The Sign of the Cross and Anglicanism

[Paidiske]

So are you saying the sign of the cross was controversial in Anglicanism?

Yes.

Naomi, I guess I learned by watching other people, and - at various times - deciding that I also found it helpful for my own worship. I'm inconsistent about it, though.

 

[JamieRedheadUK]

We were taught about it in my CofE Sunday school as a child.

 

[JamieRedheadUK]

And as a part of confirmation we were taught to perform it as part of receiving communion.

 

[everbecoming2007]

What I have always wondered is how people learn to do this? I did not learn it in confirmation classes, and we don’t teach it to our children in their classes.

It has always bewildered me.

The sign of the cross is one of the first things I was taught by my priest when I was being prepared to receive baptism, confirmation, and first eucharist.

I was also taught by him how to recite the Daily Office, say the Stations of the Cross, and how to use Anglican prayer beads. He introduced me to C.S. Lewis as well.

I have learned through this forum and through my reading that there are very different emphases in Anglicanism. The priest that mentored me through my period of preparation identified as an "evangelical catholic."

 

[Paidiske]

I didn't learn to say the daily office properly until I was an ordination candidate.

The other things you mention I wasn't taught at all, I either picked them up for myself or not. Still don't really know much about the stations of the cross!

When I was preparing for baptism, my priest's main concern was that I was able to understand and agree with the Apostles' Creed, and had a genuine sense of committing myself to God for life.

By the time I got around to being confirmed, I was in seminary, and had this bizarre conversation with the college chaplain that went something like,
"I just got a high distinction for Introduction to Theology, do I really need confirmation classes?" "Probably not, but let's meet and talk about how you feel about it all."
Which was actually really helpful, because I couldn't understand why the church was, in effect, asking me to make my baptismal promises over again, and I felt that they were sort of treating them as not proper or valid. In the end we agreed that committing yourself to a church community means committing to its quirks and silly requirements as well as all its richness and grace!

 

[gordonhooker]

What I have always wondered is how people learn to do this? I did not learn it in confirmation classes, and we don’t teach it to our children in their classes.

It has always bewildered me.

I grew up in the then Church of England (later the Anglican Church of Australia) using the 1662 BCP and the sign of the cross was taught to us as children.

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

Not even the priest?

No. It isn't an evangelical thing. Far too close to Rome for many of them!

 

[Paidiske]

Interesting! Here even the most evangelical clergy would use it, say, at the absolution or benediction.

Edit: Come to think of it, that might be more true of more mature-aged evangelical clergy than the younger ones more recently ordained. I'm not sure...

 

[seeking.IAM]

As you know, I was a late arrival from Methodism where the sign of the cross had not been part of my tradition. My Episcopal parish is quite Anglo-Catholic, high church. Genuflecting, bowing, and making the sign of the cross are pervasive although not used by everyone. The sign of the cross was not discussed in my adult confirmation class. I learned by observation and following the rubrics in the BCP.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Evangelical clergy are not a homogenous group. As with any community, they are on a spectrum.

This could be due to their early church experiences, their experimentation in their teenage and undergraduate years, their theological college, their curacies.

The main thing that evangelical clergy will agree on is the supremacy of scripture. They will have other trappings of church tradition in various degrees. Evangelicals promote Scripture, Reason and Tradition, in that order.

I doubt that age is a strong factor, and if it is, the elder members are likely to be more on the reformed end, IME.

In our parish system here, a parish church has to minister to the whole parish, and there is going to be the full spectrum of the Christian Faith. If a new curate, from a reformed experience, were to arrive in a broad church setting, they would need to change a little bit. That might mean making the sign of the cross at the final blessing. I don’t think they would ever have to cross themselves.

 

[Paidiske]

Age is a big factor here, particularly in our evangelical clergy. There has been a definite shift in how they are formed over time.

So you see older clergy who are evangelical, but use the prayer book, more or less obey its rubrics, and generally conduct services in a low-church but recognisably Anglican style.

And then the younger clergy seem to have shifted to what I think of as a pseudo-Baptist style, where they tend to reject prayer book liturgies and seem to aim to create a worship experience that is not in any sense recognisably Anglican.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Age is a big factor here, particularly in our evangelical clergy. There has been a definite shift in how they are formed over time.

So you see older clergy who are evangelical, but use the prayer book, more or less obey its rubrics, and generally conduct services in a low-church but recognisably Anglican style.

And then the younger clergy seem to have shifted to what I think of as a pseudo-Baptist style, where they tend to reject prayer book liturgies and seem to aim to create a worship experience that is not in any sense recognisably Anglican.

Our main services are the former of what describe, but we also have non-liturgical (“spirit-led”) services. Clergy are the same in both types.

I have been to some churches (big city evangelical, eg Holy Trinity Brompton in London, and Ps & Gs in Edinburgh), where the congregation don’t respond to liturgy, but there is liturgy there nonetheless, as in a formal order and structure to the service.

These are Anglican churches, so what they do is Anglican.

 

[Paidiske]

Non liturgical services? I thought you said your church only used authorised liturgies?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Non liturgical services? I thought you said your church only used authorised liturgies?

I think if you look at Common Worship, there is a huge amount of creativity allowed. They also only require you to use the relatively formal liturgy for the main service of the day.

We have four services, with differing degrees of formality. Our least formal services are 90% repeat customers, those who have already been to one of the morning services. Once a month, we have communion at this service, so automatically more formal liturgically.

This is part of Fresh Expressions. It is not meant to replace traditional worship services, but to enhance our overall access to our community, and to make Christ known to those who have no upbringing in church.

We also do Messy Church.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I'm not going to judge that. But it's probably helpful, in our discussions here, if you realise that non-liturgical spirit-led services are not actually authorised liturgies, by definition.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Well, I'm not going to judge that. But it's probably helpful, in our discussions here, if you realise that non-liturgical spirit-led services are not actually authorised liturgies, by definition.

What is the legal stance, when this is the fourth service of the day?

And what if it is called a Celebration rather than a worship service?

 

[Paidiske]

What is the legal stance, when this is the fourth service of the day?

And what if it is called a Celebration rather than a worship service?

What service of the day it is, doesn't matter. It's either an authorised liturgy, or it isn't.

Calling it a "celebration" is just semantics.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Well, Fresh Expressions is an authorised form of Church of England worship, end of.

What about a church such as HTB, that follows a set structure for a service (drawn from Common Worship) but does not have a lot of congregational response? Is this liturgical in your book?

 

[Paidiske]

I understood Fresh Expressions to be a movement, not a liturgy.

The question isn't "Is this liturgical?" Arguably any corporate act of worship is, in some way, liturgical.

The question is, "Is this an authorised liturgy?" And if HTB takes something from Common Worship and changes it (by omitting congregational responses), then no, it's not an authorised liturgy.

You don't get to amend things, change the words, insert or remove bits (except as allowed by the rubrics), and then say "But it's authorised!" Because it's not the form that was authorised any more, then.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I understood Fresh Expressions to be a movement, not a liturgy.

The question isn't "Is this liturgical?" Arguably any corporate act of worship is, in some way, liturgical.

The question is, "Is this an authorised liturgy?" And if HTB takes something from Common Worship and changes it (by omitting congregational responses), then no, it's not an authorised liturgy.

You don't get to amend things, change the words, insert or remove bits (except as allowed by the rubrics), and then say "But it's authorised!" Because it's not the form that was authorised any more, then.

If you look at Common Worship, Service of the Word, you can do just about anything. It has to have certain elements - greeting, confession, readings, sermon, affirmation, intercessions, Lord’s Prayer. Some of these elements can be incorporated in the songs.