Introduction
By
the time he was elected 2nd bishop of Fond du Lac in 1888, Charles
Grafton was already well known as an advocate a Catholic Anglicanism. He had
for 16 years been rector of the Church of the Advent, Boston, a leading
Anglo-Catholic parish in the Episcopal Church. As such he was suspect in the
minds of many and there was some doubt about his election being confirmed by
other bishops. Another well know Anglo-Catholic, James DeKoven, had twice been
elected bishop and twice failed to receive sufficient consents. But it turned
out Grafton had influential supporters. As he reflected in his autobiography,
Perhaps the confirmation of my election was owing
largely to the action of Dr. [Alonzo] Potter, the Bishop of New York. . .
[Bishop Potter] seemed best to understand my position of being an Evangelical
at heart, while in belief a liberal Catholic.[i]
“Evangelical
at heart, while in belief a liberal Catholic.” I am intrigued by that
description. It is an embrace of the three traditional parties of Anglican
comprehensiveness.
Bishop
Grafton celebrated that comprehensiveness and embodied it in himself. He belonged
to the High Church Catholic heritage of Anglicanism and could be quite partisan
in advocating for that heritage. But, some of the ways he came at theology
would have gotten labeled as a Liberal. And he did have something of an
Evangelical bent.
Each
of those terms calls for some explanation. But the combination, understood as
they apply to Bishop Grafton, could also be used more or less to refer to other
Anglican worthies of the 20th century: Francis Hall, Charles Gore, Evelyn
Underhill, William Temple, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Dorothy Sayers, Autin
Farrer, Michael Ramsey. And we might add contemporary folk like John Milbank,
Stanley Hauerwas, Sarah Coakley, and Rowan Williams. Though there are differences among them, each
of these of these is fundamentally Catholic in orientation while also being
informed by some Liberal and Evangelical approaches to faith. Along with Bishop
Grafton, they are representative of what former Archbishop of the Anglican
Province of Southern Africa, Njongonkulu Ndungane, called “The Heartland of
Anglicanism.”
I
want to look at each of these terms, Catholic, Liberal, and Evangelical as they
applied – and didn’t – to Bishop Grafton. I’ll end with some suggestions about how
they might guide us living a little over a hundred after his death.
Catholic
In
the phrase “Evangelical at heart, while in belief a liberal Catholic,”
“Catholic” is the predicate noun and indicates Grafton’s primary identity. He
was influenced by the Anglo-Catholic movement, particularly Edward Pusey, about
whom he wrote a short book, Pusey and the
Church Revival. Whatever else he was and however he might qualify it,
Bishop Grafton was first and foremost an Anglican Catholic. He was convinced
that the Anglican tradition was a legitimate representation of the Catholic
faith. He wrote a book, The Lineage of
the American Catholic Church, making the case for that conviction.
But,
it is important to note what he did not mean by “Catholic.” He makes it very
clear in just about everything else that he wrote that by “Catholic”, he did
not mean Roman Catholic. While, he could
on occasion write appreciatively of the Roman Catholic Church, it is much more
common to find him writing quite polemically against it.
The
historical context is important here. There were three significant events in
the Roman Catholic Church in Grafton’s lifetime about which he offers critical
comment.
The
first came in 1854 when Grafton was a young man. Pope Pius IX declared the
Immaculate Conception of Mary to be a dogma of the church. Later, as bishop,
Grafton was critical of this doctrinal novelty and of Roman Catholic Marian
devotion generally.
A
few years later, under the same pope, Vatican I was held from 1869-1870. That Council
declared the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Bishop Grafton wrote frequently and
at length refuting the notion of Papal infallibility and indeed against the
very office of the pope. In a letter to the Oneida, he wrote,
“God
may save a Roman Catholic, but we believe He hates the papacy as a worldly
thing.”[ii]
He
considered both the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility to be theological
innovations and they offended his sense of Catholic heritage and his commitment
to tradition. In his mind insisting on such novel teachings made the Roman
church schismatic.
Then,
in 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae
Curae, a papal bull declaring all Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely
null and utterly void." This was particularly offensive to Grafton who
argued that it was just more proof that popes were not infallible given that
Anglicans knew first hand that their ordinations, and thus their sacraments,
were valid.
Bishop
Grafton was so confident in the validity of Anglican orders and sacraments and
so suspicious of Rome, he could warn,
“. . . it
is a very great sin for any Churchman to leave their own Church, where they have
the true Faith and Sacraments, and join the Roman Church” and those who do so
“run great risks of their final salvation.[iii]
So,
if not Roman Catholic, what did Bishop Grafton mean when he described himself
as Catholic?
Part
of what the bishop meant by Catholic was the conviction that the Church was
founded by Jesus and, as the body of Christ in history, is animated by his
Spirit. Grafton wrote,
Christ left not His revelation to be evidenced by
manuscripts alone. Christianity came into the world as an institution. This
institution is a living organism, in which the Holy Spirit dwells and through
which He acts and speaks. This organism has from the first declared that on the
third day Christ rose from the dead. It does this to-day, not only by her creeds,
but by her sacraments.[iv]
And
elsewhere,
The Church is not a mere
aggregation of believers, but is an organism welded into oneness by the
indwelling Spirit.[v]
Therefore,
being a Christian is not just about having a personal relationship with Jesus,
it is necessary to be incorporated into his Church.
God speaks to us through His Church. We all need
two conversions. We need to be converted from sin and take Christ for our
Saviour, and to be converted to the Church and have her for our Mother. If a
person has only experienced one of these operations he is only a half converted
man.[vi]
Within
the Church there is an ethos that demonstrates the presence Christ and the
Spirit in the Church and the shapes the life of the faithful. For Grafton, this
ethos included particularly Catholic doctrines but also habits and practices
that marked and formed the faithful. Key elements of the Catholic Church for
Grafton were Apostolic Succession, the thee sacred orders of the ministry, baptismal
regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of Communion,
Eucharistic adoration, the importance and value of sacredotal confession,
fasting, daily prayer, and liturgy incorporating whatever vestments, candles,
incense, and other aspects of ritual as enable the Church’s ability to worship
God in the beauty of holiness and the holiness of beauty.
Significantly,
as a young man, Grafton was a founding member of the religious order, The
Society of Saint John the Evangelist. Later, he co-founded the Sisterhood of
the Holy Nativity. After becoming bishop, he moved the sisters to Fond du Lac.
As
a Catholic, Grafton emphasized the role of tradition in discerning Christian
truth more than say, scripture, or reason. In this regard he appeals frequently
to the “Vincentian Rule”:
In
determining what is Catholic doctrine and practice, two principles in the
application of the famous rule, "Quod
ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus," "what always, what
everywhere, what by everyone,” must ever be kept in mind.[vii]
This
emphasis on the Vincentian Rule led Bishop Grafton to be fundamentally opposed
to the idea of theological innovation. He appeals again and again to the
consensus of the early church Fathers and Councils. This is an appeal that is
not just Catholic, but very Anglican.
But,
Grafton makes a distinction between the Vincentian rule applied to doctrine and
applied to practice.
The Church is a living Body. She has a corporate
life. As the Bride of Christ, she repeats in her life the different phases of
her Lord's Life. She has her hidden life, her missionary and public life, her
disunited, rent, and crucified life when all her bones are out of joint. She
has her glorified life. She is drawn consequently in special degrees in her
devotions, sometimes to one Mystery of her dear Lord and sometimes to another.
The Church has also met the different phases of
the world's attack by adaptations in her discipline, in changes in her worship,
and by forging new spiritual weapons of her own.
It has been asked whether St. Vincent's rule
applies to Practice as well as Doctrine. It is applicable only to doctrine and
to such practices as involve doctrine. St. Vincent says, "which ancient
consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to be investigated and followed
by us, not in all the lesser questions of the Divine Law, but only or at any
rate principally in the Rule of Faith."[viii]
More
surprisingly, Bishop Grafton adds experience to the Vincentian Rule as a test
of the Church’s teaching:
We have ventured to add to Vincent's rule one
further test: the practical one of Christian Experience. What, we may ask
ourselves, does the Christian Experience or Christian Consciousness bear
witness to in any matter?[ix]
The
bishop is clear that he does not mean each individual should presume to be
guided by his or her private experience. He meant corporate experience. Still,
it is an unexpected addition to the Vincention Rule. He adds this,
Now there are those whose natural conservative
tendency of mind leads them with St. Vincent to make their appeal to Holy
Scripture and the Authority of the Church. There are others who naturally turn
more to the practical results of Christianity as seen in conduct and character,
and rest their belief on the approval of Reason and Conscience and the
certification of truth by the Voice within. Then there are our Evangelical
brethren who, while loyal to the Prayer Book, make the Word the lantern to
their feet, and the indwelling Holy Spirit its interpreter. But I trust we may
see that these three modes are not exclusive of one another, but may walk as
friends peacefully together, lending to each other a mutual support. May they
make a three-fold cord, the less easily broken because the strands somewhat
differ.[x]
As
a Catholic, Bishop Grafton affirmed the centrality of the Church, her faith
declared in the formularies of the early Church councils, her sacramental
system as a means of grace, and then importance ceremonial in her worship. But,
he was no mere traditionalist. He was also, particularly for his time, quite
open and even liberal.
Liberal
Charles
Grafton was fundamentally Catholic. But, he allows that he was something of a Liberal
Catholic. What did he mean by that?
What
he didn’t mean was an acceptance of the Liberal Protestantism which developed
during his lifetime in the works of German theologians like Friedrich
Schleiermacher, Ernst Troeltch, and Adolf von Harnack, or those English and
American theologians who echoed them. These theologians embraced modern
scientific method and literary criticism to engage the Bible and faith. But, they
also tended to embrace a naturalistic rejection of the miraculous and a
rejection of dogma in favor a supposed simple ethic of Jesus unvarnished with
the overlay of doctrine.
Bishop
Grafton believed that this sort of liberal or modernist approach was a serious
error. In a letter to the editor of an Evangelical Episcopal periodical, The Southern Churchman, he wrote,
We Churchmen are in the presence of a great
struggle with radical unbelief in our own body.
Living in Boston as I did for many years, I came
in much contact with the Broads and their school of thought. They do not
believe in the "historical" Christ, but in the "essential"
Christ, which is a being of their own construction. The miracles of our Lord
are explained [away] . . .These Broach Churchmen are not sound on the
deity of Christ, and reject as unessential or unproven his His Virgin Birth and
the resurrection of his crucified body. To them the sacrifice on Calvary has
lost its vicarious, atoning character.[xi]
Bishop
Grafton rejected this Broad Church or Liberal approach to Christian faith as little
more than “a respectable expression of growing disbelief. It was religion made
palatable to educated ungodliness.”[xii]
His
convictions about Catholic Christianity made him instinctively conservative theologically,
We have thus an answer to the popular saying that
we are living in an age of enlightenment and new discoveries and must not be
tied to old truths. The answer is this: A distinction must be observed between
revealed truth and all other truth. The latter depends for its progress on
observation and experiment. The longer the world lasts the more time it will
have to make observations and experiments, and so the wiser it will grow. But
it is different with the truth revealed in Christ. It was given in Him, in its
completeness, and once for all. While therefore it is no objection in any other
class of truth, that a proposed theory is new or destructive of what has gone
before, in respect of Christian truth, it is an obvious axiom that what is new
is necessarily false.[xiii]
This
conservatism also showed up in his engagement with some of the ethical debates
of his day. Leading up to the discussion regarding the possible relaxing of the
church’s teaching on the remarriage of divorced at General Convention of 1904,
the bishop took a rather unyieldingly conservative position,
The question of marriage is perhaps the most
important. The only argument of worth in favor of allowing the innocent party
to re-marry in a case of divorce, is to be found in a saying of our Lord. But
scholars have pronounced this text to be so uncertain that we cannot safely
base an argument upon it; and if it were correct, our Lord is said not to be
revealing the law governing Christians but that in relation to the Jew. Under
the Gospel, Christian marriage was to bear witness to the indissolubility of
Christ's union with His Church, and however hard it may be in certain cases for
a Christian to bear the witness, Christ has promised that "My grace shall
be sufficient for thee."[xiv]
So,
in what way then was Bishop Grafton’s Catholic Anglicanism, “liberal”? In spite
of his rejection of the excesses of Liberals or “the Broads,” he did not
absolutely reject everything and everyone related to the liberal approach. He
wrote positively of the Church’s indebtedness to the “theological genius” of
Frederick Denison Maurice, who many other condemned for his liberalism. And he
was able to write of Broad Church Liberalism,
Negatively, it was rationalistic in its methods,
destructive in its criticism. Positively, it sought to readjust the old
religious formulae to the new discoveries of the age. This movement is far from
having spent its force.
The movement did good, and is still doing it. It
created a profitable discontent with inherited apologetics, formerly serviceable,
but now useless. It helped to demonstrate that no dogma of the Catholic faith
is contradicted by any recognised scientific fact. It disillusionised men from
a belief in the mechanical theory of verbal Scriptural inspiration. . . . It
started the Church on new courses of philanthropy.[xv]
Further,
while he could be quite conservative in some areas, he also embraced aspects of
the liberal movement that came to be known as the Social Gospel. He asserted
that “The Church has ever been on the side of human rights and projects for the
uplift of humanity.” He pointed out that many Episcopalians, including George
Washington, were leaders in the fight for American independence. As a law
student in 1853, he wrote an extensive and forceful treatise against slavery at
a time when many Christians, including those of his High Church persuasion,
defended it. Later, as bishop, he was one of the Vice-Presidents of a society for
the protection of labor's rights in the early struggle between capital and
labor while still acknowledging both rights and duties of business.
The
bishop was also liberal in endorsing some of the critical approaches to the
Bible that were coming into their own in his lifetime:
In respect of the Holy Scriptures: the Anglican
Church stands for truth. It places no ban on research into the origin of the
various biblical books. It encourages priests and laymen to study God's Holy
Word. Nothing that science can discover concerning the origin of the books or
the method of their compilation can affect their corroborative value as to the
teaching of the Church. It is by living in the Church, and primarily listening
to her teaching, that the written word is best understood. What the Holy Spirit
has enlightened the Church to read out of Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit put
into it, to be so read. Differences of interpretation may exist about different
texts, but the mind of the Spirit is to be found in the Church's common and
enduring consent.[xvi]
And
he was liberal in his acceptance the best science of his day. Darwin published On the Origin of Species when Grafton
was 29 years old and he was convinced that it did not contradict Christian
faith:
The Church has no opposition to the investigation
of science in any department of knowledge. Nothing has so far been demonstrated
that contradicts the dogmas she has declared essential. We may allow, for
instance, the allegorical character of the early chapters of Genesis without
denying the sinful tendency found in man's nature by reason of heredity. Man
has fallen away from God.
After
noting and criticizing the pope for insisting in 1909 on the literal historical
interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, he goes on.
To deny what is called the Darwinian theory, or
the evolutionary process, is as unwise as to deny the truth of the world's
diurnal revolution or orbit about the sun.[xvii]
Bishop
Grafton did not just accept the theory of evolution, he asserted that it actually
confirmed aspects of Christian theology,
Now the discovery of the law of progress in the
natural world, rightly understood, is in favor of the doctrine of the
progressive development of man (in and through the Incarnate Lord) into a final
union with God, which secures sinlessness and eternal life. . . .Christ is the
embodiment of progress, and we attain to our new union with the divine life
through Him.[xviii]
And
elsewhere,
Scientific research has tended more and more to
the idea of the unity of the material universe and, by its discovery of the correlation
of its forces, to the oneness of the energy of which it is the expression. It
is not ordinarily known that the first theological definition of God, as given
by the schoolmen, is that of "pure activity." In this science and
theology seemingly come into close agreement.[xix]
As
we have seen, Bishop Grafton rejected “the effort made to liberalize the Church
and make it more like the Unitarian.”[xx] But,
he was himself, something of a creedal minimalist. The Catholic faith, he
wrote,
is found in the universally accepted Creeds, that
is, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and set forth in the Sacraments which
witness to the Faith, and bring its grace to us. What is thus certified to us
by the whole Church is Catholic Doctrine. We can so rest upon it, assured that
it is infallible truth. At the same time, what is not so witnessed and declared
to be of the essential faith, we may regard as matters of pious private
opinion, about which Christians may lawfully differ.
It is upon this broad, strong position the Anglican
Church stands and authoritatively teaches. She is at once Catholic and also
liberal.[xxi]
And,
in an instruction to the Sisters of the Holy Nativity, he claimed,
Outside the Creed we need have no settled
opinion. When we have said Amen to that, we have said Amen to all that we
really know and upon any point we can yield to others.[xxii]
Finally,
one could say that Bishop Grafton was liberal in the most basic sense of the
word. He celebrated the generous latitude the Episcopal Church which allowed
its members freedom to discern for themselves particular moral applications of
Christian faith,
The Church, in the administration of her
discipline, seeks to train souls in sanctity by the exercise of their own
consciences. She does not treat them as children in a school, giving them laws,
which they must under ecclesiastical compulsion obey. She instructs her
children in great moral principles, leaving it to them to apply them in their
own individual lives. In other words, she trusts them. She does not say, "You
must not go to the theater, or play cards, or dance, or go to social
entertainments." She leaves these matters to their individual consciences.
"Whatever," she teaches, "is found to come in between the soul
and God, and hinder union between the two is to be avoided," but each
person is to be judge for himself, and refrain from judging others. Thus the
conscience and the will are individually trained, as being, not under the law,
but under grace.[xxiii]
Bishop
Grafton’s willingness to be open to the learning of his day while remaining
grounded in a commitment to the basic Catholic faith was line with the liberal
Catholicism of folk like Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford. Though I have found no
reference to it in his writing, it is interesting that Lux Mundi was published in 1889, the year of Grafton’s consecration
as Bishop of Fond du Lac.
So,
while he was a convinced and unwavering Catholic, the bishop did not shy away
from the adjective “Liberal”. His particular brand of Liberal Catholicism was also
informed by an Evangelical heart.”
Evangelical Heart
Without
question, Bishop Grafton had an evangelical heart. He was a church planter. He
writing and preaching are full of the call for conversion and he is
consistently focused on Christ and his gospel. The collect for his feast day
has it right, he had “a burning zeal for souls.” His motto was, “Press on the
Kingdom.”:
A duty incumbent upon every member of the
Catholic Church militant is to work for its extension. A missionary zeal should
burn like fire in every Christian's heart. The time is short and the second
coming of Christ draweth nigh. In all ways in our power, by our alms and
prayers and personal service, we must labor to "press on the
kingdom."[xxiv]
He
appreciated strengths of the Evangelical or “low Church” approach writing that
he “loved their Evangelical principles and internal piety, and their trust in
the merits of Christ.”[xxv]
But,
again, we have to ask what this meant for him and what it did not mean. We have
already gotten some indication that what that meant for him was not what we
often take it to mean today. For example, given what we have seen above, it is
safe to say that while he was no simple Liberal, he would not have fit easily
in the Religious Right or political Conservatism of today.
There
are other ways in which Bishop Grafton was not Evangelical in the contemporary
sense. The modern theory of biblical inerrancy was developed during Grafton’s
lifetime and his episcopate overlapped the early Fundamentalist-Modernist
debate. The “Five Fundamentals” were published in 1910, two years before his
death. Though Grafton was no thoroughgoing Modernist, neither was he a
Fundamentalist (he would have accepted four of the five Fundamentals, but not
the first which asserted a particular (and recent) understanding of Biblical
Inerrancy in all matters.
As
we saw above, Bishop Grafton was convinced that accepting a critical approach
to the Bible did not threaten the faith of the Church. But, he did not just reject
the theory of inerrancy; Grafton also challenged the Protestant notion of sola scriptura:
Preachers may wax eloquent over "the Bible
and the Bible only" theory, but however attractive, was it the method
instituted by Christ? If it was, we dutifully accept it; if not, we must not
take it for our guide.
We can easily settle the question. There is no
recorded command of Christ to His Apostles bidding them write a book and
disseminate it. As a matter of fact, the Christian Church was in existence and
in active operation before any of the Gospels were written. The books also of
the New Testament were not collected and certified till the close of the second
century. Copying by hand was expensive, and so comparatively few persons could
possess a copy of the whole Scripture. Now God could have had the art of
printing invented in the first century as well as in the fifteenth. He could
have had the Bible put into circulation when the Apostles went forth on their
missionary journeys. But here is the plain fact: He did not do it. Nor does
this theory meet the condition of enabling sincere persons with reasonable
certainty to know the faith. For in every denomination there are persons abler
and more learned than ourselves, and just as prayerful and sincere, yet the
result of the Protestant theory is a babel of conflicting and contradictory
doctrines on matters admitted, by their divisions into sects, to be essential.
The rule of faith upon which Protestantism is based is not Christ's rule. We
ought not, therefore, as His followers, to adopt it.[xxvi]
That
does not mean he did not have a high regard for the Bible as the inspired Word
of God. He certainly did. But, he understood its value primarily for
edification of the faithful and as useful more as a corroboration of the
churches teaching than it only source of that teaching.
Still,
Bishop Grafton’s Evangelical heart is revealed in his preaching. He was taken
to task for preaching such classically Evangelical themes as “the need of
conversion . . . the necessity of being
convicted of sin, and the work of the Spirit, and of salvation by Christ's
cross and passion, and of a conscious acceptance of Him,” things the liberal of
his day might scoff at and even his High Church colleagues rejected as “Methodism”.[xxvii]
As a result of such preaching, while he was rector of Church of the Advent in
Boston, “the parish thrived beyond all expectations, with more baptisms and
confirmations than any other parish in the diocese.”[xxviii]
And
you can’t get more Evangelical than this:
So sometimes as you recall, and recall it well
you may on your knees, earth's greatest tragedy, and look up at the Divine
Sufferer, crucified for love, you may come to know the truth, that if you were
the only human being in existence, the only living sinner, just as truly as
that sun must rise if you are to live, so must Christ the Lord come and suffer
and die, that you may be saved. Out of Christ's temptations consummated on the
cross we need to gain this truth and make it a home truth. "He loved me,
and gave Himself for me." Then as true love always must make its response,
and as far as it can a like return, our response will be self-surrender to His
love. It must be love for love and life for life.
As Thou gavest Thyself,
Blessed Lord, to me, so, poor and weak and
imperfect as I am, I give myself to Thee,
"Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
Conclusion: Learning from
Bishop Grafton
In
a back and forth in the editorial page of the local paper with the Roman
Catholic priest of Fond du Lac, Bishop Grafton described himself thus:
I recognize my littleness, my incapacity and my
feebleness of attainment in sanctity. It is of little account what I am, but I
believe I am a Christian and a Catholic. An evangelical Christian, believing
and trusting in Christ's merits only for salvation, and a liberal Catholic,
holding as faith that only which is certified by the universal consent and
experience of Christendom, and relegating in charity all other matters to the
realm of allowed opinion.[xxx]
So
what might it look like for us to be Catholic Anglicans in the spirit of
Charles Grafton one hundred years and counting later? Can we be “Evangelical at
heart and in belief, liberal Catholics”?
Joy in the Gospel: First of all, we can
seek to emulate, or pray to receive his joy in the Christian gospel. Though it
is only slightly reflected in this lecture, Bishop Grafton engaged the world as
one who knew deep in his bones the mercy and delight of God. And he radiated
that mercy and delight. His was a humble, generous, and hospitable spirit full
of the hope of the gospel. Some future lecture in this series should focus on
Grafton’s piety and his spiritual guidance. But we would do well to fall in
love again (and again) with the One who first loved us and demonstrated that
love in the Incarnation and on the cross.
Multi-lingual: We can also seek to
imitate Bishop Grafton’s broad spirit. As we have seen, he was emphatically a
Catholic Anglican. But, he was also conversant in the other “dialects” of
Anglicanism. I wonder if at least some our recent troubles in the Episcopal
Church might have been mitigated had more of our leadership been as
“theologically multi-lingual” as was Charles Grafton. I suggest we would
benefit from cultivating such theological multi-lingualism, whatever our
preferred dialect. This would mean more than passing lip-service to diversity
and a more fulsome embrace of classic Anglican comprehensiveness.
Catholic
Worship: With Bishop Grafton we
will recognize the Church as central to the mission of God in the world,
bearing witness to, and seeking to live in anticipation of, the Kingdom of God.
It is the body of Christ and contrary to the rampant individualism of our age
we will affirm that the fullness of our personal relationship with Jesus
depends on our being members of that body. And that wherever people are on
their spiritual journey that journey finds its clearest direction in baptism
and as members of the Church. The church is the community established by Jesus
to bear witness to the reconciliation and healing of human brokenness. As such
it is not insular but rather the place where we learn to see our solidarity
with all people and the rest of creation.
Being
Catholic Anglicans also means recognizing and celebrating that the church is
not bound by time or place. For us that means that we are not just members of
congregations, dioceses, or national churches, but members of the Anglican Communion.
Sacramental:
Bishop
Grafton was convinced of the centrality of the sacraments in the life of the
Church and of their transforming power. This is particularly true of the
sacraments of Baptism and Holy Eucharist by which Christians are formed. We
will embrace the sacramental life of the Church. With Grafton we will believe
in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But we will see that as not
only something about what happens to the consecrated Bread and Wine, important
as that is. The Sacraments reveal that material reality can be charged with the
grandeur of God. We can will learn through our involvement with the Sacraments
to see the whole of creation and one another sacramentally as potential means
of God’s grace.
Apostolic Tradition: With Bishop Grafton we
will “continue in the apostles’ teaching” and embrace a robust and unapologetic
affirmation of the classic creedal faith of the Church. We will engage the
tradition of the church not as a problem to be overcome, but a community across
time to which we belong and with which it is possible to dialogue. We might not
be bound to a simple repetition of the past in all things, but we will seek
continuity with the Apostles and the communion of saints who encourage us as we
run the race in our time. Tradition is not the dead weight of the past, but
rather the momentum of past faithfulness giving us direction and propelling us
forward.
Practices: In the spirit of
Grafton, we might also seek to cultivate a catholic ethos that will open our
hearts and lives to the movement of the Holy Spirit and enable us to resist the
spiritually corrosive effects of secularism and consumerism. What would it look
like for us in the 21st century to reclaim classic practices disciplines that
open our lives to God’s mercy and delight? Practices such as: Daily Prayer and
devotion, Spiritual Direction, Confession, Regular Fasts, Observance of Holy
Days, Sabbath, Commemoration of the Saints, Benediction, etc.
Liberal
Social Justice: With Bishop Grafton, we
can commit,
to lift mankind upward and Godward; to ameliorate
the condition of servitude and labor; to undo the chains of the slave; to bless
every investigation and effort for the advancement of humanity; to mitigate the
evils of war; to quicken all philanthropic enterprises; to enlarge men's hearts
towards their fellow-men.[xxxi]
Not
beholden to a particular political or economic ideology, program, or party, but
committed to being on the side of human rights and the uplift of all humanity –
particularly the poor and vulnerable. We might well disagree on the means to
such ends and our liberality will include honoring such disagreement.
Generous: Following Bishop
Grafton’s example, we can be liberal
in its purest sense – a spirit of generosity which makes space for the broadest
diversity of views possible within the context of creedal Christian faith.
Receptive to Scientific
Discovery:
Attending to creation as a source of revelation along with scripture and
tradition and confident of the revealed truth of the essential creedal faith we
can avail ourselves of whatever creation reveals about itself and thus about
its Maker. We can share Grafton’s confidence that new learning is no threat to
Christian faith,
so in the domain of truth, while she is immovable
in declaring the faith once and for all revealed, allowing of no alteration by
addition or diminution . . . yet she possesses the power to meet by her
definitions the newer aspects of human knowledge in science and philosophy, and
show how conformable they are to revealed truth. She stands thus in no conflict
with the discoveries and ascertained results of modern sciences. . . She does
not fear any established results of the higher criticism. She, in calm security,
possesses her deposit of truth, knowing that every difficulty in the future, as
in the past, will only confirm the Catholic faith."[xxxii]
Here
we might wonder though, if the bishop was overly sanguine about the impact new
knowledge of the origins and nature of the universe and of humanity is bound to
have on theology. Recognition of evolution for example does not contradict the
creedal affirmation that God is the “maker of heaven and earth.” But, it might
well reshape what we understand that to mean. And it is bound impact our
understanding of related theological concepts. Similarly, acceptance of some of
the conclusions of an historical-literary-critical approach to the Bible does
not contradict the affirmation that the Holy Spirit “has spoken through the
prophets.” But, it does force us to think afresh about what that means.
Humility: As we have seen, Bishop
Grafton’s liberality was not based on an attempt to accommodate secularism or
appease Christianity’s cultured despisers.
Rather, it was rooted in deep humility. And humility is a fundamental
Christian virtue that I hope we can reclaim as heirs of Bishop Grafton. Such
humility is characterized by what Rowan Williams calls a "passionate
patience" that is reticent to declare too handily exactly how God is to
defined or to presume too easily to know what God desires in all instances.
Continuing with Williams,
There is in the Anglican identity a strong
element of awareness of the tragic, of the dark night and the frustration of
theory and order by the strangeness of God's work." [ . . . ] "The
result is a mixture of poetry, reticence, humility before mystery, local
loyalties and painful self-scrutinies."[xxxiii]
Evangelical
Prima scriptura: With Bishop Grafton we
can recognize that the Bible is not the only means by which God reveals himself
to us (the sola scriptura of the
Protestant Reformation). But, informed by the tradition and reasoned engagement
with creation, it is the first place we go find out about the revelation of God
in Jesus Christ and what that means. Thus, we will commit to engaging with
scripture together.
Sharing the Good News: We will reclaim Bishop
Grafton’s confidence that we have Good News to share. And that people outside
(as well as inside) the Church need to hear that Jesus Christ, by the Holy
Spirit, continues to transform lives and will transform the world. Archbishop
William Temple defined evangelism this way, “Evangelism is the presentation of
Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in such ways that persons may be
led to believe in Him as Savior and follow Him as Lord within the fellowship of
His Church.” Bishop Grafton would want us to find fresh ways in our day to be
about that.
Notes
[i] Charles Grafton, A
Journey Godward of a Servant of Jesus Chris, Chapter VIII, (http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v4/160.html
[ii] Grafton, Letter
to the Oneida, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v7/322.html
[iv] Grafton, Christian
and Catholic Chapter IV, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/46.html
[v] Ibid, Chapter X,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/169.html
[vi] Grafton, Catholicity
and the Vincentian Rule, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v6/180.html
[xi] Grafton, Letter
To the Editor of The Southern Churchman,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v7/234.html
[xii] Grafton, The
Rise of Ritualism in the Church,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v6/355.html
[xiii]Grafton, Christian
and Catholic, Chapter VIII, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/127.html
[xiv] Grafton, Church
Principles and Church Parties,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v8/408.html
[xvi] Grafton, A
Journey Godward, Chapter IX, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v4/182.html
[xix] Grafton, Christian
and Catholic, Chapter I, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/3.html
[xx] Grafton, The
Lineage of the American Catholic Church, (Milwaukee, The Young Churchman
Company, 1911) p. 282
[xxi] Grafton, Some
Characteristics of the Episcopal Church,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v8/397.html
[xxii] Grafton, Meditations
and Instructions, (Fond du Lac, WI, Sisterhood of the Holy Nativity, 1923)
p. 83
[xxiii] Grafton, Some
Characteristics of the Episcopal Church,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v8/397.html
[xxiv]Grafton, Christian
and Catholic, Chapter XIII, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/242.html
[xxv] Grafton, Church
Principles and Church Parties, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v8/408.html
[xxvi] Grafton, Christian
and Catholic, Chapter VIII, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/127.html
[xxvii] Grafton, Letter
To the Editor of The Southern Churchman,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v7/234.html
[xxviii] Fr. John-Julian, OJN, Blessed Charles Chapman Grafton ~ 1830-1912,Grafton Lecture, 2009,
http://www.episcopalfonddulac.org/grafton/documents/paper2009.pdf
[xxix] Grafton, Christian
and Catholic, Chapter V, http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v1/71.html
[xxx] http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/correspondence1909.html
[xxxi] Grafton, Church
Principles and Church Parties,
http://anglicanhistory.org/grafton/v8/408.html
[xxxiii] Rowan Williams, Anglican
Identities, (Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) p. 6
