High Church, Broad Church, Low Church? A mix?

[gordonhooker]

You may have a point here that isn't usually considered. Low church has meant limited ceremony, for example the Holy Communion service according to the BCP but without all the postures and vestments and add-ons borrowed from the Roman Church that characterize High Church services.

But what of the "contemporary" worship services that have appeared in recent decades, including praise bands and charismatic worship services?

I'd say that they don't fit any of the historic categories--High, Low, Broad.

Since you asked, I'm probably to be classified as Low Church, but that's by American standards.

Hi Albion,

Most of the time you make a lot of sense and I agree with most of what you say, but when you say things like "without all the postures and vestments and add-ons borrowed from the Roman Church" I find that rather annoying and patronising. The Church in England from which the Anglican Church finds it roots did not borrow anything in my opinion, it was always part of our tradition.

blessings, Gordon

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

Most of the time you make a lot of sense and I agree with most of what you say, but when you say things like

Didn't you start out another post to me recently in that same way? I don't know whether to feel flattered or flattened.

"without all the postures and vestments and add-ons borrowed from the Roman Church" I find that rather annoying and patronising.

I know. But it's so.

The Church in England from which the Anglican Church finds it roots did not borrow anything in my opinion, it was always part of our tradition.

Oh really? Half the vestments and other garb worn by the High Church clergy that I know were only invented in the Roman Church SINCE the Reformation and some are typically Italian. But they'll go out of their way to get their hands on them.

 

[Paidiske]

That is exactly what an ACC priest told me about anyone who does not celebrate from the Missal.

Did he mean the Roman missal?

I think both Gordon and Albion have a point here. It's true that a more high church style of worship is not foreign to the DNA of Anglicanism. But on the other hand, it's also true that in their attempts to be stratospherically high church, some Anglicans have adopted Roman idiosyncrasies (the fiddleback, anyone?) which were never part of our historical practice, and whose value to us is questionable.

This is, in my view, adiaphora (or, as one supervisor put it to me once, "I'll wear anything if they let me preach the gospel"), although my own personal taste runs to simplicity of style. I think the key things, whichever approach one takes, are to do it well, to do it in a way which is edifying, and to do it in a way which facilitates rather than obstructs people's connection with God in worship. This perhaps goes to Philip's point earlier about things being done "decently and in order."

 

[seeking.IAM]

I care not two whits where we got our vestments from. I like them. My mother's unvested (non-Anglican) pastor can't even tuck in his shirt tail when officiating and delivering a sermon. If he was vested, I wouldn't have to see his sloppy attire. I couldn't pay attention to his sermon for the interfering thought, "Goodness, man, would it kill ya to tuck in your shirt tail and maybe put on a tie?"

 

[Shane R]

Did he mean the Roman missal?

He meant this: People's Anglican Missal

It's a sundry collection of different canons of the Mass with a variety of extra rubrics for the clergy. The basic framework of the communion service is not far off the 1892 American BCP though. (If I am not mistaken, the People's Anglican Missal was produced in 1921, and then American churches got a revised BCP in 1928). It is invariably found in the red cover that is pictured in the link above, so some of the simpler folk just call it the "red book." There are parishes that have both the Missal and the BCP in the pew and use the BCP for daily offices and such, and maybe a said communion service from time to time. The Missal is the marker of whether one celebrates the "High Mass."

 

[SnowyMacie]

I greatly prefer high church and am closer to Anglo-Catholic, but I currently attend a parish that's very middle of the road between high church and low church.

 

[gordonhooker]

Didn't you start out another post to me recently in that same way? I don't know whether to feel flattered or flattened.


I know. But it's so.


Oh really? Half the vestments and other garb worn by the High Church clergy that I know were only invented in the Roman Church SINCE the Reformation and some are typically Italian. But they'll go out of their way to get their hands on them.

Maybe "flattered" as I have respect for what you say.

I was formed in a then Church of England Parish in Brisbane Australia and was taught what I know about High Church of England liturgical practice and history by a Priest who went onto to become the Primate of Australia (Dr. Keith Rayner). His instruction on the robes used for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as part of my preparation for confirmation and later my preparation for Server included the history of those robes which went back further than the reformation. So you and I will have to agree to disagree on the history of those robes.

 

[Albion]

His instruction on the robes used for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as part of my preparation for confirmation and later my preparation for Server included the history of those robes which went back further than the reformation. So you and I will have to agree to disagree on the history of those robes.

I don't think we need to go deeper into the matter, but we should acknowledge that (with the exception of "fiddleback" which Paidiske referred to and which I also had been thinking of) none of us has actually identified any garment, let alone other items that people associate with High Church Anglicanism. It is quite possible, therefore, that we have different ones in mind.

 

[gordonhooker]

I don't think we need to go deeper into the matter, but we should acknowledge that (with the exception of "fiddleback" which Paidiske referred to and which I also had been thinking of) none of us has actually identified any garment, let alone other items that people associate with High Church Anglicanism. It is quite possible, therefore, that we have different ones in mind.

Agreed... I will simply ask that rather than generalise with a your statement about "borrowing from the Roman Church" you stipulate what you mean.

blessings, Gordon

 

[Padres1969]

High Church/Anglo Catholic. All the Anglican churches I've visited save one have been in the High Church or Anglo-Catholic branch of the church. And as a former Catholic I confess that's where I'm most comfortable as well.

 

[No Swansong]

About as low church as possible and still use the Prayerbook.

 

[Albion]

About as low church as possible and still use the Prayerbook.

Not to belabor the point, but this is the critical issue for me when it comes to the use of the terms we've been talking about.

If the liturgy follows the historic BCP, then it's probably to be termed Low Church. But if it uses some Missal, a book of "Alternative Services" (including any which some province has created and calls a version of the BCP), or goes off into freelance "contemporary" or charismatic forms of worship...it's not Low Church. It's something else.

 

[Padres1969]

Not to belabor the point, but this is the critical issue for me when it comes to the use of the terms we've been talking about.

If the liturgy follows the historic BCP, then it's probably to be termed Low Church. But if it uses some Missal, a book of "Alternative Services" (including any which some province has created and calls a version of the BCP), or goes off into freelance "contemporary" or charismatic forms of worship...it's not Low Church. It's something else.

Can't say I agree with that completely. It's quite possible to use the historic BCP and have a service that is of the more high church variety.

 

[Albion]

Can't say I agree with that completely. It's quite possible to use the historic BCP and have a service that is of the more high church variety.

Whoa. That wasn't my point.

 

[Padres1969]

Whoa. That wasn't my point.

My apologies, I don't quite understand your point then.

 

[Albion]

It was totally about what I consider not to qualify as Low Church, and I made that comment because it seems to me that the term is used rather casually and imprecisely by a lot of people.

 

[Padres1969]

It was totally about what I consider not to qualify as Low Church, and I made that comment because it seems to me that the term is used rather casually and imprecisely by a lot of people.

Ah ok now I understand. And I agree from a historical POV. But from a general modern POV I'd say most historic Low Church services would be lumped in with the modern cousins like you divide out there, whether that's accurate or not.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I am not really sure how to identify.

I usually attend the early 1928 BCP service. It is low, and I am comfortable with it. I make the sign of the cross more since I was originally exposed to the later service. Hardly anyone at the early service genuflects, crosses themselves, or bows toward the cross or gospel.

The later service is Rite One of the ECUSA. It is broad -- maybe a bit on the higher end of broad church. During some services in the year it swings into high church, especially at the Easter Vigil and during episcopal visits. This service is a little lower than it used to be under our new rector.

I enjoy high church a lot, but I am comfortable and pleased with low or high worship -- I just don't like contemporary stuff.

I am probably somewhere on the Anglo-Catholic spectrum, but that is a very broad term. I just call myself an Episcopalian. I am also liberal in some ways, but not in others, and I don't tend to have much in common spiritually with my liberal friends other than agreed stances on social issues.

 

[Albion]

Ah ok now I understand. And I agree from a historical POV. But from a general modern POV I'd say most historic Low Church services would be lumped in with the modern cousins like you divide out there, whether that's accurate or not.

As I was trying to say, many people use the term derisively or simply to say that whatever it is isn't High Church. Or both.

And I certainly do not consider all these modern aberrations to be "cousins" of Low Church Anglicanism. So that's my view of the matter. Low Church is dignified and quite Anglican. I can't say the same for most of these others.

 

[Padres1969]

As I was trying to say, many people use the term derisively or simply to say that whatever it is isn't High Church. Or both.

And I certainly do not consider all these modern aberrations to be "cousins" of Low Church Anglicanism. So that's my view of the matter. Low Church is dignified and quite Anglican. I can't say the same for most of these others.

Maybe time for a 5th category then? I mean we've got Low, Broad, High and Anglo-Catholic. Maybe as Anglo-Catholic is divided off as distinct from traditional Anglican High Church (even if they share some similarities), traditional Low Church and Modern Contemporary should be divided from one another?

Another reason a 5th category might make sense, is that many of those "contemporary" style services (Episcopal Church BCP Rite III for example), can be derived from High, Broad, or Low services.