At the moment I am seriously considering starting to regularly attend a local Anglican church. I have been to one Sunday morning service, eight or so Sunday evening services, two guest lectures, and many morning prayer services hosted by the church at the university I attend, and now need to weigh the pros and cons of making it the church I regularly attend. There is a lot I like about the Anglican church in general (and this church particularly) yet I still have some reservations.
So what is it that attracts me to the Anglican church? In no particular order:
The Pros
1. Liturgy - There is a lot left to preference (unless you hold to a strict RPW) when speaking of how a worship service can be performed. I prefer a higher liturgy Sunday morning then the free for all format of a typical evangelical church, but both have their usefulness. Different forms of worship emphasize different aspects of God’s character. The liturgy in my experience emphasizes the holiness, beauty and mystery of God, things that I have missed in other church services and want to explore more.
2. Preaching - The preaching I have been exposed to has been tremendous. Although the church has a reactor, many different staff members and church members preach in the various services. This allows for a variety of perspectives on a variety of topics. Although I do not always agree with what is being said (do I ever?) the sermons are well thought out, biblically based, and have both theological and practical elements.
3. Intellectual Element - One thing that has really impressed me has been the commitment to intellectual life. I am not sure if this is unique to this specific church, or part of the Anglican character overall, but it is definitely pronounced in this church. They have a yearly lecture series that brings in a well known and knowledgeable speaker each year (Two years ago was Stanley Hauerwas, and Ian Hutchinson this last year). This commitment can also be seen in the small groups that they are starting up, other speakers they often bring in, and even simple things like publishing an announcement in the bulletin when a church member receives a Ph.d in philosophy.
4. Tradition - The evangelical church, except for a few exceptions, have lost all concept of tradition and nearly all of history. This is a huge loss, not because these things are essential to be a Christian, but because they provide a connection to our past and helps to regulate our future. The Anglican church still holds on to tradition through the creeds, prayers, and liturgy. Unlike the contemporary evangelical church, which is often afraid to look at history since they have a suspicion they will not see themselves in it, the Anglican church in my experience is not afraid to look at church history.
5. The Sacraments - Since beginning to seriously consider baptism and the Lord’s supper, my views have gone from Baptist, to Reformed, then back to Baptist but for the past year has been moving toward what I believe Anglicism teaches. Baptism of infants with baptism not only being an outward sign but a means which God uses to effect a spiritual change within us. Likewise, I believe that God uses the Lord’s supper to impart grace to those who receive it in faith. The topic of the sacraments is much to big for this entry, but one the fact that the Anglican church teaches (or at least allows for) a view that I believe has more scriptural support then other views is very attractive.
The Cons
What concerns me? Once again, in no particular order:
1. Homosexuality - The Anglican church is currently tearing itself apart over the question of homosexuality. It is not clear where the communion will go on this issue since there are major voices all over the map on it right now. What is for sure is that the firestorm over the issue is intensifying (See JI Packer explain the issues) and it will eventually come to a head. I hope and pray that homosexuality will not be embraced, but there is a strong possibility that it might be.
2. Women Priests - The Anglican church has allowed women priests for a while now. Although it has been several years since I examined the issue (I soon plan on examining it again so it is fresh in my mind to discuss) I am a complementarian and have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of women priests. Although among heavily conservative members of the Anglican church this is still an issue, it appears for my brief reading that among most this is no longer an issue.
3. The North/South Divide - On a whole the more northern churches (Europe, and North America) are liberal while the southern churches (Africa) are much more conservative. This is coming out full force on the homosexuality issue, but the divide seems to be much deeper, and will no doubt continue to arise. This is concerning because it shows a division within the Anglican communion that will not be going away soon.
4. Certain Members of the Anglican Church - Some members of the Anglican church have become so liberal they should have been excommunicated long ago. John Shelby Spong is really the best example of this I can think of. I do think the Christian tent should be a big one, but there are essentials to the faith that if you give up you are no longer in it. There are of course those in all denominations who should be excommunicated for giving up essentials of the Christian faith, but it is a concern when bishops in a hierarchical church can give up essentials and still hold on to their position.
My Conclusions
What does all this mean? There are things I really like in the Anglican church, and things that give me pause and caution. The particular Anglican church I have found seems to be a little bit on the conservative side, has an evangelical emphasis, and embraces traditional liturgy. There have been two question that have weighed on my mind regarding all this these last few months:
1. How much error can I tolerate in a church I attend? When saying that I understand that there is no doubt error within my own theology that I do not see, and that no church or denomination is without error. But what is a position that I view as error that I can live with, and what is one that stops me from regularly attending a specific church?
2. Correctness of theology is important, but so also is church practice (evangelism, missional living, discipline, accountability…etc). So although theology must be weighed in any decision to regularly attend a church, so must how that theology is lived out be weighed. Does the Anglican church (and this one in particular) meet my requirements in this regard?
Note: Since I began thinking this entry through and writing it I believe I have come to a decision on regularly attending this church or not (writing helps the thinking process). However the points and questions raised in this piece are still important and should be discussed and thought out.
Bryan, this was an exceptionally helpful article for me. Sadie and I are moving, and we are genuinely considering abandoning our current denomination because of many of the same lackings you see in the evangelical paradigm. We go to our church now because it shys away from almost all of these errors and practices, and holds to, what we consider to be, a fairly solid biblical grounding - even in the face of the pitfalls of the wider denomination.
At the same time, we suspect that these things we value in our current fellowship will likely be found and expanded in other churches. Your review shows that the Anglican church may hold some of these beliefs. Although, I suspect I would have greater problem with the centralized/political structure than you do.
This paragraph was especially insightful. While much of it is speculation, I suspect that you are correct. The evangelical church has literally no room for history - and this has been the case in probably every anecdotal case I have observed. Because of this, I am quite ashamed that I have a weak (comparatively) understanding of church history.
On a whole the more northern churches (Europe, and North America) are liberal while the southern churches (Africa) are much more conservative. This is coming out full force on the homosexuality issue, but the divide seems to be much deeper, and will no doubt continue to arise. This is concerning because it shows a division within the Anglican communion that will not be going away soon.
I think this is a foretelling of what is to come for almost all Christian denominations. The Western heretical/liberal church will be replaced by the biblical/conservative Eastern church in China and Africa. The West has been free for so long, they are straying from the gospel on many fronts. The Anglican church is the first to crumble, but it won’t be the last.
As Packer said, “Liberal theology, without the gospel, proves to be the smell of death rather than of life.”
Freedom has not been a detriment to the church - it has been a lack of consistent principles and philosophy. Freedom is not the cause of straying from the gospel.
I don’t know if the evangelical church is so anti-history as much as it just relies on its leaders to study and pass down the necessary history. For example, Reformed teachers like Sproul know church history quite well and pass the traditions and theological history down that is worthy of being passed down. Now, it isn’t necessarily good that most evangelical parishioners don’t know church history from War and Peace, but I don’t think it’s because they (we) are opposed to church history. I agree with Colin, my personal knowledge of church history is very much lacking. However, I’m not intending on remedying that any time soon, since if given the opportunity, I will read Piper before I read Justin Martyr (mostly because I trust Piper and his counterparts to have sifted through the early church writings. We rarely do this with history in general, relying on Victor Davis Hanson’s books on Greek history rather than going back and reading directly from Herodotus. Part of this is because Hanson corrects Herodotus and has the advantage of time to review the events of ancient Greece in a better light. The same principle applies to church history in a way. Luther, Calvin, Chesterton, Lewis, Sproul, Piper all combine for a rich analysis (and corrective where needed) of the early church history.
Colin, the lack of persecution and the “easy life” has definitely played a significant role in the falling away from “consistent principles and philosophy.”
I see what you mean. I assumed you meant “freedom of” you meant “freedom from.”
“I don’t know if the evangelical church is so anti-history as much as it just relies on its leaders to study and pass down the necessary history.”
I agree. Although I do think there may be some anti-history sentiment in the church, its probably symptomatic of the trend in the society towards being anti-intellectual.
I am not a church history buff, but I’m not ashamed of that. If I though church history was more important, then I would brush up on my study of it. That’s not to say I see it as completely unimportant, just less important and inherently less reliable than the history recorded in the Bible.
Exactly, Chris.
Another positive thing to be said about Anglicans, and all high churches, is the use of the lectionary. The cycle of scripture portions is read out loud, ensuring that the congregation is actually hearing scripture (not just preaching) and that a wide range of scripture is covered (not just the preacher’s favorite 10 verses). If the daily lectionary us also used, in addition to the Sunday readings, a great amount of scripture is covered in the three-year cycle.
I like the idea of the lectionary.
It seems bizarre to me that someone would choose a church based on things as petty as style and tradition rather than focusing on doctrine and respect for and focus on the Scripture. Correct doctrine should MANDATE correct living, and if it doesn’t the behavior can be criticized based on the doctrine. Incorrect doctrine can be corrected based on Scriptural study. Lack of respect for Scripture cannot easily be corrected. Many Mormon churches practice “good behavior”, but their doctrine isn’t even mono-theistic, let alone Christian. Choose a church that worships the God of the Bible, and “fix” other things if it becomes necessary.
Atanamis, I agree. However, if all things with respect to doctrine are equal, then I don’t mind someone picking a church based on style and the lesser items. So the question is: is the Anglican (Western) church doctrinally sound?
As a rule of thumb I try not to respond to comments on my own posts (It’s much more fun seeing people try to work things out and see what they come up with) but your drawing me in one this one Atanamis.
1. I would agree with you that doctrine is important (hence my point about sacraments). I have no intention for instance of joining a Catholic church because I have some pretty important differences with their doctrine.
2. I would also agree with Darius that all things being equal picking a church on “lesser items” is acceptable
3. I don’t think any church matches exactly what I see in scripture (which as I often admit is both a problem with the church and with myself) which is why I have question #1 in the above post. So to ask “Is the Anglican Church doctrinally sound”? I think is a bit of a bad question, as it will be in some areas and in others it won’t. The better question is (and this may be what you meant, but just to clarify): is the Anglican Church doctrinally sound in the areas of doctrine that I would consider important enough to choose a church over?
4. And this is the one that will cause some trouble; I think Atanamis’ first sentence set up a false dichotomy. “It seems bizarre to me that someone would choose a church based on things as petty as style and tradition rather than focusing on doctrine and respect for and focus on the Scripture.” I don’t think that tradition and doctrine should be set up in opposition to each other like you have, nor do I think that tradition on a whole is petty. If your talking about the priest wearing robes in church as a tradition, then sure, but if you talking about traditional interpretations of scripture and ways of doing things in church (I did list creeds, prayers and liturgy in the original post) then I think they are anything less then petty and are major factors that interact with doctrine and therefore should play a big part in determining which church to attend.
Good. That was almost my exclusive point. I have talked to many people who indicated they preferred a Catholic or Protestant church over stylistic difference, and I find that approach quite strange. It is as though they are picking a venue for entertainment and social interaction rather than a family with whom to worship God. Assuming you are familiar with and “ok with” Episcopal doctrine, I have no problem with your interest in their style and traditions.
One thing you need to consider regarding “doctrinal soundness” is how much authority the church or denomination demands its members give it. If the church allows all members to believe their own thing, then you have more latitude than in a church that expects all members to believe that the speaking of its leader is direct revelation from God. For example, I am willing to attend a church that asks its members to commit not to drink alcohol, but I would not become a member of a church that expected its members to condemn drinking alcohol as sinful. I will not by my membership agree to doctrine I believe is false. (My current church has a very minimalistic set of doctrines that they expect members to agree with, allowing a wider variety of beliefs among the membership.)
The content of creeds, prayers, and liturgy should be based on Scripture. Anything MORE than what Scripture teaches is “tradition”, which can be useful to understanding the content but is mostly a matter of opinion and taste. For example, nowhere in Scripture is the structure of church leadership outlined, nor is the structure of a church service. The exact wording and formal use of creeds, prayers, and liturgy are also “preferential”. These are things to be considered AFTER you look at the doctrine and practices of the church. They are meaningful things to consider, but I found the presented criteria odd in choosing a church.
This is what I would consider, in order of importance:
1) Does the doctrine adhere to what I believe are “essentials of the faith”.
2) Does the church properly esteem Scripture as the sole Authority for determining truth. Followup: is the membership expected to be familiar with Scripture, and do discussions of doctrinal truth use Scripture as more authoritative than church statements of faith or traditional creeds.
3) Does the membership and clergy seem intent on living a life consistent with the teachings of Scripture, and are they active in drawing everyone they meet one step closer to God.
4) What traditions and history of “orthodoxy” (holding to the above) does this church have?
5) What is the style of worship and leadership structure, and does it match with what I like? Do I feel comfortable and welcomed in their services.
Perhaps the article just assumed 1,2, and 3, but I felt more attention to these is important choosing a church. Too many people choose a church because “everyone was nice and I liked the music”, and I feel these are weak reasons for choosing a church. The article seemed to place most of the “Pros” in categories 4 and 5, while placing most of the “Cons” in 1, 2, and 3.
At least in the US, the Episcopal Church has gained a reputation for weak doctrine, and no matter how strong a church it has been historically that makes me uncomfortable. This is especially true since it is a highly hierarchal church, which suggests that doctrinal problems at low levels are “allowed” by the higher levels. To contrast to the Southern Baptists, the Convention has no control over its churches, and therefore the fact that one church is widely off base doctrinally means less about the others. I am not sure whether this is true about the Episcopal Church, and this article did nothing to clarify this. If the US churches with doctrinal problems are “rogue churches” which do not represent the greater organization, and the greater organization still holds to sound doctrine, this could be a great church. My point was simply that doctrine should trump style, which was not clearly expressed in the article. (From Bryan’s response though, I suspect he agrees that doctrine is more important than style.)
Now look what you did Bryan…
One of the first thing I asked this church about was how much subscription to a formal set of beliefs I would have to make. Although I’m still not 100% clear on how the 39 Articles operate in the Anglican Church at the moment (I’ve joined a group on this to help figure this out) I was told that members are required to affirm the first 3 ecumenical creeds (with emphasis on the Apostles & Nicea I seem to recall). Everything else the church may have an official position on, but is not required to believe for membership. I tend to agree with this approach.
I would agree with the 5 criteria you specified, except I would have some quibbles with #2 that would require a whole long post to get into and I’m still working through my understanding of how scripture operates in the church. I would however say at this time that I don’t like the phrase “sole authority” but prefer “highest authority” since I think tradition, experience, and church leaders all have some authority as to doctrine, but not the highest authority…like I said to work this stuff out will be a long post that I need to start working on sooner or later. There are philosophical concerns here as well with this subject that need to be looked at in detail (Can I actually objectively understand anything? What do I do when my understanding differs from everyone else…etc.).
Doctrine is more important then style, for sure, and I did assume a lot in my post. The list of pros and cons came out of me looking at my current church (which has fairly sound doctrine) and seeing what would improve or degrade if I was to change to attending this other church. Therefore basic doctrinal stuff was left out of the list since there wouldn’t really be much of a change that would be a vast improvement (except on sacraments which I consider a huge deal) or I’m switching for one church where I think it’s done wrong to the Anglican system where I still don’t think it’s quite right (Ie. Church government). Likewise the reason that the cons had a lot of doctrinal stuff is because a “degrade” in doctrine concerns me more then a “degrade” in what I consider style.
Hope that helps clear some stuff up.
That’s why I capitalized “Authority”. There are many authorities under which we are placed, but Scripture is the criteria against which they should all be measured. If someone contradicts Scripture, it is they who are wrong, and not the Bible. So long as other authorities are consistent with Scripture, I am willing to submit. For example, it would be wrong to say that drinking alcohol is inherently sinful, but it would be reasonable for a church to ask its members not to drink. One contradicts the fact that Jesus Himself drank without sin (even “slightly” alcoholic wine), the other adds rules of conduct which members are asked to uphold.
This makes a great deal of sense, and I tend to do much the same thing when considering a church after ensuring that it meets my criteria for sound doctrine. Thank you for clarifying that your own intentions in writing this article were not to diminish the importance of looking into doctrine before style. I apologize if this was already clear to everyone else.