Many Anglicans today draw their sense of Christian identity from a source other than Anglicanism. We see ourselves as Reformed, Calvinist, Lutheran, Papalist, or Pentecostal before we see ourselves as Anglican, and we form our theology first and foremost from those outside sources rather than from our own tradition. Of course, classical Anglicanism is not opposed to looking beyond itself to enrich its theology. Anglicans make no claim to be the exclusive Church of Christ on earth, nor that we have all the answers. Anglicanism does not tell you that you are damned if you practice your Christian faith in something other than the Anglican way. And yet, if you do not believe that Anglicanism is the best way to practice the Christian faith, not just for yourself but for everybody, than you have to concede either that Anglicanism is inferior to something else, in which case you really should be that something else, or that there is no true way to practice the Christian faith, in which case you are a postmodernist and not a Christian at all.
A lot of modern Anglicans would be surprised to hear somebody say that, and yet the reformers and the divines would not have blinked an eye. Not that they would have characterized what they were trying to do in exactly this way. The task of the reformers especially was to make a defense for the Church of England as a Reformed Catholic church. “Anglicanism” as a way of describing the kind of Christianity practiced in the Church of England was not yet a viable term. It would be several hundred years before there would even be a need to describe exported English Christianity. Nevertheless, the reformers were full-throated in their defense of the Church of England, not just as a good option but as the right option.
The Reformers Thought They Were Right
Take, for instance, John Jewel’s “Apology of the Church of England,” written in 1562, which lays out the basis for the Church’s self understanding. Jewel makes the case for how the Church of England comes to hold the doctrine that she does and why it matters. Having done this, Jewel insists that a church which cannot similarly ground itself is seriously deficient. “We have searched out of the Holy Bible, which we are sure cannot deceive, one sure form of religion,” says Jewel, “and have returned again unto the primitive Church of the ancient fathers and Apostles; that is to say, to the first ground and beginning of things, as unto the very foundations and headsprings of Christ’s Church.” This, Jewels says, is in contrast with the Church of Rome:
Wherefore, if the pope will have us be reconciled to him, his duty is first to be reconciled to God. For from thence, saith Cyprian, spring schisms and sects, because men seek not the Head, and have not their recourse to the fountain (of the Scriptures), and keep not the rules given by the heavenly Teacher. For, saith he, that is not peace, but war; neither is he joined unto the Church, which is severed from the Gospel.
What follows is uncharitable and without nuance, as was much of what Roman apologists wrote about the Church of England, and yet the point is that Jewel believed that the failure of the Roman Church lies in its unwillingness to submit to the witness of scripture and antiquity that seemed plain to him to be expressed in the formularies of his own church. In other words, the problem with Roman Catholicism is that it is not Anglican.
Lest we get the idea that this sort of thing only cuts in one direction, Richard Hooker’s criticism of Calvinist Puritanism provides us with a sound counter example. Hooker celebrated John Calvin, but found that the English followers of the school of Geneva were unable to receive what was good in Calvin’s theology into their own practice, particularly when it comes to orders in the Church. Though Hooker does not wish to be against Calvin, he does criticize the way in which Calvin’s teaching has led the Puritans to be unwilling to accept the possibility of Catholic orders in the Church, thereby placing them at odds with the Church of England. “That which Calvin did for the establishment of his discipline,” says Hooker, “seemeth more commendable than that which he taught for the countenancing of it established.” Furthermore, Hooker does not believe that the Puritans can show from scripture or even from Calvin himself that the laity ought to be involved in decisions of excommunication rather than the bishops and clergy alone (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Preface, II.7). And as we talked about a few weeks ago in examining the Anglican approach to scripture, Hooker is very clear that the Puritan form of the Calvinist approach to scripture, however well intentioned, is decidedly false:
Two opinions therefore there are concerning sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth… [Puritan Calvinists] grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary [ie, all things necessary to salvation], but all things simply, and in such sort that to do any thing according to any other law were not only unnecessary but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God or things appertaining of God other than as the truth is, though it seems an honour it is an injury… We must likewise take great heed, lest in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed. (Ibid, Book II, Chapter VIII.7)
Hooker does not deny that the Puritans are Christians who will receive salvation through their faith. Nevertheless, he is plain in saying that they are wrong in the way that they approach scripture and that his way, which represents what he believes to be the doctrine of the Church of England, is superior.
The Anglican Cypher
So why the reticence today amongst Anglicans to make positive, exclusive claims about what our tradition has to offer? As I mentioned above, I think that part of the problem lies in the fact that many Anglicans see themselves as something else first and Anglican second. This runs up and down the churchmanship divide. I have known Anglo-Catholics who see Anglicanism merely as an anomalous historical reality into which an otherwise pristine (and usually pre-Vatican II) Roman Catholic ethos can be poured. I have also known Anglican Evangelicals who are not at all convinced of the distinctives of the Anglican tradition and see it rather as simply “a good pond to fish from.” In either case, we have gotten used to using Anglicanism for our own ends rather than accepting it as authoritative in its own right.
In the nineteenth century (perhaps even earlier), this openness led to the development of the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic movements within Anglicanism, both of which have antecedents in the Anglicanism of yester-year but neither of which are exactly like what came before. In many ways, Anglo-Catholicism shares more in common with other Catholic traditions than it does with historic Anglicanism. Likewise, Anglican Evangelicalism has taken on elements, particularly in its charismatic expression, that place it more in line with Baptist and Pentecostal theology than with even the most Protestant strands of classical Anglicanism. There is much that these two voices have contributed to Anglicanism, and I don’t want to detract from that in the slightest. In many ways, we are better off for these developments. Still, it has to be said that allowing these movements to develop without balance from the wider tradition has led in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to the disintegration of Anglican identity, which in turn has allowed an equally unbalanced liberalism to take advantage. If Anglicanism is everything, than it is also nothing.
Proclaiming the Truth
If Anglicanism is going to survive–indeed, if it is worth saving it at all–than we must not only re-discover and submit to the core tenets of Anglican theology but we must celebrate it. We must be willing to make bold claims again. The chief element in this recovery, it seems to me, will be reaffirming the magisterial office of the Book of Common Prayer, acknowledging that if what we pray determines what we believe than we really ought to be praying the same thing, consistently, throughout the world and throughout time, even if we imbue that prayer with some local variation in terms of non-essential details such as the style of instruments or the architecture of church buildings.
If all of this sounds dreadfully uncharitable to other Christians, I do not mean it to be. We have a great deal to learn from our friends in other Christian traditions, and we should never assume an attitude of triumphalism or a position of gnostic pride, that we posess the truth that everyone else cannot have access to except through us. All that we teach and practice is available to all Christians, with or without the Anglican label. Anglicanism has never claimed to be more than mere Christianity in its essence. But if it is true that Anglicanism delivers mere Christianity, than it also must be true that where other traditions deviate from that mere Christianity they are in error. Either Anglicanism gives us the true faith that it is worth fighting for, or else it is a false religion that deserves to be displaced by other things. And if it is true, than we had better get ourselves a heck of a lot more excited about it.
Indeed!
I think that Evangelicalism trascends denominations – however not at the expense of the characteristics that distinguish one denomination from another.
What excites me about Anglicanism is that it offers the historical anchoring that many evangelicals seek. It allows us to root our convictions in the riches of the tradition of Christian thought and prayer that faithful followers of Jesus Christ have passed down to us. We can discover an ancestry that goes back two thousand years – right back to the teaching of Jesus himself, with great theologians, liturgists and saints whose writings can help us to be the disciples that Jesus calls us to be. It also makes us more clearly part of the one, holy, catholic (i.e. universal) and apostolic Church. This blend of biblical authority and evangelistic fervour makes for a powerful Christian witness and nutritious soil for growing disciples.
This is also why I think Evangelicalism and Anglicanism are a beautiful mix. This is why I try to model the idea that being Anglican is a great way to be a Christian.
Rev Joshua
p.s Nice blog
p.p.s FYI http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/conference_finds_reasons_to_be_anglican/
Holy Cajones Batman! I like it… now if only we can get all the Anglicans to read this.
Hi,
I”m a potential convert to Episcopalianism. Quesxtion: I hear a lot about how the E. church is the church in its primitive form. How does that claim “stack up against” the fact that the Nicene Creed contains the filioque, which is not the primitive form? I could just never get around that…
Eugene
Eugene, you raise a great question about the filioque. I’d be happy to answer, but I think it would take more space than would make sense in the comment thread. I’ll try to do a whole post on it some time in the near future. Many blessings.
Thanks, Fr. Yes, do post! I have an icon of St. Spyridon in my icon corner — he was AT the 1st Council (by tradition). How could I stab him in the back like that??!! He’s been a good friend to my family. It’s hard to see how a lot of saints I admire can be “claimed” by the E. church when they recited a different Creed. Of course, I’m trying to be wide open (taking great intellectual risks, which isn’t my favorite thing to do); so now I’ll consider the idea that maybe… it doesn’t matter! And the whole thing should be ignored.
Forgive the number of posts… I must be on a jag of some kind. You say:
“Either Anglicanism gives us the true faith that it is worth fighting for, or else it is a false religion that deserves to be displaced by other things. And if it is true, than we had better get ourselves a heck of a lot more excited about it.”
This was a really helpful article for me. But I’d like to point out that you won’t get the excitement hoped for if you refer to Anglicanism as a “label,” as you do in the same paragraph from which I quoted. Just a thought. It just seems a contradiction. Why go for a label when I want a church?
Another thought might be, that there’s really nothing wrong with an “inferior” sort of Christianity — as long as the end result is superior people. Of course, by the Lord’s command, it would be hard to assess that kind of superiority (judge not). But my point would be, that maybe there’s room for “inferior” expressions. Like St. Paul’s “What then?” thing: “What then? As long as the Gospel is preached…” cf Phillipians.
In regards to the “label” versus “Church” distinction, I did not mean to suggest that Anglicanism is simply a label. My point was that a church which holds to the core theological tenets of Anglicanism need not call itself Anglican to be recognizable as a part of the true Church, practicing the true faith and offering true and reliable teaching. The word “Anglican,” after all, is simply a word that means ‘from the English,’ meaning that as Anglicans we are descended from and united in faith with the Church of England. Anglicans have always recognized that other churches may rightfully claim to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Our Lord founded, but the way that we evaluate that claim has been to say, “What faith do they practice and what do they teach?” And if those things are the same as what one finds at the core of Anglicanism, than we are able to see that a church is a true church, regardless of how it identifies itself. If not, then it is probably because there is something lacking. But that’s not because Anglicanism is anything special in and of itself, because of its Englishness or its particular customs. Rather, it is because what lies at the core of classical Anglicanism (as opposed to the Anglicanism that is sadly practiced by a large portion of Anglicans today) is the faith of the primitive Church.
Thanks for your reply. I think the “core” thing is my problem. The church I belong to now (Eastern Orthodox… I’ve been Orthodox for 25 or more years) does NOT hold to the “core” beliefs of Anglicanism. So what does that make Anglicanism for me — or us, for you? We hold to 7 Councils, not 4. We do not regard the Scriptures as containing everything necessary to salvation. We hold to the original Nicene Creed. I could probably list much more, but you can guess or know yourself. The end result is a markedly different sense of what a person is in relation to the ekklesia. It works at a gut level.
My personal challenge is that the TEC is just so attractive. There’s a church in every town. The services are always in English. The old people look like my mom’s friends. Most people that go to the E. church in town actually live in that town, which makes for a great feeling of community (at least to an outsider). The words of the Eucharist are beautiful (how many people in a parish do you think actually believe them?) The prayer book is great (apart from the almost total lack of veneration for the Mother of God, and a focus on the Father as opposed to the entire Trinity… when I say “God,” it’s easier to steer clear of images, because no one can image a Trinity.). But for some reason the older I get, the more attractive it becomes. If you’re Orthodox, you’re in a minority. It can become very wearing.
So I question lately what my core beliefs are. But I’m not sure — just don’t know, mind you — if the E. church could teach me what the Orthodox Church has taught me: to ALWAYS look at oneself and one’s own sins first, to take full responsibility for one’s own actions. And of course there’s a “science” for that in my church that revolves around Confession and preparation for Communion. The process of salvation is always dynamic, unfolding, rather than with a certain static quality I pick up in the E. church (comes probably from that forensic thing in the Reformation so much discussed lately); like, “we’re all okay now; let’s go out and save the world!”
I know that is a lot of stuff, a lot of levels here, but if you’d care to respond, I’d be glad to hear. Really like how you articulate your church.
Eugene, just to let you know, I’m not ignoring you, I’ve just gotten bogged down in a couple of other discussions and haven’t had a chance to get back to you. But I am going to respond, I promise!
Pingback: Anglicanism’s Unique Doctrine | The Conciliar Anglican
Eugene,
Thank you for engaging with what I’ve written so thoroughly and for sharing your own journey so honestly. It’s hard to know exactly where to jump in and respond, but I’ll do my best.
In terms of how Anglicanism regards Orthodoxy, there is a great deal of variation, but by and large we would view Orthodoxy favorably. I know that I personally have a deep love and respect for Orthodoxy, for the beauty of its worship, for the richness of its theology, and for the seriousness with which it approaches the Christian life. In fact, were I not to be an Anglican, I would venture to say that Orthodoxy would be where I would go. Nevertheless, as you point out, there are some important differences in doctrine, some of which are easier to reconcile than others. I recommend checking out some of the lectures from a conference held at Nashotah House Seminary in 2009 in which Orthodox and Anglicans came together called “In the Footsteps of Tikhon and Grafton.” Many of the lectures are very good and very interesting, but I would especially commend “The Future of Anglican and Orthodox Relations” in which Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA and Archbishop Duncan of the ACNA share perspectives on what would be necessary for Anglicans and Orthodox to be able to come into communion with each other. It does a very good job of getting to the heart of the doctrinal hurdles that need to be traversed, much better in fact than I could probably do here. The website for podcasts of the conference is here: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton
I sympathize with your desire to go to a church where you feel comfortable and where you can no longer feel like a minority on the American Christian landscape, but I would caution you not to make a leap from Orthodoxy to Anglicanism for those reasons alone. Anglicanism is very small in North America as well, and there are an even smaller number of dioceses and parishes within North American Anglicanism where anything resembling traditional Anglicanism is actually practiced. The fact is, there are many Episcopalians who are openly hostile to traditional Anglicanism, and so coming into the Episcopal Church as a traditional believer you will have to be prepared to start out from a somewhat besieged position. Of course, there are other emerging Anglican jurisdictions in America, such as the ACNA, but they have problems of their own. I say all of this not to discourage you but to make sure that you approach the situation with your eyes open. In any church, there will be discomfort and difficulty and things that will drive you bonkers about the people around you. The choice to go from one church to another should never be seen as a way of escaping from the problems of whatever one is leaving behind. There’s only one really good reason for going from one branch of the Church to another, and this is that God is calling you into it.
You ask if the Episcopal Church would be able to give you what you have always received from Orthodoxy, “to ALWAYS look at oneself and one’s own sins first, to take full responsibility for one’s own actions.” As you rightly point out, Orthodoxy provides a pathway for receiving salvation that is quite intricate, while in the Episcopal Church it can sometimes seem that we feel like salvation is something secondary, something that happens in an instant, and that now we’re on to the bigger task of “saving the world.” I think this is an accurate diagnosis of what many Episcopal clerics are preaching from their pulpits, but it is not a reflection of what Anglicanism actually is (which, sadly, many of them do not even realize). What a traditional Anglican teaching would emphasize is not us saving the world but Jesus saving us. Take a look at the way that the Eucharistic liturgy is laid out, particularly in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and what you’ll see is that every time we gather we are reminded of the deep and dark reality of our sin (law) and the amazing reality that Jesus Christ has already taken that sin away from us and is sending His Spirit upon us to rebuild us from the bottom up (grace). The goal is less for you to notice yourself and take responsibility for your actions than for you to stop looking at yourself and start looking at Jesus, to be transformed by His actions. It is through hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments that we are united to His sacrifice on the cross and made whole.
Is this the same as what you have received in Orthodoxy? I couldn’t tell you. I know that when I read something like Kallistos Ware’s “The Orthodox Way,” I sense a deep resonance between what he presents as Orthodoxy and what I have received as an Anglican. Nevertheless, reading about a tradition isn’t the same as living in it, and I wouldn’t want to say anything out of place. I certainly do believe that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have the same set of tools for bringing people into relationship with Jesus — the sacraments, the three-fold ordained ministry, the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Fathers — but that doesn’t mean that we use them in the same way. And so, again, in the end, it’s all about where God is calling you. Where is the fullness of faith to be found? Where does God want you to be and why does He want you to be there? Don’t make any kind of move unless you know the answer to both of those questions.
That’s my two cents. If you want to talk more, I’d be happy to correspond with you. My email is conciliaranglican[at]gmail[dot]com (except with the at sign and the dot).
grace and peace,
Fr. Jonathan
Pingback: Why are Anglicans pushovers? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
Pingback: Ask an Anglican: The Filioque | The Conciliar Anglican
I’m a very recent ‘convert’ to Anglicanism (TEC) from the United Methodist Church. I did not change denominations- “convert” is probably too strong a term – because I believed that the UMC was not a part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Nor did I make the switch because of the changing and chaotic politics surrounding the place of LGBT people in either denomination, though I admit that my own opinions on this secondary issue are inline with the majority thinking in TEC. However, I had come to two conclusions, plus a tentative third, that made me decide that Anglicanism was the only modern denomination which practiced pure Christianity, with no additions or subtractions.
My two firm conclusions are:
1. Weekly Communion is the norm for Christian worship, and that norm should only be deviated from when there is no ordained presbyter or bishop to preside at the Altar/Table.
2. The Holy Scriptures and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are the only proper sources and norms for Christian doctrine. Adding anything else, such as John Wesley’s Sermons and Notes, or a Confession of Faith, is adding human teachings to divine revelation.
So I had concluded that while the UMC is a Christian church, confessing the Trinity and the Creeds, and holding to a Biblical model of ministry, its practice of the Sacraments was sub-Christian, while it’s doctrinal standards added human teaching to divine revelation. I had also concluded that the Episcopal Church had done neither of those things, and was the closest thing to pure Biblical and historical Christianity available, and that made my conversion inevitable.
My third tentative conclusion was that at least some of the Apocrypha, especially the two additional Wisdom books, should be regarded as inspired Scripture.
Finally, a note about the practice of Communion in Episcopal and Methodist churches. In the average UMC you get part of a common loaf of real bread, but a separate little cup of grape juice. In the average TEC you get a common chalice of real wine, but a separate little wafer of “bread”. I would like to see all churches use a common chalice of real wine and a common loaf of real bread- I think that this is what the first Christians would have recognized as Communion.