Good day Hivers and Book Clubbers,
Let's do some more reviewing. I've started to get back into the swing of it recently. Although my reading itself has taken a dent; my favourite reading lamp has stopped working. So I'll have to replace it. Fortunately, the relatively long days of summer means you don't need it as much.
The book I'm talking about in this review is 'Anglicanism' by Stephen Neill (1900-1984). Neill is far from an impartial writer; he was an Anglican bishop and did missionary work in India. Yet this also, of course, makes him very knowledgable about the subject at hand. The book, written in the 1960s, has seen several releases, one of which is my Dutch cope from 1970. I got it at a local second-hand bookstore; looking on the Internet, it seems to have gone out of print. Perhaps, for those interested, there are PDFs of it online that can be used.
Church Independence
The 16th century was a turbulent one in Europe, and perhaps the main factor for this turbulence was religion. Martin Luther became the epicentre of a spiritual rebellion against the then Europe-spanning Catholic Church. From 1517 onwards, many countries and peoples in Europe would be part of the Protestant Reformation, and each would partake in his/its own way.
The English way may have been the most unique, though also the most incomplete. English church independence was always a subject of talk. The island-mentality of its people may have something to do with it. Its religious leaders viewed some Catholic practices with disdain, and agreed with Lutheran (and later Calvinist) critiques of it.
Yet the reason for the English break with Rome was wholle secular. Henry VIII wanted a son. His then-current wife, Catherine of Aragon (Spain) couldn't give him one. So he wanted a divorce, which the Pope wouldn't grant. So he granted himself his own divorce, by claiming he was the Supreme Head of his own Church of England.
Half-way Protestantism
In that time, anyone who left the path of Rome was considered to be Protestant, yet Anglicanism retained many characteristics that 'real' Protestants would consider to be Catholic. For example, the use of the term 'Bishop', and how those bishops looked.
The 'arch-bishop of Canterbury' does sound like a very Catholic title, even though it signifies the most high-ranking man in the Church itself. I don't know who among you saw the coronation of Charles III a few months back, but do you remember how the clergy looked? The vestments, the robes, the mitre/hats are all much closer to Roman-Catholic practice than they are to the Reformed or Lutherans.
Also the fact that a king, and thus the state, has so much to say in Church affairs is something at odds with most of Protestantism. This remained an issue in England/Britain itself for centuries to come. You might have heard of the terms Presbyterian and Episcopalian, which broadly signify the two camps.
Most Protestants, especially Calvinists, are Presbyterians. This means that a local church is able to handle its own affairs, and most importantly, assign its own vicars. The state has no say in this matter, and cannot appoint clergy to local churches. The congregation, through the elders, deacons (the consistory) does this themselves.
The Church of England, and with it Episcopalianism, works in reverse. All big appointments go through the state, which for the first few centuries after the 16th century mostly meant the king or queen. A very centralized affair, in which local congregations have no say in who leads them, but are controlled from Westminster. This, in some instances, has led to a politicizing of appointments, in which the best people for the job may be left to the wayside for political reasons.
A global religion?
Anglicanism is, at its roots, English. It's in the name. But the English, through their explorations and their Empire, went all over the world. In any place they went, they spread their distinct form of religion with varying degrees of success. You might think of all English-speaking countries today; Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand. But they also tried more challenging fronts like India and the African interior.
Neill himself was a missionary in India, and you can tell in the book that this is where his passion really is. India was home to several religous forms before the English arrived, the main ones being Hinduism and Islam. To get Christianity to take root has, in some sense, failed. I looked up the locality where Neill was bishop, and today that region, 10% of the population is Christian. That is a relatively high number for India, it must be said.
Neill was also an advocate of ecumenism, meaning the working together of different Christian denominations. He thought this especially important in countries/places where the total number of Christians was relatively low, and thus splintering could have negative consequences. He named several works-in-progress, though I'd have to look them up further to tell you about it, since the book is over half a century old at this point, and not really up to date on this front.
Conclusion
Neill did his best in this book to argue for this remarkable form of Christianity as a global force in the world. He was concerned about the lack of church-going in England itself at the time; a trend that has worsened since the 70s. Yet he did believe in Anglicanism as an enduring force, and it has remained the largest Christian denomination in England since its founding almost 500 years ago.
The book, as I said, is not that widely available anymore, so for those interested, it's probably better to look up a pdf or some online source. At times, the book might be a bit long-winded, but it is an excellent introduction into the subject. If there have been better books about it in the meantime, I haven't read them yet. I'll be back with more reviews in the future. Until then,
-Pieter Nijmeijer
(Top image; self-made photo of book cover)
As an American I think I have a particular familiarity with fundamentalist Protestantism. There is still a strong strain of anti-papist (that's the term) sentiments in certain parts of the country.
My father's antecedents, all of them, were religious dissenters who had immigrated from Europe (mostly Britain) to escape persecution. Some of those ancestors were Huguenots. Some were Presbyterians. I don't know that much about it, except for the fact that when my father married my mother, a Catholic, the family was scandalized. They never fully accepted that union.
Anglicanism would likely be anathema to my father's family. I think I would be annoyed by this book, the way you describe it. Good job in getting across his perspective.
Interesting. My background is Dutch Reformed, i.e. Calvinist, so it's somewhat similar to yours. All Dutch Protestants are Presbyterians; the term Episcopalian I only learned several years ago. It's got no practical use on the Continent itself, apart from the Roman Catholics. So call this academic interest, if you will.