Austen Clergypeople, the 25th of the 39 and Is that the Way we Do This?

I pester my favorite church historians occasionally with questions about the reality of clerical life for Regency era Anglican vicars.  This isn't a random thing to do,  it always arises from my frequent wandering through Austen-shire.  Jane Austen was the daughter of a clergyman, and it is notable that almost all of her novels have clergy people, or aspirants (men who want to be clergymen) as substantial characters.  Some of these are of course shallow and laughably stupid fellas, but others are upstanding men of duty and compassion.

There are of course innumerable changes to the life of a parish priest in the 180 years since that time.  However, as a church professional turned clergyperson, I am drawn to ponder the differences. There is at least one diocese funding post-seminary formation in the way of sending new clergy to non-profit business management school. I both see the point and hope it is optional so that other areas of daily importance that are not strictly theological could be nurtured - basic digital communications, a primer in oncology, family systems, plumbing 101.  Our demands are eternally evolving - as is our discernment and understanding.  The work of the vicar of Grantchester is not the same as the Austen clerics, nor the same as mine.  I do wonder how the Reverend Chambers has time to solve the murder mysteries of Grantchester.  And how does Syndey pastorally care for the people who must be traumatized by their extraordinary scandalous murder rate?   Yet even his mid-20th-century fictional pastorate, with its cars and mass transit, it doesn't have the diocesan 'take your part in the councils of the church' time demands that we do today. 

This question about how the earlier generations of Anglican clergy were trained and questions provoked me more frequently when I was 'going through the process.'  Hard to imagine the vapid Mr. Collins writing essays on his relationship with Jesus, or even the bookish Edward Ferrars answering questions about Eucharistic theology.  What would a real life man seeking 'orders' be asked?  If I understand correctly all that was required was the 'college degree' and in that time one could matriculate without actually attending classes or reading anything (where was the scandal then?!?).  So general knowledge would have varied widely.  It seems that the studious were learned, the rest of them were not so much, and there may have been a few in-betweeners (and let us admit that this is true now as well). 

There were not commissions on ministry nor ordination exams 'back then'.  It was mostly up to the decisions of the Bishop and the financing of the local landowner.  And due to the interrelatedness of academia and the Church of England sometimes academics were ordained clergy whether or not they were focused on religious topics or pastoring a parish. What they had to do was agree to the 39 Articles, and I would assume they had some education about these 39 Articles, but how much and how deep - I hope some historian works on this sometime (for more on the 39 Articles check out what Dr. Crusty has to say as part of the #39articlesblog).  Do I imagine that the imaginary Mr. Collins could remember much less explain any of the 39 Articles? Well, not unless Lady Catherine suggested it. What about Mr. Elton, or Mr. Ferrars?  Mr. Charles Hater is an underdeveloped clergyman character, but I imagine him more scholarly, so let us say yes he could. He might have even been pedantic about them. I should perhaps not abuse the dopey fictional clergy of Austen-shire quite so cruelly, as I didn't have to answer any questions about the 39 Articles - at least not directly - in my ordination process. 

I recently joined a blog-throng of people (https://twitter.com/yptheology)  writing about the 39 Articles, with the hope that the project can be useful to folks exploring and deepening their knowledge of the Anglican and Episcopal Church.  What struck me most is what might nudge some of you when watching the historically accurate adaptations with church scenes.  There are familiar patterns and styles but the church of the Regency its  orthopraxy of the church was much much more 'Calvinistic-iny' in sense and sensibility (if you like to divide things up in such a way) than nearly any current Episcopal church. As for the wider communion, I cannot say for sure, but the same is likely to be generally true. 

In the last year I have found myself at a rural bar among fabulous clergy friends having a loud but loving argument regarding the catholic-ness vs protestantness of our church.  This isn't a historical issue - it is a piece of our identity that we need to grow better at naming.   We are both/and people and we were more protestant-y for most of our history and the last 100 years have seen an external and sacramental swing towards something that might be called catholic-y.  Yet even the widespreadness of this in orthodoxy and orthopraxy would be much diminished in 1900 compared to 1950.   The history of the faith is one of change, otherwise, there wouldn't be a history to have.

I don't really put vast stock in such p and c binaries, but dualistic thinking isn't a battle we are going to resolve anytime soon either.  We are both/and people and we can love each other and pray together and serve together and think quite differently about core matters - Christology and Ecclesiology to name two.  However, we also need more clarity in our senses and understandings, that for all our liturgical science retro-innovations, the practice of the previous 400 years was much different - and you can see that in the very architecture of our Regency era naves across the world.  We follow Jesus the Christ who was always in motion proclaiming and healing, so to has been the interpretation of the Scriptures and the practice of the churches until we find ourselves in the finale.  Yes it was different, and it was good in some ways and unfaithful in others, and yes it has changed, and it also both holy and flawed.  We invite you into the #39Articles blog project as a letter from the past to help us reflect on the path of discipleship and formation that is demanded of all our lay and ordained leaders today.

I am looking forward to the reading of all those posts in the #39ArticlesBlog project.  I hope to learn more about who we are and where we are leaning, and I hope that from this examination rise mostly pride and only prejudice for the lifegiving liberating Good News.  I hope you read them too. Stay tuned - you get to hear from me at number 25 - the Sacraments; I will post the link when it happens.  In the meanwhile, stay sassy, smart, radical and holy.