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 reasonable possibility that we might never
have attended.
1
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
NAPARC stands for “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council,” an
association of fairly conservative Reformed denominations. You can learn more about
NAPARC here: http://www.naparc.org/.
*
†
Since Grace Anglican Church began, two other Presbyterian churches have been
planted in our general area, an Associate Reformed Presbyterian church in Grove City,
and an Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Slippery Rock.
2
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 churchplanting. 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
‡
Former and late President at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, author of
Preaching Christ in All of Scripture.
§
Current President of Covenant Theological Seminary, author of Christ-Centered
Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.
**
Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido and author of Him We
Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures.
3
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
4
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 thorough Covenantal 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:
5
“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.
††
For a full exposition of Calvin’s understanding of the matter, cf. Ronald Wallace,
Calvin’s Doctrine of Word and Sacrament.
6
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.”
‡‡
By employing “catholic” with a small “c” I mean to use the term in its nondenominational sense, meaning “universal,” not in its denominational sense to mean
“Roman Catholic.” In this sense, Calvin and Luther attempted to return “Catholic”
worship to its original “catholic” worship.
7
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
8
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
9
as I have no difficulty loving two wonderful daughters, I have no difficulty loving two
wonderful branches of the church of Jesus Christ.
10