The Genius of Anglicanism
Although Anglicanism has long had ‘Low’ and ‘High’ Church parties, there was, until the late-19th century an underlying theology that united them. The ‘High’ and ‘Low’ concepts of churchmanship were very largely a product of which elements of the English Reformed tradition they chose to emphasize. In terms of the way in which they were drafted, so far as the Articles of Religion and Nowell’s Catechism are concerned, they sit a little on the Lutheran side of the Reformed position, whilst the BCP is clearly a Reformed reworking of traditional/Lutheran sources with some characteristic Reformed ceremonies, such as the fraction, missing from the 1552, 1559, and 1604 editions of the BCP.
As drafted, the English Reformation laid a heavy emphasis on the doctrines of grace – with Articles 9 to 18 working through the fall, justification by grace through faith only, sanctification, and election – with the sovereignty of a compassionate God well to the fore in the discussion. It also incorporated a strong sacramentalism with the earthly signs being connected to the heavenly grace that they symbolized. The views of (conditional) baptismal regeneration was in line with the higher sacramentalism of Bucer and Calvin, and could also be reconciled with the Lutheran view, whilst the Eucharistic theology of the English Church emphasized the true (or real, spiritual) presence of Christ in the celebration, though not one localized in the elements.
Unfortunately, there was a tendency for those two aspects of English Reformed theology to compete with one another with the result that those inclined to a Puritan take on the common theology emphasized the sovereignty of God. Unfortunately, this tended to produce – despite the writings of men like Perkins and Ames – a theology with a rather emphasis on the elect individual; whilst those who were of the school of Hooker and Andrewes were inclined to emphasize the Church and the Sacraments and thus the corporate and hierarchical side of Christianity.
Once established at the middle of Elizabeth I’s reign, this split remained throughout Anglican history becoming more extreme under the first two Stuart kings, and moderating during the Long Eighteenth Century so that, by 1800, one could fairly divide the more actively religious side of Anglicanism into High Church Evangelicals, and Evangelical High Churchmen. Over and against this was the mere Protestantism of the Latitudinarians who tended to pursue a rationalist take on Christianity’s basic verities, but as the Age of Reason gave way to the Age of Romanticism they faded from the scene quickly.
Sadly, this happy state of the parties being distinguished only by a difference of emphasis within a common theology lasted only about seventy years – 1770 to 1840. The more radical wing of Tractarianism, and to a lesser degree the more violently Protestant Evangelicals broke apart the old consensus through a series of controversies between 1836 and 1890. The result was unsatisfactory in that it led to tolerance for the aesthetics of Anglo-Catholicism, but not necessarily for the theology, whilst at the same time not forcing the Evangelicals out of the Church, though in truth this policy was more successful in the UK than the US. Add the rising influence of German Liberal Protestantism in the form of Biblical criticism, and what one ended up with was three parties competing for control over the future of Anglicanism.
In the end, Anglo-Catholicism succeeded in undermining the ‘Protestantism’ of the Anglican Communion, but it failed to impose its own vision on the wider Church. In the end, in the late 1970s, this was one factor that led to the main body of the Continuing Church departing from historic Anglicanism according to the formularies. Liberalism of one stripe another has triumphed in mainstream Anglicanism in the West which is one reason it is steadily going extinct. The Evangelicals have tended to quit the field a bit too readily making ill-advised concessions to liberalism, such as tolerating the ordination of women or ignoring the divorce culture. Alternatively, they have abandoned the Anglican tradition in favour of a broader Evangelical identity. None of these ‘little Anglicanisms’ really reflects the historical Anglican inheritance.
The genius of Anglicanism is that:
- It is a branch of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
- It is reformed according to the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church sharing a strong family resemblance to the Reformed Churches and Lutheranism.
- It is a liturgical church which uses written forms to function as a corporate, worshipping, memory for the Church linking us to the church that went before, and the church that will come after.
- It has an episcopal form of government which is not to be oppressive in character, but to ensure that all things reverently done in good order. The constitutional position of a bishop is not that of a “pseudo-apostle” but that of an overseer charged with the superintendence of the clergy and congregation under his care.
Anglicanism has a great future if we stop putting polity, party, and pride ahead of the Gospel and our inheritance of faith in the form of the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies of the Church. At the end of the day, a clergyman, even – perhaps especially – a bishop is a man under authority with a task to do, which is to preach the glorious, saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will do that better if we put party to one side and instead follow the formularies of Church as an aid to preaching Christ. Our goal should be to put Christ on the throne, and to nail our parties and our pride to a cross where they can suffer and die. From this will emerge a useful greater Anglicanism that will stop preaching itself, and instead preach Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
