By this time I was so enjoying the task of expanding her intellectual horizon that I savoured her letter for an entire week while I reflected on my reply. Finally after a friendly opening paragraph I wrote:
‘… and now let me address myself to your enquiries. The Reformation did indeed re-form the Church in England into the Church of England, but although Catholicism was greatly purged during the following decades it was never eliminated. It had a strong resurgence in the last century (the phenomenon was known as the Oxford Movement) and even today, although most of the Church is Protestant there is a powerful, vocal and influential Anglo-Catholic minority. The pertinent word here is “Anglo”. They’re our own home-grown breed of Catholics, loyal to the Church of England and owing no allegiance to the Pope. However, they’ve become increasingly keen on the idea of reunion with Rome, a pipe-dream which I’m bound to say I believe to be not only Utopian but misguided.
‘This Anglo-Catholic group is known as the High-Church party. Opposite them on the other wing of the Church are the Protestant Evangelicals, also known as the Low-Church party, another powerful and vocal group which unfortunately has suffered from indifferent leadership during this century. This no doubt helps to explain how the Anglo-Catholics have managed to grab power in so many important places, but the Evangelicals will rise again and put the Anglo-Catholics back in their place, of that I’m quite sure. Catholicism is fundamentally alien to the British temperament. The tradition of the stiff upper lip, the modest understatement and the horror of foreigners is incompatible with a tradition of embarrassing emotion, ritualistic excesses and the ethos of Southern Europe.
‘In between these two militant wings lie the middle-of-the-road moderates who constitute the majority of church-goers. The services I conduct are aimed at this majority although I do incline to Low-Church practice. Certainly nothing would induce me to dabble with incense, auricular confession, perpetual reservation of the Sacrament or any other cause so dear to the Anglo-Catholic heart.
‘I should perhaps explain here that the Evangelicals play down the importance of the Liturgy (the centrepiece of Anglo-Catholic worship) and play up the importance of the Bible and the sermon. Nonconformist Evangelicals (those Protestant sects which don’t belong to the Church of England, such as the Methodists and the Baptists) can be fatally bibliolatrous (that is to say, they often believe every word of the Bible to be literally true) but in the Church of England, which places such a high value on enlightened scholarship, I’m glad to say that such a crude approach to religious truth is rare. Although I’m a Low-Churchman by inclination I have always insisted that my religion be compatible with the best modern scholarship – and that, my dear Miss Tallent, brings me to MODERNISM.
‘Modernism cuts across all parties in the Church of England. It also existed in the Roman Catholic Church (in a far more extreme form, I may add, than it existed among the Protestants) but the trend was exterminated by Papal decree earlier in this century. In other words, it’s as possible to be a High-Church Modernist as it is to be a Low-Church Modernist. Modernism is less a creed than an attitude of mind.
‘In short, we believe in reinterpreting Christianity in the light of modern knowledge. Consequently we welcome all scientific advances – in geology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, physics and so on – and use them as a springboard to an expanded spiritual enlightenment. This leads, inevitably, to the expression of theological views which startle conservative people in all parties of the Church and scandalize the ordinary layman – with the result that Modernists are occasionally accused of heresy. This is usually quite unjustified. All genuine Modernists (and here I discount the eccentric crackpots who give the movement a bad name) hold fast to the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection and the concept of Eternal Life. They are therefore orthodox believers. But exactly how Jesus was the Son of God and in what manner he was resurrected and in what sense one is to interpret “Eternal Life” – these are questions which the Modernists hold are open to constant revision in the light of modern knowledge. For example, Modernists don’t believe in miracles; they don’t believe in anything which contradicts the scientific order. But they still believe that Jesus was the sort of man whom people believed capable of performing miracles; they still believe in the absolute centrality of Christ to the Christian faith.
‘Because the Modernist movement is based on an attitude of mind and not a creed, there’s a large amount of disagreement among us. Some Modernists believe that women should be ordained, for example, but in my opinion such a view is too extreme. I always take care to be moderate and sensible in my Modernism so as not to give needless offence to my superiors. It’s well known that Raven’s support of the ordination of women has cost him a bishopric. When extreme views are under consideration, one always has a moral duty to discern where to draw the line.
‘To sum up, my moderate Modernism complements the so-called Liberal Protestant theology which evolved among enlightened Victorians. I believe (and this belief chimes with Darwin’s work) that the world is evolving steadily in accordance with God’s purpose for mankind, a purpose which is fundamentally good and benign. I believe that sin and evil aren’t as important as man’s basic goodness, the goodness which is exemplified for all time by Our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that God is immanent in this world and that the Holy Spirit is present as a spark in every member of mankind.
‘Because of my adherence to such beliefs I strongly disapprove of the new school of theology which is trying to displace the glory and the nobility and the intellectual quality of Liberal Protestantism with an anti-intellectual, pessimistic, degrading approach to God’s creation. This neo-orthodox school (I use the word neo-orthodox because the theology is in some ways a barbarous reversion to old-fashioned Calvinism) is also known as the theology of Crisis (the word “Crisis” being used in a somewhat technical sense and meaning that we’re all undergoing the ordeal of awaiting God’s judgement). It emphasizes mankind’s sin and misery and says that God isn’t immanent but utterly transcendent, quite unknowable by man. Meanwhile the role of Christ is played down; he merely becomes a salvation event. How repellent! Instead of the forgiveness and compassion of Christ we’re offered the judgement and punishment of God; instead of the Christian message of hope we’re offered a vision of hell and despair. Yet this “neo-orthodoxy” is a rising tide, thriving on the suffering and guilt produced by two world wars. God is seen not putting Himself at one with us out of love and compassion but standing over and above us as He plays the stern father and metes out the punishment. All I can say is that to those of us who are revolted by the concept of stern fathers meting out punishment, this theology is utterly nauseating.
‘And now, Miss Tallent, if you’re still conscious after my diatribe against neo-orthodoxy, I shall end this sermon by apologizing for writing to you at such length. Should you, however, be interested in hearing more about Liberal Protestantism, I can describe in my next letter the thought of the quintessential Liberal Protestant of the twentieth century, Dr Charles Earle Raven, a former canon of Liverpool Cathedral who’s currently Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and Master of Christ’s College. As I’ve already mentioned, his more extreme flirtations with Modernism are best ignored, but his general credo is one with which I find myself profoundly in sympathy …’
I thought that having wheeled on the heavy intellectual artillery I might have reduced Dido to a bemused silence, but never was I more mistaken. Replying by return of post she embraced my cannon-fire with delight.
‘… and I can’t tell you how grateful I am to you for taking the time and the infinite trouble to introduce me to this new world where I feel sure my future husband is lurking behind some Liberal-Protestant-Modernist bush! What a romantic name Charles Raven is! I feel he ought to be a hero in a novel by Elinor Glyn. Is he handsome? And how old is he? More details, please – oh, and when you write back, could you explain