Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics

Two disparate groups of Christians—Anglo-Catholics (including many middle-of-the-road Episcopalians as well as those who unabashedly wear the Anglo-Catholic label) and Evangelical Conservatives (including many who would also call themselves Fundamentalists and many Anglican Evangelicals) have much more in common than is generally realized, and might well develop a closer relationship.

The outward manifestations of these two traditions are so divergent and their points of difference so striking that their areas of agreement pass almost unnoticed.

Some Common Ground

Yet beneath their differences there is a strong bond of union based on things held in common. While the things that divide them are far from superficial and are incapable, at this time, of resolution, there is enough common ground that each group finds the theological climate of the other more hospitable than that of opposing camps within the same denomination.

Their first point of agreement is in holding to definite and fixed beliefs as contrasted with the relativist approach of their liberal brethren. Differing in convictions, they agree that convictions matter. Differing in their apprehension of truth, they agree that truth is a reality, not an illusion; it is fixed and not relative.

Leading out of this is a common suspicion of current ecumenical thought which seeks to minimize the importance of doctrine and unite Christendom on a least common denominator basis.

Both worship the God of the Bible—Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ of the New—who are held to be one and the same. Neither has any sympathy for such speculations about God as those of Tillich, since they profess to know God by virtue of his self-revelation.

Both are Bible faiths. This is patently true of Evangelical Conservatism, and it is the basic Anglican position that nothing is to be held or taught except what is believed to be “concluded and proved by the Scriptures” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 542). That these two groups read the Bible differently and draw from it conflicting conclusions is of less importance than the fact that they acknowledge together one and the same repository of religious truth and oppose together both the Roman claim that tradition is of equal value therewith and the liberal viewpoint that gives to philosophical speculation, psychological insight, and popular acceptance the same authoritative position.

Both acknowledge the Bible to be the Word of God. They differ, to be sure, in their theories of inspiration. Conservatives generally hold it to be plenary and verbal, resulting in the belief that the Bible is utterly inerrant even, in details. Anglo-Catholics view inspiration as the faculty given to men to perceive and record God’s self-revelation and not as a guarantee against error in other than purely spiritual areas. There are also differences as to the extent to which textual and so-called higher criticism are to be accepted.

No major doctrinal differences need result from these different views of inspiration. That despite these differences the Bible is held to be the Word of God, as opposed to the contemporary concepts making it a repository of religious myth, a treasure house of good advice, or an acceptable philosophy of life, constitutes a solid bond of union.

Fact And Myth

Surprising as it may seem, they agree that certain biblical passages demand a symbolic rather than a literal interpretation. They disagree, to be sure, as to which passages are to be thus treated. Anglo-Catholics so regard many chapters of the Old Testament. Conservatives, on the other hand, so regard the New Testament language about the Eucharistic Food (Matt. 26:26–28), the Water of Baptism (John 3:5), the Apostolic Commission (John 20:19–23), and other incidents which given more literal construction form the basis of Catholic sacramental theology. It is not on the principle of literal versus figurative construction that they differ, but rather on the selection of particular passages to be treated in one manner or the other.

That the biblical record of Jesus’ earthly life is fact rather than myth is the position of both groups. The Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection, and bodily Ascension are held to be historic events, as are also the miracles of the Gospels. There is, admittedly, a difference of emphasis. Anglo-Catholics see the Virgin Birth as a necessary implication of the Incarnation and not so much as a prerequisite to it, as do most Conservatives. Nor are Anglo-Catholics willing, as are many Conservatives, to make the historicity of any particular miracle the test of Jesus’ Divinity. These differences in emphasis, however, are of less importance than the fundamental agreement as to the validity and integrity of the New Testament record.

Their Christological theologies are practically identical. Here again there is a difference in emphasis. Anglo-Catholics heavily underscore the Incarnation while Conservatives accent more strongly the Atonement. Both dogmas, however, are accepted by both groups. As to the eternal Lordship of the Risen and Ascended Christ, his presence among those who call on him, his office as Mediator, and his function as Judge, there is virtual agreement.

Regarding the person, nature, and office of the Holy Spirit they are also in almost complete accord. Their chief differences here relate to the manner of his manifestation.

Both are staunchly Trinitarian, and neither group is troubled by the philosophical difficulties felt by liberals concerning the Nicene formula.

More Common Shores

Eternal salvation is seen as the goal of man by both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Conservatives. They differ as to how this salvation is to be attained, but they are both emphatic that this, and not mere human betterment, is the end to which religion is directed. They use different language, but when the Anglo-Catholic talks of being conformed to the will of God and the Evangelical talks of being saved they are saying substantially the same thing.

Heaven and hell are realities to both of them, although they differ in the precise definitions of each. They are at one, however, in rejecting the notion that heaven is merely a perfected human society on earth, and also in rejecting the sentimental appeals on humanitarian grounds for the abolition of hell.

The relation of man to his God is conceived much the same, although the manifestations of that relationship differ. The sacramental life of the Anglo-Catholic, for example, can be roughly equated with the conversion, salvation, and sanctification experiences of the Evangelical. The emphasis of both is on personal religion as contrasted with the almost exclusively social emphasis of liberalism. Both admit, however, the social implications of their faith as corollaries to this main emphasis. On the whole Anglo-Catholics probably carry this to greater lengths than Evangelicals.

It is true that in their application as systems, in their traditional language, in their modes of worship, and in many of their theological concepts Anglo-Catholicism and Evangelical Conservatism are separated by a gulf so wide and so deep that resolution of their differences cannot now be envisioned. But it is also true that in that gulf between them there flows so strong a current of agreement on things that matter as to give them common shores. This latter fact provides the basis for the development of a higher degree of mutual understanding and respect than is at this time evidenced in their relationship.

Kenosis

Is this a God—

This tiny babe in cradle rude,

With bands of severed cloth entwined,

With oxen stalled?

These peasant folk of lowly mien,

These herdsmen, rough, unkempt,

This filthy straw, the stench, the grime—

Can this be God?

Is this a King—

This untaught Galilean

Doctrining his motley band?

What purpose the vile throng

Hailing a bibber of wine,

Fellow of sinners,

Transient prophet, wanting of wealth and home—

Can he be King?

Is this a Man—

This wretched form with visage marred,

Congealed in spittle and in blood,

Of garments ’reft?

Protracted joints and riven flesh The shape deform.

The frenzied mob a fiendish beast have surely killed—

Can it be a man?

From sacred lore

A lightning smites upon my soul,

As prophets call Thy Name

Above all names:

Immanuel, and

David’s Son, and

Paschal Lamb—

“My Saviour, and my God!”

W. RUSSELL OGDEN

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.