very helpful). That is, while he did not object in principle to the liberty of a given local congregation to frame its own service, he thought it was preferable both in principle and in practice to frame worship that corresponded to the worship of the entire catholic (small “c” again) tradition. If some Puritans, for example, were hesitant to use the Gloria Patri or Apostles’ Creed, Calvin was not. I agree with Calvin here also, and believe that, all things considered, we should employ forms of worship that connect us to the entire history of Christian worship, as opposed to employing forms of worship that are recent or local (cf. my Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Re-Wrote the Hymnal, esp. chapter eight in which I object to “Contemporaneity as a Value”). It should be obvious, then, that while I would not restrict a local congregation from devising/inventing its own liturgical forms, I have an especial appreciation for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, because of the adjective “Common.” A third difference was the posture towards using a liturgy itself. The original objection of the Puritans was not to the use of a written liturgy, but to its imposition; that is, they did not object to a prayer being carefully considered and written beforehand, they objected to what they perceived as an abuse of church-power if all local congregations were required to employ the same liturgy without any local variation (a good discussion of this can be found in the pertinent chapter of Samuel Miller’s Thoughts on Public Prayer). Because of the tensions in the British isles regarding the state-regulated Anglican church, in practice this difference expanded, and in time many Puritans and Presbyterians distanced themselves from using the Anglican liturgy, even when they were free to use it voluntarily, in part or whole. Calvin, on the other hand, whose service was entitled “A Form of Prayers According to the Ancient Church,” believed that there was
denomination was founded by that British charmer, Henry VIII ... and that’s not really true). So, here’s my attempt to explain what Anglicanism is all about. I think the identity of Anglicanism can be summed up in these three adjectives: Rooted, Reformational, & Roomy. ROOTED. Anglicans seek to be intentionally rooted in ancient Christian beliefs and practices. We think that belonging to the ‘big story’ of God’s work throughout time is important, so we deliberately utilize the ancient creeds and liturgies of the Church catholic (organized in the Book of Common Prayer). In the pattern of the ancient Church, we employ the Church Calendar (celebrating days and seasons like Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, etc) which focus worshippers on various aspects of what God has done in Christ. In keeping with the governmental pattern of the ancient Church, Anglicans retain the ‘3 orders’ of ministers – bishops (who oversee a Diocese), presbyters (sometimes called ‘priests’, who oversee individual churches), and deacons (who serve those in need within local congregations). Anglicans are not naïve about the Christian history in which we are rooted. We do not trust that beliefs or practices are infallible just because they are ancient. Instead, our Anglican framers ‘reformed’ the already existing patterns of worship in the Church to more fully conform to Scripture. REFORMATIONAL. Anglicans are deeply shaped by the liberating insights of the Protestant Reformation. Our beliefs are best summarized in a document called the ’39 Articles,’ which in some ways represents a hybrid of Lutheran and Reformed theology. Anglicans affirm the unique role and authority of Scripture as the place where