Low, Broad, or High Church?

[PaladinValer]

So what kind of Anglican/Episcopalian are you?

How would you classify your parish as?

I personally am a High Churcher; I love the smells and bells and all the other stuff that goes with it. I consider the Deuterocanonicals as fully authoritatives, call my priests "father" or "mother," and agree with the idea of transubstantiation in some ways.

My parish is Broad Church; the Mass is still the center theme, but we don't do some of the High Church stuff (like the Gloria or the Doxology). No smells or bells either, but that's okay. :)

The parish I went to while at college was pretty much High Church. The only thing missing was the smells! :P

[TomUK]

At the moment i'm attending two different Anglican churches. In the morning i go to the highest possible anglican church, and in the morning the lowest possible. I must admit i favour a mroe broad church and i have definite leanings towards the higher end of the church, but it's giving me tremendous insight into different aspects of the church. I want to go off to a theological college in the near future and feel that it needed to really explore all the different branches of my faith.

[Colabomb]

At the moment i'm attending two different Anglican churches. In the morning i go to the highest possible anglican church, and in the morning the lowest possible. I must admit i favour a mroe broad church and i have definite leanings towards the higher end of the church, but it's giving me tremendous insight into different aspects of the church. I want to go off to a theological college in the near future and feel that it needed to really explore all the different branches of my faith.
My doctrine is High Church, but I enjoy the Low Church Service my Parish uses. (The 1928 BCP)

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

High. For me in my current state it's excellent. The great thing about ritual is that it depends on what God thinks about me, not what I think about God. The low Charismatic worship I used to be into depended too much on the latter. When me and Him weren't seeing eye to eye, it was impossible.

[Lilac]

I love the high Church too, with "smells and bells" too --and most of all the beautiful magnificent music the choirs sing!!! This is what brought me to the Lord----more than any sermon or homily--it's the music!!!!

But then to be totally on the opposite extreme--I also occasionally attend a very Fundamentalist casual church (not the AC) mid-week --it's very alive in the spirit and they also have great guitar-rock band music which I also love, as well as the minister's message --very applicable to life!!!!

It's good to have a mixture!!!!----I think!!!!

God Bless~~

[Bartimaeus]

I agree. It is good to have a mixture. I go to a moderate-to-high church, but on tuesday nights, we have a service where we sing contemporary worship songs, and you really *FEEL* the Holy Spirit moving and working. There are several people at the church who are very charismatic, and they make up the majority of people at the tuesday night service. :)

[benedictine]

My Parish is broad, but I am High Church. We use Incense and carry the parish banner, etc. on feast days.

[Yahweh Nissi]

My church is militantly conservative evangelical low church - chairs not pews, facing North not West, no dog-collars, a band, communion once every few weeks with plate and cup passed along the rows, little littergy - although the creed is sometimes said (I occasionally smile at the mischief one could cause by changing the 'c' in "one holy catholic and apostolic church..." to a capital C ;) ) and service based around sermon focused on exergesis of Bible passage. I love it there, it is very friendly and open with great Bible teaching and it has been an immense blessing to me.

However, it does miss out on the huge richness of Anglican tradition and spirituality which can be a great blessing - I guess it is just impossible to capture all of the variety of Aglicanism within one church.

I also go to my college chapel, which is the opposite - high church with most evening services choral. You even get incense occasionally, eg on Ash Wednesday or Accension Sunday. I am going to be a server this Thursday at sung Eucherist - carrying a huge silver candelstick and wearing a white robe :priest:

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Don't let the bishop know about that, Yahweh Nissi - there are minimum required robes for celebrating the Eucharist, and passing the elements around is definitely a Canonical no-no ;)

I don't personally have an absolute problem with either, but it is not Anglican. Don't take this the wrong way - I'm actually interested - what do churches that low and non-liturgical feel they gain by identifying as Anglican?

[benedictine]

Speaking of High Church, I enjoy the chanting of the communuion prayers.Are there any churches whre this isn't just done on major Feast days? Pax Deo.

[PaladinValer]

Ah, but every Sunday is technically a feast day! ;)

[Arikereba]

Speaking of High Church, I enjoy the chanting of the communuion prayers.Are there any churches whre this isn't just done on major Feast days? Pax Deo.
Maybe at a cathedral? I know Christ Church Cathedral in Montreal has a sung Eucharist every Sunday.

[Polycarp1]

Many dioceses have a church that is extremely "high church" with a sung Eucharist, incense, etc., every Sunday. One I happen to know of is the Church of the Advent, Boston MA.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Our small parish church (out in the Derbyshire countryside) has a bells and smells sung Eucharist every Sunday morning. So does the church down in town (Chesterfield).


Interesting story about Chesterfield church (pic below)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/ecards/chesterfield/images/spire_420.jpg

The story goes that Satan was hanging onto the spire when a virgin entered the church to get married. This was such an unusual occurence that he leaned down to look and in doing so twisted the spire.

The legend further says that if ever a virgin gets married there again, the spire will untwist. It's been twisted for 700 years now... ;)

[PaladinValer]

<---is a virgin and will fix the spiral when he gets married :D

[LizC]

Hi everyone - this is my first time posting here.

Another church with a "high church" Sunday service is Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington, D.C. They use the Anglican Missal at their high mass, not the Rite One of the BCP, which I believe the Church of the Advent uses. Does anyone know exactly what the history of the Missal is?

[PaladinValer]

Welcome to the 'boards!

**Sends her a Book of Common Prayer, a cake, and a year's supply of coffee as welcoming gifts**

Enjoy your stay! :)

[Yahweh Nissi]

Don't let the bishop know about that, Yahweh Nissi - there are minimum required robes for celebrating the Eucharist, and passing the elements around is definitely a Canonical no-no ;)

Eeeep! I did not know that :sorry:

I don't personally have an absolute problem with either, but it is not Anglican. Don't take this the wrong way - I'm actually interested - what do churches that low and non-liturgical feel they gain by identifying as Anglican?

I doubt anyone has ever thought in that way - it does not 'identify' as Aglican, it just is a CofE church, but they run it in the way that seems best. Note, I am not entirely in agreement with this. As I say, I think it is a great church - but as it is Anglican then, IMHO, certain forms should be followed. The church I go to when not at Uni, St Georges in Leeds, does non-traditional, low church well, I think. When not cellebrating Communion (which they only do every 3/4 weeks or so) the vicars wear normal clothes and do not use a liturgy, but for Communion the central parts of the liturgy are used and simple robes are worn. Of course, this still misses out on a lot of what more traditional and/or high services have to offer, but then it has benefits over them as well.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Welcome Liz :wave:

[Polycarp1]

Yeah, except that the "minimum ceremonial garb" is, purely and simply, a stole. Conducting a regular service in casual street clothes is contrary to custom and perhaps to diocesan or provincial canons -- but for a priest to celebrate with a youth group, a college community, a family in a home setting, etc., what he does is to carry with him a stole, and don it before beginning Eucharist. I can recall a church picnic held on the grounds of a lakeside family estate, the family being longstanding members of the parish I belonged to which was invited to the picnic. And the priest celebrated in the bermuda shorts he'd been swimming in, and a stole -- it was what was appropriate to the circumstances. But that same priest would never celebrate a Sunday morning Eucharist at the church without a chasuble appropriate to the season -- because that is what is appropriate there.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

In the Church of England it goes a little further than that:


http://www.cofe.anglican.org/legal/canonpdf/02B11-17.pdf - p. 13 paras 3,4 and 5 - a surplice or alb, with scarf or stole, is required.

p. 17 para 3 also dicates that no-one may distibute the elements of the Holy Communion unless he has been licenced to do so - this does make the "pass it around" distribution contrary to Canon Law.

[TomUK]

On both of those points though Karl, i know there a few anglican churchs in the CofE who do not adhere to either of these rules, and i've certainly never heard of it being enforsed.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This is unquestionably true; but this brings me back to my original question - why be an Anglican church if you're not going to conduct your worship according to Anglican ways of doing it? Why not just be a free church?

[TomUK]

Because that makes the assumption that there is a unified anglican way of 'doing it'.

[Kieron]

Hi, I'm erm new around here

In my mind its one of the great things about Anglicanism is that there is such a broad range of how things are done. My home parish is fairly trad, but the one I attend whilst at uni really quite a low churchmanship. Both have a valid approach to worship, and both have their strenghs and weaknesses within the anglican tradition

[chalice_thunder]

I'm the Liturgist/Musician for the parish I serve. We basically stay broad most of the time. Ritual is very important to us, but increasingly, so is a certain level of informality. Therefore there is this wonderful dynamic tension (in the best sense of the word) being held.

Our Program Staff all take one sentence as our mission statement: "The liturgy is enough." What we do with it is another thing.

For instance - on any given Sunday you will find a very broad spectrum of music: from plainchant to Tallis/Palestrina to Victorian to 20thc. American, with a liberal dose of jazz, world music, Taize chant etc. plus the "oldies but goodies" from the hymnal.

In our ceremonial we try to be simple but bold. We don't try to put a cross on anything that's nailed down. We have a hanging "Christus Rex" and a beautiful and huge coptic processional cross. That's enough. We bake our own bread for the eucharist. Our vestments are simple - not tarted up with too many symbols - because the vestments are symbols themselves, so why cover them up?

We print the entire liturgy (so as to be user-friendly) including the music. Most of it is BCP driven, although we use authorized texts, and at times texts that are not so authorized, but liturgically they make sense.

We go by the 3 year lectionary - although we will probably switch to RCL this coming Advent. Occasionally we will substitute a reading from church mystics or a poem from Annie Dillard etc, but only if it will support the liturgy.

Often we will use incense - High Feasts and also for smaller evening services that are more contemplative in nature.

It's cool that we can all share our worship experiences here. Glad there is THIS thread!
:wave:

[pmcleanj]

Ritual is very important to us, but increasingly, so is a certain level of informality. Therefore there is this wonderful dynamic tension (in the best sense of the word) being held

I love what you are alluding to here. There's no conflict between Ritual and freedom of expression. All styles of music, all artistic forms, have the same ability to be sacred or profane, tawdry or transcendent, depending on the talent and calling of the artists and on their inspiration. The saxaphone --well, the guitar, anyway <grin> can be every bit as holy as the organ!

Sadly, we often do confuse artistic taste (especially conservative artistic taste) with doctrine! It's ironic that I'm Fibre Arts consultant and Liturgical Dance consultant -- for our local *Lutheran* synod. The local Anglican diocese isn't comfortable yet overtly recognizing those gifts!



IWe go by the 3 year lectionary - although we will probably switch to RCL this coming Advent. Occasionally we will substitute a reading from church mystics or a poem from Annie Dillard etc, but only if it will support the liturgy.


Do you mean the three-year ECUSA lectionary? From what I've observed, it seems to be pretty close to the Common Lectionary, which in turn is not all that different from the RCL. I prepare an interdenominational bible study every week, and most weeks the various denominational lectionaries and the RCL lectionary are very similar or identical.

Our vestments are simple - not tarted up with too many symbols - because the vestments are symbols themselves, so why cover them up?

Got pictures (fabric artist slavers greedily)? I can think of a lot of ways to work symbols into the structure of a garment without being garish -- and a lot of ways that symbols can clash when the vestment is simply used as a walking sign-board. Do you have a vestment-maker in your parish, or do you purchase them?

[chalice_thunder]

I love what you are alluding to here. There's no conflict between Ritual and freedom of expression. All styles of music, all artistic forms, have the same ability to be sacred or profane, tawdry or transcendent, depending on the talent and calling of the artists and on their inspiration. The saxaphone --well, the guitar, anyway <grin> can be every bit as holy as the organ!
I've written some liturgical music that includes sax :D - a full jazz combo in fact. It went over well.
Agreed about the ability to be sacred/profane/tawdry/transcendent. We need to MEAN it, and then bring it to life creatively.


Sadly, we often do confuse artistic taste (especially conservative artistic taste) with doctrine! It's ironic that I'm Fibre Arts consultant and Liturgical Dance consultant -- for our local *Lutheran* synod. The local Anglican diocese isn't comfortable yet overtly recognizing those gifts!


A big AMEN to that. I wish people would stop treating church like Nordstrom's. It's consumer-based. "I don't like this or that, etc."
NOW - Fibre arts and Liturgical Dance? Please tell me you are in a Diocese near me - like B.C. Cuz if so, I am hiring you to come down to Seattle and play with us! (Diocese of Olympia, WA)




Do you mean the three-year ECUSA lectionary? From what I've observed, it seems to be pretty close to the Common Lectionary, which in turn is not all that different from the RCL. I prepare an interdenominational bible study every week, and most weeks the various denominational lectionaries and the RCL lectionary are very similar or identical.

They are indeed similar - but the RCL is actually a breath of fresh air for me - because it brings in extra possibilities in musical/liturgical programming. ;)



Got pictures (fabric artist slavers greedily)? I can think of a lot of ways to work symbols into the structure of a garment without being garish -- and a lot of ways that symbols can clash when the vestment is simply used as a walking sign-board. Do you have a vestment-maker in your parish, or do you purchase them?

No pics on me. You can check on our website - but I am not so sure there's any fibre arts well represented there currently. Check it out at:
http://www.stthomasmedina.org
No vestment makers yet - but we have some ideas. Would love to see your creativity along those lines. Also - we have this horrid Laudian cloth on the altar - an Almy special - looks like Aunt Lucy's couch. It was a memorial gift, so it's going to be hard to get rid of - but maybe we can add other paraments and then use them seasonally.

[crucifer]

Hi. By smells and bells, do you mean altar bells, candles, and incense?

[Polycarp1]

Hi. By smells and bells, do you mean altar bells, candles, and incense?
Yep. "Smells and bells" is the usual affectionate way of referring to the additional optional ceremonial that Anglo-Catholic devotion finds meaningful.


===============

I'm very broad church. I can find great meaning and piety in an Anglo-Catholic service, a call to take one's task as a Christian seriously in a very low church sermon, the importance of living out one's Christian walk in the body politic in a liberal social justice-oriented parish, the joy of being a part of the Body of Christ strengthened and guided by the Holy Spirit in a charismatic renewal service....

And part of what I love about Anglicanism is that all these are a part of our heritage, that the creative tension between them shapes us to be "individually members of the Body, and together doing the whole work of Christ," each doing as he feels himself called to act, that the unity we have in Christ is manifest through quite different means and ways of following Him.

[garydench]

I used to be an Anglican, I won't cite my reasons as it would be inappropriate, but I was most definitely High Church, albeit a socially conservative one! I loved the Greek Orthodox incense and all the flim-flam.

[SirTimothy]

In the UK, we attend what my grandfather calls a 'lower-than-the-floorboards' anglican church.

Here, I don't attend the anglican church - primarily because it uses an organ and I hate pitching myself to an organ if there's no strong choir.

Timothy

[pmcleanj]

I hate pitching myself to an organ if there's no strong choir.
:D A dear friend tells me he always goes to the 8:00 a.m. service "because the music is so much better" ;)

[Yahweh Nissi]

:D A dear friend tells me he always goes to the 8:00 a.m. service "because the music is so much better" ;)

I know just what he means! For several years (before moving house and then going to Uni somewhat changed my circumstances) I used to go to the 08:00 BCP service, and my lack of singing ability was one of the main reasons! I also very much like th BCP service. "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's church, militant here on earth" has to one of the best lines of litturgy ever written :)

[Yahweh Nissi]

All the glories of high church Anglicanism were displayed at a baptism (no babies) an confirmation service in my college chapel this week :) I was serving, which involved pottering about with a huge cande at what I hoped were the correct times, in the correct order and in vague syncronisation with the other server, cross bearer, censor bearer, thurifer (sp?), dean and Bishop whilst the latter gleefully doused the candidates with a huge tankard of water, surrounded by a fug of incense :priest: Do any of you guys know the Bishop of Salsbury? Our chaplain decribes him, only half in jest, as the greatest litturgest in the the Anglican Communion and I have to agree!

[garydench]

I don't know the Bishop of Salisbury but I do know the Bishops of Chelmsford, Brentwood and Barking.

[yfriday lover]

wel im from what calls itself a high church but we only have smells (no bells) @ evensong, which unfortunately chokes us in the choir because were right in the middl of it all, espesh in the vestry wer we hav 2 practis + robe. so do u reckon that we are a high +ch or middl +ch??

[Yahweh Nissi]

Well, the terms are not well defined, but I would say incense is generally a sign of a pretty high church.

By the way, I see you live in Harrogate. When not at Uni home for me is Bramham, a little village a little to the south - very near Wetherby :wave:

[yfriday lover]

heehee ive bn 2 bramham! bb4n

[KristianJ]

My current Anglican church is very much on the lower scale; our minister has hardly ever worn the "collar" since I've been there, not really a formalised Prayer Book structure but still with prayers of thanksgiving, confession, etc., we sometimes do communion in a big circle, and generally services are quite informal. But I love it, because the important aspects of any Christian gathering are always there and the focus of the time together. :)

[chalice_thunder]

Do any of you guys know the Bishop of Salsbury? Our chaplain decribes him, only half in jest, as the greatest litturgest in the the Anglican Communion and I have to agree!

I met David Stancliffe at a liturgy conference here on the west coast of the US some years ago. He was brilliant!

[Yahweh Nissi]

Cool! What was great was that he did not view liturgy as something to be done by rote, but really thought hard about the symbolism of everything that was done and he actually explained things - especially to the candidates during the rehersal but also with a minimal commentary during the service. This way all the ceremony could be a blessing to all, and not something that just confused and put-off those not used to it.

[chalice_thunder]

Cool! What was great was that he did not view liturgy as something to be done by rote, but really thought hard about the symbolism of everything that was done and he actually explained things - especially to the candidates during the rehersal but also with a minimal commentary during the service. This way all the ceremony could be a blessing to all, and not something that just confused and put-off those not used to it.


Agreed. My feeling is that the liturgy should be bold enough and simple enough to speak for itself. The moment one has to start explaining symbols and symbolism, the liturgy begins to lose it's power.

No offense to any of my anglo-catholic brothers and sisters, but I wanted to share a point about that: Once I was leading music at a high mass with a guest priest. THe children's choir was singing. As the offertory came to a close, the priest turned his back on the congregation, holding a large host, and was at that point facing the choir. He was holding the host at eye level, very close to his face, and for about 30 seconds he mumbled some words under his breath - I assume a prayer.

After the service, one young singer, about 9 years old, came up to me and asked, "Why was he talking to the cookie?" :D

[pmcleanj]

Liturgy should be bold enough and simple enough to speak for itself. The moment one has to start explaining symbols and symbolism, the liturgy begins to lose it's power.

One thing we struggle with, as we worship together as 21st-century Christians, saturated in pop-culture and environmental controls to the exclusion of any deep spiritual or natural associations, is that symbols that were easily within the reach of earlier Christians have become obscure. The sun that enlightens all the world rises in the east, but the streetlights that enlighten our cities hang from metal poles directly overhead and keep us from noticing the sun: so why bother to arrange the altar at the east end of the nave. The nave itself represents a great ship carrying us safe through the storms of life: but we draw the curtains and turn on the TV when the weather is stormy, and rest in the centrally-heated security of insulated houses on continuous-pour foundations. Why would a ship make us feel saved? God promises that we will be borne up as on the wings of eagles, but most of us have seen more 747's than we have seen eagles, so what meaning does a bird-shaped lectern have for us? And so on.

Our rector recently took on my elder daughter as his sole confirmation candidate. One of the exercises they did, was to tour the church building together with fresh eyes -- pretending never to have seen one before -- and to deduce purely from the architecture and symbology what the Church stands for. And he went away from the exercise deeply saddened. Not because of the modern eleven-year-old's ignorance of traditional symbol. I venture to say my little jacobite is more rather well steeped in such things.
But he discovered through the exercise that the shallow, fragmented symbology we've inherited from the era of de-facto establishment speak, at a symbolic level, of alienation and mourning. And most of the time, the Church engages so little with those symbols that they don't notice how broken they've become.

What is the best course? Do we teach modern, urban people the "meanings" of agrarian symbols so that they "know" them intellectually? Do we introduce symbols that have visceral appeal to moderns, at the risk of being seen as violating tradition? Do we find ways to restate traditional symbols so that they once again have visceral meaning? Do we teach and encourage people to come back in touch with the world and worldviews in which those symbols were created?

[bfoos]

Interesting thread. Seems that the old high Church/low Church distinction is still out there, despite it being a rather false dichotomy. At our parish, I would say that we are neither high nor low...or rather both. Solid preaching and exposition of the scriptures ought to be happening in every Church. Solid and beautiful liturgical ceremonial ought also to be happening. A high view of the sacraments is demanded by us from Scripture and a high standard of personal piety and Christian character is also demanded.

I get rather tired of the low Church Bible orientation/high Church sacramental orientation. Both are part of the Church.

Personally, our parish uses incense at every service. This does not make us "Anglo-catholic". Percy Dearmer, when he arrived at his first parish as Rector, within a month had removed the six candles from the altar and replaced them with just the traditional (for England) two. He took his time and didn't offend people right off the bat--he took a month. On the other hand, it was only a matter of days before he had incense swinging at every service. Burning incense was not considered Anglo-catholic, burning 6 candles on the altar was.

So, here is a non-Anglo-Catholic (at least in the modern sense of the term) who uses incense and sings the whole service (with the exception of the Epistle and Gospel). Singing doesn't make one high or low Church either. Singing is what we were made to do--even if it sounds lousy, we are all called to make a joyful "noise" unto the Lord.

Proper vestments ought always to be worn for it shows the Church to be structured and ordered and vestments mute persons and personality (nice tie the pastor's wearing today) and emphasize service.

We sing mattins every day at school with minister and reader fully vested for the choral office--cassock, surplice, hood and tippet--with incense burning and children singing in four parts where appropriate--in our case, without organ or other instruments.

Tradition is not just done for traditions sake. Tradition has value in it. These things were done for a reason and though we might not know the reason at the present time, we ought to retain traditions in general until at least we know the why's and wherefore's of said traditions. Usually, by that time, one knows why one ought to keep the traditions.

If we don't know why we do something, we'll do something else. Thus, we have weddings that have lost the traditions and consequently, many Christian weddings do not say half (if they're lucky) of what more traditional weddings have always said. (e.g. minister asks bride and groom to hold hands while saying made up vows that are usually horrendous. What hand do they hold? Both of them. Look up the 28 BCP and see what the rubrics say--it is right hands they are to hold. i.e. they're sealing a deal here, they are "shaking" on it.)

We must learn and learn and learn in our modern age. We must lose the modern paradigms and inculcate a catholic and sacramental paradigm. We have a long ways to go....

bfoos

[pmcleanj]

I'm still enjoying your posts. I agree with much of what you say -- and I think I'll even enjoy the bits I disagree with. But help me grope my way through something here.

We must learn and learn and learn in our modern age. We must lose the modern paradigms and inculcate a catholic and sacramental paradigm. We have a long ways to go....
bfoos

You've commented a couple of times now against "modernity" and "modern paradigms". If I'm following you, you're talking about what I would call "modernism" (a philosophy that subordinates "kairos" to "chronos") rather than what I would call "modernity" (present and recent times -- the actual "chronos" in which we live). By this understanding modernity (not modernism) is a good thing. At any rate, it is the only chronos that we've got, and it implies indoor plumbing (which I am unwilling to forgo).

Have a look at my post immediately before yours. In my attempts at liturgy I have found that, if symbol is not to be superficial, it must speak at the level of direct personal experience. The people who live in twenty-first century western countries have *only* twenty-first century experiences from which to interpret symbols. Surely there are "modern paradigms" (examples or patterns prevalent in present and recent times) that are not also "modernist paradigms". Can twenty-first century Christians not experience a catholic and sacramental paradigm that builds on what they have themselves experienced directly at the deepest levels? If we choose to import a different culture and impose it on twenty-first century Americans, are we not really following in the footsteps of the Judaizers who plagued Saint Paul, the Romanizers of post-Whitby Britain, and the protestant missionaries of Michener's "Hawaii" -- all of which were misguided efforts to bring Christianity in the form of an alien culture.

I was thinking about this as I weeded my garden this afternoon. I am in a drought-stricken area of the prairie. There are no Boswellia Thurifera for several thousand miles. There is, however, sweetgrass. I always weed the dandelions carefully in order to leave the sweetgrass undisturbed: I love its deep spicey fragrance. What really is the difference, from a theological perspective, between the dried resin of a middle-eastern evergreen and the dried husks of an American prairie herb. Is the flora of Arabia inherently more holy than the flora of America?

We've retained the flora of Arabia but not their clothing, the clothing of Rome but not their music, the penatone of the Celts, but not their instrumentation, and so on. We have pattern of accretion and erosion by which we retain what we experience as good and meaningful, and let go those things which we do not so experience. That process is bound to continue. What we must be continually asking -- without ever accepting easy or shallow answers -- is whether the exampes and patterns, the symbology, that we are using actually communicates the Gospel.

It is good to "learn and learn and learn". But that learning must go beyond head-learning: it must include spiritual and visceral experience. Providing the people -- both churched and unchurched -- with that kind of learning is a challenge we haven't faced before.

[bfoos]

Modernity is the typical word used in my reading and listening to describe what you would call modernism. Semantics, we're talking about the same thing. I'm rather fond of indoor plumbing myself--and central heating is a nice thing to boot.

Hmm...bringing Christianity in the form of an alien culture is a problem, but I'm not sure we can bring Christianity without a culture. Christianity is, at least to a certain point, culture. We bring cultural institutions and ideas with us when we come with Christianity. Those institutions and ideas may change to a certain extent to adapt to local culture, but ultimately, the local culture must be shaped by the Gospel culture (not to be confused with "American" culture of the 19th/20th century Missions movement).

Can 21st cent. Christians not experience a catholic and sacramental paradigm that builds on what they have themselves experienced directly at the deepest levels? Good question. I don't know that I have the answer. I would, however, start with a paradigm that builds upon the historic Church. If we are steeped in the ancient ethos, traditions and prayers of the Church, then our contemporary experience has a context within which to be shaped. It is not, I think, that the modern is unable to participate in the great discussion and tradition of the Church, but that it must be built upon that in which it seeks to participate.

TS Elliot said much the same in regards to the contemporary poet participating in the poetical tradition--the poet must know the tradition he comes from and writes in.

Our experience, if it is informed by our tradition, is not 'only' 21st century, but can be, is, should be broader and deeper. In the traditions of the Church, I experience a culture that is both apostolic and medieval and reformed and catholic and ancient and modern. Different aspects of that tradition may mean more to me as an English speaking Christian because my German brothers don't really give a cultural hoot about the beauty of the Authorized Version's language.

I might, however, find myself connected to the Eastern Church in small traditional ways...perhaps simply because I happen to like eastern orthodox incense better than the typical Roman types of incense. But, without a tradition (a context) of my own, I would have a hard time assimilating the foreign tradition and making it work within my context.

Post-modernity tends to try the latter--taking in traditions, pieces of history, without really being able to assimilate them into a context, a fabric of life, a world-view, as it were.

Yes, I believe we must always ask tough questions about our tradition and how ably we are communicating it, not to mention what new things we are adding to our tradition. Of course, the purpose of the tradition in Christianity "is" to communicate the Gospel. Our priority must be clear.

Christian learning is, by definition, a learning that is more than head-learning. Christian learning is (must be to be truly and fully Christian) sacramental--it must be visceral and spiritual and intellectual. If I understand you correctly, I must disagree: The Church has faced the challenge of full, sacramental teaching and learning--for most of her history. Because we are so lost now does not mean we have always been that way.

Again, we must learn that which we should already know in order to engage our culture competently with the Gospel of peace. Without our foundation--the traditions, the teaching, the active living of the Church before us, we are left with less than what we need to confront our culture.

But, given that foundation, we need not live in the past but should and must live solidly in the present, pursuing active love in every moment in a tradition, a context, that makes the most sense of Christ's active love for mankind.

bfoos

[pmcleanj]

Christian learning is, by definition, a learning that is more than head-learning. Christian learning is (must be to be truly and fully Christian) sacramental--it must be visceral and spiritual and intellectual. If I understand you correctly, I must disagree: The Church has faced the challenge of full, sacramental teaching and learning--for most of her history. Because we are so lost now does not mean we have always been that way.

Actually, we are still pretty much on the same page here, I think. The Church has indeed succeeded in emobodying the Gospel in ways that speak to the whole person. But what is different in the present context is precisely that we *are* so lost. Instead of having a culture -- a rich resource of shared language, aesthetic, story, symbol and understanding; we have pop-culture. We can recite the names of the players on "Survivor" more easily than the names of the Apostles; we wake to the latest hits on a top-40 station played on our clock-radios instead of to the ringing of the Angelus or the strains of Venite; we spend more time reading internet boards than reading the Bible (-- oops! :o that one hit home! :confused: ) We have the greatest story-telling tool of all time at our disposal, the television, and it has distracted us from our Story and replaced Symbol with sitcom. Never before has the church faced the problem of finding a visceral and spiritual and intellectual connection with a culture that has so little visceral and spiritual and intellectual depth.

Any one of us who wants to, can turn of the radio and TV and remember the songs and stories of our childhood. But more and more of us have no songs and stories to remember: our childhood is filled with Blues Clues and Big Bird. And finding someone else with whom to connect at a level more basic than shared programming preferences is getting rare. *That* is the challenge the Church has never faced before.

[TomUK]

Just bumping this as i've posted pictures of the two different Anglican churches i attend, for those who are interested

http://www.christianforums.com/t716070

EDIT: Pics should be working now- i am so inept! :doh:

[Merseymike]

I attend a very High church - smells, bells, full ceremonial, Benediction and so on.

But I am theologically very liberal!

[Polycarp1]

I attend a very High church - smells, bells, full ceremonial, Benediction and so on.

But I am theologically very liberal!
I would never have guessed! ;)

Welcome to CF and to STR, Merseymike! :hug: Glad to see you here!

[PaladinValer]

Welcome to STR from me too! Now how about showing some Anglican pride and displaying the Anglican icon? We are ~70 million and we are growing bigger, stronger, and evolving in Christ everyday!

We are Anglicans; here us rawr! :D

[Merseymike]

I am now iconned as Anglican!

[Colabomb]

The Anglos Are Coming The Anglos Are Coming!

[PaladinValer]

God bless Anglican Catholicism! :clap:

[bfoos]

I am very much praying that God will bless Anglican Catholicism, for it is the Church that I love and have devoted my life to. But, I am Catholic first, and Anglican second. I am worried about Anglicanism and not at all sure that there is a bright future in the near future.

I am glad for all the hand-clapping, but let's be honest, we're in a world of hurt.

the Catholic consensus of Anglicanism starts with Cranmer and continues through the Caroline divines and the non-jurors, etc. But the Rationalistic enlightenment (started?? by the 2nd and 3rd generation reformers, the Puritans) pulled the Church off track as far as its Catholicism is concerned.

We have a lot of problems that must be fixed and addressed.

Perhaps we ought to be wringing our hands just a bit....

[sakamuyo]

I'm currently serving in a non-Anglican church. Our liturgy is rather mixed.

Personally, I enjoy and appreciate the high liturgy. I also enjoy and appreciate more informal worship.

[steviedee]

Personally, I am High Church, and combine it with a Moody/Sankey Protestantism. I enjoy the bells and smells, but my faith doesn't depend on it. I am basically conservative evangelical, doctrinally.

I only use the 1928 BCP or the Missal. Our priests are NOT called "Mother" because we do not allow those sort of things.:mad: