A Call to Recover Reformed Anglicanism

Now that I am “somewhat retiring,” my wife and I have been seeking a community with which to align and share a life. Having presided, preached, taught and catechized in numerous local churches, I knew that there would be very few options available to us. Nevertheless, narrowing down our search to five “local” Anglican or Episcopal offerings, we were shocked. While each church claimed Anglican history and heritage, they were either too “Liberal,” too “Anglo-Vineyard” (without a Book of Common Prayer), too “Anglo-Reformed” (also without a Book of Common Prayer) or too “Anglo-Catholic” where, I was told, they do things just because they seem to be the “Catholic” thing to do. After some time, we finally stumbled upon a Reformed church that, quite oddly, uses the Book of Common Prayer and offers the Daily Offices online for parishioners and friends. Recently joking with a Reformed Episcopal Church Canon-Theologian, and friend, I told him that it is infuriating to have to “leave” the Anglican Church in order to find an Anglican church.

This should not and must not be. To be an Anglican, to be a Reformed Episcopalian, means something! If we are claiming an identity, as we must, we need to live that identity. We must let our “yes” be “yes” and our “no” be “no” without any dissembling of language or distractions in or distortions of liturgy. And there must be absolutely no compunction about standing up and speaking out about our essential identity.

But I wonder if Reformed Anglicanism has lost some of its spark? I wonder, at times, if we are actually manifesting the Episcopal and Evangelical-Reformed perspectives of Bishops J. C. Ryle, George David Cummins or others of a far more Reformed persuasion? I wonder whether we actually cherish and nurture the Evangelical, Episcopal and Reformed heritage that birthed us, bounded us and broadened us?

So, how do we keep the flame of Reformed Anglicanism burning?

Reformed Episcopalians Are Reformed

Although Reformed Episcopalians may not be as Reformed as we once were, and while recognizing that some development has occurred, we must at least acknowledge the Reformed emphasis of historic Anglicanism, and not subscribe to doctrines or disciplines contrary to Cranmer, Cummins, or the foundational documents of reformational Anglicanism. Although we must always be reforming, seeking to reform and conform our lives and our practices according to Christ, canon and creeds, we are also responsible to uphold our confession—the Articles of Religion which made and make Reformed Anglicans who and what we foundationally are.

As I have examined Anglicanism over the past thirty years, and the many unfortunate shifts that have occurred during these decades, it has become apparent that many Anglicans often err over the extremes. Some become so Low Church that the Book of Common Prayer is almost entirely abandoned, and even the Daily Offices are no longer required of ordained clergy. On the other hand, I have also experienced such High churchmanship that I have uncharitably wondered about whether these clerics are only “Catholics in drag.” Too High and Too Low are not the Reformed Anglican way. They are not, in their extremes, Anglican.

The reasoning behind each extreme mirrors the other. One side wants to compromise in order to accommodate contemporary “missional” initiatives— throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The other group is so anxious to preserve the myth of Branch Catholicity that they become too Catholic to actually be catholic—and thus embrace a Hyper Anglo-Catholicism that shrilly answers the Hyper-Reformed Anglicans on the opposite side of the Anglican nave. Neither of these extremes represent entirely reasonable or responsible forms of Anglicanism.

Reformed Anglicans Are Biblical

This should be a given, but in fact it isn’t. I recently had a conversation with an Episcopal priest who insisted that the only way to preserve Anglican Christian orthodoxy was to memorialize and institute the priorities, principles, and practices of Anglo-Catholicism in his parish. Discussing this with him, I pointed out a number of clear contemporary (not to mention historic) examples that contradicted his claim. The priest’s response was telling: He had absolutely no response. Apparently, at least in my opinion, he wanted his claim to be true, so, without any concrete examples, he thought that his assertion was accurate just because he thought that it was accurate.

But there is more. Following a presentation about the Canon of Scripture, I spoke with another priest about the internal inconsistencies of his presentation. During his presentation, and this within minutes, this particular cleric said that the early church was careful about canonicity. (I entirely agree.) Then, a few minutes later, he then said that he did not really think that biblical authorship (and thus authority) mattered because the church ultimately decided what was canonical or was not canonical. Again, with this particular pastor, I also pointed out the inconsistency of his statements and also the problems associated with his misapplied understanding of tradition. But he had absolutely nothing to say in his defense.

Reformed Anglicans have always appreciated and enjoyed proper tradition. Like any orthodox Anglican, we must. But Reformed Anglicans are biblical Christians first, foremost and finally. Our “go to” is not what Augustine or Chrysostom or Jerome said, but, most importantly, we are concerned with what God has said. What is written? What does the Bible say? Put differently, although requiring significant nuancing, Reformed Anglicans begin the theological enterprise with the Bible and not with the early Patristic Fathers, the Schoolmen or German Higher Critics. We embrace biblical theology before entertaining or embracing any ecclesiological, systematic, or historic theological program.

Considering how very swiftly our culture, our country and our churches are abandoning biblical Christianity, it is essential that Reformed Anglicans stand firmly upon the absolute authority of Scripture alone. For me and my house, “Give me biblical Christianity, or give me death” is essential and non-negotiable. Let us not be divisive or divided upon this, for this will tread upon both the Apostolic Witness and the essential nature of what it means to be an Anglican. Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us.

Reformed Anglicans Are Evangelical

I recently gave a series of lectures at a Roman Catholic church on the topic of “What is Evangelicalism?” Focusing upon distinctions, not definitions, I sought to outline what an Evangelical is and what evangelicalism isn’t. Given our country’s reactionary stance to anything Evangelical, my approach was simply to outline the history of the word Evangelical from the first through the twenty-first centuries—which, of course, took more than one presentation.

Briefly and broadly unpacking the history of this word and its practice, I asserted that historic Evangelicalism, which is essentially biblical Evangelicalism, emphasizes four priorities. Evangelicalism asserts:

The evangel, the proclamation of Jesus Christ who died for our sins and was raised for our justification,

The protestant perspectives and priorities that shaped the sixteenth and early-to-mid seventeenth century English Reformations,

The Wesleyan-Anglican pietism of the First Great American Awakening of the seventeenth century, and

The page-centered and “essentials” focused resistance that was embraced by American Fundamentalists in their objections to the dangerous theological deconstructionism of the “Liberals.”

Historically, evangelical Christianity had little to do with politics, philosophies or contemporary sociological projects, but, instead, focused upon the absolute imperative of knowing Jesus Christ and his saving, sanctifying, and glorifying works as found in and through Holy Writ and the means of grace.

Orthodox Anglicans, and Reformed Anglicans especially, are centered upon and called to emphasize these non-negotiable priorities. Biblical Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, is the Christianity of any truly reformed and reforming Anglican. When we consider the departure of Bishop George David Cummins from the Protestant Episcopal Church to form the Reformed Episcopal Church, as one example, the issue of retaining Evangelical Protestant priorities was central. The founding of the REC was a Declaration of Independence, of sorts, clearly aligning us with historic biblical Christianity within the Reformed and Evangelical Episcopal tradition. At the center of the REC logo is a Bible with the Alpha and Omega at its center. Christ, cross, canon, creed, confession define, determine, declare and defend the Reformed Episcopal revolution.

Reformed Episcopalians Are Liturgical

When I use the word liturgical, I am referencing the entire Book of Common Prayer. Reformed Anglicans especially, and faithful Anglicans more generally, are Prayer Book Anglicans. Although we are, technically speaking, people of the word, we are also people of two books: The Bible and the Prayer Book. And, as the Book of Common Prayer is so Bible-infused and Bible-inspired, it is almost impossible (exaggerating a bit) to separate them.

On my journey from being a commissioned Lutheran (and serving as a pastor for a decade) to being an ordained Anglican (where I served for many years), the very first task I undertook was to ask and answer the question “Is the Book of Common Prayer biblical?” This may seem very odd, but as I came from a Lutheran tradition that was militantly biblical and decidedly creedal, but only modestly liturgical, I needed to be meticulous in my examination. In short order I was convinced that Prayer Book Christianity is, in many ways, biblical Christianity—again exaggerating but a little. Since that time, and due to my location, travels and the company I celebrate, I have utilized the 1662, 1928, 1962 Canadian, the 2006 REC and 2019 ACNA versions of the Prayer Book. And the Prayer Book has enriched my life eternally. It has shaped who I am, how I think, what I do and why I do it. It has become the essential poetry of my life.

But I wonder if we are not seriously compromising our Anglican history and heritage and, in fact, sacrificing our inherent birthright for a pathetic “mess of porridge?” Certainly, I can readily say that we memorialize the Book of Common Prayer. I have no doubt about this. And yet, when I cast my exceptionally limited look at certain aspects of our assertions and alliances, I question whether we are “giving in” instead of “standing up.” Should we not be far more circumspect—concisely canonical, clearly creedal, boldly confessional and unabashedly liturgical—in our attitudes, actions, and alliances? I think so. If we even casually examine our Prayer Books, and honestly unpack the priorities and principles of Reformed Anglicans, would we be found wanting, or would we be found truly witnessing to our historic identity, purpose and direction?

In an age of compromising ecumenism, my insistence upon identity may sound rather rigid. And it may, indeed, be! There is a price exacted upon any Anglican / Episcopalian today who self-identifies as a Reformed or Evangelical Anglican. The “tax” is at best marginalization or, at worst, it is being maligned and, possibly, functionally defrocked. Nevertheless, if we are going to be “taxed” for our chosen alliances and allegiances, let us at least be taxed while identifying ourselves for who we actually and factually and functionally are as Reformed Anglican advocates! Reformed Episcopalians have been unduly “taxed” by both questionable Anglo-Catholic history and by “Anglo-Vineyard” histrionics—and in both cases we have paid an un-pretty penny for it. True Anglicanism is neither affected or accidental. It is chosen. It is a choice of conviction.

When I was a teenager, I sat in the pew of two celebrated historic Episcopal figures: George Washington and Robert E. Lee. It gave me great joy to see their seats. It gave me joy to sit where these men sat, although I disagreed with one of their political associations. As might be expected, neither Washington nor Lee were there. They were gone. They had died well over a century-and-a-half (or more) before I arrived. But here is the rub: If I were to sit among my Anglican brethren in the same pew today, would I recognize them as inheritors of a decidedly and decisively Protestant and Reformed Evangelical vision?