Classical Anglicanism?

[graceandpeace]

What exactly makes a church "classically Anglican?" TEC I have been attending is liturgical, & we sing hymns with the choir & organ.

As much as I love this particular church, I struggle with arriving on time, especially if I want to attend Sunday school (the church is in a different city from where I live).

Today I tried attending a much closer TEC in my city that I visited once before & I found it off-putting for the same reasons I found when I first visited: too big (4 services) & 2 services occurring at same time - one with choir & organ & hymns, & one "contemporary" band service in another building. As I anticipated, there were almost no young adults at all in the " traditional" service. The kids liturgy is only offered during the "contemporary" service. I can't even put into words how irritating I find that to be...but anyway...

So does "classical Anglicanism" have anything to do with music? What else?

Thanks.

 

[Liberasit]

What exactly makes a church "classically Anglican?" TEC I have been attending is liturgical, & we sing hymns with the choir & organ.

As much as I love this particular church, I struggle with arriving on time, especially if I want to attend Sunday school (the church is in a different city from where I live).

Today I tried attending a much closer TEC in my city that I visited once before & I found it off-putting for the same reasons I found when I first visited: too big (4 services) & 2 services occurring at same time - one with choir & organ & hymns, & one "contemporary" band service in another building. As I anticipated, there were almost no young adults at all in the " traditional" service. The kids liturgy is only offered during the "contemporary" service. I can't even put into words how irritating I find that to be...but anyway...

So does "classical Anglicanism" have anything to do with music? What else?

Thanks.

I think we are classically Anglican in my church but you couldn't determine that by music. We have a huge range, from Wesley to Hillsongs.

The liturgy is not a common factor, as we range from 1662, to full-on CW, to diluted CW, to spirit-led.

The common theme in our services is that we are true to scripture and our preaching is expository.

However, you will come across other Anglican churches that do not exposit, or seem to even use theme or spirit of scripture in their teaching.

I am not sure about other provinces, but here in England, I would say that most individual churches play a role in national life. This might range from pastoral outreach via hatches, matches and dispatches, to campaigning for local issues, to having a voice in national issues. You don't really see the other Christian churches having such a deep role in society.

 

[FireDragon76]

In my experience, it means conservative evangelical Anglicans and Episcopalians that want to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Anglicans in the western world. They tend to emphasize sticking with the 39 Articles as almost a confessional standard, and often "classically Anglican" is also code-speak for non-gay-affirming.

I know Fr. Jonathan on his ConciliarAnglican blog wants to assert the 39 Articles are classically Anglican, with its "quasi-Lutheran-in-soteriology, Calvinist in Sacramentology" consensus at the core, but the truth is that Anglicanism often is anything but..., especially in its glory days under the Caroline divines like Jeremy Taylor or William Law (It was actually much more "Arminian" and focused on holiness, asceticism, even moralism, and largely disinterested in justification).

 

[ebia]

However, you will come across other Anglican churches that do not exposit, .

I don't think exposit is a word; the verb is expound.

 

[Rurik]

I don't think exposit is a word; the verb is expound.

exposit - definition of exposit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Exposit | Define Exposit at Dictionary.com

 

[ebia]

exposit - definition of exposit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Exposit | Define Exposit at Dictionary.com

It doesn't exist in my (electronic ) Macquarie, or the online Oxford.

"Dictionary.com" seems to rely heavily on old editions of Websters, which (a) aren't very good and (b) are American.

 

[Rurik]

It doesn't exist in my (electronic ) Macquarie, or the online Oxford.

"Dictionary.com" seems to rely heavily on old editions of Websters, which (a) aren't very good and (b) are American.

Just because it is not in the resource that you think is good does not mean you can treat somebody like an A-R-S-E [CF this is not a profanity] and publicly put them down for using a word that a suitable definition can be goggled in 30 sec.

 

[ebia]

Just because it is not in the resource that you think is good does not mean you can treat somebody like an A-R-S-E [CF this is not a profanity] and publicly put them down for using a word that a suitable definition can be goggled in 30 sec.

I wouldn't take google or dictionary.com as being an authorative guide to whether it's a real word. I tend to trust a good quality established dictionary like the OED, Collins, Macquarie,...

Saying "I don't think that's a word" is not treating anybody as an anything.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It doesn't exist in my (electronic ) Macquarie, or the online Oxford.

"Dictionary.com" seems to rely heavily on old editions of Websters, which (a) aren't very good and (b) are American.

Exposit is definitely a word.

 

[ebia]

Exposit is definitely a word.

Perhaps it is in US English but not in British or Australian. As I've noted, it's not in the premier British or Australian dictionaries.

 

[Rurik]

I wouldn't take google or dictionary.com as being an authorative guide to whether it's a real word. I tend to trust a good quality established dictionary like the OED, Collins, Macquarie,...

Saying "I don't think that's a word" is not treating anybody as an anything.

You are treating other members as if they are stupid.

Also authoritative or not, those two websites show the word in use and with meaning.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Perhaps it is in US English but not in British or Australian. As I've noted, it's not in the premier British or Australian dictionaries.

And it is in the Random House and Princeton Dictionaries, so that's probably true. Although nothing I've found indicates that it is particularly American. Will do more research.

 

[Liberasit]

If it helps keep the peace, I'll happily be called stupid. It's better than being called a moron, after all.

Now, let's get back to the OP's very interesting question.

 

[Liberasit]

If it helps keep the peace, I'll happily be called stupid. It's better than being called a moron, after all.

Now, let's get back to the OP's very interesting question.

 

[Albion]

It doesn't seem to me that the term "Classical Anglican" is used very much these days, but if it is, I'd think it has to refer to accepting the 39 Articles, and in their original sense. Possibly something more than that, but at least that.

 

[MKJ]

It has nothing to do with music.

I would not have attached it to being evangelical either, certainly not in the more recent sense.

I would say it refers to the more traditional streams of Anglican belief and practice. So what you might think of as either traditional High or Low Church, or more protestant along the lines of traditional Lutheranism, or coming out of the Celtic/catholic/Oxford movement tradition.

It would tend to exclude liberal anglo-catholic, charismatic/evangelical, some of the particularly modern American expressions, and Anglo-papists, and anything that might be described as post-modern.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It would tend to exclude liberal anglo-catholic, charismatic/evangelical, some of the particularly modern American expressions, and Anglo-papists, and anything that might be described as post-modern.

That's how I understand the term: not hammering things down precisely, but setting up a general border that excludes the extremes. You know, like Anglicanism has classically (and wisely) done.

 

[Rurik]

It doesn't seem to me that the term "Classical Anglican" is used very much these days, but if it is, I'd think it has to refer to accepting the 39 Articles, and in their original sense. Possibly something more than that, but at least that.

I would say that and expand on it with being tolerant of different styles of worship while maintaining the theology of them at the core.

 

[Yardstick]

Classical Anglicanism is whatever I am.

 

[ebia]

You are treating other members as if they are stupid.

No I'm not.

When did you become so politically correct that someone querying what they think is a mistake in language is equivalent to calling somebody stupid?

Also authoritative or not, those two websites show the word in use and with meaning.

So language now is reduced to whatever (mis)use one can find on Google?