How Reliable Is the New ACNA Catechism?

By Robin G. Jordan

In this third article in the article series, “The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look,” we continue our examination of the catechism proper. Due to the length of the catechism, we will be limiting our examination to key sections of the catechism--those which furnish evidence of the doctrinal biases and other weaknesses and peculiarities of the catechism. 

The fourth paragraph of Part II of the new ACNA catechism contains this description of the Apostles Creed:

It is a consensus document, coming to us with the resounding endorsement of faithful believers over nearly two thousand years, for it has been recited by Christian communities at all times and in all places throughout the history of the Christian Church. And it is a benchmark of orthodoxy, that is, of right belief, guiding our understanding of God’s revealed truth at points where our sin-clouded minds might go astray.

While the Apostles Creed is an early statement of Christian belief and widely used in a number of Christian denominations for catechetical and liturgical purposes, it is a gross exaggeration to claim that it has been recited by Christian communities at all times and in all places throughout the history of the Christian Church. Such an exaggerated claim is not only patently untrue but it also dechurches those Christian communities that do not recite the Apostles Creed.

The Apostles Creed, scholars believe, is based on an older Roman Creed. Its use has been the most visible in the Western Church. It is first called “the Creed of the Apostles” in a fourth century letter from the Council of Milan to Pope Siricius. What existed at that time was not the Apostles Creed we know today. What we know as the Apostles Creed was written sometime between 710 and 714. It first appeared in what is now France and Spain. Charlemagne imposed its use throughout his empire. It would eventually replace the older Roman Creed in Rome.

The authority of the Apostles Creed comes from its agreement with the teaching of Scripture. It is pure hyperbole, if not outright distortion of the truth, to suggest that one of the Apostles Creed’s purposes is “guiding our understanding of God’s revealed truth at points where our sin-clouded minds might go astray” Implied in such an assertion is the notion that the Apostles Creed is something more than it is, that it is on the same level as Scripture itself. The Apostles Creed is simply a summary of what Scripture teaches. It has no mystical or supernatural power to keep us from straying into error.

In the answer to question 34, “How should Holy Scripture be interpreted?” an inaccurate paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:20 is juxtaposed to a controversial statement from Clause 2 of the Jerusalem Declaration. The adverbs “just as” and “so” are used to link together the two parts of the answer, suggesting a relationship between them.

Just as Holy Scripture was not given through private interpretation of things, so it must also be translated, read, preached, taught, and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the Church's historic and consensual reading of it. (2 Peter 1:20-21; Jerusalem Declaration; Articles of Religion, 2)

Implied in the answer is an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21, which is that these two verses explicitly condemn the private interpretation of Scripture.  Anglo-Catholics use 2 Peter 1:20-21 in support of their claim that individuals cannot interpret or understand the Scriptures by themselves .

What does 2 Peter 1:20-21 actually say?

…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The text has nothing to do with interpreting or understanding Scripture. Rather it has to do with the origin of Scripture.

The second part of the answer, the statement from Clause 2 of the Jerusalem Declaration, has been criticized as being an inadequate statement of what Anglicans are in agreement about the interpretation of Scripture.

What does 'plain and canonical sense' mean? What is 'the church's historic and consensual reading?' Given that the JD brought together both anglo-catholics and evangelicals, this is a surprising sentence because what is 'plain' to evangelicals and 'plain' to anglo-catholics are quite different understandings of the eucharist. 'Canonical' sense to anglo-catholics includes giving more weight to the Apocrypha than evangelicals give (and thus greater anglo-catholic openness to praying for the dead)' As for 'historic' reading, how far back does history reach? The English Reformers understood the Bible differently to (say) St Augustine and St Anselm of Canterbury. 'Consensual' begs a lot of questions, including why evangelicals do not read the Bible 'consensually' with Roman Catholics…. (Peter Carrell, “Is the Jerusalem Declaration a plausible alternative to the Covenant?”)

In a second article, “Interpreting Interpretation in the Jerusalem Declaration,” Carrell draws attention to two weaknesses and “an interesting omission” in Clauses 2-4 of the Jerusalem Declaration. The first weakness is that these clauses offer little direction as to how to resolve disputes over interpretation. The second weakness that Carrell identifies is “a lack of definition of 'plain', for there are certainly parts of the Bible where a 'plain' reading is (so to speak) what everyone reads and parts where different 'plain' readings emerge.” Carrell goes on to note that the clauses omit “the important concept of 'Scripture interpreting Scripture'.”

The answer to question 34 is the only place in the catechism proper where we find a text from the Jerusalem Declaration and a reference to that declaration. Whoever wrote this particular answer appears to have made selective use of the Jerusalem Declaration.  We are invited to believe that Clause 2 of the Jerusalem Declaration affirms the Anglo-Catholic position on the interpretation of Scripture, that is, the Scriptures should be interpreted in accordance with a particular tradition and consensus. In Being Faithful: the Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the official commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group, however, does not take that view. Here in part is what it does say:

We are part of a rich reading fellowship, stretching back over two thousand years. The Bible is not simply the possession of twenty-first century Anglicans, to do with as we please. Others have read the Scriptures before us and others are reading the Scriptures alongside us. We can benefit from listening to what they have had to say. In particular, we have much to gain from biblical scholarship, which is at its best when it is disciplined by faith and the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:1-16). Our understanding of Scripture is enriched by the insights of faithful biblical scholarship but is not dependent upon them. After all, Scripture is not tested by biblical scholarship, but biblical scholarship must always be tested by Scripture, following the example of the Berean Christians, who examined the Scriptures daily ‘to see if what Paul said was true’ (Acts 17:11).

The answer to question 34 is an example of “cherry picking.” In this particular instance a text from Scripture and a text from the Jerusalem Declaration have been selected that appear to support the Anglo-Catholic position on the interpretation of Scripture when a wider examination of the evidence does not support that conclusion. The nineteenth century Tractarians were notorious for this kind of fallacy of selective attention in their writings; twentieth century and modern day Anglo-Catholics have followed in their footsteps.

What do the Bible and Anglican formularies say about how we should read the Bible? As the GAFCON Theological Resource Group points to our attention in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the New Testament in Acts 17:11 provides us with the example of the Berean Christians who submitted the truth of Paul’s words to the test of Scripture.  The Old Testament assumes that we should be able to understand the words of Scripture – see Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Psalm 19:7, Psalm 119: 105, and Psalm 119: 130. 

We find a similar emphasis in the New Testament. In his teachings, conversations, and disputes, Jesus assumes that those whom he is addressing are able to read and understand the Scriptures. Most of the letters in the New Testament are written to entire congregations. Paul assumes that those who hear his letters read will understand what he has written. He also encourages those to whom he has written the letters to share them with other congregations.  The New Testament contains a number of exhortations to read the Scriptures publicly – see John 20:30–31; 2 Corinthians 1:13; Ephesians 3:4; 1 Timothy 4:13; James 1:1, 22–25; 1 Peter 1:1; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:19; and 1 John 5:13. These exhortations assume that ordinary believers in ordinary congregations are able to understand the Scriptures. 

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly affirm that Scripture is able to be understood, “not only certain verses or statements, but the meaning of the whole of Scripture on many topics is able to be understood by God’s people.” (Wayne Gruden, “The Perspicuity of Scripture,” Themelios, Volume 34, Issue 3)

Articles 6, 7, 20, and 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles assume that the Scripture are able to be understood. Article 34 does not prohibit the exercise of private judgment. Rather it expresses sharp disapproval of those who by their private judgment “willingly, and deliberately breaks those customs and forms of worship of the church which do not contradict the Word of God and are approved by common authority.” (An English Prayer Book The Articles of Religion)

In the second paragraph of the homily, "A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture," Christians are urged to “diligently search for the well of life in the books of the New and Old Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of men’s traditions, devised by man’s imagination, for our justification and salvation.” The first part of the homily goes on to enumerate the benefits of reading and knowing the Scriptures. The second part of the homily addresses two “vain excuses” that Christians use to dissuade themselves from a knowledge of God’s Word.

But they that have no good affection to God’s word, to colour this their fault, allege commonly two vain and feigned excuses. Some go about to excuse them by their own frailness and fearfulness, saying that they dare not read holy Scripture, lest through their ignorance they should fall into any error. Other pretend that the difficulty to understand it, and the hardness thereof, is so great, that it is meet to be read only of clerks and learned men.

We find nothing in the homily that supports the Anglo-Catholic claim that individuals cannot interpret or understand the Scriptures by themselves.  

As we shall see, the answer to question 34 is one of many departures from the first guideline that J. I. Packer lists in the Introduction to the new ACNA catechism: “Everything taught should be compatible with, and acceptable to, all recognized schools of Anglican thought, so that all may be able confidently to use all the material.”

The alleged sources of the doctrinal position stated in the answer to question 34 are listed after the answer itself, enclosed in parenthesis. They include Article 2 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Article 2, however, concerns the nature of the Son of God and has nothing to do with the interpretation of Scripture. It raises questions about the quality of the editing of the catechism. For example, how many of the Scripture references given in the catechism actually apply to what is said in the answers in which they are cited.

As we continue our examination of the new ACNA catechism, we will encounter more and more inaccuracies, overstatements, and untrue statements. They throw doubt on the overall reliability of the material in the catechism.

Also see
Does the New ACNA Catechism Teach a Synergistic Arminian View of God and Salvation?
The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look