Why We Attend Grace Anglican Church

Why We Attend Grace Anglican Church

T. David Gordon

Introduction

With some frequency, people ask me “Why do you attend Grace Anglican Church?” Since I am a professing Christian, it is obvious that I attend church as a follower of Christ, so I assume that when people ask the question, what they actually mean is this: “Why do you, as an ordained Presbyterian (PCA) minister and well-known defender of presbyterianism, attend a non-Presbyterian church?” Since I am a public individual (both as an ordained minister and as a college professor), I do not regard the question as inappropriate, impertinent, or intrusive. The public has a right to understand the reasoning of someone who labors publicly, and I am delighted to give an account. Since I am asked the question with some frequency, however, it may save me some time to simply provide an answer here on my website, rather than to do so ad hoc.

The historical context may also be appropriate. Grace Anglican was established just over five years ago (2006). We knew very well the couple who were “ringleaders” in discussions with Bishop Duncan about the project, and we regarded them (then and now) as fine Christians and good friends. When new churches are planted, they often struggle for quite a while to become large enough to have a critical mass to be self-sustaining, so we considered participating for that reason: To be part of the original “generation” of a church-plant, at least to get the work going until it would reach the point where our support might no longer be needed. That is, had Grace Anglican already been fifty years old at the time, up and running fine, there is a reasonablepossibility that we might never have attended.

Non-Considerations

Two things were not considerations that led us to join with Grace Anglican.

First, I have changed none of my theological beliefs or commitments. I still believe that Presbyterian government (connected government and government by plurality of governors) is taught in Holy Scripture, and is therefore the form of government that most closely accords with the teaching of Scripture. I also still warmly embrace and promote the regulative principle of (government and) worship, as it is taught in the Westminster standards.

Second, when we joined Grace Anglican, we had no “beef” with the other NAPARC[*] churches in the area, all of which were thriving, orthodox, solid churches. There may be a few differences between some of my views and some of theirs, but they are differences that reside within the acceptable parameters of our confessional standards. As an example of such a difference, I have believed and promoted for many years the doctrine of frequent communion (I even have a document here on my website, “Weekly Communion,” that addresses the matter). The other NAPARC churches in our area at the time[†] did not share this commitment, but nothing in our confessional standards requires them to do so; this is an area of honest and respectful disagreement among those who sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster standards. I also happen to concur with the doctrine of preaching promoted by Edmund P. Clowney,[‡] Bryan Chapell,[§] and Dennis E. Johnson,[**]and the other NAPARC churches in the area at the time did not necessarily share this commitment. But again, this is an honest and respectful difference among those who adhere sincerely to the Westminster standards. We still know and love many of the members of the various NAPARC churches in our area, and we enjoy our fellowship with them immensely.

Considerations (Church-planting, Reformed theology, Continental Reformed worship)

Three considerations informed our decision to join with Grace Anglican Church.

First, my wife and I believe in church-planting. In the course of our marriage, God’s providence has permitted Dianne and me to be involved more than once in church-planting. I was a ruling elder at the Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church when, in the early 1980s, the elders determined to plant a daughter church in Richmond, VA. I was present to assist in worship the very first time All Saints Presbyterian Church (PCA) met for worship (under the pastoral leadership of Howard Griffith) in June of 1984. Many years later (1997), Gregory Reynolds planted the Amoskeag Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Manchester, NH, and we were active there for the initial years of that plant, before moving to western PA in 1999. So, when our good friends Dr. Gillis and Mrs. Barbara Harp shared with us their vision to plant a Bible-believing Reformed and Anglican Church under the oversight of Bishop Robert Duncan of the then-Pittsburgh Diocese of the Episcopal Church, we took interest in the idea, and when the idea became reality, we threw our hats into the ring. Indeed, of the 200-plus who now regularly attend Grace Anglican on a given Sunday, only three couples were among those present for the initial worship service: the Harps, Ethan and Monique Magness (the pastor and his wife), and the Gordons.

Second, we are Reformed. As the Reformed tradition emerged from the Lutheran tradition early in the Reformation, Reformed churches settled in various places in Europe, and a good number of Reformed confessions and catechisms were written over the first two centuries of the Reformation, including such as the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Irish Articles of Religion, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster standards, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church. Grace Anglican enthusiastically embraces the Reformed doctrines of the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which there is not a sentence that differs substantially from the Westminster standards. I do not know whether this is common or rare today among Anglican churches, but at Grace Anglican, the theology is as Reformed as it is at any of the NAPARC churches in the region. Pastor Magness is as enthusiastic as I am in embracing the distinctives of this heritage, and it would be nearly impossible to hear him preach a single sermon without discerning the unmistakably Augustinian understanding of human depravity and the utterly sovereign, free grace that is ours only in Christ.

Third, we are liturgically Continental. Within the Reformed tradition, over time some smaller differences of emphasis developed in the actual liturgical practices of the Continental Reformed churches compared to those in the British isles. Dr. R. J. Gore (of Erskine Theological Seminary) and I differ as to whether this difference in practice was due to a different theory of worship, but we agree entirely that there were several differences in practice (see Dr. Gore’s very thoroughCovenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle and my review thereof in the Westminster Theological Journal). At least three such differences developed.

One difference was the frequency of communion. Calvin believed the Supper should be observed on at least a weekly basis:

“It would be desirable that the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be in use at least once every Sunday when the congregation is assembled, in view of the great comfort which the faithful receive from it as well as the fruit of all sorts which it produces--the promises which are there presented to our faith, that truly we are partakers of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, His death, His life, His Spirit, and all His benefits, and the exhortations which are there made to us to acknowledge and by a confession of praise to magnify those wonderful things, the graces of God bestowed upon us, and finally to live as Christians, joined together in peace and brotherhood as members of the same body. In fact, our Lord did not institute it to be commemorated two or three times a year, but for a frequent exercise of our faith and love which the Christian congregation is to use whenever it is assembled.” (Articles presented to the Geneva Council in 1537, cited in Hageman, Pulpit and Table, p.25.)

While the magistrates at Geneva did not permit Calvin to have his way on the matter, it is undeniable that this was his wish, and it was his wish because of his belief in the close relationship between Word and Sacrament:

“From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way, God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity, and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it. For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. (Institutes of the Christian Religion,IV. xvii. 3).

It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith…” (Institutes of the Christian Religion,IV. xvii.7).[††]

In the British isles, however, and especially in (Presbyterian and Puritan) Scotland, the Supper was ordinarily practiced much less frequently. Many churches even developed the practice of a special “sacramental season” to prepare for the (uncommon) event of the Lord’s Supper. I happen to agree with Calvin on this point, and therefore it is only natural that one (among many others) consideration regarding church-attendance is the question of the frequency of communion.

A second difference was the importance of the catholic liturgical tradition.[‡‡] As James Hastings Nichols (Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition) and Hughes Oliphant Old (The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship) have demonstrated, Calvin and Luther did not set out to compose new liturgies, but to reform the Roman Catholic liturgy of their day by returning, whenever they could, to the patterns of the early church. Indeed, Calvin’s Strasbourg liturgy was even entitled “A Form of Prayers According to the Pattern of the Ancient Church.” Insofar as Calvin’s knowledge of liturgical history permitted him to do so, he desired to frame a service of worship that was common/catholic with the earliest Christian tradition (Dr. Gore’s evidence in this area is 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 positive value to employing forms that had been employed by other parts of the church catholic, and I concur with Calvin. Especially today, in a culture where literary and theological sensibilities are in decline, I do not believe the average congregation or minister is especially capable of creating prayers that are apt, orthodox, or edifying; such churches might be wiser to employ some forms that have stood the test of time. Grace Anglican ordinarily employs the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, which some of us regard as one of the finest liturgies ever written.

Conclusion

I surely do not expect all others to agree with the choice we have made, but some parts of the public have expressed interest in the rationale for making our decision, so I have provided that rationale here. Some of my dear Presbyterian friends are so committed to Presbyterianism that they simply cannot bring themselves to worship anywhere other than at a Presbyterian church. I understand and respect that. I also candidly acknowledge that I think Presbyterian government accords more with the teaching of Scripture than does Episcopacy; but I equally candidly acknowledge that the form of any government (civil or ecclesiastical) is not as important (practically) as the character of the individuals who actually govern. I suspect Bishop Duncan must occasionally make an error of judgment, but his role as Bishop has (to date) been only a blessing to Grace Anglican. By comparison, on one occasion in the last decade I disagreed sufficiently strongly with my own Presbytery’s action that I had my negative vote recorded in the Minutes. On that occasion, at least, I would have preferred the rule of Bishop Duncan to the rule of Ascension Presbytery. Ordinarily, Ascension Presbytery governs very wisely and very compassionately; as does Bishop Duncan. Practically speaking, for the average family in the average pew, it makes little difference most of the time.

Our time at Grace Anglican has been a joyful one. We have had the joy of seeing God’s hand at work in other branches of His church than the ones with which we have been more familiar. The Christ-centered expository preaching, the thoughtful liturgy, the frequent communion, and the encouraging fellowship have all been a great blessing to us. We have received more than we have given. But we have lost nothing of our love for, or commitment to, the NAPARC churches. I preach about 25 times annually, and the vast majority of that preaching takes place in NAPARC churches. I serve on committee in my presbytery, and (as of the time of writing this) serve on a denominational committee. Just as I have no difficulty loving two wonderful daughters, I have no difficulty loving two wonderful branches of the church of Jesus Christ.

Appendix: The Pastor’s Understanding of Anglicanism

[The pastor of Grace Anglican Church, Ethan Magness, included the following explanation of Anglicanism in a recent bulletin. I include it here so that he can “speak for himself, as it were. You may find his summary to be helpful.]

Anglicans are the third largest group of Christians (after the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox), but many people don’t know much about us. Perhaps it’s because we’re not always recognized or understood that certain myths about Anglicans have popped up from time to tome (for example, some say that Anglicans are a ‘via media’ – or middle way – between Protestantism and Catholicism ... and that’s not really true; or that our 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.