Milton vs. More

As I read about John Milton for the last post, I was struck with the contrast between him and another famous Englishman from a century before: Saint Thomas More.  Specifically, I noticed a strong contrast in their attitudes towards divorce.

Milton was a strong advocate for legal divorce, and he effectively led the charge into modernity on this point, because he was essentially the only supporter of divorce in his time.

More was a martyr, executed for refusing to accept the authority of a church which was founded to grant a divorce to Henry VIII.

The Anglicans have, from the start, led the way in the reform of many social standards, especially those relating to sexuality.  From divorce and contraception to the ordination of women and gays, the Anglican communion is and has been one of the most socially progressive Christian groups in the world.  Supporters think this is a wonderful example of a church that keeps up with society, remaining modern and relevant.  Opponents think it looks more like “conforming to the pattern of this world.”  As a committed member of a church that opposes divorce, contraception and the ordination of gays, and that doesn't even think the ordination of women is possible, I will let the reader guess which camp I belong to.

As I investigated St. Thomas More, I was surprised to learn that he was considered a Saint and a martyr, not just among Catholics, but also among Anglicans (you know, the ones who killed him).  As one Anglican blogger noticed, this creates an awkward situation.  Calling him a Saint could just be a recognition of his personal holiness, but calling him a martyr is a problem:

...if Thomas More is a martyr (Greek: “witness”), it is as a witness, not to those truths of our religion to which both Anglicans and Roman Catholics give their assent, but against the claim of the Church of England to be able to continue as truly the Church and as truly Catholic while choosing to be separate from communion with, and obedience to, Rome.

Basically, calling More a martyr is approving the idea he died for, and the idea he died for was that Anglicans were wrong.
The blogger goes on to discuss the idea that two men could both be recognized as Saints because if their integrity and their right relationship with God, even if the two men disagreed (as in the case of Thomas More and Thomas Cranmer, who 'at least passively' allowed More to be killed).  Ultimately, though, he decides that Christianity is not just about good intentions, but is about objective truth.  To downplay the significance of ideological disagreements is to downplay the significance of that objective truth.  And if we aren't committed to objective orthodox Christian truth, our churches will devolve into thin-blooded social community centers with a vaguely religious feel (as, alas, has happened to many Catholic parishes today).

I'm glad to have found the Anglican Identity blog, because it appears to be a voice that values the truth instead of simply crying 'peace, peace' when there is no peace.  Such a voice has become rare in modern times.

Happily (for me at least) such counter-culturally orthodox voices seem to be more common among the leadership of the Catholic Church.  They also, for better or for worse, seem to be becoming less common among Anglicans.