Anglican Adjectives pt. 6: National
For those of you desiring to learn more about the Anglican tradition and its history, I invite you to pick up JI Packer’s wonderful book The Heritage of Anglican Theology. In this book, Packer lays out seven shared “Anglican adjectives” — essentials shared by all Anglicans.
The seven adjectives are: biblical, liturgical, evangelical, pastoral, episcopal, national, and ecumenical. In this series of brief posts, I plan to tease each of those adjectives out.
What It Means To Be “National”
To use the word “national” in relation to the church is immediately provocative and controversial. What does Packer mean when he says Anglicanism is national? Let me quote him at length, “Anglican Christianity seeks (among its other pastoral tasks) to Christianize the culture every way it can. Some forms of evangelicalism emphasize separation from the world, having nothing to do with it, keeping clear of politics, avoiding this and avoiding that. Anglicans do not apologize for being community oriented and seeking to Christianize everything—education, the arts, social life, community life in all its forms. Anglicans have always tried to do this, stressing the importance of maintaining Christian standards in the community, and I think this is as it should be. It is partly why I am an Anglican. But not all evangelicals go along with this emphasis.”
As Packer concludes, many evangelicals disagree with this sentiment. The general baptist preference is for a strong separation between church and politics—even between church and culture. But if the church is called to disciple that nations (Matthew 28:19), then one would expect that we must bring Christianity to bear (at least in some form) upon culture and the nation.
You’ll notice that Packer doesn’t tease out how this is most appropriately done. The vision here is not “Christianity of only one stripe”. Nor is it the threat of “Christianity or else.” The vision is one of influence, charity, and a true reorientation toward Christ.
If we believe that Christianity bears the marks of truth, goodness, and beauty; if we believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; if we believe that Christian moral teaching is more merciful and just than any alternative moral teaching; if we believe that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; then shouldn’t we want to bring that Christian witness to bear comprehensively in all of life—even our cultural institutions? I think so. To shy away from Christianity in the public sphere isn’t primarily showing ‘tolerance’, it’s denying people the opportunity to experience the goodness of all Christ offers.
Again, let me clarify, neither Packer, myself, nor the Anglican tradition is advocating for any type of coup d'état or violent government take over. The emphasis here is letting the Christ shape culture, even governmental structures.