What it means to be Anglican

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

After Ian T. Douglas, bishop of the Connecticut diocese, spoke about the Anglican Communion, our group huddled to reflect and process on what we heard. Our conversation revolved around two foci: the historical presentation we were given about Anglicanism, and the present form of the Anglican Communion.

Students appreciated how Douglas described the current situation within the Anglican Communion. His optimism and conviction that differences can be generative (not merely destructive) resonated profoundly. One student, for instance, found it comforting to hear the current conflict in the Anglican Communion framed in these hopeful terms, because in her own denomination the internal differences are currently polarizing the church. Additionally, she added, “I liked how he described the current situation. It is not something new. These people [differences] have always been here, but now they have a voice.”

Another student chimed in, “I am really surprised that the Anglican Communion has pulled this off, that they have become an international body. They seem so firmly rooted in England!” He went on to share his bewilderment that a tradition that seems so bound to its liturgical form could appeal across so many cultures. “I can see how more expressive forms of Christianity cross cultural boundaries, but Anglicanism? That just really surprises me.”

These comments drew out a lengthy discussion about what it means to be an Anglican. The lecturer had stated that it is the liturgy, the worship, within the Anglican Communion that is universally recognizable. It is not a confession or a hierarchical structure that provides unity, but the liturgy. Not everyone was convinced. One student observed, “In Korea, the Anglican Church takes a very ‘high church’ approach, but in Japan it is a very ‘low church’ style of worship.” How, then, are these two churches united in their form of worship? One student asked, “If it is the liturgy that unites the Anglican Communion, does that mean that they are not united on doctrine?” In other words, he explained, is Anglicanism about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy? To all of these problems, students offered tentative solutions, but it became clear that the one hour with Rev. Dr. Douglas had been insufficient. Many things remained unanswered.

The final turn in the conversation revolved around Douglas’ telling of the history of Anglicanism. He had emphasized, strongly, that Anglicanism was born out of the desire for the catholic faith to take on a contextual form. The universal church needed to be expressed in an English medium. When it spread to other parts of the world during the 18th and 19th centuries, therefore, and managed only to reproduce English style congregations, the Anglican Church was unfaithful to its own originating impulse. This was a very attractive way of telling the story, and perfectly set the stage for the current diversity within the Anglican Communion. However, there was suspicion among the students that such a story was more propaganda than history. Could it be, one wondered, that the church in fact emphasized unity over diversity not only through the 18th and 19th centuries, but from the beginning? Is it only now, when suddenly England and the United States are not comfortable with the theological positions of the rest of the Communion, that they so loudly trumpet diversity? Is this revisionist history to fit their agenda? It was a sharp series of questions on which to end. For answers to such questions, more reading and reflection will need to be done.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator