Anglican/Episcopalian vs Methodist

[Albion]

I'm slightly smug about the fact that it is the happy clappy churches which are growing. When the liberal, non-committal part of the Anglican church dies off, we'll be delighted. Because we'll stop having to pay your bills as well as our own. Guess which churches in my diocese are the ones that support all the liberal churches which have wealthier congregations, but far less money taken in the collection?

Tim (Who goes to a church with some of the best giving in the diocese and we don't EVER take a collection, because we never want to ask guests to put money in it--all money comes from church members)

What I'm sad about is that there doesn't seem to be room for the moderate position; it's either pseudo-Romanist or happy clappy. That was always the Anglican boast--that we are the Via Media--but now we are polarized both theologically and liturgically as well.

 

[Timothy]

What I'm sad about is that there doesn't seem to be room for the moderate position; it's either pseudo-Romanist or happy clappy. That was always the Anglican boast--that we are the Via Media--but now we are polarized both theologically and liturgically as well.

Most of the happy-clappy churches have an early service which is textbook 1662 BCP with hymns on the organ. Certainly the larger ones, ala All Souls Langham Place and HTB do. Not necessarily the most popular services, but there's certainly some breadth within the evangelical spectrum, liturgically.

Tim

 

[chrisnu]

Vanilla versus Pistachio.

After having visited both, that's the feeling I'm getting. I'm feeling drawn in this direction, but am not sure where to commit yet. I will keep praying about it, and would appreciate the prayers of any others.

 

[ContraMundum]

Good point, but I would offer that the true Anglican POV on that matter is not what most people think it is. Apostolic Succession is not discussed in the Articles of Religion, and in the Quadrilateral the term used is Historic Episcopate, not Apostolic Succession. We retained the lineage--which gets us into disputes with the Roman Catholics saying we did not--but not the same understanding of it. We retained it for practical and historic reasons, not because it is essential for legitimacy.

All true.

 

[ebia]

I'm always saddened when anyone looks forward to another stream of the Anglican tradition dying off. Whether it's paying its way or not; whether I tend to agree with it or not.

 

[Labayu]

I've got to admit to being amused that the VERY* low/evangelical-charasmatic church of England church I go to has had way and above the most people going forward for ordination (and succeding) than any other church in the dioceese for the last 5 or 10 years despite 1) until very recntly it having a VERY liberal & High church Bishop and 2) lots of the congragation never having been to another coe church.

* How low? The guy in charge isn't ordained, communion happens once a month, most members wouldn't know what a book of common prayer or confirmation was, robes never happen even with the ordained "pastors" in the church, church membes usually get the nod for preaching over the ordained church staff, we've had members who have been there for years before realising we're coe, beer often gets drunk in the church when either events happen or if soccer gets broadcast on the screen after the service and one service a week has someone doing beat-boxing over the mic during the songs (which very, very occasionally include the odd hymn!)...

And yes the present and previous Archbishops of Canturby bothh knew all this and were totally fine with it!

 

[Albion]

All true.

Although I felt it worthwhile to toss that into the discussion, I wasn't presuming that you needed to be told it. But consider how many of our colleagues, upon reading what both of us have acknowledged about this matter, would be (or are now) shocked and outraged.

 

[ebia]

And yes the present and previous Archbishops of Canturby bothh knew all this and were totally fine with it!

+Rowan Williams is very much in favour of what he calls a "mixed economy" of churches and worship styles.

 

[Albion]

+Rowan Williams is very much in favour of what he calls a "mixed economy" of churches and worship styles.

It's fine that someone WANTS there to be such a range or mix. I still would argue that the moderates are becoming fewer and fewer among Anglicans as the Anglo-Papalists, Charismatics, New Agers, and happy-clappy (as they've been called in this thread) types become more and more numerous. In my country, it is hard to find a basic middle-of- the- road parish today that isn't one of those--yet not so long ago, such parishes were the norm.

 

[Wildcat48]

Apostolic Succession is not discussed in the Articles of Religion, and in the Quadrilateral the term used is Historic Episcopate, not Apostolic Succession. We retained the lineage--which gets us into disputes with the Roman Catholics saying we did not--but not the same understanding of it. We retained it for practical and historic reasons, not because it is essential for legitimacy.

Technically the prayer book is not discussed in the Articles either, but clearly the prayer book is so essential to our identity that it becomes inseparable from us as a church community.

That being said, I for the most part agree with you. I think the RC (and maybe the Orthodox, though I certainly don't claim to know) claim that apostolic succession helps impute some level of orthodoxy into the teaching office of the episcopate, whereas we avoid that language (I think we have a different understanding of magisterium). However, I do think that valid apostolic succession, in some sense, offers a level of legitimacy in the sense that it connects us to the Church Historic and the traditions of the universal Church. There isn't necessarily some super power involved in the episcopacy, however there is some level of validity associated with maintaining the traditional/historical understanding of the "sheperds of the flock".

 

[Wildcat48]

It's fine that someone WANTS there to be such a range or mix. I still would argue that the moderates are becoming fewer and fewer among Anglicans as the Anglo-Papalists, Charismatics, New Agers, and happy-clappy (as they've been called in this thread) types become more and more numerous. In my country, it is hard to find a basic middle-of- the- road parish today that isn't one of those--yet not so long ago, such parishes were the norm.

In my limited geographical area, I don't really find this to be the case (in the TEC, not sure if you are part of a continuing church or otherwise). My church is probably considered "high church" liturgically, but certainly not Anglo-Papalist (which is what people really mean I think when they say Anglo-Catholic. Anglo-Catholic is somewhat redundant...we are catholic!) My church doesn't have "contemporary services" either, or charismatics. But being in a predominatly Baptist/Church of Christ region, we are certainly not an Anglican Missal church, nor are we a "once a month" communion church either. I'd say we're center-high (and I don't think High Church = Anglo-Papalist), unless I'm misunderstanding your definition of "moderate" in regards to liturgy.

 

[Albion]

In my limited geographical area, I don't really find this to be the case (in the TEC, not sure if you are part of a continuing church or otherwise). My church is probably considered "high church" liturgically, but certainly not Anglo-Papalist (which is what people really mean I think when they say Anglo-Catholic. Anglo-Catholic is somewhat redundant...we are catholic!)

You're kinda proving my point, aren't you? Modern Anglo-Catholicism isn't the same as Anglo-Papalism, that's true, but it seems to be rapidly turning into that, which I think your comment is telling me. In any case, it's not the middle-road of Anglicanism or what Anglicanism used to be not long ago when services in the typical American Episcopal church were by the prayerbook and without the excesses of vestments and altar trappings, etc. that are now common in many churches.

we are certainly not an Anglican Missal church, nor are we a "once a month" communion church either. I'd say we're center-high (and I don't think High Church = Anglo-Papalist), unless I'm misunderstanding your definition of "moderate" in regards to liturgy.

Of course, I can't be sure what your church is exactly like, given the quick description provided, but I still feel that the moderates in the American scene are becoming fewer and fewer, and this I regret. I am certain that there are exceptions here and there, but I was speaking of the overall trend.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

What you say is interesting. When I was a child we used to go to an Anglican Church and, as you say, there was the old prayer book and everyone knew what they were doing. When I was in my early thirties I again attended an Anglican Church for a while, but it seemed a very confusing affair as there were all sorts of little books one seemed to need. The music was very 'folk' style. A friend took me to her Church on the other side of town and it reminded me of the Roman Catholic Church my mother would occasionally attend when I was small. Where I live now there are four Anglican Churches within a ten mile radius, three would count as 'happy clappy' and one as pretty 'high'. Unscientific I know, but suggesting that your own experience is replicated elsewhere.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Wildcat48]

In any case, it's not the middle-road of Anglicanism or what Anglicanism used to be not long ago when services in the typical American Episcopal church were by the prayerbook and without the excesses of vestments and altar trappings, etc. that are now common in many churches.

I see your point. I think we may have different definitions of "moderate" in the liturgical sense.

I certainly don't claim to know the state of the liturgy in the TEC in the past, but I don't necessarily see vestments as a mark of Anglo-Catholicism in the wider Anglican Communion. Have they been a controversy? In the past, yes, now, I don't really know. Certainly the use of vestments was a part of the controversy between conformists and non-conformists in the early stage of the Church of England (the Hooper-Ridley debate, etc) and even in the 1552 prayer book there are guidelines outlawing the use of the vestments other than a surplice, but the 1st prayer book rubric didn't make specify which articles of worship were allowed or not ("Here is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward VI"). And during the reign of Elizabeth I, the alb, cope, and chasuble were certainly used (and variously, as there were many protestors that refused to use the vestments) and were for the most part normative (among the Establishment) anyway. So there is certainly a historical precedent for the use of vestments in Anglicanism.

I say all that I guess to say that I don't see the use of vestments as something foreign to moderate Anglicanism. Practices such as adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (though Lancelot Andrewes spoke in favor of adoration), transubstantiation, eastward facing celebration of the Eucharist, etc. are all "Anglo-Catholics" developments. But arguably, I don't see vestments as such because they have a historical precedent in the early days of the Anglican Church.

In reality the Episcopal Church in the US has changed liturgically over the last 50 years, but I suppose I don't see vestments (and I suppose I would have to ask you what you meant by "altar trappings"...candles on the altar?) as a radical shift from the via media liturgy of historic Anglicanism, but I do see adoration, etc. as a radical shift.

 

[Albion]

So there is certainly a historical precedent for the use of vestments in Anglicanism.

Bear in mind that what I said (and the part that you bolded) said "excesses." I was not making a point about vestments, per se. I think we pretty much agree on this matter.

I say all that I guess to say that I don't see the use of vestments as something foreign to moderate Anglicanism.

Agreed.

Practices such as adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (though Lancelot Andrewes spoke in favor of adoration), transubstantiation, eastward facing celebration of the Eucharist, etc. are all "Anglo-Catholics" developments.

Uunfortunatly, that's so.

But arguably, I don't see vestments as such because they have a historical precedent in the early days of the Anglican Church.

Right. There was a misunderstanding about this. I could have helped out by being more specific, but I didn't want to make too much of a deal of it, just make a simple point.

In reality the Episcopal Church in the US has changed liturgically over the last 50 years, but I suppose I don't see vestments (and I suppose I would have to ask you what you meant by "altar trappings"...candles on the altar?)

Six to nine of them, yes, full frontals, and so on. Then we could also make mention of incense, exaggerated postures, supplements to the BCP, etc. etc. We both know what we are talking about. HOWEVER, this is just part of a trend. I count the doctrional side of things as much more important (and troublesome). And don't forget that I was saying that the Anglican consensus has gone off in several ways. It's not just that Anglo-Catholicism has grown and evolved. Charismatics, New Agers, and the "happy clappy" types are all part of the scene and all represent a breakdown of the Anglican middle-way.

radical shift from the via media liturgy of historic Anglicanism, but I do see adoration, etc. as a radical shift.

Then I think we actually see things pretty similarly!

 

[Wildcat48]

Bear in mind that what I said (and the part that you bolded) said "excesses." I was not making a point about vestments, per se. I think we pretty much agree on this matter.


Agreed.


Uunfortunatly, that's so.


Right. There was a misunderstanding about this. I could have helped out by being more specific, but I didn't want to make too much of a deal of it, just make a simple point.


Six to nine of them, yes, full frontals, and so on. Then we could also make mention of incense, exaggerated postures, supplements to the BCP, etc. etc. We both know what we are talking about. HOWEVER, this is just part of a trend. I count the doctrional side of things as much more important (and troublesome). And don't forget that I was saying that the Anglican consensus has gone off in several ways. It's not just that Anglo-Catholicism has grown and evolved. Charismatics, New Agers, and the "happy clappy" types are all part of the scene and all represent a breakdown of the Anglican middle-way.


Then I think we actually see things pretty similarly!

Well it looks like I wrote a long post for nothing, lol

I am curious to know what you mean by "exaggerated postures". I have no problem with making the sign of the cross, as its both an ancient practice and has been defended in historical Anglicanism. I also don't really have a problem with occasional incense. I think it can become an infatuation for some groups and take away from the purpose of worship, but the occasional use to me is harmless and reverent. Genuflection and bowing as the cross processes are harmless to me as well, as long as the proper theological emphasis is given to them (and not based on errors like transubstantiation).

On the altar candles, I honestly don't know the theological meaning of them. Most Roman churches just use two, as have a number of the Episcopal churches I've attended (though a number also had none).

Like you, I think the doctrinal issues are more important. I have a problem with adoration as it suggests a carnal view of the Real Presence (something clearly rejected in historic Anglicanism). I think that postures/rituals that clearly point to particular theological concepts that are not part of historic faith are those that are dangerous. Others I feel are more a part of personal piety and parish dynamics and not essential in their use or lack thereof. But I also agree that the "happy-clappy" churches and the New Agers have watered down the faith in their own way (e.g. lessening of the importance of the Eucharist, denial of the divinity of Christ, what have you). In that way, while I'm probably more liberal on certain issues than you, I would agree that the orthodoxy of the TEC on issues of the faith has faltered through the erroneous teachings of some in the episcopate (Spong anyone?) and priesthood.

 

[Albion]

Well it looks like I wrote a long post for nothing, lol

I am curious to know what you mean by "exaggerated postures". I have no problem with making the sign of the cross, as its both an ancient practice and has been defended in historical Anglicanism. I also don't really have a problem with occasional incense. I think it can become an infatuation for some groups and take away from the purpose of worship, but the occasional use to me is harmless and reverent. Genuflection and bowing as the cross processes are harmless to me as well, as long as the proper theological emphasis is given to them (and not based on errors like transubstantiation).

I had in mind such as greatly extended elevations of the priest's arms during the offertory and again with the elements during the consecration, accompanied by multiple genuflections (and bells). And then we may have occasional prostrations, elaborate bowings, far too many signs of the cross and genuflections at points during the service when they are not traditionally called-for. Add multiple acolytes interacting with the priest, additions to the BCP's Order for Holy Communion, and you know what I am thinking of.

 

[ContraMundum]

I had in mind such as greatly extended elevations of the priest's arms during the offertory and again with the elements during the consecration, accompanied by multiple genuflections (and bells). And then we may have occasional prostrations, elaborate bowings, far too many signs of the cross and genuflections at points during the service when they are not traditionally called-for. Add multiple acolytes interacting with the priest, additions to the BCP's Order for Holy Communion, and you know what I am thinking of.

...all signs of when a priest makes liturgy his hobby (or god?) and the parish his personal vehicle for that hobby. Sure- he has a few followers of his interest in the pews....but not many newly walk in the door and stay. Thank God. It's borderline idolatry when liturgy is done for its own sake, and liturgy becomes the main discussion around the coffee and tea table.

 

[Timothy]

...all signs of when a priest makes liturgy his hobby (or god?) and the parish his personal vehicle for that hobby. Sure- he has a few followers of his interest in the pews....but not many newly walk in the door and stay. Thank God. It's borderline idolatry when liturgy is done for its own sake, and liturgy becomes the main discussion around the coffee and tea table.

I'm in the process of beginning to research Anglican liturgy in preparation for submitting my dissertation proposal in May (I'm planning on doing it on the theology behind liturgical revision in the Church of England or words to that effect) and it's fascinating, yet I've realised in Anglican terms just how much High Church Anglo-Catholicism should be classed as liturgical abuse. I may have to write a book on it when my diss is finished...

 

[Secundulus]

I see your point. I think we may have different definitions of "moderate" in the liturgical sense.

I certainly don't claim to know the state of the liturgy in the TEC in the past, but I don't necessarily see vestments as a mark of Anglo-Catholicism in the wider Anglican Communion. Have they been a controversy? In the past, yes, now, I don't really know. Certainly the use of vestments was a part of the controversy between conformists and non-conformists in the early stage of the Church of England (the Hooper-Ridley debate, etc) and even in the 1552 prayer book there are guidelines outlawing the use of the vestments other than a surplice, but the 1st prayer book rubric didn't make specify which articles of worship were allowed or not ("Here is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward VI"). And during the reign of Elizabeth I, the alb, cope, and chasuble were certainly used (and variously, as there were many protestors that refused to use the vestments) and were for the most part normative (among the Establishment) anyway. So there is certainly a historical precedent for the use of vestments in Anglicanism.

I say all that I guess to say that I don't see the use of vestments as something foreign to moderate Anglicanism. Practices such as adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (though Lancelot Andrewes spoke in favor of adoration), transubstantiation, eastward facing celebration of the Eucharist, etc. are all "Anglo-Catholics" developments. But arguably, I don't see vestments as such because they have a historical precedent in the early days of the Anglican Church.

In reality the Episcopal Church in the US has changed liturgically over the last 50 years, but I suppose I don't see vestments (and I suppose I would have to ask you what you meant by "altar trappings"...candles on the altar?) as a radical shift from the via media liturgy of historic Anglicanism, but I do see adoration, etc. as a radical shift.

All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.

If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.

What we today call Anglo-Catholic is entirely inconsistent with the notion of Anglicanism as it existed from the time of Cranmer. In earlier times you would have been executed for this.