(Roman) Catholic? Reformed? Protestant?
Most American evangelicals experience a church world that is either protestant/reformed or catholic. You have to be one or the other. For many ‘catholic’ means “Roman Catholic”; ‘reformed’ means “Calvinist”; ‘Protestant’ means “Not Roman Catholic.” The Orthodox churches are kind of silently off to the side in most of these schemes.
Anglicanism, however, had a unique history that wreaks havoc on these neat labeling systems.
Anglicanism is both Reformed AND Catholic
Anglicans tend to define their church as both catholic and reformational, or both catholic and evangelical. Here’s the fun part though: when we say ‘catholic’ we don’t mean we are “Roman Catholic,” and when we say ‘reformed’ we don’t necessarily mean we are all “Calvinists.”
For example, I have two portraits hanging on the wall in my study. One is a picture of Pope Gregory commissioning Augustine of Canterbury to go to England to establish communion between the Church in England and the catholic church. The other, next to it, is Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, first reformational Archbishop of Canterbury, and a father of the Reform movement.
From L to R: Catholic, Reformed
Both are there, side by side, with no seeming contradiction. I have books on my shelf by John Stott and John Henry Newman. I have a crucifix sitting next to an ESV Study Bible. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and I also believe in the priesthood of all believers.
Confused?
Some Anglican History
A little bit o’ history might help here.
The British Isles are the isles where the Anglican church was originally planted (Anglican comes from the germanic tribe the “Angles”). Christianity came to these Isles at some time in the late first or early second century, possibly along with the Roman army, or through some early eastern/Celtic missionaries. Later, Pope Gregory sent Augustine (Bonus fact: not Augustine of Hippo) to evangelize the British Isles in A.D. 596. Point is, the church in that part of the world came into communion with the catholic (i.e. worldwide) church at that time, but had previously existed.
So when we say we are catholic, we are saying that our church is a continuation of the church in those early days in which the Christian Church was undivided and universal.
Skip ahead a thousand years. Now it’s the Reformation. The Church in England went through a reformation period, initiated in full by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, that was influenced by both Geneva (Calvinists) and Germany (Lutherans). This, plus the next hundred years of arguments, persecutions, wrangling, and disputes shaped a reformed and yet still catholic Anglican church.
Now, the English Reformation was clearly a split with Rome in certain respects. Consider that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion state that
“As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” (Article 19)
“The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” (Article 22)
However, rather than leaving behind the catholic faith and becoming only protestant, the Anglican reformation ended up reforming the existing catholic church in England. This is why Bishops were retained, and priests, along with sacramental theology and liturgy.
It’s fair to say that Anglicans have, on the whole, a stronger sense of the authority of the Church and of church traditions than some other Protestants do. And yet, though the authority and traditions of the Church carry weight within the Anglican tradition, Scripture is clearly recognized as the final arbiter in all matters.
Consider that Article 20 of the Thirty-Nine Articles reads:
Of the Authority of the Church: The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
Eventually, Anglicans sought communion with the Roman church and the Orthodox churches, alongside continuing fellowship with protestant churches. We have something in common with all of these traditions.
Catholic Pope Gregory commissions Augustine in A.D. 596 as Thomas Cranmer (16th c.) looks on with that distinctive Reformed gaze.
And of course, the English ruled the seas and began to colonize the known world. They spread this reformed catholic faith all over the world, not always in nice ways (to put it mildly). The American revolution ended up leading to an Anglican church in the United States that was independent politically, but remained in communion with the Church of England. This ended up being a pattern all over the world during decolonization.
In some phases of its history, the Anglican church has emphasized its protestant or reformed reality and de-emphasized its catholic nature, such as the evangelical revivals of the 18th century. At other times, such as the 19th century Oxford Movement, there has been a revival of the catholic spirituality or vision. But both of these influences have remained.
Maintaining the Anglican Tension
So the Anglican church is a reformed catholic church. We don’t see a fundamental conflict between the words evangelical and catholic, or feel the need to choose between our catholic ancestors and our reformational ones.
This can really mess with the mind of a person who has always thought of these things as polar opposites. For us, though they are often in tension, they are both necessary to retain and to live into.
I know this church history and identity stuff can get confusing. But hey, at least I didn’t try to explain how we also see ourselves as charismatic! (that’s for another day).
Appreciated “Info”, There’s more to the “History”. A study of history of Glastonbury,England, Joseph of Aramathia, and the rest of the book of Acts (29th CH.with it’s Amen) should provide “The rest of “The” Story”! Blessings, DJ
Enjoyed your piece. A lot.
IMHO, the tension you refer to at the end surely exists but should be expressed as: the tension is a creative force, built in by Cranmer and many others, instead of being a negative one. It is necessary to maintaining a healthy if occasionally deeply worrisome and contentious balance between equally important, competing elements. After all, who promised us in its pursuit and application of Anglican understanding in a broken world a neat, tidy, static form of the faith expressed? No one. Our enemy has always been the mistaken, corrupting pursuit of Christ convenient, Christ controlled and Christ comfortable which the evil one dangled before Jesus. Those who discovered the essentials of the Anglican Tradition understood this well, even if they never said so. Their dedicated faith, multifaceted gifts to us and its durable strength against repeated assaults say so, tension, vision and all.
The pain caused by the tension is just weakness leaving our spiritual body.
For us, though they are often in
tension, they are both necessary to retain and to live into.
Thank you. Good point.
Greg,
Something I have realised over the years is that labels mean different things to different people in different places. In answer to your question in your OP, I would say “it depends” on what you mean by the term ‘Catholic’. If you mean it as it is defined in the Apostle Creed, meaning Universal, then I would say yes we are catholic and reformed. However if the term catholic implies thatthe Anglican Church is reformed Catholicism (the middle way between Rome and Geneva),then I disagree. The Anglican Church is protestant and reformed, and the via media is more accurately described as a via media between Martin Luther’s Wittenberg and John Calvin’s Geneva.
Not trying to start an argument, I am just a fellow Anglican Priest from Australia offering a view.
Grace and peace
Joshua
p.s Love your website.
Thank you for sharing that perspective. And thanks for reading! Blessings on your ministry.
This is great, Greg! This is a very confusing thing in a world that likes to divide and draw lines. Thanks for writing it and sharing it again!
I’ve been an Anglican for 6 1/2 years. In that time I’ve had some great teachers who’ve helped me understand Anglicanism.You really summed it up in an easily understood way. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your writings and those of your fellow pastors. I always learn something and I feel like I have a deeper understanding of Anglicanism because of this website. May God bless you all!
Thank you!
Most importantly, where can I get a crucifix like the one in the photo?
I believe that’s a Benedictine cross. They do have them at our local monastery bookstore here.
Great article and quite helpful.
I think the readers comment that the tension of these ways of being faithful precedes the reformation (going back at least to Patrick, Celtic missionaries and such) is also a good one. Though we are and have always been catholic, we’ve not always been Roman.
Sorry to have to disagree but the Anglican Church was thoroughly Protestant from its beginning in 1559 up until the middle of the Nineteenth Century: I’m afraid the historic Catholicity of the Anglican Church is an illusion largely created by Victorian Restorationism. Before that period, Churches were whitewashed and devoid of any adornmenthird apart from a chained Bible and two boards with the.Ten Commandments printed on one, and the Our Father and Apostle Creed on the other. Priests wore no vestments apart from a cassock and surpluses (or rochet if they were a bishop) and an academic scarf. The liturgy was strictly from BCP and couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a Catholic liturgy, and the official doctrine was Calvanist.
Where is your evidence to back up this statement? I would be interested to read it.
True Anglicanism is best described as a reformed church with catholic hierarchy an democratic voting on leaders. To me, the 39 articles are what defines Anglicanism, and those 39 articles defininitely fit within the reformed sphere of churches. For anyone who is interested in learning about what Anglicanism is, I would recommend reading the 39 articles of our faith.
Ditto to John and Simon. There are so many errors here it’s difficult to know where to begin. This article represents the American evangelical romantacism in the ACNA that is not only confused, but contradictory at heart. Being “Anglican” means almost anything you want it to mean because ‘Anglican’ is whatever you throw in the ecclesiastical pot and mix up. It is a ‘choose-your-own-adventure’, which is why you can put an icon next to an iconoclast and quote with approval both Martin Luther and a theologian who rejected Protestantism (Newman) without grimacing. This is not a sign of strength — it is a sign of confusion. We really need to read our primary sources. Can you locate a single Anglican for the first several hundred years after the English reformation(s) that uses the word ‘catholic’ to refer medieval precedents and practices? Even Laud – the highest ‘church’ ever got – was a Protestant. Lancelot Andrewes thought eucharistic adoration was an abomination. John Jewel argued Protestantism is MORE catholic than catholicism. By the early 17th century, the Anglican church was clearly aligned with the continental reformation. The 39 Articles are strongly Calvinistic. There are no scholars or historians who deny this. It is only romanticized evangelical converts who think the Anglican church is the Disney land of the Christian church where every theological dream comes true. Anglicanism has confessional boundaries. Why do ACNA folks convert to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? Its because their ACNA church is a theological playground that plays Roman Catholic dress up.
Greg, the article was very well balanced. You are getting some negative responses from fridge Anglo-calvinists. They think that the AC is just the English version of the continental Calvinist reformed. The retention of the threefold ministry, the rejection of the regulative principle, and falling from grace (article 16)are distinctions from Calvinism. This is not to deny Calvinism’s influence but there are other influences, the AC is it own distinct communion. The Anglo Catholics also have there own fridge in which they reject the reformation and think the AC is the RC without the pope. The 16th century English reformers, the Caroline devines, and the Oxford movement (Pusey not Newman) were much more in harmony that the fridge elements want to concede.
I am disappointed that Anglican Pastor declined to post my comment which was in no way inflammatory or offensive. I provided further evidence of the Protestant and Reformed character of the Anglican Church until the Oxford movement and its spin offs sought to change the identity of the Anglican Church. I suggested that Greg might benefit from further reading as he appeared to have been misinformed regarding the nature of authentic historic Anglicanism. I suggested a number of authors that he would benefit from reading. I also do not understand why Anglican Pastor would permit the posting of a comment in which derogatory terms like “fridge” are used. The use of such terms I believe is not conducive to the kind of discourse that Anglican Pastor seeks to encourage.
Robin, I don’t recall deleting any comments, but if it was a while back I may have?
We are happy to have various perspectives so please feel free to post your original thoughts.
“Christianity came to these Isles at some time in the late first or early second century, possibly along with the Roman army, or through some early eastern/celtic missionaries”. Yes, Britain was already Christian before Augustine arrived. This is surprising to some people. This was Orthodoxy, i.e.ancient Christianity.
http://anglicanconvictions.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/the-fallacy-of-the-three-streams/
I’m fascinated by this notion of “fridge” Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics.
Do the former keep bottles of ale in their fridges, and the latter red wine?
Are they indeed “God’s Chosen Frozen”?
This is a fabulous piece, Greg! As a Calvin scholar and PhD student in Scotland, and a local practicing Anglican, I can attest firsthand and through my studies to the fact that it is a fair portrait of Anglicanism, on both historical and theological grounds, to call it both catholic and reformed, provided those terms are defined charitably, which you undoubtedly do! Well done!
This is the first website I clicked on and after “Start Here” this is the first article and comments I read while beginning to explore RC vs various Protestant sects vs Anglo-Catholic (Anglican?) vs US Episcopal theology and beliefs.
WOW!
I’m still not sure what sets this “North American Anglican” church apart from the Anglican Communion or the
C of E or TEC with AC services, but y’all don’t seem to agree on much…I’ll try to keep reading.
BTW, I do not understand the “fridge” references, but as my intro to “Anglicanism” this was a darn chilly beginning;
perhaps John Wesley left less for his Arminian leaning than for a better clime in which his heart might be “strangely warmed.”
I think this is a correct and fair of what Anglicanism looks like, as a cradle Anglican with a degree in Anglican studies, i attest the article looks like my own understanding
Simply saying Anglicanism is reformed Catholicism partly accepting Protestantism
To start, it appears that someone wanted to say “fringe” and either mistyped or was autocorrected to “fridge.” Reread the first use in the comments above and much will seem clearer. The original post by Greg was both fairer and more informative than most that approach this topic, since many still think the whole subject is covered by some sort of statement to the effect that “The Anglican Church was started by Henry VIII so he could divorce his wife…” This is a horrid oversimplification of a complex situation involving more political aspects than many realize; also, Henry had a real problem that other monarchs had had before him, and had found remedies within the framework of the Roman Catholic church. He did not found a new church, and he did not act alone. Many of the English bishops were sympathetic both with Henry’s problem and with a general feeling of a need for reform. Both parties found that a separation with no supranational hierarchy answered their needs.
I have been Episcopalian for 40 years now, though I was not raised as one. I find that the church’s seeming stance (though not stated) that there are still some things that can’t be answered with simple resort to hierarchy, along with the realization that we are not and never will be perfect, serve just fine as the basis of a lively faith for me!
It concerns me that the invocation of saints (if I understand the usage in the 39 Articles correctly) is condemned. It seems perfectly consistent with Christian history to ask saints to intercede for me. I know St. Jude has been an aid to me many times.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church. I was baptized at six months. My mother (from Australia) was Church of England. My father was Roman Catholic from birth. No problem? The Jesuit priest rudely asked my mother to sign and affirm children to be brought up RC. My mother was appalled. They were both so undone they got married at a Unitarian Church!! To add to the confusion, my father later studied for Holy Orders and was ordained priest. I have always believed the Anglican/Episcopal church was Catholic, as in universal!! Also a little bit Protestant ! (And a little bit Rock and Roll. ). Needless to say as a preachers kid, I grew up confused! Your article clarified a lot.