Some thoughts on Bicknell

Last Edited: Wed Dec 24 17:00:10 UTC 2025

Recently I've been trying to "begome anglican" (submit to Canterbury btw). I don't want to go into all of the reasons why I'm going with Anglicanism as opposed to Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy (at least in this blogpost), but I can sum up each position in a sentence. Romanism: I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope or the numerous dogmas the Roman church would make me believe before being a member of the church. Eastern Orthodoxy: I spent 3 years as an inquirer and didn't feel God's call to convert and the general thrust of the arguments in favor of conversion EO can pretty much entirely fall under the Anglican Big Tent (tm). I know that for certain chronically online people, especially myself 2-3 years ago, those two reasons will not be enough justification, but I am finding spiritual fruit and life in the Book of Common Prayer, Anglican thinkers, and going to Episcopal Church(es) in Boston. For me, this is reason enough.

Anyways, in this endeavor to become Anglican I've been wanting to understand some Anglican history and theology. As alluded to earlier with my joking reference to the Big Tent, the range of acceptable theology for Anglicans is really quite broad. On the one hand, this is distinctly reflective of the early church where theology varied widely but communion was maintained, but on the other it presents difficulties when trying to answer questions like "What's the Anglican view of X" when multiple Anglicans in good standing with the church and of equal authority hold different views. As such, I've decided to narrow down the scope of my search for Anglican theology by limiting myself, at least for now, to the tradition of the Church I regularly attend in Anglo-Catholicism. So, my first read was

A Theological Introduction to the 39 Articles by E.J. Bicknell

This book is a systematic theology from a distinctly Liberal Anglo-Catholic perspective, with the 39 Articles used as a framing device for delving into the history of the early church, reformation era concerns, and contemporary questions. It makes no claim to interpret or elaborate on the articles with a "framers intent." I read a criticism of this book that said in essence "It's a horrible book completely incapable of doing an originalist reading." I don't understand this criticism because I don't remember where Bicknell said "I am doing originalism" in the text; quite clearly his project is something else.

Bicknell certainly reads some of the articles in a more expansive sense than the formularies read it (if not contrary to at times...), but offers a convincing portrait of the Articles as vague enough to be signed off on by those sympathetic to Calvin and by those sympathetic to Luther (even though their broad thrust is more Calvinist than Lutheran). Thus, this expansive reading is in the spirit of the articles. This is coupled with a view of the Articles as a historical signpost and not a document to be held to at all times. An additional point for honesty is that this interpretive framework is made explicit instead of being an implicit assumption the reader brings to the Articles. Furthermore, Bicknell has no desire to hide his distaste for Calvinism, and by extension some of the articles, with sentences like "The extreme form of the first error is what is known as Calvinism" (pg. 246).

The Liberal question

This text ended up being very confronting because since becoming Christian (again) in late highschool I took for granted that I would be able to maintain full Christian orthodoxy while also being able to accept the findings of modern science and even textual criticism. For my part, I certainly believe the findings of Higher Criticism are compatible with full lower-case o orthodoxy, but other beliefs about the universe are becoming harder to square.

Consider the question of 'Do babies go to heaven when they die?' I promise this is related. I would say that babies are not generally conscious of or culpable for the potential sins they may commit by having a human sinful inclination, and so go to 'heaven' (however firmly we may speak of heaven that is...) The evolutionary model holds that a species does not at any single point "become" another species. Given that humans are just another species, at what point in the tens of thousands of years of human history did humans acquire this sinful human nature? Furthermore, why did God choose 2000 years ago to give humanity the fullness of his revelation in Christ instead of 10000 or 50000 years ago. Bicknell gives a convincing explanation for the fate of the humans 50000 years ago and earlier, but I don't have a satisfying answer for the first.

Another issue I faced is that I don't hold to Aristotelian or Platonic physics or metaphysics. The language the church has used to describe the trinity has a specifically Ancient-Mind flavor to it. This is difficult because I don't have an ancient mind. I couldn't tell you the difference between a "person" of the trinity and "essence" or why they are separable. Whenever I search online for explanations of the terms it just becomes more confusing. It very much feels like affirming the Nicene creed requires affirming an entire physics I can't hold to. I'm sort of on a search for meaning right now. If you ask me on a bad day I'll happily say "There's no such thing as a table," and then a few hours later talk about the Transcendentals.

Bicknell's sentiment is that we're required to hold to the truths expressed (creedal doctrines), but not necessarily the manner in which they are expressed (creed texts). He further argues that we shouldn't dispose of old creeds, language, or explanations, which is a sentiment I agree with, but doesn't supply an alternative explanation of the truths expressed which I think I need more than the pastoral advice to keep the creeds.

It's something I'll need to do some more thinking on. It kept recommending the essay collection "Lux Mundi" which is something I think I'll check out next, but who knows where I'll end up on this particular matter.

The Anglo-Catholic question

So at the end of it, I do feel satisfied becoming Anglican and also holding to certain Catholic beliefs and practices. I'm not a Calvinist and I don't condemn the principle of prayers for the intercession of saints and icons even though I would condemn a great deal of their excesses (note: I don't regularly incorporate any intercessions into my personal prayer life. I pray the hail Mary in the Angelus when it's in a service at church though). I also would identify as theologically Anglican with the present intention of being confirmed in the Episcopal church. I think I'm probably much more conservative in my practices than some Anglo-Catholics, but it is ultimately the camp I feel I fit the best in.

I understand that my beliefs and practices are not 'Reformed'. Indeed, I believe that the reformers over-corrected and that the puritans especially erred. Semper reformanda means that we must revert some of our prior 'reforms' if we find them, after careful study and prayer, to have been made in err. Furthermore, I'm a layperson. I'm not held to the same standards of theological rigor as the clergy are.

Beautiful theological paragraphs

Several times while reading the text I was struck with "Wow that's a beautiful way to put things." It's easy to cough up a beautiful syllogism about topics ripe for beautiful syllogisms like the cross, resurrection, and atonement; It takes a special writer to make you pause when discussing infant baptism and the otherwise nitty gritty points of early church councils.

These beautiful passages and parts of the theology are something of a salve for the worries I mention in my section on "The Liberal Question." The beautiful paragraphs and vignettes of theology Bicknell puts together are, at the end of the day, based on his systematic theology. A question worth asking is: If I can't fully affirm his framework, can I still hold these as beautiful? Indeed the pearls of theology a Calvinist may hold will appear as a jagged kidney stone when in the hand of a Coptic Orthodox. Does this make them not beautiful? This line of questioning is wrapped up in questions of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue too. I quite like the silent meditative traditions in Buddhism and Hinduism. I've practiced meditation for long stretches of my life. Cards on the table, Herman Hesse's Siddhartha was one of the most formative books of my young adulthood. How can I hold all of these things in concert?

I think this is a topic I need to do more thinking on and one I'll probably dedicate a whole blogpost to.

Some final words

My reading of this book accomplished a few things for me. For one, it solidified my desire to begome anglican (submit to Canterbury btw). I like the general thrust of the 39 articles (the history as explained by Bicknell, not their entire originalist interpretation) and I believe that they are correct in excluding certain Romanist beliefs. Furthermore, the disposition of including two parties without firmly picking a side is admirable in the realm of speculative theology (as many of the questions treated are). One thing about the articles is that they stand together with references to the Bible, church fathers, the BCP, the Ordinal, the Homilies, etc. I like the rest of these, so I think I'm bound to like the articles in one way or another. I like 'mere Anglicanism,' if you will.

The liberal theology question has also asked a ton of questions that are a bit more troubling than I originally thought them to be. My primary engagement with the Faith is through a few key experiences of God which I couple with a deep desire to feel rooted in a sense of continuity with tradition. I do not think I will ever let this go, especially considering I don't think I'll ever fall down the path of being a full on Spong liberal, but I want to find an articulation (or articulate for myself) certain key doctrine I struggle with. I need to study the Trinity more (and yes, it's a mystery is an acceptable explanation), I'd like to get my views on universalism vs ECT vs Annihilationism shored up, and I'd like to look into theistic evolution. I'd also like some more clarity on original sin, the atonement, christus victor vs recapitulation vs penal substitution, etc.

At the end of the day though, I think I'd like to live as an Anglican.