Session 1, Part 2: Anglican Identity

APOSTLES ANGLICAN CHURCH
Fr. John A. Roop

The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.
Let us pray.

A Prayer of Self-Dedication

Almighty and eternal God, so draw our hearts to you, so guide our minds, so fill our imaginations, so control our wills, that we may be wholly yours, utterly dedicated to you; and then use us, we pray, as you will, and always to your glory and the welfare of your people; through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

Prelude: The Hall and the Rooms

Shall we begin with that great, modern Anglican saint C. S. Lewis? When Lewis edited his war-time BBC radio talks into his classic book Mere Christianity, he included a preface that clearly explained what he intended — and what he did not intend — to accomplish with the book.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian “denominations.” You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. The omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially “high,” nor especially “low,” nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Touchstone (1996), p. 6).

With a nod toward the 17th century English Puritan theologian Richard Baxter, Lewis intends to define “mere” Christianity, that which, in the words of St. Vincent of Lérins, has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. He does not intend to help anyone select among the many “flavors” of mere Christianity, the distinct ways of practicing the common faith found in various denominations. Lewis continues in the preface:

I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions — as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find that they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like that kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper” (ibid, p. 11)?

I find this description of the hall (mere Christianity) and the rooms (various denominations) helpful. Lewis is right about the hall; it is not a place to camp out in or, God forbid — and, I think, he has forbidden — a place to live. Christians are meant to be part of a local body of other Christians; we are meant to belong with and to one another: to a congregation or a parish or a fellowship, which implies belonging to some identifiable expression of the Christian faith, whether or not the word denomination is used to describe that community. “Christian” is the identifying noun, and it is the main thing. But the noun needs an adjective: Anglican Christian, Southern Baptist Christian, Presbyterian Christian, Methodist Christian, Roman Catholic Christian and the like. Sooner or later, you need to go into a room — a room which has a name and a distinct ethos — and make yourself at home there.

We’re here to talk about one particular room, that room marked “Anglican.” I will pick up where Lewis left off. The fact that you are here suggests that you have knocked on that door, cracked it open far enough to see in, or perhaps even entered and taken a seat. To be clear, Anglicanism is not the only room — not even the “best” or right room for everyone — but it is my room, my home, and I unapologetically love it and will offer, as I am able, a good apology for it. I heard an Orthodox priest say on a podcast that he thinks all people should become Orthodox. I disagree, of course, and I would not make that statement about Anglicanism; I do not think all people should be Anglican. Rather, about Anglicanism I would say what Anglicans say about the sacrament of confession: All may, some should, none must. All may become Anglican. Some should become Anglican. None must become Anglican. But, I will also say that Anglicanism passes Lewis’s test for a valid room: Its doctrines are true and there is holiness there. I might describe it this way; Anglicanism conforms to the three great classical transcendentals: It is good, it is true, it is beautiful. I can and do recommend it. God knows whether he wants you there, and, if you ask him, he will show you in his good time. And that is really the only measure, the only determining factor of who should be Anglican: Has God called you there?

Part I: From Pentecost To the Great Schism

So, what is the Anglican Church — most fundamentally, most essentially? The Anglican Church is, as we proclaim in the Daily Office, part of the holy catholic Church (see the Apostles Creed), and as we affirm during the Eucharist, part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (see the Nicene Creed). We will have more to say about each of those attributes — one, holy, catholic, and apostolic — when we explore the Creeds, but for now we can note briefly that there is only one church (the body of Christ), that it is catholic (universal and partaking of the whole), and that it is the Church received from the Apostles whose faith, sacraments, and practice have been passed on whole and intact by a succession of godly bishops. These characteristics of the Church were first put into writing — as far as we know — by the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Church at Smyrna (one of the seven churches in Revelation) circa 110 AD:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery (the priests) as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid (St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volume 1), Roberts and Donaldson eds., Hendrickson Publishers (2004), pp. 89-90).

To see why Anglicans claim to be part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, we need a little history. The Church began forty days after Jesus’ resurrection, with the Great Commission and the Ascension.

16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Mt 28:16-20).

This, the Great Commission (to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them), is where Anglican identity starts, because it is where the mission of the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic church starts. From Jesus’ ascension the apostles and disciples tarried in Jerusalem for ten more days until, on Pentecost, they received the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to accomplish this mission. Then, they began to make disciples – to baptize and to teach – first in Jerusalem, then in Judea and Samaria, and then to the uttermost parts of the world. Thomas headed east, carrying the Gospel to India. Mark went southwest to Egypt where he founded a thriving and influential Christian community in Alexandria, a community that produced some of the greatest theologians in the early church. Paul went – well, Paul went everywhere throughout Asia Minor, into Europe, and perhaps as far west as Spain. Tradition tells us that both he and Peter were martyred in Rome around 65 AD.

And so the Church spread and grew throughout the Roman Empire. There were important centers of the ancient Church, five prominent sees or episcopal (of bishops) jurisdictions: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The sees were interdependent — they maintained common faith and practice — and equal in authority; each bishop governed his own see without interference from any other bishop. Issues which affected the whole Church, e.g., the formulation of the Creeds, were decided in councils of the whole Church with episcopal representatives of the whole Church to the greatest extent possible. Because of the historical association of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul with Rome, the Roman see was accorded pride of place among the ancient sees when the Church gathered; that is, it was considered as the first in honor among equals, with the operative word bing “equal.”

As the Roman Empire began to fragment, the churches in the East and West grew apart in terms of language and culture. They were still bound together by a common faith, still part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but the way they expressed and practiced the faith grew more distinct and idiosyncratic. Rome attempted to assert dominance over the other sees, to claim not just a place of honor but a position of actual supremacy that allowed it to govern other jurisdictions/sees. The Eastern churches rejected this claim as an unacceptable imposition and as an innovation to the faith. Ultimately, for this reason — and for cultural and political reasons — there developed a schism (the Great Schism of 1054) in which the Eastern and Western churches disassociated from one another. The Eastern churches became what we refer to as the Orthodox churches and the Western churches became the Roman Catholic Church. At this point, the one holy catholic and apostolic church separated into two communions or branches. Each retained and still retains the faith and practice of the Apostles. Each is part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. But, tragically, they do not share the level of communion they once did and still should do.

Where do Anglicans fit in this history? Well, at the time of the Great Schism, there were yet no Anglicans as we know them today, but the one holy catholic and apostolic church was present in Britain. The Church in Britain, which had been present there as early as the beginning of the third century and likely much earlier, had placed itself under the jurisdiction of Rome in the seventh century, and so it was part of the Roman Catholic Church by choice, not by any necessity.

Part II: The English Church and the Reformation

Let’s now fast-forward to the 15th century. By then a reformation movement was growing in some quarters of the Roman Catholic Church. The fundamental conviction of this movement and those who led it was that through the years the Roman Catholic Church had departed in some significant ways from the purity of Apostolic faith and practice and had added to the faith certain doctrines, as necessary for salvation, that could not be found in or proved by Scripture. Some of the main differences between Roman doctrine and the growing convictions of the reformers can be found in The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer.

So, the movement to reform the Roman Catholic Church grew, initiated and led by men such as Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli. Each of these men and their respective groups differed in particulars, but they were united in their desire to return to the purity of the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith – and not of works. They were united in their emphasis on the centrality of the Word of God, the Scriptures, and upon its central, essential, and authoritative role in establishing doctrine and governing the Church.

England had its own reformation underway – partly political and partly religious. You probably know the politics: Henry VIII needed a male heir to continue his dynasty and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, was apparently unable to produce a son. Henry needed an annulment which could be granted only by the Pope – the Bishop of Rome. To Henry, this was a political matter of national sovereignty. When the annulment was not forthcoming, Henry challenged the right of the Pope to interfere with the political affairs of a sovereign nation, England. He ultimately disavowed the Pope and severed the relationship between the English Church and the Roman Church. Prior to the seventh century, there had been an English Church not under Roman authority, and now there was again. It’s not quite fair to say that the Church of England began with Henry VIII; it is fair to say that the church returned to English autonomy under Henry VIII.

Henry chose Thomas Cranmer as the first Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England. In some sense, it was Cranmer who created a unique Anglican/English identity through his reformation of English liturgy (the creation of The Book of Common Prayer), his expression of doctrine (The Articles of Religion), and his book of homilies (required sermons in the Church of England). Others had major influence in nuancing Anglican identity both in the beginning and throughout its history, but none more so than Thomas Cranmer.

The most important point in all this is that, unlike some of the other churches springing from the Reformation, the Church of England maintained its identity as reformed catholic. That is, it intentionally maintained the faith and and much of the practice of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, stripped of the accretions of the medieval Roman Catholic Church and independent of the Pope, the bishop of Rome. As a national church, it was its own see and had its own episcopal authority, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The one holy catholic and apostolic church now existed in three communions or branches: the Orthodox churches in the East, the Roman Catholic Church in the West, and the Church of England. You might wonder about the status of the other churches stemming from the Reformation, e.g., the Lutheran and the Calvinist churches. My answer is simple: I will let them speak for themselves, lest I make claims for them that they don’t make for themselves. As for the Anglican Church, it has maintained all the essential hallmarks of the one holy catholic and apostolic church including the apostolic deposit of faith, liturgy, sacraments, and the three-fold order of ministry — bishops, priests, and deacons — all in valid apostolic succession. We will discuss each of these in subsequent classes, but these substantiate our claim to be part of the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church and thus part of the Great Tradition.

Part III: The Anglican Communion

I will spare you the ins-and-outs of the development of the Church of England – the Anglican Church – over the next several generations; it is not pretty. Needless to say, there were various factions in the Church striving for dominance: the Evangelicals who sought to identify with and emulate the Continental Reform movements of Luther and Calvin more closely; the Puritans who wanted to out-reform the Reformers and to strip everything from the faith that was not specifically commanded in Scripture; and the Anglo-Catholics who felt the Reformation had gone a bit far and wanted to reintroduce many aspects of Catholicism – minus the Pope – into Anglicanism. These are caricatures, of course, but still substantially true. These factions have existed from the beginning of the Anglican Church and are still present in various forms; frankly, this diversity is as much a part of the distinctive Anglican identity as is our common faith.

England grew as a world power and established colonies across the globe. It was said that the “sun never sets on the British Empire,” a testimony to the breadth and scope of the global British control and influence. As colonies were established, so were outposts of the Church of England. In this way, Anglicanism was exported globally. In its best moments, the church evangelized the indigenous populations; sometimes, however, it was insular and existed solely for the benefit of the colonists. Each of these colonial churches was part of the Church of England – the Anglican Church – and looked to the King or Queen of England as its political monarch and to the Archbishop of Canterbury as its spiritual head (under the authority of the Supreme Head of the Church, the reigning monarch).

One of these colonies was a little thing that became the United States of America. Many of our settlers and Founding Fathers were Anglicans of one stripe or another and the Church of England exerted significant spiritual influence in the Colonies and ultimately in the States.

As England’s power waned, colonies became independent either by choice of England or, in our case, by armed revolt. As England withdrew governmentally, it remained spirituality; the Church of England stayed in the former colonies and the colonists and indigenous people assumed leadership. These churches were no longer quite the Church of England since they no longer submitted to the English monarch, but they did originate there and they did feel strong connections to the faith, practice, and polity of the Anglican Church. They now formed a communion of churches throughout much of the world all of which looked to the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury as their home and titular head. This is the Anglican Communion: a global confederation of churches originating historically in the Church of England or choosing to affiliate with the Church of England, and bound together by common faith and practice.

As you can imagine, the American Revolution strained the relationship between the American colonial church and the Church of England. All clerics – priests and bishops – had to subscribe to the supremacy of the English monarch, which simply wouldn’t do. “Back door” ways were found around this, and an American episcopacy – body of bishops – was established so the American church could function independently of England. This uniquely American version of the Anglican Church called itself the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, or simply, The Episcopal Church (TEC). Soon, it reestablished ties with the Church of England and took its place – a prominent place – in the global Anglican Communion, not least through the wealth it contributed, and still contributes, to the Anglican coffers. Frankly, its wealth allows it to exert influence in the Communion far disproportionate to its numerical membership in the global Anglican Church.

In the last half of the twentieth century, the Episcopal Church began to move away from traditional orthodox understanding of faith, practice, and church discipline. One of the early issues was the unauthorized ordination of women to the priesthood. Another issue — and one most people consider far more serious — was a change in standards of human sexuality and an acceptance of same sex relationships and civil unions/marriages. Additionally, the Episcopal Church consecrated as Bishop an openly gay man living with his same sex partner. All of this was in opposition to the standards of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Even more disturbing to many was the drift of the Episcopal Church away from the authority of Scripture and the centrality of Christ. A former Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori made statements indicating Jesus was a way to God, but not necessarily the only way to God; and this trend has only intensified. There were and are tendencies in the Episcopal Church to deny such fundamental tenets of the faith as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and even his divinity.

Reverse Missions

Reform movements developed within the Episcopal Church to recall it to the true faith, but these were largely unsuccessful. There came a point when many orthodox Episcopalians felt they could no longer stay in the Episcopal Church. At this same time, other provinces – national churches – in the Anglican Communion were growing concerned about the theological drift of the Episcopal Church and determined to launch missionary efforts to the United States. These provinces – largely from Africa and the Southern Cone (southernmost region of South America) – offered shelter and episcopal oversight to disaffected Episcopalians. Several groups were formed to allow these Episcopalians to worship as Anglicans – to maintain ties with the Anglican Communion – apart from the Episcopal Church.

This was a confusing and messy time, and I will not (cannot) go into all the details. But, out of this “mess” emerged strong leadership in the form of GAFCON – the Global Anglican Futures Conference – a conference of orthodox primates (leaders of provinces in the Anglican Communion) representing the majority of Anglicans worldwide and functioning somewhat as an orthodox communion within the broader Anglican Communion. These primates supported the formation of an autonomous Anglican province in North America as an alternative to the Episcopal Church. With their support, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was formed. It is this province to which Apostles Anglican Church belongs. The ACNA is recognized as a province within the Anglican Communion by the majority of Anglicans worldwide, though it is not recognized formally by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Church of England. Our Primate is Archbishop Foley Beach, who also serves as our diocesan bishop in the Anglican Diocese of the South.

This is a brief(!) summary of our historical Anglican Identity. We will cover some of this in greater detail as we continue with this class. Before we go on, are there any questions?

Anglican Hierarchy

I have used several Anglican terms related to our hierarchy, our structure of governance and authority, and our organizational structure. I’d like to give a bit more detail on that structure.

Parish

The local worshipping body under the spiritual authority of a rector, if the parish is financially self-sufficient, or a vicar if the parish receives financial support from the diocese. A parish that is not financially self-sufficient is most often called a mission. Our parish is Apostles Anglican Church and our Rector is Fr. Jack King.

Deanery

A communion of local parishes under the care of a Dean. The dean assists the rectors/vicars as needed and convenes meetings of the local parishes for fellowship, common efforts, common worship, etc. Apostles belongs to the Deanery of East Tennessee along with Old North Abbey and St. Brendan’s. Currently, our Dean is Fr. Aaron Wright who also servers as rector of Old North Abbey.

Diocese

A communion of parishes under the spiritual authority of a bishop. In the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) there are two types of dioceses: geographical dioceses and dioceses of affiliation. Historically, dioceses were based upon geographical boundaries; there might be a Diocese of East Tennessee, for example, to which all the Anglican churches in that geographical region belonged. Our diocese, the Anglican Diocese of the South (ADOTS), is primarily geographical and covers several southern states. The ACNA also allows for a parish to affiliate with a diocese outside its geographical boundaries. Typically, this involves a difference in ministry emphasis or theology between the parish and the geographical diocesan bishop. A case in point is the issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood. ADOTS does not allow for ordination of women to the priesthood. Some other dioceses do. A parish within ADOTS’ geographical boundaries that favors women’s ordination might choose to affiliate with a different diocese which allows for it.

Province

A regional or national communion of dioceses under the spiritual authority of an Archbishop or Primate. Our province is the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and our Archbishop/Primate is Abp Foley Beach.

Anglican Communion

The communion of all Anglican provinces. I am fudging a bit on this definition because it is debated. Formally, to be a member province of the Anglican Communion, a province must be recognized as such by the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, the majority of provinces currently disagree with that requirement. Why is that important? Because the ACNA is recognized as a member of the Anglican Communion by a vast majority of Anglican provinces and Anglicans worldwide, but is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Orders of Ordained Ministry

A deacon is the first order of ordained ministers. He/she is under the direct spiritual authority of a bishop. Every deacon “belongs” to a bishop, though, in practice, the deacon resides in a parish and is under the day-to-day spiritual authority of the rector/vicar. The deacon’s ministry is to represent the world to the church and the church to the world, particularly in works of charity. Additionally, the deacon is to be a catechist (teacher, particularly of the Catechism), and to read the Gospel in the liturgy. Also, the deacon may preach, baptize, perform weddings and funerals, and conduct other liturgical services at the discretion of the rector.

A priest is the second order of ordained ministers. He is under the direct spiritual authority of a bishop and is assigned to a particular ministry, typically to parish ministry. A priest with spiritual authority/oversight for a parish is called a rector or vicar, as discussed above. A full time assistant to the priest may be called a curate. Other priests who assist are called assisting priests. All priests are identical in the integrity of their orders, though they differ in the exercise of that ministry. For example, Fr. Jack and Fr. Thomas — all the priests at Apostles — are equally priests and do not differ in the fundamental nature of their priestly vocation. But, as Rector, Fr. Jack has administrative authority over all other priests in the parish. Fr. Jack is the first among equals of all priests at Apostles.

A bishop is the successor of the Apostles and has the responsibility for maintaining sound doctrine, teaching, unity, and order in the Church. It falls to the bishops to ordain other clergy and to confirm all members of the church. Diocesan Bishops, also called Ordinaries, have spiritual and administrative oversight of a diocese.

A canonis a clergy or lay person chosen by the bishop and appointed to assist him in a particular ministry.

An archbishopmay have authority over multiple dioceses.

The primate has spiritual authority over a province.

Three Streams of Anglican Identity and the ACNA

When ++Foley Beach was selected as the second Archbishop and Primate of the ACNA he was asked in an interview to discuss his concept of Anglican identity. Following is the question and his response.

Q: How would you define the Anglican identity”? What does ACNA distinctively have to offer both Christians and non-Christians in America? Should Anglicans have more of a “confessional” identity? Is the new catechism an attempt to develop a more confessional identity, especially given Dr. Packer’s recommendation to teach it in ACNA parishes at the Provincial Assembly?

Abp. Beach: Let me answer that last question first. I think a lot of us get in trouble when we think we have the Anglican identity, because we’re a diverse lot. From our formation days back in the Reformation, we’ve been a diverse group. Currently—and this is something I think that’s very distinctive about who we are— we are a group that is Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and Charismatic. Some call that the ‘Three Streams,’ and that’s a simple way of explaining it. But, even some of our most Anglo-Catholic folks would be more charismatic than I am. All of us tend to have those three streams somewhere in our mix.

I think that’s very unique for American Christianity today. All of us have our core; my core would be evangelical. Although I have the other two pieces, my core or default is evangelical. But, these streams enable us to bring the richness of the breadth of Christianity, and it’s truly powerful when these streams are together.