No. 38. >> That helps things make sense. But I want to ask another related question. I've been to several Episcopal churches and their services all came from the Book of Common Prayer. However, even though they use the same book, the feel of the services was very different. Some of the services were very similar to a Lutheran service. But one service I want to seemed like I was in a Roman Catholic Church. With one book, why is there such variety? >>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, Eric, you've put your finger on something very important within the Anglican tradition. And that is, again, this breadth. And that is also to say that while there is the book, there is a certain variety that is not merely allowed within Anglicanism but expected and even encouraged within the broader tradition. And that gets you back to this via media notion one more time. That is to say with Anglicanism you identify -- what they have tended to do is identify those things that are basic. Those things that are constitutive of who and what they are. To put those into liturgical form and into practice. And then to carry them forward while allowing for a certain fluidity or flexibility on the part of the people who then practice. And this has expressed itself in a very, very interesting way within the Anglican tradition. I already mentioned how under the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 things were largely set. And Elizabeth liked to have control. The book was set. You used the book like this. End of story. You wear your vestments if you were a pastor. You read the sermon out of the book. And bang, bang, bang, just like that. However, as the 16th Century ended and the 17th Century opened and moved on, there emerged greater varieties in how that would demonstrate itself. Puritanism pressuring the Episcopal hierarchy required or at least resulted in a certain change of perspective. Maybe better yet, change of feel and practice in the way the service was carried out. In fact, one group within the Anglican communion that was not ready to go as far as the Puritans, especially in terms of their polity, but also in terms of their theology, retained a practice of the book that was, in fact, much more evangelical. Much less -- how shall we say? Much less formal. Much less stiff. And in many ways it would come to look like and even feel like in the practice of the service like that of the typical Reformed liturgical service. Yes, there were more parts to the Anglican rite. But the manner in which it was carried off was much more evangelical and free rather than stayed and formal as Elizabeth would have liked it. As time went by, this particular stream within the Anglican communion came to be referred to as the low church or evangelical branch of Anglicanism. Evangelical was the typical designation. Low church became the rather pejorative designation after the emergence of another group. Namely, the high church group. If you would have a low church, it would seem to stand you would also have a high church group. And this group especially emerged in the late 1820s and early 1830s around Oxford in England. Oxford University was the center of a movement called the Oxford Movement, sometimes also referred to as Tractarianism. The leaders of this group, John Henry Newman, Edward Pusey, and others were very interested in recapturing a golden age for the church. In fact, in some of their most extreme statements, people like Newman would say: The Reformation was an aberration. It was a necessary aberration. But it was temporary in character. And simply designed to knock the Roman Catholic Church, the medieval Catholic Church, off its stayed and fixed position. So that it could continue to develop, grow and mature. But once it had accomplished that purpose, it became incumbent upon the church, the Protestant churches, to reengraft themselves into the broader Catholic tradition. That, they said, is what the Oxford Movement is all about. Recapturing our lost traditions. They went so far as to specifically reject the more evangelical or low church practice of many of their colleagues. Pointing out that it was more Protestant in character. And it was Catholic. And hence, not acceptable within this particular movement. In fact, said this group, the via media for Anglicanism should be between the accesses of medieval Rome and radical Protestantism. Retaining the best of the sola scriptura principle for Protestantism. The best of the practice from the medieval church. Reengrafting these together producing a new synthesis that would lead the church on into a new age. Having accomplished this, then there would be a greater opportunity for Christian union, meaningful interchange, ecumenically speaking. And also finally the possibility of bringing back together fractured Protestantism and alienated Rome. That would be Anglicanism's great contribution. But they did so from this perspective of having a very high value on the historic liturgies and historic practices of the church. They invested a great deal of authority in early church practices. And brought back certain practices that had been discontinued during the English Reformation. For example, praying to Mary was one of the things that they did. They also surrounded the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar with the highest possible formalities, ringing the bells, elevating the host, having prayer and eucharistic chapels in their churches and reserving the hosts in the tabernacle. Even in some cases having Corpus Christi Processions. All of which were typical of medieval Rome. And all of which alarmed those in the low church evangelical segment of the church. In the midst of this dichotomy would come the Broad Church Movement. And the broad church simply said: Well, we'll find a new middle way between the extremes of the high church and the low church movement. A more embracing, a more open kind of stance on the part of Anglicanism that finds a place for all of these things without falling into the extremes of either one. So once again, that via media principle coming to the forefront. Well, within the Anglican communion there's a way of referring to these particular streams. It's a bit of a joke. But it helps people remember them. It is high and hazy because of their passion for using incense. Low and lazy since they don't involve much formality in their liturgical services. And broad and crazy because they will go for anything. Now, that might be a bit pejorative. But that's how Anglicans refer to themselves, interestingly enough. Thus, the question becomes: Where do you find some kind of center? Where do you find something to hold this together? I've argued already that's in the practice in the use of the book with understandings that there will be a variety resulting. In the latter part of the 1800s within the Anglican communion, the material principle of the church was articulated more and more in terms of the historic episcopacy. And the Episcopal Church as such began to feature more and more its office of bishop. This would find its most pronounced expression in the so-called Lambeth Chicago Quadrilateral of 1888. In which it was said there are four things that are necessary for the unity of the church. First is the acceptance of the Scriptures. Second is the acceptance of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. Third is the acceptance of the two sacraments, Lord's Supper and baptism, as dominical institutions. And the fourth they said was the recognition of the historic episcopacy along with an affirmation of Apostolic Succession. Well, much of Protestantism would be happy to affirm, sola scriptura, the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and certainly the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Where the rub came in, as we've already noted, was with the historic episcopacy. And specifically with the demand for recognizing Apostolic Succession. That is to say by virtue of the Episcopal ordination with the laying on of hands that places a new priest into the line of apostles so that they can be assured that their ministry has apostolic character by virtue of this specific ordination. Now, here Lutherans would critique that, or at least some Lutherans have, by saying when you talk about being in the train of the apostles, you're not talking about a specific ordination rite with the laying on of hands. But rather the fact that we are upholding and passing along that which has first been given to us. Namely, the apostle's teaching and the apostle's doctrine. To affirm that, to uphold that, to pass that along means, to be apostolical. And hence, Lutheran ministers are, in fact, in that apostolic train. That's not enough in the Anglican community. It must be a recognized Episcopal ordination by an existing bishop who by himself or herself, as the case, has the Apostolic Succession and has been granted the right to ordain by the church by elevation. To me that seems as though we've seen a shift in terms of the of the Anglican principle. Yes, they would say formal principle, sola scriptura. You look at the Thirty-Nine Articles, one of the first things it does is to articulate the books of the Bible, to point out what the canon is and to have a strong statement regarding the Word of God. To hear the Prayer Book practiced is to be surrounded by readings from the Scripture. And the liturgy itself in many ways is simply based upon the Scriptures and permeated by it. The sola scriptura principle is very prominent within historic Anglicanism. However, the material principle has taken a bit of a turn. And has become located more and more in this notion of the historic episcopacy. So that if one recognizes the bishop who does have the Apostolic Succession and worships according to the book that he and his colleagues have provided, that if one does these things, that if a congregation does these things, then one is considered to be within the Paul and within the Anglican fold. And thus, in the right way of doing things. It's subtle. But it seems to me, also, a very significant shift. And it does have certain implications for ongoing ecumenical discussions between Anglicans and others. In fact, the ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has recently entered into a full communion cooperation with the Anglican church. To do so, however, demanded that a special arrangement be provided for recognizing the ordination and ministries of the Lutheran pastors. Here there was a question about whether their ministries were valid. And something of an exception was invoked. The assumption being that in the future, Episcopal ordination should be delivered to these future pastors to correct what they lack. That seems to me as rather problematic. Better to go back to understanding what being part of the Apostles' Doctrine is all about. Namely, upholding the teaching, confessing it faithfully. For in that we always see not the center as the man or an office. But the center always been Jesus Christ crucified and risen again. For he is the one who gives us meaning, identity and gives us a reason for our proclamation of that good news so the world may come to know of the salvation he has prepared for us.