Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:18:36.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archbishop William Temple and Public Theology in a Post-Christian Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Wendy Dackson
Wendy Dackson
Affiliation:
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sixty years after William Temple's death, little in the way of constructive theology has been done with the body of writings he left. Part of this is due to the way in which his legacy has been (mis)appropriated by some of the scholars and church leaders who are seen as his heirs and admirers. An over-emphasis on the ‘middle axioms’ approach exemplified in Christianity and Social Order, and later promoted heavily by Ronald Preston, explains much of this lack. Although the ‘middle axioms’ approach is still applicable, the principles set out in Temple's most famous work need to be re-examined and perhaps expanded in the light of a post-Christian plural society. The purpose of this essay is to examine a broader range of Temple's work than is commonly done. By doing so, I will propose that the virtues of intellectual excellence, graciousness, and the welfare of the wider (non-church) society are guiding principles for ecclesial being, speech and action that are fully present in Temple's writings.

Keywords

William Templemiddle axiomspublic theologyAnglicanismArchbishop of Canterbury
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Anglican Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , December 2006 , pp. 239 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) and The Journal of Anglican Studies Trust 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Preston, Ronald, ‘William Temple: The Man and his Impact on Church and Society’, in Preston, Ronald, Brown, Malcom, Jenkins, Rachel and Addy, Tony (eds.), Archbishop William Temple: Issues in Church and Society 50 Years On (Manchester: The William Temple Foundation, 1994), pp. 4–16 (4).Google Scholar

2. Suggate, Alan, ‘Preface’, in Dackson, Wendy, The Ecclesiology of Archbishop William Temple (1881–1944) (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2004), pp. i–iii (i).Google Scholar

3. Atherton, John, Public Theology for Changing Times (London: SPCK, 2000), p. 79.Google Scholar

4. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 4Google Scholar. I do not think Preston is entirely off-base in his appropriation of Temple. His continuation of Temple's ethical and ecumenical concerns is very much in line with Temple's. I do, however, hold that he has not adequately assessed Temple's deeper theological foundations, and thus does not create an adequate ecclesiology from which to address those concerns. See Dackson, , ‘But Was it Meant to Be a Joke Legacy? Ronald Preston as Heir to William Temple’, Studies in Christian Ethics 17.2 (2004), pp. 148–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which I explain further how Ronald Preston both was, and was not, Temple's theological successor.

5. Suggate, , ‘Preface’, p. i.Google Scholar

6. Norman, Edward, Secularisation (London: Continuum, 2000), pp. viii–ix.Google Scholar

7. See Hampson, Daphne, After Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1996).Google Scholar

8. Norman, , Secularisation, p. ix.Google Scholar

9. Atherton, John, Marginalization (London: SCM Press, 2003), p. 31Google Scholar. Atherton gives an excellent description of the declining influence of the church in contemporary British society (although the concepts are apt in other contexts, such as North America), and ways in which the church might work with both secular groups and other faiths to retain a corporate vitality. Space does not permit detailing his arguments here, but I highly recommend his book.

10. Atherton, , Marginalization, p. 33Google Scholar. I would venture that my own generation, born in the ‘baby boom’ years, is the first generation for whom it was socially acceptable not to profess at least nominal religious affiliation, and for whom it was common to be raised without some minimal level of religious activity.

11. Atherton, , Marginalization, p. 1.Google Scholar

12. Forrester, Duncan, ‘The Scope of Public Theology’, Studies in Christian Ethics 17.2 (08 2004), pp. 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Forrester, , ‘Scope of Public Theology’Google Scholar; and Atherton, John, ‘Marginalisation, Manchester, and the Scope of Public Theology’, Studies in Christian Ethics 17.2 (08 2004), pp. 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Forrester, , ‘Scope of Public Theology’, p. 18.Google Scholar

15. Forrester, , ‘Scope of Public Theology’, p. 19.Google Scholar

16. Iremonger, F.A., William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury: His Life and Letters (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), pp. 108–11.Google Scholar

17. William Temple was the first son of an Archbishop of Canterbury to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

18. Iremonger, , William Temple, p. 105.Google Scholar

19. Iremonger, , William Temple, pp. 98–102.Google Scholar

20. Iremonger, , William Temple, p. 474.Google Scholar

21. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 4.Google Scholar

22. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 5.Google Scholar

23. Suggate, Alan M., William Temple and Christian Social Ethics Today (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), p. 149.Google Scholar

24. Storrar, William F., ‘Scottish Civil Society and Devolution: The New Case for Ronald Preston's Defence of Middle Axioms’, Studies in Christian Ethics 17.2 (08 2004), pp. 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Storrar, , ‘Scottish Civil Society’.Google Scholar

26. Temple, William, Christianity and Social Order (London: SCM Press, 1942), pp. 62–66.Google Scholar

27. Temple, , Christianity and Social Order, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar

28. See Dackson, , Ecclesiology of Archbishop William TempleGoogle Scholar. Also Dackson, , ‘But Was it Meant to Be a Joke Legacy?’Google Scholar

29. Charles Gore is most likely the influence on Temple's primary ecclesiological metaphor. See his The Holy Spirit and the Church (London: John Murray, 1924), pp. 26, 111, 147.Google Scholar

30. Dackson, , Ecclesiology of Archbishop William Temple, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar

31. Suggate, , ‘Preface’, p. ii.Google Scholar

32. Temple, William, Christus Veritas (London: Macmillan, repr., 1954 [1924]), p. 250.Google Scholar

33. Temple, , Christus Veritas, p. 237.Google Scholar

34. Dackson, , Ecclesiology of Archbishop William Temple, p. 115.Google Scholar

35. Dackson, , Ecclesiology of Archbishop William Temple, p. 120.Google Scholar

36. Temple, William, Readings in St. John's Gospel (London: Macmillan, 1952 [1939–40]), p. 100.Google Scholar

37. Temple, William, The Church and its Teaching Today (New York: Macmillan, 1936), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

38. Iremonger, , William Temple, p. 172.Google Scholar

39. Temple, William, Studies in the Spirit and Truth of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1914), pp. 150–61.Google Scholar

40. Temple, , Studies in the Spirit and Truth, p. 150.Google Scholar

41. Temple, , Studies in the Spirit and Truth, p. 157.Google Scholar

42. Temple, , Studies in the Spirit and Truth, p. 161.Google Scholar

43. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 8.Google Scholar

44. Temple, William, Nature, Man and God (London: Macmillan, repr., 1949 [1934]).Google Scholar

45. Temple, , Studies in the Spirit and Truth, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

46. Temple, , Church and its Teaching, p. 48.Google Scholar

47. Temple, William, Church and Nation (New York: Macmillan, 1915), p. 115.Google Scholar

48. Temple, William, The Church Looks Forward (London: Macmillan, 1944), p. 30.Google Scholar

49. Temple, , The Church Looks Forward, p. 30.Google Scholar

50. Temple, , Church and its Teaching, p. 34.Google Scholar

51. Temple, , Readings in St. John's Gospel.Google Scholar

52. Temple, , Studies in the Spirit and Truth, p. 55.Google Scholar

53. Temple, , Church and its Teaching, p. 32.Google Scholar

54. Doctrine in the Church of England: The Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922 (Chairman's Introduction by Temple, W.; London: SPCK, 1950 [1938]), p. 1.Google Scholar

55. Temple, , Church and its Teaching, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

56. Temple, , Readings in St. John's Gospel, p. 14.Google Scholar

57. Temple, , Church and Nation, p. 30.Google Scholar

58. Temple, William, Issues of Faith (London: Macmillan, 1917), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

59. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 14.Google Scholar

60. Preston, , ‘William Temple’, p. 9Google Scholar. However, Temple's use of the term ‘Christendom’ is quite different from that of most of his critics. It was ‘precisely the world no longer alien’ (Mens Creatrix [London: Macmillan, 1961 (1917)], p. 326Google Scholar), and thus something which had not yet been achieved.

61. Brown, Malcolm, ‘Work and Unemployment: The Church in the Moral Minefield’Google Scholar, in Preston, et al. , Archbishop William Temple, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar

62. Temple, , Church and Nation, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

63. Forrester, , ‘Scope of Public Theology’, p. 19.Google Scholar