They use the label ”traditional” perhaps because they think Anglicans prefer
to sing hymns accompanied by the organ rather than choruses accompanied by
guitars, keyboards and drums; we use incense and candles rather than curtains
and multi-coloured spotlights; and we have bishops and priests in fabulous clerical
robes rather than senior pastors and pastors in cool suits. Maybe they use “conservative”
or “a sit, stand and kneel church” because they think our Sunday services do
not involve spontaneity, shouts of Amen, clapping of hands and speaking in
tongues, but instead consist of the same routine week after week with set
prayers and actions. So I often wonder if my friends think that I am an
Anglican because I prefer to worship with hymns, the organ, incense, candles,
robed clergies and set prayers and actions.
Admittedly, I gravitate towards some of those things. But they are not
why I am an Anglican. (Incidentally, many Anglicans do sing choruses
accompanied by guitars, keyboards and drums; use curtains and multi-coloured
spotlights, clap hands, speak in tongues and shout Amen, and deviate from set liturgies.)
Rather, I am an Anglican because I believe in the inseparability of the
preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Eucharist in Christian worship,
and I experienced the significance of this two-fold order and unity preserved
and prescribed in the liturgical tradition of the Anglican Church.
But why do I believe that this order and unity significant? It seems to
me that for much of the history of the Christian church, the Word and the
Eucharist belonged together. The earliest biblical account of this unity is probably
Acts 2:42, which is a part of Luke’s picture of the nascent church meeting
together: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Justin Martyr’s
description of church meeting together written in the middle of the second
century also reflects such unity: “And on
the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together
to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets
are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the
president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good
things, Then
we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is
ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner
offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people
assent, saying, Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation
of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion
is sent by the deacons.” John Calvin writing in the 16th century also spoke of the
inseparability of the Word and the Eucharist: “no assembly
of the church should be held without the word being preached, prayers being
offered and the Lord's supper administered and alms given.” Indeed, there is a
consensus among scholars that Christian worship took on a basic order and shape
of two-fold division of the Word and the Eucharist very early on and remained
so for a long time. The separation of the Word and the Eucharist is a
relatively recent phenomenon in the history of the church.
The celebration
of the Eucharist is more than a performed illustration or a ritualised recollection
of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If the preaching of the Word is God addressing
and summoning us, then the celebration of the Eucharist is our response to
God’s initiative. If the preaching of the Word is our reflection of God’s self-disclosure,
then the celebration of the Eucharist is our participation in His self-disclosure.
In the Word, God in Christ is proclaimed and heard; in the Eucharist, God in
Christ is received and embraced. In and through the preaching of the Word and
the celebration of Eucharist, the holy, life-giving and transformative presence
of God in Christ is graciously made available to us by the Spirit. In and
through the Word and the Eucharist, believers are drawn into communion with the
triune God and with one another. The Word and the Eucharist mutually interpret
rather than compete as witnesses to the mystery of God in Christ. Also, the order
of the Eucharist subsequent to the reading and preaching of the Word is not
without hermeneutical significance. It invites, guides and constrains the
interpretation and preaching of Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments,
that they be centred and climaxed in life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
I am not
claiming here that such pattern of worship is unique to or best enshrined in
the liturgical tradition of the Anglican Church. I am also not writing to defend
or promote Anglicanism. Neither am I attempting to alter my friend’s perception
of why I am Anglican. My point is more personal. I am convinced that when
Christians come together to worship, the Word should be faithfully preached and
the Eucharist joyfully celebrated after, and I came to appreciate the
significance of this two-fold form of worship in two ways: through my
theological studies and through my participation and experience in the liturgical
tradition of the Anglican Church that nurtured my Christian faith and
eventually received me. So I am an Anglican not because the Anglican Church is
“traditional,” “conservative,” or “a sit, stand and kneel church” as my friends
put it. My reasons are historical, scriptural, theological, hermeneutical, liturgical,
spiritual and also personal.



