Section 1 Why Anglican?
What is 'Anglican'?
As a working minimum, let's say that being Anglican entails a commitment
to at least these features of being a church: What's the alternative? So - why Anglican?
· An assent to the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation;
· A recognition of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed as
statements of faith which are to be received and believed, because their
affirmations may be proved from Scripture; and along with that recognition,
a belief that the 39 Articles of Religion faithfully bear witness to Christian
truth;
· A belief in the threefold order of ministry (bishop, priest and
deacon) as a beneficial, though not an absolutely necessary, means of
serving the church (that is, Anglicans have always taken the threefold
order as essential to our own way of being church, but would not say that
churches which are differently ordered are not really churches);
· A commitment to the worldwide fellowship of the Anglican Communion;
· A valuing of worship which is liturgically structured.
There are a lot of alternatives (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist
. . .), but the most attractive alternative to Evangelicals today is what
we might call the 'Year Zero' approach - an approach which holds that
if we are to be a truly gospel-centred church in the twenty-first century
we need to be willing to jettison any or all of our traditions. On this
view, the ordering of ministry and a liturgical structure for worship
- even maybe the Creeds - are all merely human traditions which have crept
in since apostolic times, and may need to go out of the window if they
get in the way of building the church today. Like revolutionaries, on
this view, we need to declare a 'Year Zero' where all existing structures
are levelled and we start again from Scripture. 'Let's get back to Acts
2' is often the watchword.
Why is such a view attractive today? Here are three possible reasons:
1. It rings bells theologically. The Reformers called the church back
to scripture, and away from medieval 'tradition', and so should we. It
fits neatly with Jesus' critique of the 'traditions' of the Pharisees
(e.g. Mk 7.1-13).
2. It seems validated by experience. 'Traditional' churches, especially
in the UK seem to be doing poorly. The growth that we see tends to be
in churches which have jettisoned inherited ways of doing things. Even
within Anglicanism, the big churches are often enough the ones which have
left behind a lot of the traditional trappings of Anglican worship.
3. It fits with contemporary culture. Businesses need to focus on their
primary aim, and structure everything towards achieving that goal. It
is easy for us to assume that we should 'do' church the same way, because
it is an attitude deeply ingrained in our culture.
Is it worth maintaining a way of being the church which is both Evangelical
and Anglican? Why not just go with the 'Year Zero' approach . . . after
all, it works!
The problem is, it doesn't work completely. Churches which try to chop
out two thousand years of Christian history, and hope that they can connect
with and replicate Acts 2, are doomed to ultimate disappointment.
The attempt to replicate the original church proves to be unsustainable.
The radical pioneering ministry of today remarkably quickly becomes just
another denomination- in fact as soon as it buys a building, employs staff,
defines its belief and acquires its own traditions. Almost as soon as
it is achieved, the revolution has to be done all over again.
So, which is right? The radicals have long criticised Anglicanism as a
kind of half-reformed church, a church which went so far along the right
road, then stopped. But in fact Evangelical Anglicanism has its own coherence
and consistency.
It is worth looking again at passages such as these:
· Matt 28.20, 'And behold, I am with you always, to the end of
the age'.
· Jn 14.16-17, 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another
Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth'.
· Jn 16.13 'When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into
all the truth'.
As Evangelicals, we believe that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches
have made too much out of promises such as these, when they have taught
that the church can never be in error. In this, we are in line with the
view of the 39 Articles, of which Article 19 maintains that even the ancient
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome have fallen into error
on some points. Any development in doctrine or practice has always to
be measured against the yardstick of Scripture.
But as Anglicans we also believe that these promises of Jesus do guarantee
something. We trust that the words of Jesus mean what they say and that
the church has been guided into the truth. Churches may be neglectful
of that truth and continually need to be called back to reform in the
light of Scripture. But if we think that we can ignore everything which
has happened since the time of the apostles, then we are (whatever we
claim to believe about the Spirit's work) effectively saying that Jesus
was wrong, and the Holy Spirit has failed to do what Jesus promised he
would do.
This is why as Anglicans we value especially those features of Christian
faith and life which were established in the early centuries when the
church was still essentially undivided: the Creeds, the threefold ministry,
and the ideal of a liturgical worship. They are not on the same level
of authority as Scripture. But we value them as part of the gracious and
Spirit-guided provision which Jesus promised for his church.
Questions: How can we be Anglican today?
1. What's the best thing and what's the worst thing for you about being
Anglican?
2. Have you had experience of belonging to a non-Anglican church? If so,
how did it compare with Anglican churches you've known? If not, is there
anything which would make you consider joining a non-Anglican church?
3. Can a church be faithful to the Word and still keep certain 'traditional'
elements (like liturgical worship, or bishops)? Have we got to be radical
about such things, or are they worth keeping?
4. People sometimes say that the Church in Wales has kept something of
the vision of being a church for the community and that this can either
be a good thing or a bad thing -
o Positively: is there anything which an Anglican church can do in a community
which is more difficult for other churches?
o Negatively: are Church in Wales parishes hampered in their mission by
expectations (e.g. for baptisms, marriages and funerals)?