Facts and Methods: Lancelot Andrewes and Why I'm an Episcopalian
9/3/2025
By Rev. Kevin Laskowski
I'm sometimes asked why I became an Episcopalian, why I chose this tradition over the Roman Catholicism of my youth. A big reason comes from the Anglican theologian Lancelot Andrewes.
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) was an English bishop and scholar who oversaw the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. But he's most important to me for his arguments with the Roman Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621).
In a debate about Real Presence (whether and how Christ is present in our Eucharist), Andrewes affirmed the end, but left open the method:
"Christ said 'this is my body.' He did not say 'this is my body in this way.' We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the 'This,' we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the 'this is in this way,' (namely by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By transition there is no word expressed [in Scripture]. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith…We believe no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly, and I add, we do not anxiously inquire, any more than how the blood of Christ washes us in Baptism, any more than how the human and divine natures are united in one Person in the Incarnation of Christ." (emphasis added)
To this day, Catholics believe in transubstantiation: the idea that bread and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood during the Eucharist. According to this theology, the accidents of the elements remain the same - they still look, smell, and taste like bread and wine - but the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
Andrewes responded to this in a way that marks a truly Anglican, and by extension Episcopalian, approach to religion. For an Anglican, the Eucharist is no mere memorial; Jesus Christ shows up. But the way in which Jesus is present is left a mystery. At least, belief in a certain method is not made a requirement for worship. You don't have to believe in a particular method - transubstantiation - to be Episcopalian (though you may hold that theology) - what matters is the end. Here, we are united in the fact neither insisting on nor imposing the method. And this approach, as Andrewes wrote, applies to other theological issues like baptism and the incarnation. We don't know how your sins are forgiven in baptism, but we do know your sins are forgiven. We don't know exactly how something can be both human and divine, but we know Jesus was (and is).
And, I'd argue, this approach is relevant to how we read the Bible. We can affirm that God speaks in the Bible, but was Scripture dictated by God? Is it literally true, or does God speak to us in some other way(s)? Perhaps, it's enough to say that God speaks in Scripture and do our best to figure out what God might be saying to us. Anything more is best left, as Andrewes wrote, "among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith."
In short, you can be religious without being dogmatic. What's more, if you're religious (in which case you believe that some things are just beyond the capacity of human beings), then you shouldn't be - you can't be - dogmatic.
For more on this Anglican way, especially when it comes to the Bible, join us for worship this Sunday at 9:30 AM or online.
