Agreement - unlikely!

I well remember, for example during my university years, when there was some nostalgia amongst the religious breed for the supposed first century Church harmony. Yes, everyone must have been marvelling at how 'these Christians love one another.' I am smiling - the most cursory reading of Paul's epistles (with any decent commentary, not to receive one's personal word for the day) shows that tumult within local flocks was already the order of the day. Nor were church councils ever sweet and idealistic gatherings - witness the situation at Jerusalem and Antioch in Galatians and Acts, and the embarrassing situation for vacillating, quite fallible Peter. The Corinthians would have tried the patience of the most gifted pastor in history - and, judging from Clement of Rome's letter a few decades after Paul's martyrdom, Corinth was no better for whatever exhortations...

The real Gloriana was a pragmatic sort - and, though I'm not about to go into any essays about the Elizabethan settlement here (...I just know I shall someday), about all the C of E could strive for was unity of worship. I took a break from Lenten exegesis today, and spent some time with my 19th century studies. Yes, the Prayer Book was intact (with some arguing if it was too Catholic, others too Protestant), but, as usual, no one could agree on anything else. Being inclusive at the expense of doctrine - emphasising doctrine and patristic roots (without much distinction about whether everything from the 3rd century would be prudent later...) - the family as the source of holiness - loss of faith because growing up meant getting away from family and therefore the source of holiness - well, there were too many conflicts to detail in a blog, but it was clear that nothing had changed much since Paul's day.

Naturally, I found the histories of the many Sisterhoods of the era (not only Anglican, but new foundations of RC sisters in Ireland) to be quite intriguing. (Puzzling at times, of course - because I need to remind myself that many more Sisters embraced the life because of disgust at social conditions than because of exceptional devotion.) And yet more opposition would come - it is taking them away from family life - releasing them from obedience to their fathers - their work is a slight to the women involved in the parishes - they pray too much - they pray too little - reserve is essential - witness is more so - intellectual stimulation will cause hysteria - the founders want their money - their confessors are perverts - Anglicans thought it all too Catholic - RC convents would not advise them because they did not have the true faith - Anglican Catholics are imposters...

This is one of my 'rambling' days, and I shall not develop these topics in depth for the moment. Yet I know that, until the very moment of the parousia, the last sounds to die out on this earth shall be those of arguments. One of these days, the lot of us may catch on that, though each Christian's vocation is important, it is as a Church that we serve. Sacrament and Word are not at odds. Monastic life is not a denial of the 'universal call to holiness,' nor active religious life a reproach to marriage and maternity. Respect for the priesthood is hardly a denial of the contribution of the laity. Why do we tend to be so blasted defensive?