Skip to main content

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.  

Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed.  

My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly An Apology of the Church of England by Jewel.  As we examine individual doctrines or practices, how we do we determine what is considered acceptable?  How do we delineate primary, secondary, and tertiary matters?  How widely do we cast the net of orthodoxy?  

Furthermore, I am now Anglican.  For some, this is one more thing that disqualifies me from being Reformed, but the Anglican Church was undeniably shaped by the Reformation.  Anglicans, like Lutherans, are Reformed in the broad sense of the word.  

Still, the English Reformation was always a little bit different for several reasons.  The instability of Tudor England served to moderate the effects of the Reformation that was occurring on the Continent. There were some who sought to implement the extremes of the Continental Reformers, but that spirit never caught hold in England.  The Presbyterians in Scotland even tried to effect widespread reform in England by holding out the promise of mercenaries, leading to the production of the Westminster Standards, but the English eventually told them to go away and take their Confession with them.  

Ultimately, the English Reformation was different due to the personality of the English people.  When you study the history of England, you'll find that, despite the bloody insurrections, royal family drama, and colonialism, the people of England themselves have generally been pacific and conciliar.  They strive after as little disruption as possible.  They want people to live and let live.  This English ethos shone through in the Reformation and was epitomized by Queen Elizabeth herself, who, after the extremes of her siblings, intentionally struck a moderate position throughout her illustrious reign.   

The moderation of the English Reformation was quite intentional.  The men who exerted lasting influence on the movement were set on catholicity.  They were intentionally harkening back to the age of the undivided Church, particularly the first five centuries.  We see this reflected in both their theology and worship.  What many have more recently described as the Via Media was an attempt to shed the innovations of the Roman Church without throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as some on the Continent had done).  They were trying to restore the Church of England to the theology and worship of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Of course, they held this goal in common with most of the Continental Reformers.  One can hardly read a passage from Calvin or Luther without finding references to the recently rediscovered and reappreciated works of the Fathers.  The Reformers were human, so their motives were often complex, but the best of the Reformers broke away from Rome in an effort to restore what had been lost.  This was their stated intent.  This was the heart of their mission.  This is what motivated them to endure persecution, exile, and even death.  

The Reformers wouldn't want us to be Reformed.  They would want us to be Catholic.

Entirely too much time is spent on the Internet arguing over who is and is not Reformed.  Way too much ink is spilt insisting that this view or that view isn't Reformed.  If you hold to PC, you're not Reformed.  If you don't hold to the Sunday Sabbath, you're not Reformed.  So on and so forth ad nauseam.  Anyone whose primary focus is being Reformed is not very Reformed.  The Reformers were trying to make their churches Catholic, not Reformed.  Focusing on being Reformed instead of Catholic is like trying to be Pauline when Paul is trying to get you to be Christian.  

So I'm not overly concerned when someone tells me I'm not Reformed.  I appreciate my Reformed heritage.  I respect the Reformers.  I believe that the Roman Catholic Church was (and remains) in major error and that the emphases of the Reformation were important.  

But my goal isn't to be Reformed.

My adherence to a doctrine or practice is unaffected by whether or not the Reformed Churches have viewed it that way for less than five centuries.  The Reformers were trying to point us back to the Catholic Church.  Paul rejected tribalism, instructing us to follow him as he followed Christ.  We need to follow the Reformers as they follow the Fathers as they follow Christ.  

One final aside.  History is full of far fewer absolutes than some would like to believe.  This is particularly true of Church history.  Trying to identify the Patristic view on baptism, the Reformed view of Communion, etc. is a fool's errand.  That's not how theological history works.  Any conversation that begins with "All the Fathers believed..." is doomed from the start.  

This is, after all, why the Nicene Creed exists.  It was not intended to be exhaustive.  In fact, quite to the contrary, it was designed to cast as wide a net as possible without adding to or subtracting from the fundamental tenets of the Christian Faith.  It was designed to provide the guardrails within which healthy debate could exist.  Similarly, Anglicans have the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer.  We do not extensive confessions.  We are united through our adherence to the Catholic Christian Faith and our ancient liturgy.  We can have conversations from there.  

We are Christian.  We are Catholic.  We are Anglican.  

In that order.

Any additional modifiers, like Reformed, come after that.  

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, let me clarify what I mean when

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, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary