There is a rising fascination with historic forms of Christianity in the online sphere. While the on the ground data shows that non-denominational churches are still growing the fastest it's hard to ignore the fact that thanks to the internet many people are discovering that there are far more people interested in historic forms of church than was once assumed. It's sort of a "man bites dog" scenario meaning it’s unexpected so it drives clicks. However, I think Catholic apologist Trent Horn in a recent video about the trend was right in saying that the gulf between a self-directed spiritual journey online and visiting a local flesh and blood parish is still pretty big. I find it funny to read comments and see people now identify as Roman Catholic before they've ever been to Mass. I digress, but what I wanted to address is the biggest misconception about historic Christianity which is the high church vs. low church distinction. In common parlance the term "high church" is associated with ornate cathedrals, intricate vestments, and elaborate choreography (also known as sacramentals) that take place during worship. This is not really what makes someone high church. The real distinction between elaborate cathedrals with golden chalices and pipe organs and a plainer parish really comes down to money. Does the community have the resources to buy and pay for all these things? Someone can still be very high church and worship in a very plain space. And as someone who considers himself low church Anglican, I wanted to briefly defend why even someone like me would actually be considered high church relative to non-denominational and Baptist churches. The real distinction between high church and low church is whether or not you have a high or low ecclesiology AKA theology of the Church.

A good litmus test to find out where you end up on the candle stick is to reflect on your response to the statement, “There is no salvation outside the church.” By my estimation the Christian group that has the highest ecclesiology would be the Eastern Orthodox who would say without hesitation that no one can be saved apart from membership in the earthly Orthodox institution to the point where they won’t even pray with Roman Catholics or Protestants. On the far other end of the spectrum would be non-denominational Christians who would say that the church and the sacraments play absolutely no role in your salvation and are optional and all that matters is the individual faith of the person. Any participation in a worship service or a sacrament is simply an exercise of obedience to Jesus. There is no real cosmic reality to the Church beyond it being a collection of individual believers. There is no one in the Anglican continuum who would go that far, not even Reformed Low Church Anglicans like me.

Whether your priest wears jeans and a stole or a thousand-dollar cope during Sunday service all Anglicans have these bare minimum ecclesial commitments. We all share a belief in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The Church has a spiritual reality to it. It is an institution founded by Jesus and the idea that a person can identify as a Christian and not be part of the institution in some form seems biblically and historically nonsensical. Second, all Anglicans believe in the historic episcopacy. We believe that in the days of the early church the Apostles played a unique role with unique authority. We also see them dispensing authority to others through something we call ordination. While we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers, we see that God distinguishes some people as having a real authority to teach and administer the sacraments that differs from lay people. As the apostles died off the bishops assumed this role to some degree and continue to act in ways the apostles did, and priests became the new second tier level of spiritual authority in the Church. Third, all Anglicans believe that the sacraments are generally necessary for salvation. We say generally because we do believe that ultimately Jesus’ atoning work is what saves us but that the normative way someone enters the church is through baptism and the normative way someone receives sustaining grace is through the Lord’s Supper. The frequency of Communion has varied throughout church history. In the Middle Ages and Reformation periods it usually only happened three times a year. In early American history the frequency was monthly with Morning Prayer being the primary Sunday Service and then post Vatican II and the liturgical renaissance many branches of the Church have returned the early church practice of weekly Communion. We do not admit people to the Lord’s Supper who have not been baptized. We believe the sacraments really do dispense grace from God they are not just acts of obedience.

Right away you can see that even if an Anglican Church appears rather simple in its expression it still blows the typical American church experience out of the water in terms of theology underneath. So, when someone is looking for that rather theatrical and ornate church experience, I typically chalk that up to taste in the same way someone might prefer loud music in the worship service. There is nothing wrong with this, but I think it is important for us to be self-aware and realistic. I look at guys like Joe from the Young Anglican YouTube channel who I would describe as a higher church Anglican based on his theology. But he truly loves the Anglican Church and wants to help serve her in whatever way God has for him and so I was surprised to learn that he worships and serves at an Anglican church plant whose worship expression is even more bare bones than what we do at Ascension. That reflects maturity.

So theologically what truly divides the high church from the low church in the Anglican spectrum? Low churchmen emphasize preaching over the Lord’s Supper as the main event for worship. High churchmen emphasize the Lord’s Supper. Low churchmen really only believe in two sacraments whereas high churchmen are keener to believe all seven are properly called sacraments. Low churchmen would view apostolic succession as primarily about the teachings of the Apostles while still probably recognizing the physical chain of succession through ordination. High churchmen would emphasize the tactile passing down of power first and foremost. Low churchmen tend to be more Reformed with a lower view of human free will and a higher view of God’s sovereignty in salvation. High Churchmen would have a higher view of human free will and would emphasize continued participation with God in our salvation. Basically, low churchmen are more monergistic and high churchmen are more synergistic in their view of salvation. Low churchmen would emphasize the need for a living faith in order to receive benefits from the sacraments while high churchmen would have a more automatic view of the sacraments. Low churchmen view the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as heavenly by the Holy Spirit whereas High churchmen would lean closer to transubstantiation while not usually crossing that line. The low church view is more about reception of the Eucharist through faith while high church has a more local view of Christ’s presence and would view the consecration of the host to be the climax of the act. Low churchmen would view ordination more in terms of being authorized to preach and administer the sacraments while high churchmen would emphasize the reception of an indelible mark on the soul of the priest and a power to confect the Eucharist that lay people simply do not have. Low church is more emphatically sola scriptura whereas high church would place tradition on a higher level of interpretive authority with Scripture.

I do also want to note that the Oxford Movement (the movement towards higher church theology in Anglicanism) has had some lasting effects on the whole of Anglicanism. At the Reformation all priests would have worn a black scarf during worship but now we all wear colored stoles during Communion which at one point was viewed as a Roman Catholic practice. The Oxford Movement dreamed of a free church not associated with a human government and every American Anglican today believes in a separation of church and state. The reintroduction of services like Ash Wednesday is another victory. The use of holy oil in baptism and wedding rings is another. The use of the epiclesis during Communion would be another. Even I, a low churchman, reverently consume the left-over wine during Communion and we reserve the sacrament for use in visiting the sick and homebound.  

So, at Ascension is our worship style really a reflection of our view of the church or is it about something else? First, I would like to point out that Christ Church Plano, our sending church, would theologically be on the low church end of the spectrum. They self-identify as evangelical on their website, and they emphasize the sermon and teaching doctrine in their services and ministries. And yet, appearance wise they are very ornate. This once again goes back to my point about finances. Christ Church has been blessed with very generous people who live in the land of corporate headquarters and have been able to obtain many of these beautiful vessels and buildings for use in their worship. I truly enjoy worshipping there. But they are not high church simply because of the way they dress or because they have a stone altar in their sanctuary.

Church of the Ascension on the other hand is a church plant. We are a mobile church in a rented space in a land filled with Baptists. As I heard one priest put it, “You have to start where you are.” I have been told to my face by several different people that if our service was any more elaborate than it already is they simply would not have trusted us or given us a second chance. I even heard from one couple that my clergy collar was enough of a reason not to even give us a visit. And yet, we have people who would never had set foot in a Catholic church or Anglo Catholic Church out of fear of catching fire from heresy who are now making the sign of the cross and wanting to be confirmed. We are trying to make our worship service accessible and understandable to the people God has called us to reach: the unbaptized and the non-Anglican alike.

When I was receiving training for church planting the thing I was told over and over again was to be careful not to plant this church in my imagination. You might have in your mind an ideal church worship experience but then you have to face the reality of paying for it and seeing if anyone would actually come. Our church will always be about our mission. Our mission will always guide our decisions and our methods. Are we able to make converts? Our services are faithful to the Book of Common Prayer and theologically we are genuinely Anglican, but we are not interested in simply transferring Anglicans from one church to another…we want to make new Anglicans! And more importantly we want to make new Christians!!!

I have my own opinions about vestments. For example, if I had the power, I would require all clergy to have their clergy shirts tailored to fit them. I think that if you are going to wear your cassock everywhere you should treat it like a business suit and not (as I saw one high church Anglican do) keep it in the trunk of your car where it will get wrinkled. I like the surplice better than the Alb (especially the cassock-Alb) as it is a Reformation garment that emphasizes the teaching authority of the pastor, and I just think it looks better. And I think at the bare minimum you should wear a clergy collar during worship but not every Anglican does this. I also think Anglicans should mostly wear broad collars not tab collars as this is more reflective of our identity, but many priests prefer tab collars because they are more comfortable (and they’re right about that). But here’s the thing, all of these are just expressions of my personal taste. I am not dogmatic about them. Aside from basic fashion sense I think it is acceptable for Anglicans to dress in all sorts of ways. It’s also very hot in Texas so that comes into play as well.

In closing, it is very important to separate first tier issues from second tier issues. There are many gorgeous Episcopal Churches with elaborate liturgies and buildings, but their theology is heretical. If we want to see the orthodox Anglican communion in America grow, we must recognize we are in a building phase. The Episcopal Church got to have incredible architecture because they gave incredible sums of money to their churches. With only 1000 churches in the ACNA and a shoestring budget we must accept where we are and what our role is in this generation. Our role is to plant as many churches as we can, reach as many people as we can, and give as much as we can so the next generation can feel more established than we do now. We must build the ACNA in the world, not in our minds.