High or Low or In Between?
FROM THE RECTOR
You may have noticed that my clergy colleagues and I have different styles when we lead worship. Some of us are more likely to bow or make the sign of the cross at certain points during the eucharistic prayer. Others, by which I mean me, are more likely to preside with our hands folded, using only minimal gestures at the holy table. When the bishop was here, he incorporated some ritual movements into worship that we hardly ever see, including genuflecting (i.e. kneeling down) at the altar several times. Which way is the right way? Which one is best?
My favorite part about the way the clergy approach worship at St. Paul’s is that we allow whoever is presiding to take the lead while the rest of us follow suit. When I am standing next to Sara and she makes the sign of the cross, I mirror her actions even if they are not my usual practice. When the bishop was presiding at the Eucharist, we knelt down in unison even though we hardly ever do that at St. Paul’s. In the Episcopal Church, we believe that God is present and active in our worship whether it incorporates ritual flourishes reminiscent of the Roman Catholic tradition or reflects the simplicity of our Protestant heritage.
Sometimes, we use the labels “high church” or “low church” to distinguish different styles of worship in the Anglican tradition, but I suspect that most of us use those labels without intending to convey the fullness of their historical contexts. Those of us who have navigated to the Episcopal Church from evangelical denominations, in which wearing vestments and making the sign of the cross are anathema, may feel like every aspect of our worship is high church. Others who have come to St. Paul’s from a Roman Catholic background or from another Episcopal church that more often uses “smells and bells” may feel like our worship is fairly low. But I don’t think either of those terms accurately reflects who we are.
Historically, the divide between high and low church partisans was not manifest in subtle differences but along exaggerated and rigid lines of allegiance. In the sixteenth century, Richard Hooker made the case that tradition and reason, along with Holy Scripture, could be used faithfully to establish church structures and practices, helping secure the role of bishops in the Church of England. Despite his leadership, Anglican clergy remained divided on whether a Protestant church like ours could maintain leadership through bishops, and the high-low divide became manifest largely over the acceptability of the episcopacy.
Even when the Episcopal Church was established in this country, there was significant debate over whether bishops belonged in our church and how much authority they should be given. At the time, the high-low church divide in the Church of England was manifest not only in debates over the role of bishops but also in the role of the crown in the life of the church. The Latitudinarians were a group of church leaders who taught that a “wide latitude” of tolerance should be given throughout the church so that both Puritan and Catholic-leaning clergy could find a home in Anglicanism. Their willingness to make room for their more Protestant colleagues earned them the low church label, even though they were more ritualistic than puritanical. And, because they had support from the Hanoverian monarchs, who were more Protestant than their Stuart predecessors, the Latitudinarians also held that the king should play a prominent role in the governance of the church rather than turning that authority over only to bishops.
After the American Revolution, when the Episcopal Church was established as independent from the Church of England, we needed to find a substitute for the crown’s influence in the church, but we also recognized that, in a nation as diverse as ours, the Latitudinarian approach to tolerance would be necessary. In this country, therefore, the high-low debate gained added complexity. The low church side wanted to make room for the Protestants who were suspicious of episcopal authority, but, unable to appeal to a sympathetic monarch, they needed to find a new source of authority. High church leaders were quick to turn to bishops for that leadership, but their low church colleagues were unwilling to give in.
Modelled after the structures of our national government, the Episcopal Church adopted a constitution and canons that maintained the leadership of bishops but also vested equal authority in church governance in the clergy and laity. The General Convention, which is meeting now in Louisville, is a reflection of this balance between high and low church. As Bishop Harmon said during the Adult Forum of his visit, bishops, priests, and deacons are no more important to the church than the laity. We all have different roles to play, but each role is equally important.
As you have undoubtedly experienced, however, the high-low church divide now has as much to do with liturgy as with church governance. After the English Reformation, the Church of England was decidedly Protestant, and liturgical practices that were common in the Roman Catholic tradition were outlawed. In the eighteenth century, however, a movement to recover some of those practices began to grow in the church.
Associated first with the revitalization of urban parishes, where the needs of the poor were being neglected, the Oxford Movement advocated a return to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the ancient church. Disappointed with the ways in which secular government had begun to influence the established church, the leaders of the Oxford Movement taught that the true church could not derive its authority from the state but only from God. As an expression of that belief, leaders in the movement openly rejected those regulations that prohibited things like traditional Roman Catholic eucharistic vestments and that required clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Initially, therefore, the Oxford Movement was as much a political, anti-establishment campaign as a theological or liturgical renewal, but it resulted in a recovery of traditional practices that led to the development of Anglo-Catholicism as a vibrant expression of our identity.
In practice, our church is neither high nor low but a little bit of both. A true low church parish would not allow vestments, incense, or sanctus bells and would probably only share Communion one Sunday a month, opting for Morning Prayer on the other Sundays. A true high church parish would not only celebrate the Eucharist every week with lots of incense and highly coordinated ritual actions but would also deemphasize the role of Bible study and lifelong formation in favor of a daily mass.
In our services, we emphasize the importance of the sermon as an opportunity to proclaim God’s Word without neglecting the beauty of sacramental worship. We make room for a personal religious experience without discounting the value of corporate salvation. We recognize that some of us experience a distinct moment of conversion while others receive assurance of their salvation as they celebrate their baptismal identity as members of the Body of Christ. In words, we are a congregation that respects the diversity of religious backgrounds and practices that make us Episcopalians.
I doubt that my clergy colleagues intend to make a statement about the authority of bishops or the efficaciousness of the sacraments whenever they put on the chasuble before leading worship. I choose to wear cassock and surplice because they are the historic dress of Anglican clergy, but I do so not as a rejection of our catholic heritage but as a reflection of my commitment to the breadth of our distinct tradition. I like being a part of a church that is both catholic and Protestant, high and low, and I trust that we meet Jesus most fully when we do so together on a bridge that spans that divide.
Yours faithfully,
Evan D. Garner