Anglicanism and the public square after Christendom

It is one of the ironies of Anglicanism that, despite our tradition's historic vocation as an established, national church providing a civic ministry to a polity and society (even when dis-established - the role of the National Cathedral in Washington is evidence of this), in the 20th century we lost any confidence in articulating a convincing vision of this civic vocation.

Part of the reason for this loss of confidence has been examined in two articles in the Church Times by historian JCD Clark. In the first he suggested that Anglicanism had lost the 'history wars', failing to invest any importance in historical study and thus "losing command of its history". In the second, he argued that the loss of a historical "grand narrative" had left Anglicanism without any sense of an authentically catholic identity.

Clark's now classic 1985 revisionist work, English Society 1688-1832, provided an historical account of Anglicanism in 18th century England fundamentally shaping the self-understanding of state and society. So much so, indeed, that he declared Anglican political theology to be the predominant political ideology in Georgian England. Clark's two articles are written against the background of his historical thesis. In "losing command of its history", Anglicanism lost any real sense of shaping our society's understanding of itself.

I offered some reflections on the first article in the Church of Ireland Gazette, particularly drawing attention to 21st century Anglicanism's embarrassment over one decisive aspect of its past:

"Anglicanism’s historical experience has been overwhelmingly defined by the Church of England’s status over the centuries as an established Church. Establishment - Christendom - brought an intimate relationship with the powers of this world. There is an overwhelming suspicion amongst 21st century Christians that Christendom compromised the Church of Jesus Christ. But not only was establishment a common experience for Churches throughout Europe before and after the Reformation, it allowed national Churches to shape national cultures in a distinctive Christian manner. The theologian, Oliver O’Donovan, has articulated the theological rationale behind Christendom. Christendom was, says O’Donovan, 'the logical conclusion of [the Church’s] confidence in mission.' Establishment, whatever its flaws, was a testimony to the acceptance by rulers and societies of the public truth of the Christian proclamation".

Now, there is - obviously - no going back, as O'Donovan succinctly notes: "I take it as beyond dispute that Christendom has in fact ended". But this does not require Anglicanism to desert the public square, retiring sect-like into public irrelevance. Indeed, O'Donovan reminds us that the good news compels us into the public square. In post-Christendom our vocation - while given different expression to, say, Anglican political theology in the 18th century - remains fundamentally public, not individualist and not sectarian. To quote The Desire of the Nations:

"If the Christian community has as its eternal goal, the goal of its pilgrimage, the disclosure of the church as city, it has as its intermediate goal, the goal of its mission, the discovery of the city's secret destiny through the prism of the church".

In other words, in the Word proclaimed and lived out by the church, the city comes to discover its true identity as a polis brought into being and sustained by the Triune God. What would a contemporary Anglican understanding of this vocation in the public square look like? A recent sermon by Bishop N.T. Wright - preached at the Civic Service of Thanksgiving and Dedication
at the launch of the new Unitary County Council in Durham - provides an incredibly useful outline.

Wright captures something of the essence of the traditional Anglican teaching on passive obedience and non-resistance - the God-ordained role of civil authority to maintain the order required for the common good, a necessary corrective to the view that the state merely exists to protect the free market and our desires as individuals:

"We all still know that we need rulers and authorities. We don’t want to live in chaos and anarchy, where powerful bullies can push the rest of us around. We know in our bones that order matters, that structures of society are necessary for the health and flourishing of the whole. Governments at every level are there to provide the appropriate balance between freedom and order, between human flourishing and the necessary structures of public life".

He went on to emphasise three things that flow from the Christian proclamation when applied to the public square:

"we must put the needs of the poor before the desires of the rich ... developing a community of character ... the leadership of servants rather than the busyness of bureaucrats".

Wright ended his sermon by reminding his hearers that this vision of the church encouraging, urging rulers to pursue the common good is not an attempt to restore lost Christendom, but a necessary and inherent part of the church proclaiming the good news:

"In proposing that we put back together what never should have been separated, God and public life, I am not at all therefore suggesting that we return to a pre-modern image of theocracy. I’m suggesting that we move forward towards Jesus’ very different vision, the vision for which he lived and died, the vision which, when he rose again, became a reality on earth as in heaven, creating a new world with new possibilities and new energy which we call the Holy Spirit".

It is time to lose our embarrassment over the historical era of Christendom and to recover our confidence as those called and sent into the public square. The mission to the nations is a mission that compels the church to enter the public square and seek to shape it in obedience to the Crucified and Risen Lord.