The Conundrum of Anglican Identity

By Robin G. Jordan

A perennial issue in the Anglican Church is what is the real identity of the Anglican Church. Is it Protestant? Is Its Catholic? Is it a “middle way” between Protestantism and Catholicism? Or as a popular view in the Anglican Church in North America maintains, is it a convergence of Catholicism, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism? Let’s take a brief look at the history of the Anglican Church and what it tells us about Anglican Church’s identity?

Long before Great Britain was invaded and occupied by the Roman legions, traders from the ancient Mediterranean world had visited its shores and traded with its inhabitants. In all likelihood Christianity made its way to what would become England and Wales over these trade routes from Spain and North Africa during the earliest days of Christianity. An indigenous church was eventually established.

A British delegation attended the Council of Arles in 314. This delegation included three bishops, a presbyter, and a deacon. At this time a number of churches existed within the sphere of influence of the Western Roman Empire—churches that had their own doctrines and practices. What influence the bishop of Rome had over these churches was to large extent derived from his position as bishop of the church in the capitol of the Western Roman Empire. It was not the kind of relationship that he would have with the churches in Europe and the British Isles in later times. Since most of the inhabitants of Great Britain at that time were Celts, this indigenous church may be described as the Celtic Church.

The Celtic Church flourished in what would become England and Wales until the invasion of the pagan Low German tribes—the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, and the Frisians—at the beginning of the fifth century. It would evangelize Ireland—what would prove an important step of the re-evangelization of England and the evangelization of Scotland after this invasion. The Low German tribes established several independent kingdoms which were gradually Christianized. Augustine’s much touted mission to one of the Saxon kingdoms played a very small role in this process.

Anglo-Saxon Church found the practices of the Church of Rome more congenial than those of the Celtic Church. The Church of Rome was more worldly. Bishops were not expected to take a vow of poverty. They might own lands and thralls. The Roman rite was not as prolix as the Celtic rite. The Anglo-Saxon Church would increasingly fall under the influence of the Church of Rome and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The Norman conquest of England would reinforce the authority of the pope in England.

From the Norman conquest to the English Reformation the relationship of the English Church with the pope had its ups and downs. The English were willing to recognize the primacy of the pope in ecclesiastical affairs as long as he did not interfere in their domestic affairs. The profligacy of the clergy, monks and nuns; the leniency of the church courts toward clergy and religious who committed crimes; the appointment of foreign bishops, the meddling of the pope in English politics, and a number of other issues would cause the English people to become increasingly resentful toward the pope. One of the reasons that the English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta was that he had sworn fealty to the pope as his feudal lord.

In the sixteenth century John Wycliffe who is recognized as an important precursor to Protestantism would attack the privileged status of the clergy, monasticism, and papal authority in England. He recognized the Bible as the sole authority in matters of faith and practice and was involved in efforts to translate the Bible into English. He sparked the Lollard movement, a proto-Protestant movement whose adherents were derisively referred to as “Bible men.” Wycliffe’s writings would greatly influence the Bohemian reformer and martyr, Jan Hus, whose own writings would influence Martin Luther.

While Henry VIII broke with the pope over his refusal to annual Henry’s marriage to his first wife, he was a staunch Roman Catholic. Although he had himself declared supreme head of the English Church, he permitted very few reforms in the English Church. He did authorize the translation of the Great Litany into English and subsequently allowed the translation of the Bible into English. What is noteworthy is that his only son, Edward VI, was instructed by Protestant tutors. The English Reformation did not begin in earnest until his death.

The English Reformation went through an Edwardian phase and an Elizabethan phase. The Edwardian phase was interrupted by the untimely death of the young King Edward VI from tuberculosis and the ascension of his staunch Roman Catholic older sister Mary. Mary sought to stamp out Protestantism in her realm. But the testimonies of the common people martyred for their Protestant faith showed that it has taken deep roots in the hearts of a large segment of the English population.

Mary’s reign was short-lived. Upon her death from an ovarian tumor her younger sister Elizabeth would ascend the English throne.

Elizabeth had been raised a Protestant. During her reign the English Reformation would make immense strides. The religious settlement that was reached during Elizabeth’s long reign would shape the Church of England and her daughter churches well into the nineteenth century and continues to shape the Anglican Church to this day where it is honored.

At the heart of the Elizabethan Settlement are three formularies—the Book of Common Prayer of 1559, essentially the Edward VI’s Prayer Book of 1552; the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, based upon the Forty-Two Articles of 1553; and the two Books of Homilies, those written during Edward VI’s reign and those written in Elizabeth’s reign. They form its doctrinal core, a core which is both Protestant and Reformed.

One may sometimes hear or read the claim that the Elizabethan Settlement was a compromise between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. An argument which is made in support of this claim is that the Church of England retained a number of pre-Reformation practices and the retention of these practices is evidence of unreformed Catholic tradition within historic Anglicanism.

Among these practices the use of a fixed liturgy incorporating pre-Reformation elements and episcopacy are singled out as proof of such a tradition. But those making this argument fail to mention that a number of the continental reformed churches (and not just the Lutheran churches) used fixed liturgies that incorporated these elements (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed). Continental reformed theologians such as Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin were not entirely opposed to the government of the church by bishops.

The bishops of the reformed Church of England were state functionaries. Their election required the authorization of the Queen as the supreme governor of the English Church and the Queen herself was their sole nominator. The ecclesiastical government of the Church of England was modeled upon that of the Swiss reformed churches, the exception being the Church of Geneva. In these churches the magistrates of the Swiss city-state of a church appointed the pastors of the church and the pastors, in turn, served as the conscience of the magistrate. In the case of the reformed Church of England the Queen replaced the magistrate of the Swiss city-state.

The reformed Church of England also enjoyed the recognition of the continental reformed churches as a Protestant and Reformed church. This fact is often obscured by the conflicts between the two reformed parties within the English Church. One party was satisfied with the reforms that had been made during Elizabeth’s reign. The other party, however, wanted to move the English Church further in the direction of the Church of Geneva in its practices and governance. Both parties were Protestant and Reformed in their doctrine. The Genevan party wanted to make changes in the liturgy of the English Church and to replace the Erastian form of governance with a presbyterian form of governance. Among its aims was to establish a theocracy in England.

The reign of Charles I saw the emergence of a Protestant High Church party in the Church of England. The emergence of this party can be attributed to a reaction to the bareness of the worship that the English Church had inherited from the Elizabethan period and what were perceived as the extreme views of the presbyterian wing of the English Church. Other factors that contributed to its emergence was a fascination with the Patristic writers and what were believed to be the practices of the primitive Church. The Caroline High Churchmen were also characterized by a penchant for ritualism. This party, like Charles himself, embraced the doctrine of the divine right of kings. As a consequence it would enjoy the royal favor and patronage. Under the leadership of Archbishop William Laud the Caroline High Churchmen would make a number of changes in the worship and architecture of the English Church. These changes, however, were not popular with the common people. They met with strong opposition from the successors to the Genevan party.

The Caroline High Churchmen were influenced by the writings of Hugo Grotius, a disciple of Jacob Arminius. The result was the introduction of Arminianism into English Protestantism. But as in the case of English Protestantism, it would acquire a distinct character of its own. At the same time the Caroline High Churchmen, with a few notable exceptions, subscribed to the Articles of Religion. While their critics accused them of papalism, they were anti-Roman Catholic as their defense of the Church of England during their exile on the continent in the wake of Charles’ execution would prove. Only a very small number of Caroline High Churchmen would become Roman Catholics during that time.

I do not believe that we can dismiss the desire to be part of something new, something different, as a factor which caused younger clergy to gravitate toward what is sometimes referred to as Laudianism. This factor may also account for why subsequent generations of Anglican clergy have gravitated toward Anglo-Catholicism, theological liberalism, Pentecostalism, and more recently “three streams, one river” theology.

The most lasting impact that the Caroline High Churchmen have upon historic Anglicanism was the Restoration Ordinal and Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal of 1661 and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662. The Restoration bishops who revised the Ordinal and the Prayer Book were for the most part Laudians. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, however, is a very conservative revision of the 1559 Prayer Book. It forms together with the 1661 Ordinal, the Articles of Religion, and the two Books of Homilies the historic formularies of the Anglican Church.

The Arminianism of the Caroline High Churchmen, however, would not replace the Reformed theology of the Elizabethan Settlement as the dominant theology of the Church of England. Reformed bishops and theologians would maintain a robust presence in the English Church following the Restoration and ably defended the Articles of Religion, historic Anglicanism’s confession of faith, from an Arminian reinterpretation. In 1688 the Coronation Oath Act settled the question of what is the official faith of the Church of England. It is not just Protestant, it is also Reformed.

From where then did the unreformed Catholic wing of the Anglican Church come? The wing has its roots in the Oxford movement of the early nineteenth century. This movement would give birth to the Romeward movement and the Ritualist movement. These two movements tended to overlap. The Romeward movement sought to remake the Anglican Church into the spitting image of the Roman Catholic Church in hopes that the Bishop of Rome would recognize Anglican orders and welcome the Anglican Church back into the Roman fold. The Ritualist movement not only revived doctrines and practices that the Anglican Church had rejected at the time of the Reformation but also introduced doctrines and practices that originated in the Roman Catholic Church from the Counter Reformation on.

In the Church of England these doctrines and practices were prohibited by law. However, the clergy of Protestant Episcopal Church were faced no such prohibitions. What is now known as the Anglo-Catholic movement would rapidly gain ground in that church. Its growing influence would eventually cause a split in the Protestant Episcopal Church. Conservative evangelicals would leave the church. With their departure the church’s once influential evangelical wing would disappear.

Theological liberalism would make inroads into the two dominant movements in the Protestant Episcopal Church—the Anglo-Catholic movement and the Broad Church movement—from the late nineteenth century on. Its influence, while not pronounced, is discernible in the 1928 Prayer Book.

The charismatic movement did not become an influence in the Anglican Church until the 1960s and 1970s. The 1990s would see an influx of charismatic Christians into the Episcopal Church largely from non-denominational churches. By then the Episcopal Church, uncertain of its identity had dropped “Protestant” from its name. These charismatic Christians were attracted by the Episcopal Church’s worship practices and its 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The emergence of “three streams, one river” theology can be traced to the 1990s.

These movements have tended to overshadow the basic identity of the Anglican Church—Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical. To describe the Anglican Church as a branch of Christianity in which Catholicism, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism have converged does not accurately describe historic Anglicanism. Its central theological tradition is Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical as are its historic formularies. While the Anglo-Catholic movement, the liberal movement, and the charismatic movement may be a dominant influence in a number of its provinces, they are essentially outliers even though they may have gained acceptance in these provinces.

What we see in today’s Anglican Church is the tendency of a segment of the church to treat Anglicanism as if it is Play Doh which can be molded into whatever shape is pleasing to that segment. This tendency is not new. The Arminians sought to reinterpret the Articles of Religion as upholding their beliefs in the seventeenth century. Anglo-Catholics, following in the footsteps of Henry Newman, sought to give the Articles an unreformed Catholic spin in the nineteenth century. These schools of thought were seeking to establish in this manner genuine Anglican credentials for themselves. They were not satisfied to be viewed as latecomers to the table but rather as having had a seat at the table from the very beginning. Indeed, they wanted to be viewed as the only ones who had a rightful place at the table. Everyone else were interlopers.

To accurately describe historic Anglicanism Protestantism, Reformed theology, and evangelicalism of the classical variety must be given a central place in that description. They cannot be pushed to the side or relegated to the role of one theological stream among several traditions represented in Anglicanism. There is room in Anglicanism for differences in secondary matters provided those differences are compatible with Scripture and the historic formularies. Any article, lecture, podcast, or video that does not give a central place to Protestantism, Reformed theology, and evangelicalism in its description of Anglicanism, however, is not providing an accurate description of the Anglican Way. If those who produced the article, lecture, podcast, or video are not comfortable with their centrality, they may need to weigh whether the Anglican Church is the right church for them. I am not suggesting that they leave. Rather I am suggesting that they reappraise their view of the Anglican Church and come to terms with its rich Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical heritage.