Ask a Theologian: What do Episcopalians Believe?
Dear Theologian,
When people ask me what the Episcopal Church expects its members to believe, I’m not sure how to answer them. And when people accuse our Church of being vague and uncertain about its beliefs, I don’t know how to refute this. Where do I look? Who decides, in our Church, what we are to believe? Are there any “norms” for believing?
Perplexed Episcopalian
Dear Perplexed,
It is true that in our Church there is no “highest court of appeal” for what is to count as orthodox Christian faith, nor is there any single comprehensive and authoritative statement of what is to be believed. In these respects, our form of Church life is in sharp contrast to the Roman Catholic Church. But this is not to say that we have no idea of how and what we believe.
When we Episcopalians are asked to give an account of our beliefs, we have a “stock answer” that is often given. We quote the Latin tag, “lex orandi, lex credendi” (“the law of praying is the law of belief”). And we go on to say that our way of believing is to be discovered by considering the ways in which we pray. Our beliefs, we maintain, are implicit in the liturgical forms of worship that we follow, as set down in the Book of Common Prayer.
Seeking to understand this principle leads into a reflection on the relationship of liturgical worship and theological formulations (doctrines).
The liturgical worship of the Church, on the deepest level, is the Spirit-created, Spirit-guided expression of the living faith of its members. This is experienced in common when the baptized gather for liturgical prayer and worship, in humble openness to the Spirit-inspired symbols and metaphors of Sacred Scripture.
The liturgical worship of the Church has grown and developed over the centuries, and has found expression in various ways. These traditions must be both treasured faithfully and continually renewed in relation to the culture of every time and place in which the Church lives.
When Thomas Cranmer created the first Book of Common Prayer, he drew upon various liturgical traditions available to him at the time (Latin, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and others). He adapted this traditional material to his time and place, to provide for the Church of England a faithful contemporary set of liturgical forms.
The regular use of the 1549 Prayer Book and its later revisions has formed generations of English-speaking worshipers in their spirituality and piety. As one scholar comments, “The texts which are heard and prayed, according to the Book of Common Prayer, inform profoundly the Christian self-understanding and systematic theological reflection of Anglicans.” [1]
In a sense, liturgical prayer and worship may be regarded as the “primary theology” of the Church. It is lived without necessarily being examined intellectually or reflected upon.
The task of “secondary theology” is to think about this “lived theology” in a rational, critical way. It attempts to correlate the faith-understanding embodied in the liturgical texts with the culture of a particular time and place. In doing so, it can—when successful—articulate the inherited faith of the Church in ways that connect meaningfully with the life experience of believers.
Moreover, this kind of critical and creative intellectual work—informed by knowledge of and close attention to both Scripture and Church tradition(s)—can and must at times lead to a re-working of the forms of worship themselves, in order to express a new and more “appropriate” understanding of the mysteries of Christian faith.
A case in point is the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. Some critics of this revision have objected to its “new theology.” Louis Weil concedes the point that the 1979 Prayer Book does embody a theology different in certain ways from that implicit in the 1928 Prayer Book. But he justifies this as legitimate and appropriate.
“The new rites reflected significant theological changes, virtually all of them related to a recovery of a more biblical understanding of the nature of the Church as this touched such basic issues as Christian initiation, the Eucharist, and the role of the ordained ministry in relation to other ministries. In other words, the sacramental and liturgical study of the past several decades had gradually shaped a new mentality, and the eventual effect was to create pressure within the Church that its liturgical rites be more honestly expressive of the faith to which they witness.” [2]
This seems to be a kind of reversal of the “lex orandi, lex credendi” principle. In this case a new way of believing (that is, a new theological mentality) appears to have led to changes in the community’s way of praying (its liturgical forms).
Perhaps, therefore, we need to recognize that there is a kind of reciprocal relationship between liturgical worship and theological understanding. They influence one another at different times. Moreover, we have to acknowledge that there is growth, change and development in both theological understanding and liturgical worship.
To return now to your original question, how can we know what the Episcopal Church believes? If one accepts the principle of “lex orandi, lex credendi” as valid, then it seems that the question must be answered through careful theological study of the texts of the Book of Common Prayer, in order to make explicit and reflective the faith-understanding contained implicitly in the prayers and liturgical forms.
In principle, of course, it is the regular liturgical worship itself that should form the faith of the participants. But the liturgy, if not properly understood or deeply appreciated, has little effect on people’s spirituality. In fact, there is also a need for explicit theological instruction, especially in order to bring out the full meaning and implications of the liturgical prayers and actions.
One might, then, expect that theological study and teaching would play an important part in the Christian formation of Episcopalians. But is this the case? Those who are troubled by the apparent vagueness and superficiality sometimes noticed in our Church are perhaps feeling the lack of solid theological teaching.
What are we to do when theologians differ in their interpretations of Prayer Book faith? On the one hand, as we know, there is no highest instance of authority in the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion that could articulate a single, binding interpretation of the faith. On the other hand, the “unformulated” quality of Anglican faith-life allows for a rich plurality of understandings and spiritualities to co-exist in the same communion. It does not absolutize particular formulations in a way that shuts off further growth in understanding.
Is this a happy state of affairs? For very many people, definitely not, since they have a strong need for unambiguous, authoritative teaching on every aspect of Christian faith. For some others, however, the Anglican ethos allows for a welcome freedom in seeking to understand the faith that is being celebrated liturgically according to the established norms of the Book of Common Prayer.
Faithfully,
The Theologian
[1] W. Taylor Stevenson, “Lex Orandi—Lex Credendi” in The Study of Anglicanism, revised ed., edited by Stephen Sykes, John Booty, & Jonathan Knight (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 189.
[2] Louis Weil, “The Gospel in Anglicanism,” in The Study of Anglicanism, revised ed., edited by Stephen Sykes, John Booty, & Jonathan Knight (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 61.
The Rev. Wayne L. Fehr writes a monthly column for the diocesan newsletter called "Ask a Theologian," answering questions from ordinary Christians trying to make sense of their faith. You can find and purchase his book "Tracing the Contours of Faith: Christian Theology for Questioners" here.