions with grace and generosity. In following their good example in his Diwali statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury has pointed us to how such a New Elizabethan Anglicanism, rooted in Hooker, sets forth an understanding of a Christian realm in which other faith traditions are cherished and protected, recognising the plentitude of the light and goodness of the Triune God throughout the creation.
Comments
Post a Comment