Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and other clergy wear distinctive clothing both on the street and during worship. Many Evangelical Christians argue that there is simply no biblical justification for clergy to wear clothing that distinguishes them from laity. Our initial response to that charge is that there is really nothing whatsoever said about the matter in Holy Scripture one way or the other, and following the “normative principle” of worship, we say that what the Scripture does not expressly or implicitly prohibit may be allowed. The following explanation not only pertains to why Anglican clergy wear distinctive clothing, but why their churches are often adorned with art and other sacred symbols.

It has to be understood that since its beginning the Church of Jesus Christ has embraced a theology of “signs” and “images”: earthly symbols that point to a divine reality. Men and women are created in the “image” of God, that is to say, there is something about their existence that points in a relational and symbolic way to God (Gen. 1:26). Jesus is said to be the “express image of (the Father’s) person”(Heb. 1:3). The bread and the wine consecrated by the celebrant at Holy Communion are symbols (but not bare ones!) that signify in a sacramental way the body and blood of Christ. The early church, employing this theology of signs and images, began to select mundane things to serve as symbols that pointed to divine reality: artwork; architecture; candles, incense; clergy attire.

The symbolism of clergy attire, both the “clericals” that deacons, priests and bishops wear every day and the “vestments” they wear during worship, can have several meanings, but the bottom line is that they do not point so much to the man himself, who is a sinner like everyone else, but to the apostolic office he holds, and most importantly, to the Christ he serves. Here is one web site showing the spiritual meanings of the distinctive clothing worn by clergy.

How many times in non-liturgical churches have you heard the instruction to “bow your head and close your eyes” before prayer? Or how many say their prayers at night kneeling by their bedsides? These are biblically-based instances of how God’s people have always worshipped, that is, with their bodies as well as their hearts and souls. The Bible is full of examples of how saints worshipping God prostrated themselves or bent the knee. Liturgical worship simply expands on this, adopting a code of physical gestures to be used at various points in the liturgy. The Christian faith is an incarnate faith; what we believe and feel in our hearts and souls we express in a physical way. There is nothing “rote” about any of this if it is understood that it springs from a believing and grateful heart.

We believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as set forth above.

We believe that the Bible is God’s Word written. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired, and contain all things necessary to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

We believe the Sacraments of the Church are God’s Word in action. The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ for all Christians.

We believe that the written Word and the holy Sacraments are joined together and rightly proclaimed in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer. (Editions 1662, 1928 – US, 1929 – Scottish, and 1962 – Canadian.)

We believe that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are to be taught in the Church and to be received by the Faithful.

We believe Christian Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.

We believe the Ordained Ministry of the Church (the “threefold ministry” of bishop, priest, deacon) is reserved to godly men.

For further information, see our “What We Believe” page here.

Yes, we do baptize infants (“paedobaptism”), a practice to which the church of the earliest centuries attest. (Readers interested in just *how* early may consult Joachim Jeremias’ magisterial work “Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries”.) Baptists and other Christians who insist that only young people and adults may, upon a credible profession of faith, be baptized (“credobaptism”), do so on the basis of a number of texts in the New Testament that describe the baptisms of adult believers. There’s just one thing wrong with this: these accounts are just that – *descriptions*. They are not, however, *prescriptions*, and nowhere in the Bible is a believer-only baptismal rule prescribed. Nor, for that matter, is there a prescription regarding the baptism of infants, though there are possible indications that the New Testament church baptized babies since baptism became to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old (e.g., Col. 2:11-12).

Almost certainly, the early Jewish Christians, hearing St. Peter’s promise that the gift of salvation under the New Covenant was being made “to you and your children”, would have heard in those words echoes of the familial and corporate nature of salvation understood under the Old Covenant. The Jewish faith of the first century had already adopted a practice called “proselyte baptism”, in which *both* Gentile converts and their infants were brought into the faith through baptism. As Jeremias notes, Jewish proselyte baptism stands in a parent-to-child relationship to Christian paedobaptism.

What then does baptism mean to a tiny human being that has yet the capacity to make a profession of faith? The theological answer to this question is somewhat detailed, but essentially it is this: firstly, the infants of believers are brought into a covenant relationship to God, just as the infants of the Jewish people were, and secondly, that the Holy Spirit can be just as active upon a baptized infant as he was upon John the Baptist in the womb. That is to say, the work of the Holy Spirit is not limited to only those mature enough to make a profession of faith. The baptism of an infant is a perfect picture of the grace of God, which is bestowed upon us before we ever believed in Christ – something to which the conversion of St. Paul clearly attests. (See Eph. 1; 2:8-10). The personal faith involved in the act of baptism is expressed by both the child’s parents and godparents, who promise to raise the child in the Christian faith. Furthermore, the sacrament of baptism is complemented by the sacrament of confirmation, which is bestowed by the bishop upon a young person after he or she is taught, and personally receives, the Christian faith after a process of catechesis (“teaching”).

We Anglicans do not believe that the Eucharistic elements are mere symbols of Christ’s body and blood. To us, Holy Communion is not merely “a moment of silence in memory of the late, great Jesus”, as one Lutheran theologian said of the view commonly attributed to the Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli and which is espoused by most Evangelicals today. We believe that when we receive the consecrated elements we actually “participate” in, or be in mystical union with, the body and blood of both the crucified and glorified Christ. This is exactly what St. Paul says I Cor. 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Paul knew the Greek world well, and the Greek word for “participation” here is suggestive of Greek religions that believed oneness with their gods was effected by a sacral meal.

Note, however, that St. Paul does not go into any detail about *how* that union with Christ is effected in the eating of the meal. This is why Anglicans reject the Roman Catholic view of “transubstantiation”, a well-meaning construct based on Aristotelian philosophical categories but which we feel is unbiblical and unnecessary. Rather, we hold to a view of “real presence” that is more mystical in nature, summarized well in this quote often attributed to John Donne:

“Twas God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it;
And what the word did make it;
That I believe, and take it.”

To partake of the Eucharist is to be mystically at one with the sacrificed, resurrected and glorified Christ. If Christ is personally present to us in our personal prayers, how much more is He so in the sacrament of His Body and Blood? The Church of Jesus Christ has always believed in this doctrine of “real presence”.

Unlike the belief of some, we do not hold that being an Anglican means being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even being a member of the so-called Anglican Communion. Being an Anglican means faithful adherence to the beliefs and practices of the historic Church of England and her daughters throughout the world, and doing so under the supervision of a bishop in genuine apostolic succession. It means being faithful to the teaching of the apostles and Church Fathers, to the spirit of the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican formularies, to orthodox Anglican theology, and to the canons. Ultimately it means heartfelt commitment to “the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)

Yes. Unfortunately, as explained above, we believed that The Episcopal Church and many other churches that are a part of the so-called Anglican Communion, have departed not only from historic Anglican faith and practice, but from Christianity itself. Not that there are no faithful Christians in these churches, only that, by and large, these churches have sadly apostatized from the biblical and Catholic faith. The Orthodox Anglican Church – North America and the wider Orthodox Anglican Communion are a part of a movement of conservative Anglicans that have separated from the Anglican Communion and from liberal churches such as The Episcopal Church. We pray for the repentance of these churches and for the unity of those conservative Anglican churches that have found it necessary to depart.

Short answer: Yes.

Now for the long answer.

As noted in the section on Anglicanism, the English Church dates back to the earliest days of the English people, and has accordingly always seen herself as a part of the entire Catholic (“universal”) Church of Jesus Christ. However, the Church of England did become enmeshed in the tumultuous affair known as the Protestant Reformation and because of that, she has a certain “Protestant” or “Reformed” stamp. That being said, most Anglicans see themselves as “Protestant” only is very conservative or restrictive sense, more conservative and restrictive even than Lutheranism, which is also often viewed more conservative than other Protestant traditions. The 17th-century Anglican theologian John Cosin put it this way: Anglicans are “Protestant and Reformed according to the principles of the ancient Catholic Church.” One Anglican blogger expands upon this:

“The formularies of classical Anglicanism did a better job of retaining the wheat of the orthodox catholicism of the ancient Church while jettisoning the chaff of innovative medieval accretion than did any other segment of the Reformation. This is why Anglicanism can, perhaps uniquely, lay equal claim to the appellations Protestant and Catholic and affirm both without any sense of inconsistency or incoherence. Indeed, strictly speaking, in proper understanding of each term, to truly be one, you must be both.”

All that being said, and in keeping with the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi (“The law of prayer is the law of belief.”), we believe our fundamental identity is (Anglican) Catholic. We believe so because of what we confess in the Creed during our prayers: “We believe one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.” For us, catholicity and apostolicity are inseparable. We are truly Catholic only to the extent that we are truly Apostolic, and we truly Apostolic only to the extent that we are truly Catholic.

One side note, too often we use the word Catholic to mean Roman Catholic. When we use the word Catholic we mean Catholic (universal) and not Roman Catholic. One good way of defining Catholic is by Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, “What everywhere, what always, and what by all has been believed, that is truly and properly Catholic.”

The Book of Common Prayer is another one of Anglicanism’s “formularies.” During the English Reformation, Archbishop of Canterbury and other English clergy sought to make the content of the Christian faith more accessible to the common people by producing both an English Bible and an English prayer book. Cranmer’s goal was to produce a one-volume book that contained texts for Morning and Evening Prayer, a Lectionary (schedule of Bible readings), the service of Holy Communion, the Ordinal (rites for ordaining deacons and priests, and consecrating bishops) and other tools necessary for prayer, worship and living out the Christian church’s cycle of feasts and fasts.

Lex orandi, lex credendi is a motto we have received from the ancient church and which goes to the heart of what we are as Anglicans. The English translation of the Latin motto is, roughly, “the law of prayer is the law of belief” or “we pray what we believe”. What this means, essentially, is that everything we believe as Anglicans can be found in the official prayers set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. The prayer book is suffused with Scripture and a spirit of biblical belief that flows through all its prayers and rites. If you want to know what Orthodox Anglican theology looks like, read its prayers.

Apostolic succession refers to a bishop’s standing in an unbroken chain of consecration stretching back to the first century. The term “apostle” refers to one who is “sent” by Jesus to carry on His ministry to the world. One of the earliest references to the succession of the Church’s first generation of bishops is found in the Epistle of I Clement, the bishop of Rome to the Corinthians, which was penned around 95 A.D., before the death of the last apostle, St. John:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (Ch. 44)
St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., shortly after the death of St. John, refers to the chain of orthodox bishops as a bulwark against the teachings of the Gnostics:

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. . . .

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. . . .( “Against Heresies”, Book III, Chapter 3)

Anglicans believe tactile apostolic succession to be important because it is both the Church’s historic understanding of how Christ’s authority is conveyed down through the ages, and a guarantee of the validity of her sacraments. This does not mean that God cannot work through what we consider to be other “irregular” ministries. The Holy Spirit is not bound, and due to certain historical exigencies we know that there are other beliefs concerning the ordained ministry. Accordingly, we are not so bold to say that they are without the grace of God. However, we are sticklers for tradition where tradition does not stand against Holy Scripture. The Church has always believed in the iconic, sacramental centrality of the bishop, and that valid bishops stand in the chain of apostolic succession. This belief was unchallenged until the Reformation, some 1600 years after the Church was founded by Jesus and which was episcopally governed as early as 110 A.D., as seen in the writings of the Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius. The English Reformers perpetuated the historic threefold ministry of the ancient church.

Most famous Englishmen and Englishwomen have been and are Anglicans, as would be expected, as were a number of famous early Americans. Here is but a smattering, representing various fields and vocations:

C.S. Lewis, famous English novelist, poet, medievalist, lay theologian, broadcaster, lecturer, and Christian apologist, beloved of Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox alike. Known especially for his Christian allegory novels “The Chronicles of Naria” and the “Space Trilogy.”

P.D. James, English writer and mystery novelist featuring police inspector Adam Dalgleish.

T.S. Eliot, famous English poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, literary and social critic, whose thought has greatly influenced English and American conservatism.

Dorothy Sayers, English crime writer, poet, playwright, essayist, and member of the “Inklings” literary club along with C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein

Jan Karon, Episcopalian author of the delightful “Mitford” series of novels about an Episcopal priest, Fr. Tim, and his life in Mitford, North Carolina, a fictional town based on Karon’s former home, Blowing Rock.

Peter Hitchens, conservative English journalist.

American presidents George Washington and James Madison, along with a number of other Founding Fathers.

Robert E. Lee, iconic general of the Confederate States Army and later president of Washington College, 1865-1870.

Absalom Jones, first African American Anglican priest.

David Pendleton Oakerhater, famous Native American Anglican deacon and missionary.

J.I. Packer, scholar, professor, and author of “Knowing God” among other known books.

John Stott, pastor, scholar, and author of “The Cross of Christ” and “Basic Christianity”.

Canon Andrew White, Vicar of St. George’s Anglican Church, Baghdad, Iraq, who has bravely stood with his flock against the depredation of ISIS.

The English word “priest” is derived from the Old English “preost”, which in turn is derived from Greek presbyteros (“presbyter”; “elder”). That being said, Anglicans are not Prebyterians, that is, we do not simply view our priests as the Anglican version of Presbyterian clergy (“elders”). There is a sacrificial aspect to what our priests do, especially during Holy Communion. Some Christians believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is not supposed to have “priests” since, as the arguments runs, the old sacrificial order of Jewish temple worship has been supplanted by our great high priest Jesus Christ, and a sort of egalitarian “priesthood of all believers” who make up His Church. However, it is important to note that the earliest writings of the Christian church (including the incipient indications in the New Testament such as Romans 15:16) reveal that the church has always considered its “presbyters” priests, that is, clergy who offer sacrifices. During the tumultuous days of the Protestant Reformation, one of the chief objections to Roman Catholic theology by the Reformers was that the Roman Catholic Mass is a clear renunciation of the biblical teaching that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, and therefore no more sacrifices are necessary. Whatever the merit of the case against Roman theology of the Mass might be, Anglicans do not deny that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all. This is reflected in the very words our priests say during the prayers of Holy Communion:

“ALL glory be to You, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who, in your tender mercy gave Your only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; Who made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, offering, and complete payment, for the sins of the whole world;. . . .”

Nothing could be clearer. That being said, our priests, being priests, offer something there at the table. What is it? One Anglican seminarian puts it very succinctly:

“Not every sacrifice implies atonement. We * do* offer sacrifices on that Holy Table which makes it, by definition, an altar. There are “thank offerings”– which is precisely what the Eucharist is. We also offer incense (again, not as an atonement offering, but out of thanksgiving). We offer the prayers at the altar. We offer alms on the altar. These are all sacrifices and thank offerings. We are able to offer anything to God *because* of what Jesus has done for us in his once for all sacrifice *for sins* upon the Highest Altar of the cross.”

In fact, we offer our very selves to God at the altar. “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship”, writes St. Paul in Romans 12:1. Interestingly, Paul here conflates the idea of our living self-sacrifice with the idea of worship, and that is exactly what Anglicans do when they offer themselves to God in the Eucharistic sacrifice. As St. Augustine put it, “If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying ‘Amen’ to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear ‘The body of Christ’, you reply ‘Amen.’ Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true!”

So yes, we have priests – and bishops and deacons — as we hold to the historic threefold ministry, which finds attestation in the Church Fathers as early as the first decade of the second century (The Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch). And unlike the practices of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches, Anglican clergymen are allowed to marry, both before and after ordination.