Charismatic Catholic - The Fire 'Brand'
Like most people, I dislike labels.
Labels - certainly those that are attached to people - are often dangerous because they objectify those to whom they are attached; they are also often inadequate and misleading because their brevity plays to our soundbite culture and fails to recognise the nuances of individuality. It's not surprising, therefore, that many younger people are now resisting simplistic labelling in terms of their gender or sexual identity.
On the other hand, in certain situations, labels can be helpful pointers. This has certainly been true, I think, in the Church of England where, traditionally, labels such as 'Anglo-Catholic', 'Evangelical', 'Charismatic' and 'Liberal' have been effective pointers to the style of worship and the brand of theology to which either an individual or a congregation subscribes. But the concept of 'Churchmanship' (the collective term used to describe these labels) is, like many of its secular counterparts, becoming redundant. This is due largely to the erosion of the traditional tribalism
that characterised much of the life of the C of E.
I hear, for example, an increasing number of stories of churches of an Anglo-Catholic tradition working successfully with and alongside those of an Evangelical persuasion - and we have an example of this in my own parish. I even hear of them worshipping successfully together from time to time, each respecting and borrowing from the other's tradition. This would have been unheard of decades ago; it would have been perceived on both sides as that serious betrayal of tribal membership known as 'un-soundness'.
Today, opposition to such partnerships usually arises either as a result of a deliberate desire to keep alive tribal distinctions or a fear that one of the major traditions or strands within Anglicanism will eventually be totally subsumed into another. The former is articulated in disputes about the 'validity' of women priests and bishops or the sexuality issue, whilst the latter is characterised by a belief that the current leadership of the C of E has an active agenda to 'wipe out' a particular tradition. As I've heard people of all traditions in the C of E describe themselves as victims of this, it's clearly at best a widespread neurosis and at worst plain paranoia. After all, it's a somewhat bizarre faith that attributes so much power to bishops or archbishops - however conspiratorial(!) - and so little to the Holy Spirit, through whose work we have historically witnessed cycles of decline and renewal in all traditions.
The breaking-down of tribal barriers is surely something to be welcomed. As I've written elsewhere, the church is at its best when it's fully Catholic, fully Evangelical and fully Charismatic; there is therefore a need to keep these traditions alive both within the wider church - at the 'macro' level - by preserving and respecting individual 'seams' of tradition - but also at the 'micro' level - by daring to combine differing traditions within the life of individual churches. Indeed, if we're not able or willing to do this within our own denomination, what hope can there ever be for the ecumenical movement and for Our Lord's prayer to his Father that we might all be one? (c.f. John17:21)
This, then, is another danger of the label - that whilst being a useful pointer, it can also become the badge of an uncompromising tribalism.
For some years I have had great difficulty 'labelling' myself as a priest. This has usually only become necessary when applying for jobs. Applicants for parish ministry are invariably asked on both the application form and in interview to describe their 'Spirituality' or 'Churchmanship' The label that others most often put on me is 'Liberal Catholic', mainly because I'm a Catholic who is in favour of women priests and bishops; but as I'm sure my colleagues in the Wigston benefice will quickly attest, in many respects I'm actually also very conservative. So what are the alternatives? 'Affirming Catholic' is a term more aligned now to a particular movement with which I don't particularly identify. 'Open' or 'Inclusive' Catholic feels better; but then, of course, there is also now the Charismatic aspect of my spirituality to take into account. Does this make me a 'Charismatic Catholic' or a 'Catholic Charismatic'? Actually that's an easy one; I prefer 'Charismatic Catholic' because my primary identity remains solidly Catholic, and the word 'Charismatic' becomes adjectival in terms of describing HOW my Catholicism is expressed in prayer and worship.
I know that I'm by no means alone in struggling with these various labels. Many of my Catholic colleagues who, like me, are conservative at heart but fully supportive of women's ministry at every level of the church's life, often complain (with, I think, some justification) that they are often overlooked by the church hierarchy. I've certainly observed that when bishops and archdeacons speak about Catholic clergy or Catholic parishes, they are very often referring to the traditionalist clergy and parishes of The Society, and little or no mention is made of the rest of us. So, inadequate and dangerous though labels may be, the absence of a label can, it seems, render individuals and churches invisible, even - and perhaps especially - if they are an integral part of the mainstream.
The problem applies equally to those who would want to take the dual label of Catholic and Charismatic.
In the C of E the Charismatic label has tended to be associated with the Evangelical tradition as expressed, for example, by the 'New Wine' movement; but Charismatic spirituality is also alive and well - and I would say growing rapidly - in individuals and churches of an Anglo-Catholic tradition. This is hardly surprising, given the impact that the Charismatic movement has had in the Roman Catholic Church. There are now Charismatic Catholics in 230 countries, with an estimated 160 million members (Alessandra Nucci : The Charismatic Renewal and The Catholic Church, The Catholic World Report May 2013).
The difficulty for Charismatic Catholics in the C of E is that theirs isn't yet a fully recognised 'brand'. This gives rise to a number of problems. First, Catholic parishes that have experienced Charismatic renewal may have difficulty in attracting suitable applicants when they are in vacancy because the pool of clergy bearing this label is still relatively small. Second, they may find the diocesan authorities unsympathetic to their very specific needs. Potentially this could result in an inappropriate appointment whereby either the Charismatic or the Catholic tradition would be compromised. Indeed I have recently become aware of several traditionalist Catholic Parishes that underwent Charismatic renewal but which have now reverted to being simply traditionalist Catholic or have morphed into Charismatic Evangelical churches. The latter scenario, of course, is not a possibility in the Roman Catholic Church and may well account for the fact that the Charismatic movement hasn't impacted upon Anglican Catholicism as it has on Roman Catholicism. I believe it may also explain the nervousness of some Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity about embracing Charismatic renewal at a collective (parish) level.
I believe that the Church of England may be on the verge of a major paradigm shift. Evangelicalism has been in the ascent for the last few decades, but there are signs that a growing number of people are now searching for a more sacramental spirituality, especially in later life, whilst there is also evidence that many younger people are seeking a religious experience in which the 'otherness' of God is more emphasised. Divisions are also gradually emerging within the evangelical movement regarding the sexuality debate. These divisions may prove as distracting and damaging to the evangelical movement as disagreements over the ordination of women were to the Catholic movement. In the cyclic nature of things, a Catholic revival is not only possible, but likely. Any such revival will need to be closely espoused to issues of equality and justice (which are becoming of more importance to our society in general and to young people in particular) and I am sure that Charismatic renewal could and should play a key role in this process.
In order for this to happen, it's important for the Charismatic Catholic 'brand' to become more high profile and to be more widely understood. Those of us who are Charismatic Catholics need to wear this particular label with pride, and raise awareness of our 'Unique Selling Point' i.e. that we bring together the joy, spontaneity and transformational power of the Charismatic movement with the discipline, sacramental spirituality and liturgical order which is part of the C of E's Catholic heritage.
Charismatic Catholicism brings the fire of renewal, and it should be more widely celebrated either as a firebrand or a 'Fire Brand' in the life of our Church.
Labels - certainly those that are attached to people - are often dangerous because they objectify those to whom they are attached; they are also often inadequate and misleading because their brevity plays to our soundbite culture and fails to recognise the nuances of individuality. It's not surprising, therefore, that many younger people are now resisting simplistic labelling in terms of their gender or sexual identity.
On the other hand, in certain situations, labels can be helpful pointers. This has certainly been true, I think, in the Church of England where, traditionally, labels such as 'Anglo-Catholic', 'Evangelical', 'Charismatic' and 'Liberal' have been effective pointers to the style of worship and the brand of theology to which either an individual or a congregation subscribes. But the concept of 'Churchmanship' (the collective term used to describe these labels) is, like many of its secular counterparts, becoming redundant. This is due largely to the erosion of the traditional tribalism
that characterised much of the life of the C of E.
I hear, for example, an increasing number of stories of churches of an Anglo-Catholic tradition working successfully with and alongside those of an Evangelical persuasion - and we have an example of this in my own parish. I even hear of them worshipping successfully together from time to time, each respecting and borrowing from the other's tradition. This would have been unheard of decades ago; it would have been perceived on both sides as that serious betrayal of tribal membership known as 'un-soundness'.
Today, opposition to such partnerships usually arises either as a result of a deliberate desire to keep alive tribal distinctions or a fear that one of the major traditions or strands within Anglicanism will eventually be totally subsumed into another. The former is articulated in disputes about the 'validity' of women priests and bishops or the sexuality issue, whilst the latter is characterised by a belief that the current leadership of the C of E has an active agenda to 'wipe out' a particular tradition. As I've heard people of all traditions in the C of E describe themselves as victims of this, it's clearly at best a widespread neurosis and at worst plain paranoia. After all, it's a somewhat bizarre faith that attributes so much power to bishops or archbishops - however conspiratorial(!) - and so little to the Holy Spirit, through whose work we have historically witnessed cycles of decline and renewal in all traditions.
The breaking-down of tribal barriers is surely something to be welcomed. As I've written elsewhere, the church is at its best when it's fully Catholic, fully Evangelical and fully Charismatic; there is therefore a need to keep these traditions alive both within the wider church - at the 'macro' level - by preserving and respecting individual 'seams' of tradition - but also at the 'micro' level - by daring to combine differing traditions within the life of individual churches. Indeed, if we're not able or willing to do this within our own denomination, what hope can there ever be for the ecumenical movement and for Our Lord's prayer to his Father that we might all be one? (c.f. John17:21)
This, then, is another danger of the label - that whilst being a useful pointer, it can also become the badge of an uncompromising tribalism.
For some years I have had great difficulty 'labelling' myself as a priest. This has usually only become necessary when applying for jobs. Applicants for parish ministry are invariably asked on both the application form and in interview to describe their 'Spirituality' or 'Churchmanship' The label that others most often put on me is 'Liberal Catholic', mainly because I'm a Catholic who is in favour of women priests and bishops; but as I'm sure my colleagues in the Wigston benefice will quickly attest, in many respects I'm actually also very conservative. So what are the alternatives? 'Affirming Catholic' is a term more aligned now to a particular movement with which I don't particularly identify. 'Open' or 'Inclusive' Catholic feels better; but then, of course, there is also now the Charismatic aspect of my spirituality to take into account. Does this make me a 'Charismatic Catholic' or a 'Catholic Charismatic'? Actually that's an easy one; I prefer 'Charismatic Catholic' because my primary identity remains solidly Catholic, and the word 'Charismatic' becomes adjectival in terms of describing HOW my Catholicism is expressed in prayer and worship.
I know that I'm by no means alone in struggling with these various labels. Many of my Catholic colleagues who, like me, are conservative at heart but fully supportive of women's ministry at every level of the church's life, often complain (with, I think, some justification) that they are often overlooked by the church hierarchy. I've certainly observed that when bishops and archdeacons speak about Catholic clergy or Catholic parishes, they are very often referring to the traditionalist clergy and parishes of The Society, and little or no mention is made of the rest of us. So, inadequate and dangerous though labels may be, the absence of a label can, it seems, render individuals and churches invisible, even - and perhaps especially - if they are an integral part of the mainstream.
The problem applies equally to those who would want to take the dual label of Catholic and Charismatic.
In the C of E the Charismatic label has tended to be associated with the Evangelical tradition as expressed, for example, by the 'New Wine' movement; but Charismatic spirituality is also alive and well - and I would say growing rapidly - in individuals and churches of an Anglo-Catholic tradition. This is hardly surprising, given the impact that the Charismatic movement has had in the Roman Catholic Church. There are now Charismatic Catholics in 230 countries, with an estimated 160 million members (Alessandra Nucci : The Charismatic Renewal and The Catholic Church, The Catholic World Report May 2013).
The difficulty for Charismatic Catholics in the C of E is that theirs isn't yet a fully recognised 'brand'. This gives rise to a number of problems. First, Catholic parishes that have experienced Charismatic renewal may have difficulty in attracting suitable applicants when they are in vacancy because the pool of clergy bearing this label is still relatively small. Second, they may find the diocesan authorities unsympathetic to their very specific needs. Potentially this could result in an inappropriate appointment whereby either the Charismatic or the Catholic tradition would be compromised. Indeed I have recently become aware of several traditionalist Catholic Parishes that underwent Charismatic renewal but which have now reverted to being simply traditionalist Catholic or have morphed into Charismatic Evangelical churches. The latter scenario, of course, is not a possibility in the Roman Catholic Church and may well account for the fact that the Charismatic movement hasn't impacted upon Anglican Catholicism as it has on Roman Catholicism. I believe it may also explain the nervousness of some Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity about embracing Charismatic renewal at a collective (parish) level.
I believe that the Church of England may be on the verge of a major paradigm shift. Evangelicalism has been in the ascent for the last few decades, but there are signs that a growing number of people are now searching for a more sacramental spirituality, especially in later life, whilst there is also evidence that many younger people are seeking a religious experience in which the 'otherness' of God is more emphasised. Divisions are also gradually emerging within the evangelical movement regarding the sexuality debate. These divisions may prove as distracting and damaging to the evangelical movement as disagreements over the ordination of women were to the Catholic movement. In the cyclic nature of things, a Catholic revival is not only possible, but likely. Any such revival will need to be closely espoused to issues of equality and justice (which are becoming of more importance to our society in general and to young people in particular) and I am sure that Charismatic renewal could and should play a key role in this process.
In order for this to happen, it's important for the Charismatic Catholic 'brand' to become more high profile and to be more widely understood. Those of us who are Charismatic Catholics need to wear this particular label with pride, and raise awareness of our 'Unique Selling Point' i.e. that we bring together the joy, spontaneity and transformational power of the Charismatic movement with the discipline, sacramental spirituality and liturgical order which is part of the C of E's Catholic heritage.
Charismatic Catholicism brings the fire of renewal, and it should be more widely celebrated either as a firebrand or a 'Fire Brand' in the life of our Church.
Comments
Post a Comment