High Church, Broad Church, Low Church? A mix?

[Raphael Jauregui]

Being new to the group, I am curious to see how people identify. In my own congregation, we have a 'low church' or 'evangelical' praise service on Sunday early morning and we have two Rite II traditional masses later in the morning as well as a charismatic service on Wedsenday. How do you identify? Do you identify as being a mix of multiple wings of the Anglican Church?

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm an Anglo-Catholic, but when it comes to churchmanship I tend towards the higher end of broad.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I particularly chose my parish because it is High Church. It is Anglo-Catholic.

I am unsure what "Liberal Catholic" means in the context of this poll.

 

[Paidiske]

I have benefited from a number of different strands of Anglicanism, and as a result, I don't particularly identify with any of them. My position on the breadth of Anglicanism is that our diversity is a source of strength, resilience, and adaptability, and that we should nurture that diversity and hold it in trust for those who come after us.

Right now I work across two parishes, one which I'd call broad evangelical and the other more Anglo-Catholic. I enjoy having a foot in two worlds in that way.

 

[PloverWing]

I learned a new term this evening, in answering your poll: "Liberal Catholic". I'm sympathetic to a lot of Anglo-Catholicism -- I like lots of ceremony, I like the way the 1979 (American) Prayer Book moved the liturgy in a more Catholic direction, and I think the Oxford Movement was a very positive reform in the church. At the same time, I disagree with many Anglo-Catholics, in that I firmly support female clergy and the inclusion of LGBT people as full members of the church. A Google search tells me that "Liberal Catholic" may be the appropriate term for my combination of sacramental and liberal theology. Also, I think I now have my summer theology reading list.

Broad church too, of course. My parish has some members who came from Evangelical Protestantism, some who came from Roman Catholicism, and even a few cradle Episcopalians, and all of it comes together in the mix of our church family. Some of the things we do are "high", some "low"; and we try to make a home for all of us who come through the doors and gather at the Lord's Table.

 

[Arcangl86]

ALso I do think it's worth pointing out that churchmanship and theological orientation aren't the same thing.

 

[Albion]

Being new to the group, I am curious to see how people identify. In my own congregation, we have a 'low church' or 'evangelical' praise service on Sunday early morning and we have two Rite II traditional masses later in the morning as well as a charismatic service on Wedsenday. How do you identify? Do you identify as being a mix of multiple wings of the Anglican Church?

You may have a point here that isn't usually considered. Low church has meant limited ceremony, for example the Holy Communion service according to the BCP but without all the postures and vestments and add-ons borrowed from the Roman Church that characterize High Church services.

But what of the "contemporary" worship services that have appeared in recent decades, including praise bands and charismatic worship services?

I'd say that they don't fit any of the historic categories--High, Low, Broad.

Since you asked, I'm probably to be classified as Low Church, but that's by American standards.

 

[Paidiske]

Traditional "low church" has all but died out where I am. Low church here has come to mean contemporary worship in a particular vein - informal, with little "script" and many charismatic-style songs; preferably outside a traditional church building in something more nondescript (or popular in some other way; one of the biggest Anglican churches in this style in my city is holding its worship meetings in a cinema).

 

[Albion]

Traditional "low church" has all but died out where I am. Low church here has come to mean contemporary worship in a particular vein - informal, with little "script" and many charismatic-style songs; preferably outside a traditional church building in something more nondescript (or popular in some other way; one of the biggest Anglican churches in this style in my city is holding its worship meetings in a cinema).

What a shame.

 

[Paidiske]

I completely agree.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...But what of the "contemporary" worship services that have appeared in recent decades, including praise bands and charismatic worship services?

I'd say that they don't fit any of the historic categories--High, Low, Broad...

I suggest we refer to them as "very very low church." Maybe "Lower than Low." Very low.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's a different ethos. Traditional "low church" could still produce something like Charles Simeon's The Excellency of the Liturgy; this newer movement rejects liturgy, church structures and so forth as being obstacles to the work of the gospel.

I don't know that I have a good word for it; it seeks to be a cultural chameleon, to mimic the context in which the community operates, so that people find it as easy as possible to participate. But actually I think it often doesn't achieve what it's aiming at.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think it's a different ethos. Traditional "low church" could still produce something like Charles Simeon's The Excellency of the Liturgy; this newer movement rejects liturgy, church structures and so forth as being obstacles to the work of the gospel.

I don't know that I have a good word for it; it seeks to be a cultural chameleon, to mimic the context in which the community operates, so that people find it as easy as possible to participate. But actually I think it often doesn't achieve what it's aiming at.

And this is an honest question. How far can such a group or parish go before they are no longer truly Anglican?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

You may have a point here that isn't usually considered. Low church has meant limited ceremony, for example the Holy Communion service according to the BCP but without all the postures and vestments and add-ons borrowed from the Roman Church that characterize High Church services.

But what of the "contemporary" worship services that have appeared in recent decades, including praise bands and charismatic worship services?

I'd say that they don't fit any of the historic categories--High, Low, Broad.

I agree. Low Church has typically implied that the ceremony is relatively austere, but it has not necessarily been a commentary on music. In our church, I would say that the Praise Service, that's what we call it, is closest in approximation to 'Low Church' because the use of vestments is less and there is no procession/recession. But, it really is more 'evangelical.' We also have a charismatic type service on Wed that is focused on the gifts of the Spirit. I don't mean that it is 'Pentecostal' by any means, but there is a laying on of hands. The other two services though are Rite II.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

And this is an honest question. How far can such a group or parish go before they are no longer truly Anglican?

I do not know that there is any liturgical distance that could measure someone's Anglicanism. The Diocese of Sydney, in Australia, for example is well-known to have many congregations that do not wear vestments at all while the Diocese of Perth is Anglo-Catholic with many high church parishes. Very diverse crowd us Anglicans!

 

[Paidiske]

And this is an honest question. How far can such a group or parish go before they are no longer truly Anglican?

Well, now, that's the question we all wrestle with, isn't it?

I guess, officially, if it's still in an authorised form, you could claim it fell within the ambit of Anglicanism...

 

[Arcangl86]

I do not know that there is any liturgical distance that could measure someone's Anglicanism. The Diocese of Sydney, in Australia, for example is well-known to have many congregations that do not wear vestments at all while the Diocese of Perth is Anglo-Catholic with many high church parishes. Very diverse crowd us Anglicans!

I disagree. Anglicans have always been defined by how we do worship. That's why it is so difficult to edit the Book of Common Prayer. If a worship service is not distinguishable from a evangelical worship service or a Roman mass, what makes it Anglican?

 

[Philip_B]

I disagree. Anglicans have always been defined by how we do worship. That's why it is so difficult to edit the Book of Common Prayer. If a worship service is not distinguishable from a evangelical worship service or a Roman mass, what makes it Anglican?

Anglicans at worship have traditionally embraced a certain orthopraxy. This has loosely been described as all things decently and in order. I believe we will be well served by recovering something of this, rather than the ongoing battle over the rubber band with each declaring that they can pull it this far. The purpose of the 39 Articles and the Elizabethan Settlement was to establish an understanding of the Church where each loyal and faithful subject could be bound to Christ and Monarch. We have never been one in opinion, but we have to date been one in Christ. It is the challenge of these days.

 

[Shane R]

I suggest we refer to them as "very very low church." Maybe "Lower than Low." Very low.

That is exactly what an ACC priest told me about anyone who does not celebrate from the Missal.

 

[Albion]

I think it's a different ethos. Traditional "low church" could still produce something like Charles Simeon's The Excellency of the Liturgy; this newer movement rejects liturgy, church structures and so forth as being obstacles to the work of the gospel.

Exactly what I would have said. I know that the comment by "seeking.IAM" was lighthearted, but that kind of worship is a different breed altogether...or so I think.