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.

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. …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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bryan said:
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.

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.

Bryan said:
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?

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.)

Bryan said:
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.

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.)

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.

Bryan said
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

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.

Bryan wrote:
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.

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.