In the debate taking place within worldwide Anglicanism over its future direction, there need be a point where Anglicans ask themselves, “Why Anglican?” Why do we remain bound to a communion that seems unable to control false teachers within its own midst? Why remain bound to a tradition that is seemingly so ill-defined as to include Anglo-Catholics, Reformed, Evangelicals, and revisionist heretics? What is it about Anglicanism that makes it a unique tradition worth preserving and under what structure would it best be preserved?
While a number of reasons are given by Anglicans for affirming their unique idenity, there is one almost universally held by all serious adherents to this tradition: the Anglican tradition preserves the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in a context that allows deviations to be corrected by the Holy Scriptures and two millennia of Christian teaching. We as Anglicans do not claim to be the only tradition who do so but we insist the remainder of the Church will not only be weakened if it vanishes but has something to learn from its example.
There will undoubtedly be some objections to the claim above. The most telling criticism is the current state of Anglicanism. The last few decades has seen the complete collapse of Anglican witness within the Episcopal Church in the United States and the situation is heading in the same direction in Canada, Australia, and the UK. Furthermore, there seems to be no way of halting or in uprooting the apostasy that has overtaken some national churches within Anglicanism. How can one say Anglicanism is so positive a force when it seems unable to defend its own borders from teaching?
I will not try to deny the Anglican Communion has had its share of scandals in the last few years but I would point out that this is not the first time part of Christ’s Church has been put on the defensive. The time of the Ecumenical Councils was one of great controversy and more often than not it seemed the orthodox party would be the eventual loser. The fall of Rome, the rise of Islam, and the corruption of the medieval Western Church were all major crises that pushed Christianity to the precipice. Yet each time, Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church was proven true.
Even today, there are scandals throughout the Church - not just in Anglicanism. Every part of the Church has faced challenges with false teaching and misconduct among its clergy. The mere existence of problems is not reason for abandoning one’s beliefs. Even if one were to decide that a local parish or a national church were irreformable, there are alternatives available within which one may continue Anglican faith and practice.
The above may seem more reasons not to leave than reasons to stay but I shall now make a positive case for the Anglican tradition. Simply put, it maintains the core of the historic Christian Faith while at the same time allowing itself to have itself to be reformed by the witness of the Holy Scriptures. That is, it takes the two milennia of Christian witness very seriously but not to the point where man may overrule God. All the problems we now see within Anglicanism have at their root the loss of the true genius of the Anglican way - those who support these disastrous revisions neither take Christian history seriously nor do they take God’s word even more seriously.
More that within any other church emerging from the Reformation, Anglicanism is truly a reform of Catholicism than a reconstruction of the faith according to the vision of one or more notable leaders. There is no figure like Luther or Calvin within Anglicanism whose theology would be used as a springboard for future developments. The Church of England maintained the core of the liturgy as had been practiced in Britain and removed elements that were thought to be unsound developments from its pristine form. The polity of the Church retained the Episcopacy with the only major change being its independence from Rome. Theologically, there developed a stong tradition of seeking to recover the faith of the early undivided Church that would serve as a basic guidepost for Anglican faith and practice in the coming centuries.
This is not to say that others did not also share a similar vision. The early Protestant Reformers also originally sought to reform the Catholic Church but historical circumstances and external political developments sent the Reformation on the continent in a different direction than would take place in Britain. Both the Reformed and Lutheran traditions would lose the historic episcopacy (although some parts of Lutheranism would retain it) and their rigorously defined theologies would lead to more drastic changes in worship (more so among the Reformed).
From the time of Henry VIII, Anglicanism never fully defined the limits of its practice as did other Protestant groups. The Thirty Nine Articles, while making clear its disagreements with Rome, did not fully regulate every aspect of belief as was sought among the confessions of other churches emerging from the Reformation. This was not surprising since there was deep disagreement among Anglican clergymem over what path the Reformation should take. Some wished to retain most elements of Catholicism apart from the medieval acretions while others sought more drastic changes.
In a sense, this compromise arising from necessity to preserve the Church of England’s unity also served to preserve its catholicity. As in the ancient Church, Anglicanism defined its orthodoxy not by clearly defining every aspect of belief but by condemning deviations from orthodoxy as they arose. Disagreement on certain issues was allowable within the defined limits of orthodox beliefs so long as the core beliefs of the Christian faith were maintained.
Also vital to the Anglican way was the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (henceforth referred to as the BCP). With its roots in the ancient liturgy of the Western Church and stripped of later additions that were deemed contrary to true doctrine, the worship of the Church of England produced the greatest liturgy of the Reformation. The beautiful prose of the BCP stands as a masterpiece of the English language and one of the greatest liturgies of the Church.
As important as the 39 Articles are to Anglicanism, they never had the same hold on the faithful as the BCP. The 39 Articles might be learned by a catechumen entering the Church of England but the BCP was experienced at a much deeper level. Anglicanism, in keeping with the ancient churches and unqiue among the churches of the Reformation, was better understood by experiencing its worship than by studying a confessional statement.
Since its high liturgy, lack of a precise confessional theological statement, and preservation of the episcopacy differentiates it from Protestantism, some now wonder if Anglicanism would best have its tradition preserved by reuniting with Rome. Such a suggestion is not new and finds a history tracing itself back to the Oxford Movement with John Henry Newman as the prototype of the Anglican finding his home in the Catholic Church. Recently, many prominent Anglicans have retraced Newman’s steps and now there is the added incentive of an “Anglican Use” option for Anglican parishes wishing to join the Roman fold.
This is an attractive option for some Anglicans frustrated with the current problems who wish to hold on to their traditions but is it truly Anglican? I would argue there are strong reasons to answer this in the negative and to see it as adding Anglican icing to a a Roman cake. This does not mean the faith within these parishes is not true but just that it is not truly Anglican.
The first reason for this Anglicanism is essentially a product of the Reformation and its theology provides a framwork for addressing the objections to Roman belief and practice raised by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al. The answers given within the Anglican tradition may not entirely satisfy more thoroughly Protestant sensibilities but they are also incompatible with the Church of Rome.
While rejecting the more drastic reforms employed elsewhere, the Church of England did see itself as Protestant in some essential way. Initially rejecting papal jurisdiction, the objections to Catholicism grew and became more well defined in the years to follow. In choosing to have Anglicanism become absorbed by Rome, one would have to either argue that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine or that Anglicanism is not Protestant. The first idea has been declared by the Catholic Church to be impossible and the second does great injustice to the historical record.
Secondly, Anglicanism has always positioned itself between the Catholic and confessional Protestant camps. Anglicans have always described themselves as the via media (middle way) to express their path between Catholic additions and Protestant subtractions to the faith of the ancient Church. The important thing to remember is that this is not a way that decides every issue for the purpose of compromise but one that allows diversity on those things that are not essential to the Church and unity on its core doctrines.
Thus, one visitng a different Anglican parish in the same town each week might see variations within the liturgical rubrics and the use of religious images from parish to parish ranging from a “low church” service in a building befeft of images that could have taken its cues from Calvin’s Geneva to a “high church” service with all the grandeur and images of a meieval cathedral and all the choices in between. The “Anglican Use” parishes have been those on one end of the spectrum within Anglicanism and does not truly reflect its tradition.
Finally, there is the tenuous nature of the Anglican use option. The Anglican Use parishes are intergrated into the local Roman dioceses and not given a separate existence as were the “uniate” Eastern churches that joined Rome. This indicates it is considered a temporary measure that will eventually be negated. When the English laguage version of the Roman Mass moves away from the banal English transaltion of ICEL, options within the new liturgical books could provide something akin to the Anglican Use as just one variation within the existing structure.
The fact that Anglican parishes have taken refuge in Rome with this option indicates they perceived the differences as primarily one of style. Those raised with the BCP might want to become Catholic but not want to trade their profound liturgy, inspiring hymnody, and beautiful church buildings for the cultural tackiness that has overtaken contemporary Catholicism. With the “Anglican Use” option provided, this allowed the move. Yet it also demonstrated that those moving had not been truly Anglican for some time. Given the theological differences between Anglicanism and Rome, the move only serves to declared their trek to Rome was less a conversion than a public declaration of what had been the case for some time.
If “high church” Anglicans are unlikely to find a home under Roman auspices what of “low church” Anglicans joining forces with other Protestant groups? Certainly an alliance with traditional Lutheran bodies and “high church” Reformed groups should not be out of the question. However, the problems given above merely repeat but in the opposite direction. Whille both Lutheran and Reformed bodies place the highest value on Holy Scripture, their interpretations of Scripture take their lead less from the early Church than from the highly developed confessional statements of their traditions. Defining the faith in terms of issues raised in sixteenth century Europe does not allow for the historical rootedness one finds within Anglicanism.
A third place Anglicans have found a new home is among the Orthodox. The Antiochian Orthodox Church has allowed a “Western Rite” expression that gives Anglicans another option and some parishes have taken up this route. There is much to be said in favor of uniting with the Orthodox. They give an example of autonomous national churches that have rejected the Roman claims, they have preserved the ancient faith of the Eastern Church, and they have a history of cooperation with Anglicans. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox faith is so removed from anything experienced in the West that one must openly wonder if either side knows what they’re doing.
While respecting the great traditions of the Christian East, it must be said that the Anglican theology is so completely Western in its theological emphasis that any quick reunion with Orthodoxy is fraught with problems. The example of the “Western Rite” parishes seem to be that of “red headed stepchildren”: they are members of the family that are largely ignored. It is highly doubtful that this is a long term solution.
I have tried in the above discussion to give a reason for Anglicanism as an independent tradition and to argue that it serves the Church best at the present time to be a tradition that exists independently. In the future, I will give some options for Anglicans wishing to maintain their traditions in the face of the crisis now taking hold of the Anglican Communion.