I have heard many times that the main difference between what constitutes “High Church” versus “Low Church” simply relates to the style of worship being used, or the level of tolerance for symbolism in the liturgy. While these features may constitute the most observable contrast between the two, I’ve encountered a more substantial theological definition that, for me, goes more to the heart of explaining their essential differences.
High Church theology makes the emphasis that WE are being saved. The focus is not so much on the individual as the entire Communion or Body. This is why sacramental theology is so important in higher churches – we cannot baptize ourselves, we cannot administer God’s grace to ourselves alone without the input of our brothers and sisters. This is why High Church traditions tend to baptize babies: God works through a community to bring grace into a person’s life whether they know it or not. The response – whether emotional or intellectual – is important, but not the means of receiving the grace. So High Church theology is fundamentally not about ceremony – it is about having a means by which WE receive grace. As such, baptism, the Eucharist, and other sacramental ministries of the Church, are not demonstrations that we have already received grace within and are merely letting others know about it. In a High Church tradition one cannot get the grace apart from the sacrament, given to us by the community. God adopts us and brings us into the body – thus, this is a high valuation of the church.
On the other hand, Low Church theology tends to not view the universe in this kind of sacramental light. The individual, not the corporate Body, is the locus of God’s saving work. “I have been changed, personally encountered God, and therefore I and coming to you to show you what has already happened inside of me.” In this view, grace is already there, and the Church is secondary to some extent to that personal religious experience. The Church, in fact, is made up of individuals who each claim to have had this experience – and entry into a local community is often dependent upon having an individualized experience of God that leads to a person deciding to confess, be baptized, etc. The role of the community, in this instance, represents a low theological understanding of the Church because the Body of Christ is not initiating the means of grace. It may provide a space for that to happen, and a person may have their religious experience within the context of the worship of a community, but the Church is not completely essential to that process or imparting that grace from the outset.
By pointing up these theological differences, I am not suggesting that one theological perspective is the “right” one and the other is “wrong.” I am certain that I see both at work in the New Testament. By suggesting that High and Low Church identity refers to more than the outward ceremonies being enacted, I am more concerned about confronting our image of the church, as well as issues such as individualism, and where authority is located in Christian community. What do you think?
I think this is really well-thought-out and really well-said, John. At our congregation, we have tried to maintain a balance between these two perspectives, but, coming from and being in a low church tradition, I find myself having to do most of my “un-teaching” with regard to the high church side of things: “No, not like that — remember, the prayer says, ‘OUR Father which art in heaven.’ You can’t say, ‘OUR Father,’ and then act like you said, ‘MY Father.’ Even when we’re praying privately, we’re sill a part of one another.” That sort of thing. Being in the low church tradition is like herding cats.
I understand the contrast that you’ve made between High Church and Low Church and that is helping me understanding my “High Church” perspective. However, I have two questions. First, is “High Church” the same as Catholic and/or Orthodox; is “Low Church” the same as Protestant? I tend to feel much more comfortable with many Catholic or Orthodox beliefs and practices and rather uncomfortable with a lot of evangelical Protestantism. (I do, however, retain a “healty disrespect for clergy” that I acquired in my individualistic evangelical Protestant upbringing.) Second, is Christian mysticism “High Church” or “Low Church” or can it be either. It’s individualistic, but it does not seem like “Low Church” to me. Even though I accept a great deal of Christianity as a “divine mystery,” I’m much too rational to be a good mystic I can see that the Amish or Quakers or members of Holiness movements can be ascetics just like nuns and monks. However, mysticism seems to be “High Church” and Catholic or Orthodox instead of Protestant. On the other hand, historically Catholic and Orthodox mystics always seemed to be a bit of threat to the established hierarchy. Is Pentecostalism a form of mysticism?
People who hold a catholic perspective, or are more in touch with the historical traditions of Christian liturgy do tend to have a “High Church” perspective. There are Protestants who have a “High Church” perspective, such as Episcopalians, Lutherans (ELCA), and others. But it does seem that with the emphasis on individual salvation among most evangelical groups the trend is for them to have a “Low Church” perspective.
Mystics have been around since very early on in the church, and we know of ascetic groups from the second and third centuries. People drawn towards an immediate experience of the Divine can be found in both High and Low churches. While High Churches may view salvation in more corporate terms, that is not to say that there is a devaluation of individual experience. What may be different is the operative theology.
It seems to me that Pentecostalism places the Holy Spirit at the center of its theology. Thus, the experience of the Divine is framed in those terms. I have a much more Christocentric theology when it comes to these things, and the church I belong to, The Episcopal Church, tends to speak of God with a high degree of tolerance for ambiguity and mystery (sometimes TEC even gets accused of not knowing what to do with the Holy Spirit or Jesus, which of course we do … ).