FONSFAQ - Becoming an Anglican

[tree_and_leaf]

necromommycon asked
When people convert to Anglicanism, as opposed to being born to it, what sort of process do they go through?

fallingtowers followed up with:
A related question: If one does not live in the UK, can one even convert to Anglicanism? To which denomination does one then belong (Episcopalians?), and which parish does one attend?

Both good questions, though the answer to both depends a bit on who and where you are.

In terms of church law, there are three basic processes by which people become Anglica, depending on what degree/ kind of church membership they already have; this also affects the kind of preparation/ teaching (catechisis) they would be expected to attend. In practice it gets more complicated than that, but I'll get to that in a moment. In all cases, the person would be expected to have spent some time worshiping in an Anglican parish (or chaplaincy) and to have had a couple of conversations with the incumbent (that is, the priest in charge or vicar/ rector).

(a) A person who has not been baptised.

(b) A person who has been baptised by another denomination who baptise "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" but has not been confirmed by a bishop whose orders are recognised by the Anglican Communion* (basically the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. We also recognise the orders of the Old Catholics, the Mar Thoma Church, and the Philippine Independent Church, but we're in full communion with them, so their members wouldn't need to 'convert' anymore than I would need to convert to become an Episcopalian if I moved to the States).

(c) A person who was confirmed by a Roman Catholic or Orthodox bishop.

People in category (a) have to be baptised and confirmed. Confirmation, in the Anglican understanding, is a sacrament, and can only be done by a bishop (this is the other reason Lutherans need to be confirmed to become Anglicans; the apostolicity question can be argued about, but the Lutheran habit of having confirmations be carried out by the pastor means it's not the same thing as the Anglican/ Catholic understanding). In confirmation, the person being confirmed affirms their faith and promises to live as a Christian, and they are annointed by the bishop. In the case of adult converts, baptism and confirmation would usually be done at the same service (in which case they are confirmed straight after the baptism, and don't have to repeat their baptismal vows).

People in category (b) are confirmed by the bishop.

People in category (a) and (b) would typically need to go through a course of instruction in the Christian faith, usually referred to as "confirmation classes". People who are being confirmed in their teens also have to go to these, though there are invariably separate classes for adults and teenagers. What exact form these take varies a lot depending on the individual church and on the size of the group. Some places use Alpha courses, or Emmaus (which is a bit like Alpha, but from a more catholic perspective; it has a lot more emphasis on teaching about the sacraments). Many places will use a home-made course. If there's only one or two people being confirmed, things can be a lot more informal and unstructured, though it would be good practice to have some sort of structure to make sure you don't miss anything important (you might use the Nicene Creed and work through it statement by statement. Some very old-school people use the Catechism, though it's a rather dry method and not one I'd go for myself).

People in category (c) may or may not be invited to tag along to confirmation classes, depending on how much they know about the Christian faith in general. They'd certainly have to have a chat with their priest about what it means to be an Anglican, in particular, and why they want to become one. There is a short bit of liturgy for people in this category to formally "be received" as members; it's quite simple and involves answering questions to affirm your faith (a bit like renewing baptismal vows), your recognition of the Church of England (or whichever bit of the Communion we're talking about) as part of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and your wish to be part of it. Unlike confirmation and baptism, it's not a sacrament, and there's no dramatic liturgical gesture, unless you count a handshake from the priest afterwards, which I wouldn't, really.

Actually, though, the categories get a bit blurred, particularly as Anglican churches will permit you to receive communion if you are a member of a Trinitarian church and would be allowed to in your own denomination. This means that in practice, a lot of people who were brought up in other denominations (Presbyterianism, say) and drifted into Anglicanism without a violent crisis of faith may have been going to an Anglican church and receiving the Sacrament for years before they ever get confirmed, if they ever do; usually people in that category don't unless they end up going forward for ordination, and obviously you have to be confirmed before you can be ordained. In fact, depending on people's family circumstances, some ordinands only realise that this needs to be done when they discover, shortly before ordination, that they haven't got a certificate proving their confirmation. But of course they don't need instruction, they just need, to quote a priest of my acquaintance "shoved in front of a bishop", and I've heard of this being done quite informally over a lunchbreak at theological college...

The other factor is that, at least in the Church of England, people are apt to identify membership with Being on the Electoral Roll, which allows you to vote in the Parish Church Council election. You don't need to be confirmed for that, and in fact you can be on the roll if you are a member of another denomination, as long as you are a communicant member of a church which believes in the Trinity. So this means that A, who is a member of the Church of Scotland and lives in Scotland, but has a second home or otherwise often visits a particular parish in England and worships there, might be asked to go on the Electoral Roll. By some measures this is "becoming a member of the Church of England", while remaining a Presbyterian, at least while in Scotland, but I wouldn't call it conversion, exactly.

... that ended up rather longer than I planned.

The answer to the other question is simpler. You can become an Anglican anywhere there is an Anglican church; whether you call yourself an Anglican or an Episcopalian depends where you are, but it doesn't really make much difference (by and large Anglican is the usual term, and Episcopalian is confined to places where there are strong cultural reasons for not wanting to identify as something that sounds suspiciously close to 'English', i.e. America and Scotland, but I don't know where the Rwandans and the Spanish fit into this). People sometimes assume that the Anglican Communion is co-terminus with the British Empire, but though there's an element of truth, it's not the whole story, and there are Anglican churches in places which were never British colonies (Japan, for instance): there's a full list here. There's also the Church of England (Diocese of Europe), which is notionally a chaplaincy aimed at ex-pats (because we shouldn't be stealing Roman Catholic or Orthodox sheep), but in practice locals do attend and become members (I know an Austrian who is training for the Anglican priesthood as a result of his encounter with the Diocese of Europe).



* This recognition has to do with the Apostolic Succession, that is a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles, rather than with doctrine as such, which is why the Lutherans, say, aren't on there, despite the fact that they have bishops and in some ways are quite theologically similar to a lot of Anglicans.

Comments

[em_h]

Just to make a complicated answer slightly more complicated: some Anglican churches (e.g. Canada) are putting less and less emphasis on confirmation, so someone in category b might also be received through the simple and non-sacramental rite, without confirmation being done (unless, as you note, that person had a definite intention of ordination, because that is still required here as well for ordinands).

As for the "drifting in" through receiving communion for category b, this is now more or less institutionalized in Canada, where you are considered to be a member of the Anglican church if you are baptized in the name of the Trinity, a regular member of an Anglican congregation, and a communicant at least three times a year -- a formal reception rite happens only if the person expresses a need for it.

Me, I was baptized and confirmed Anglican, and then confirmed again in the Orthodox church, so when I came back to the Anglicans I think the general feeling was that I was well over quota for rituals, and that communicating on a regular basis would constitute the best basis for re-reception.

[tree_and_leaf]

As for the "drifting in" through receiving communion for category b, this is now more or less institutionalized in Canada, where you are considered to be a member of the Anglican church if you are baptized in the name of the Trinity, a regular member of an Anglican congregation, and a communicant at least three times a year,

In a way, there's good (?) Anglican precedent for that sort of thing in the Test Act. In a very weird and unhelpful way.

I suspect what you describe is common here too, but I have no idea other than anecdotally, as no-one keeps any statistics on this (they don't even keep proper statistics on reception, it turns out).

[sara]

Yep, I'm baptized (as an adult) but was never confirmed (and indeed have refused confirmation, because there's nothing to confirm -- I was baptized as an adult). And there wasn't any problem locally accepting me as part of the lay ministry, so.

[serriadh]

Do you happen to know how you could check whether you were confirmed or not? I was baptised in an Anglican church at 17 (my parents are Baptists so I wasn't baptised at birth), but it was conservative evangelical and I don't think the Bishop was even there, but I can't remember. My parents say not, and there was no confirmation. Is that even allowed?

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, it's allowed, though it's a silly idea IMO, and certainly not usual (I suspect it mostly happens where people think of confirmation only as a substitute for adult baptism, rather than an anointing and giving of the Spirit to take an adult part in the work of the church, though admittedly baptism is more important).

Anyway - I think the only way, other than turning the house upside down to look for a certificate that may or may not be there, is to check the parish register/ ask the current incumbent to look. I don't think there are centralised diocesan records - at any rate, we have to physically produce our certificates, or an attestation that it's in the parish register, before we can be ordained.

I don't know if there's such a phenomenon as conditional confirmation to match conditional baptism ("N, if you have not been baptised, I baptise you in the name...")

[em_h]

I was baptized at 20 without confirmation; confirmed about 18 months later. This was just before the church got going on a comprehensive rethinking of the sacraments of initiation, and I doubt that such a thing would happen today -- it's hard to imagine why an adult baptism wouldn't include confirmation, unless the person involved specifically refused confirmation on the grounds that baptism is sufficient (which is a viable theological position, as noted above).

[serriadh]

I suspect, given some of the other views of church involved in my case, it was partly a theological position and partly 'confirmation is not biblical' and 'EW BISHOPS ICK'. (That does give rise to the question of why were they Anglican at all. They were considering withholding their parish share at the time as well.)

[serriadh]

Thank you.

I'm not sure I'd find confirmation now a particularly meaningful sacrament/ceremony, but I've wondered where I actually stood!

[tree_and_leaf]

There's probably not much reason, unless you're harbouring a vocation you've been keeping quiet...

[nineveh_uk]

Having never heard of it and just looked it up on Wikipedia, the history of the Mar Thomas church is fascinating.

[17catherines]

I have a question which I'm not sure how to phrase properly, and there may not be a theological answer for it anyway.

I was baptised and confirmed Anglican. As you know, these days I've been lapsed for years, and can't quite figure out whether I'm Christian or not (I'm leaning towards yes - surely the question wouldn't bother me so much if the answer was no, but still). How does one become an Anglican again in such circumstances? To me, communion feels rather central to all of this, and I certainly don't feel that I could take communion at the moment, but I'm not sure if that's just me being odd or if there is some reason behind it. Basically, I'm not sure how to find my way back to a place where it would be right.

I'm not sure if this is a general question about how to become an un-lapsed Anglican, or just a weird Catherine question, but any insights you had would be valued (and one day we'll have to have that IM chat - I just never know where to start)...

[em_h]

Do you mind an answer from someone who's more or less a stranger? My own suggestion would be to do some church-visiting until you find a place that feels like a possible home (not like home right away, but a place that might become home), and then attend regularly for a while. Since you're baptized, you can choose for yourself when or if it feels right to receive communion. And since you're a baptized and confirmed Anglican, regular attendance and reception of communion would pretty much constitute "becoming Anglican" again. If you got yourself onto the parish roll (which basically means giving your name to the church office), you'd be a full-fledged statistical Anglican. And you could, of course, step back and reconsider at any of those points along the way.

My own -- highly personal -- view is that if you feel drawn to attend regular worship services and to receive communion, I wouldn't worry as much about exactly where you position yourself with regard to the creed, at least not for a while.

This is a bit like what I went through, actually (though I had formallu joined the Orthodox church for a while, and also attended Roman Catholic and United churches for extended periods). For myself, I greatly appreciated the very low-key way that the Anglican church welcomed me back without really making any kind of deal about it. Probably wouldn't be right for everyone, but it was for me.

[17catherines]

Thank you for replying (and apologies for my tardiness in responding). Stuff to think about.

A day late and probably a dollar short...

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, from the church's point of view, you can come back whenever you like, and for that reason, there isn't really any recognised procedure because there doesn't need to be, except of course the sacrament of reconciliation (confession), but not everyone is comfortable with that, though it is a very good and - ultimately - comforting thing, and it's a shame when people are too scared to try it.

But I can sympathise with you worrying about taking communion. I think the answer to whether you should or shouldn't probably depends on a better knowledge of your soul than I have *g*

Broadly speaking, I think it depends on why you're worried. If you're just not sure that your faith is strong enough, I don't think you need let that stop you. After all part of the point of communion is that it's not just between the believer and God; it's also sharing in the life of the church, and the church can have adequate faith on your behalf, if that doesn't sound too daft. Communion is supposed to be a means of grace and to help you become more open to God - so it doesn't presuppose that you're already OK!

The other reason people worry about taking communion when they've been away from things is because they're feeling guilty about something unresolved in their past (and so it might be better to talk to a trusted Christian friend, or priest, or even go to confession), but I don't think that's what's going on here.

But as far as getting to a place where you feel it would be right, I think the best thing to do is to go to Communion as regularly as you can (cope with), without receiving, and to try to pray to be shown what to do (I don't mean spend ages over it, just to try now and again to be open to it); not that it's terribly likely that you'll have a dramatic moment of revelation, but you may find that sooner or later you do want to take communion. And then you should.

... You know Herbert's Love III, I suppose? I think it's very relevant here... Communion is about God inviting us in, not about a test we have to pass or fail.

Re: A day late and probably a dollar short...

[17catherines]

Thank you - that's very useful (and I'd forgotten the Herbert poem, so thanks for that, too). Will mull further...