Skip to main content

Things I Like about Anglicanism/Part 3: Their Ecumenical Spirit

The second installment in this series, wherein I discussed the Anglican balance between Word and Sacrament, also highlighted the diversity within Anglicanism on this and many other topics.  This time I would like to spend some time speaking specifically to this topic of diversity.  Diversity has become a buzzword in our culture, much like the words tolerance and acceptance.  When you say diversity, many conservatives hear compromise, as if one chooses unity at the expense of truth.  That is not what I mean by diversity.  Ecumenism is probably a more helpful term.  The best, most traditional word to express this idea is catholicity, but the Roman Catholics have ruined that word for many people.  Simply put, Anglicanism is a very diverse group, and most Anglicans are okay with that.

Growing up in an obscure Reformed denomination, I grew accustomed to theological isolationism.  We loved to argue about who was really Reformed.  We valued truth over unity.  Rather, we denied the possibility of true unity without truth.  While this principle is true, it can be applied incorrectly if our boundaries are too narrow.  Many conservative Presbyterians would rather worship with a very small group of people rather than worship with Christians who hold to different beliefs.  I was raised in and still prefer small churches, but I have come to see the attitude of theological superiority that often pervades small churches is unhealthy.  There is nothing noble about being unable to worship with fellow Christian brethren who have different convictions on secondary matters.

I came to see very quickly that Anglicans pride themselves (in a good way) on being catholic, which is something for which I was searching--a connection to the catholic Church.  Many Anglicans view their Communion as the Via Media, the middle ground between the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, and, historically speaking, that is an accurate description.  The Anglican Communion is incredibly diverse, not only theologically, but also geographically and culturally. The expansion of the British Empire saw the spread of Anglican tradition throughout the world, and the recession of that empire laid the groundwork for dozens of united but unique local expressions of Anglicanism.  Anglicans recognize that historic Christianity can have different cultural expressions at different points in history, as long as it stays rooted in the Christian Faith.  In other words, you can have unity without absolute uniformity.

I have found this attitude to be refreshing.  Instead of trying to define the Faith as narrowly as possible, they seek to define it as widely as possible.  For instance, some Presbyterians (along with many other Evangelicals) do not view Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians as fellow believers.  The Reformation, not the historic statements of Christianity, are made the boundary of orthodoxy.  Long before I knew anything about Anglicanism, I was dissatisfied with this definition of orthodoxy.  It seems ungracious and untenable to write off so many Christians who have faithfully maintained Nicene theology for thousands of years, as if there were no genuine Christians between Constantine and Luther.  Anglicanism attempts to honor the ancient Church (more on that in a future post) without ignoring the important truths of the Reformation.

One thing that struck me about Anglicans is the way that they are comfortable with labels without relying on them.  Growing up, I knew that we were Presbyterians.  Not only were we Presbyterians, but we were Reformed Presbyterians.  Reformed Presbyterians weren't the only Christians out there, but they were the best ones.  From what I can tell, most Anglicans are not like this.  Anglicans like being Anglican, but that's not the most important thing in the world to them.  They view Anglicanism as one of a number of valid Christian traditions.  Anglicanism is more of a historic term than it is a theological one.  Again, this is not to say that theology isn't important to Anglicans, but they are willing to recognize that there are different Christian traditions with different strengths and weaknesses.

As I alluded to above, there are certainly pros and cons to diversity.  The narrow-mindedness of some Presbyterians can typically be contributed to their zeal for the truth and their fear of descending into theological liberalism.  They are trying to avoid the pitfalls of being too ecumenical.  The Anglican world, much like their Presbyterian brethren, has certainly experienced the hazard of being too open-minded.  Most self-respecting Anglicans now want nothing to do with liberal Anglicanism.  The ACNA, which is very diverse, offering a home to Anglo-Catholics, Evangelical Anglicans, and Reformed Anglicans, exists because conservative Anglicans recognized that the liberal provinces, such as the ultra-liberal Episcopal Church here in the U.S., no longer represented catholic Christianity.  Much like the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church has abandoned the moors that keep a body within the boundaries of the Christian Faith.  These moors--the Word of God and the historic creeds and councils of the Faith--define the boundaries of Christianity.  We can have diversity and fellowship, as long as these fundamental components of the Faith are maintained.  Anglicans strive to maintain fellowship within these boundaries.

Let me conclude with this clarification.  Truth is important.  Doctrine is important.  The Christian Faith is nothing without the objectives truths of the Gospel.  That being said, we must also recognize that there are many Christian traditions, shaped by history and heresy, culture and controversy.  Despite our differences, we can still be Christians who worship and fellowship with each other, if we share the foundational truths of historic Christianity.  This spirit of catholicity is emphasized within Anglicanism.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...