Hi! This is the second part of a three part series on Churches, Anglicanism, and Church-hunting. Part 1 (my thoughts on the two most important parts of a church service, at least as far as someone in the process of looking for a church is concerned) can be found here. This post (Part 2) presents my thoughts about Anglicanism in practice and belief.
Okay, this post may end up churning up a little bit of strife because it discusses something which is currently a controversial subject (i.e., What is Anglicanism?). I’ll try to keep things general, but that will probably still step on people’s toes. So be it.
In Part 1, I said that churches (or at least church services) are made of form and meaning. In many churches, these are somewhat distinct. As an example, the Roman Catholic church outlines its meaning in several documents, perhaps most notably in its catechism. These documents can pretty much stand on their own and still present a fairly complete view of what the Catholic church believes. Meanwhile, it outlines its form in other documents, like the Missal, which contains the forms and liturgies for celebrating Mass, and in other books which outline the liturgies for other services. The purpose of these books is primarily to show the order of service, but if you just pick up a Missal and read it, you won’t necessarily learn a whole lot about the specific beliefs of the Catholic church. For that you would consult the other documents like the catechism. For the Roman Catholic church, both elements, though distinct, are pretty important.
Other churches (I’m thinking of ‘nondenominational’ churches) follow a generic, unwritten form (unwritten because it doesn’t contain specific words or prayers, but is instead mainly a pure order of events). Their meaning is also often unwritten, but it is often based on the generic evangelical tenets, which can be difficult to pin down, but become obvious once broken. The point here is that, again, the form and meaning are distinct. In this case, meaning seems to be the more important one. They will usually accept anyone who agrees with their meaning as Christians regardless of the form they use.
Now, the Episcopal church, in my opinion (though my opinion is based on some solid facts and statements from the Episcopal church itself), is trying in a way to do the reverse of the nondenominational churches. They are making the form important, but they are making the meaning unimportant. Thus, a group of people with absolutely nothing in common regarding their beliefs in God, Mankind, Creation, Morality, etc., can all be perfectly at ease in an Episcopal church as long as they say the words and do the motions. The particular meaning that an individual puts behind the words is unimportant.
I have a problem with that, and here’s why: Anglicanism, like any other denomination, is based on some type of form and meaning. In Anglicanism, though, they aren’t as distinct from each other as in other denominations. Since its founding, Anglican form and meaning have been tied together and synthesized in “The Book of Common Prayer” (BCP for short). When somebody picks up a BCP, at first glance it closely resembles the Roman Catholic Missal, except that it contains more services than just the Mass (usually known as the “Eucharist” in Anglican circles). Upon closer inspection, however, one will notice a few differences. There tend to be more prayers in the BCP. The congregation speaks a little bit more. On the whole, there is a little bit more doctrine injected into the words of the liturgy. On the other hand, if you look for an outline of Anglican belief, the closest you’ll find is the “39 Articles of Religion.” (The new BCP also includes a “catechism,” but it is really too generic to be taken as a serious outline of faith.) The 39 Articles, unlike the Catholic catechism, are quite succinct. They don’t include many specifics for things outside of the core beliefs of Anglicans.
This is because the two were meant to be used together. The Liturgy is the expression of Anglican belief. There is a phrase, Lex orandi, lex credendi. Basically, “The law of our prayers is the law of our belief.” To Anglicanism, the words, the forms, the acts of worship are a pure expression of belief. On the other hand, using the prayers alone can still create problems of non-unity in belief. (Even if two people say “We believe in One God,” one person could mean “I believe there is only One God,” while the other person means “I believe that everything is One with the god.” Bad example, but you get my point, I hope.) For this reason, from the founding of Anglicanism, we’ve had the Articles of Religion. As I recall, we started with 42, then quickly whittled it down to 39, but there have been 39 ever since. The articles define what it means to say things like “One God” to an Anglican.
But neither the Articles nor the Liturgy can stand easily on its own. Without the Articles, the liturgy becomes a hollow, rote shell of words, with no particular meaning. Without the Liturgy, the Articles become a list of inexpressible tenets. Just having the Articles without the Liturgy would be like knowing a person’s biography without actually knowing the person. There’s more to Anglican belief than just the Articles, and that is found in the Liturgy, but the Articles provide an important starting point for understanding the liturgy.
I hope I didn’t get to technical or rambling there. Here’s my point, in three simple equations:
1) Anglicanism = Liturgy + Articles
2) Anglicanism – Articles = Uninformed Liturgy
3) Anglicanism – Liturgy = Unexpressed Articles
So, here are my neurotic complaints about the current Anglican churches in North America. The Episcopal church is trying to use Equation 2 by stripping the liturgy of its underlying meaning. Meanwhile, the alternate Anglican choices that I’ve found typically try to use Equation 3 by stripping the Articles of their basic expression (which, as I mentioned above, also strips it of its nuances and, in a way, its life force). Frankly, I think that both groups have some justifying to do. I think that both are somewhat guilty of mutilating Anglicanism and then continuing to call themselves Anglican.
By the way, I feel the need here to address the concept of via media, which means “middle road.” This is a term that people often use to describe Anglican belief, but it has been used lately in a misleading way. Anglicanism was referred to as a “middle road” between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. That is to say, we have a lot that looks Catholic, and we also have a lot that looks Protestant. There’s an old joke, “What happens when a Protestant marries a Catholic? They become Episcopalian!” It is a middle ground of sorts. Recently, people have tried to extend this term to apply to everything, essentially saying that Anglicanism, when faced with a controversy or disagreement, takes the broad middle road. That is NOT the case, historically at least. Granted we do have a lot of leeway for some issues (including but not limited to infant baptism, use of holy water, etc.).
The issue here is, again, people are trying to remove the meaning behind the Liturgy. Here’s the deal. There are certain core things that make up Christianity. All Christians, regardless of denomination, tend to agree on the core things (see C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity for a more detailed discussion of this idea). After that, particular denominations have some more specific beliefs about the applications of these basic Christian tenets. In Anglicanism, the Articles pretty well cover basic Christianity, and they also (together with the Liturgy) express those aspects peculiar to Anglican belief and practice. Anyone who agrees with the particularly Anglican parts can be considered Anglican (as with any other denomination). Anyone who holds to the basic Christian parts can be considered Christian (regardless of denomination, as with any other religion).
The leeway that Anglicans have is regarding things that are addressed neither by the Anglican tenets, nor by the basic Christian tenets. Thus, yes, there is leeway, but it is not like we wander down some fictional “middle road.” The leeway is intentional, not passive. If you look at where people try to apply the “middle road” concept, it often involves condoning (if not promoting) things that are unbiblical, or at least highly debatable. But condoning is not a middle road. With most of these issues, there can’t really be a middle road. Either it is okay, or else it isn’t. So no matter which way your personal beliefs lean, you can’t really walk the “middle road” because it usually doesn’t really exist.
I truly hope no one is overly offended by what I’ve written here. Keep in mind that my beliefs are deeper and more intricate than can easily be expressed in a blog post. Nonetheless, this is the basic nature of my beliefs in this area. I’ve tried to keep the specific points of contention out of this post, but you can probably guess where I stand on some of those issues. But do keep in mind, I am writing this post about Anglicanism in particular, and about Christianity in general, but not about humanity as a whole. If you aren’t Christian, there are a ton of my beliefs about specifics that I wouldn’t apply towards you. If you aren’t Anglican, there are other beliefs that I wouldn’t necessarily apply towards you. But those are discussions that should be had in person, not randomly thrown out into cyberspace.
Okay, so to summarize this post: Anglicanism needs both its Liturgy and its Articles to express and define its form and meaning. And “middle road” does not mean “happily condone anything that comes up in order to avoid controversy,” because to do so is neither a middle road nor does it avoid controversy.
Stay tuned for Part 3, which will deal with how my neurotic opinions apply to my search for a church home, as well as why we need a church home at all as Christians.
-DE
P.S. I’m writing these posts somewhat quickly and stream-of-consciousness-ly. Let me know if parts don’t make sense or if there are typos or anything.
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Dillon
