What does the new ACNA catechism teach about prayer, worship, and the spiritual life?

For those who have difficulty reading white print on a blue background, I have also posted this article on Heritage Anglicans. I use a different template for Heritage Anglicans - black print on a white background for posts.

By Robin G. Jordan

In this article we are going to take a look at some additional problem areas in Being a Christian: An Anglican Catechism. We will be examining Part III of the new ACNA catechism which contains its teaching on prayer, worship, and the spiritual life.

Part III of the new ACNA catechism contains the catechism’ exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. This exposition is preceded by a section titled “Concerning Prayer.” This section appears to have been taken from an unidentified prayer manual. The definition of prayer in this section uses terms that do not correspond to today’s use of language. It also excludes as prayer a greater part of the whole range of prayer found in the Bible with the qualifier “turn our hearts to God…in worship.”

The section reduces the reasons for seeking God in prayer to one, “the joy of fellowship with God.”While first appearing to define “fellowship with God” in terms of prayer, “relating to him as his children,” it then speaks of having fellowship with God “in Word, Sacrament, and prayer.”

The Bible, however, teaches that we have fellowship with God in a broader sense in six different ways: (1) consciousness of our indwelling sin and constant confession of that sin; (2) submission to God’s commands; (3) “sacrificial love for the brethren;” (4) love of God and longing for him and his presence more than worldly things; (5) perseverance in faith; and (6) adherence to the truth in sound doctrine.

The section goes on to offer four reasons we should pray:

I should pray, first, because God calls me so to do; second, because I desire to know God and be known by him; third, because I need the grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit; and fourth, because God responds to the prayers of his people.

Here again the new ACNA catechism uses “Churchinese” rather than language that is familiar to those studying the catechism and which they can easily understand. It speaks of “the grace and consolation of the Holy Spirit.” Grace is one of those terms that have a variety of meanings. Anglicans use the term in substantially different ways. The differences in the ways that Anglicans use the term are one of the reasons that there are different schools of Anglican thought. Consolation is a term that is no longer in wide use except in the phrase “consolation prize.”

The section further asks what we should we pray and when we should pray. In answer to the question what we should pray, it includes “the Lord’s Prayer, the Psalms, and the collected prayers of the Church.” It offers no explanation as to why we should use these prayers in addition to our own. In answer to the question when should we pray, it speaks of praying not only morning, noon, and night but also whenever we are aware of our need for God’s “special grace.” Here again the catechism uses "churchy lingo" It is not clear what is meant by “special grace.” As previously noted, grace is a term that has different meanings for the different schools of Anglican thought.

The catechism also places a qualification upon “praying without ceasing,” which the Scriptures do not place.

The new ACNA catechism’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer overemphasizes some things while neglecting others. It is rather lengthy and a number of the questions and answers are extraneous. A number of answers to questions are flawed. The exposition also contains a defective view of worship. It appears to place honoring God with our lips before honoring Him with our lives.

The catechism’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer is followed by a lengthy section on prayer, liturgy, and a rule of life. This section includes teaching on the use of the Scriptures. This section goes well beyond what is typically found in the more recent Anglican catechisms. A number of the questions and answers are extraneous. 

A number of the answers to the questions in this section take positions that cannot with certainty be found in the Scriptures nor can with certainty be proved by the Scriptures (Article 6). For example, the answer to question 243 asserts that “a structured liturgy” is “a biblical pattern displayed in both Testaments.” It is debatable whether the Christians of the New Testament had “a structured liturgy.” Paul’s writings suggest that they had a more open form of worship. While Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians emphasizes that Christian gatherings should be edifying, orderly, and participatory, arguing that this letter provides a Scriptural warrant for the use of structured liturgies may be really stretching the meaning of what he wrote.

While the use of structured liturgies may not be prescribed by the New Testament, however, their use is not prohibited. It is in the application of the normative principle, not the regulative principle, that the use of structured liturgies may be regarded as “Scriptural.” They are not contrary or repugnant to the Scriptures. See Articles 20 and 34.

Several answers make generalizations that do not hold true for all Anglicans nor are they true under all circumstances. The answer to question 243 also asserts that structured liturgies “foster…a reverent fear of God.” Structured liturgies may have this effect for some Anglicans under some circumstances. But it is a real stretch to claim that it is true for all Anglicans or under all circumstances.

The following question and answer should have been omitted:

244. Do form and structure inhibit freedom in worship?

No. Form and structure provide a setting for freedom of heart in worship.

Form and structure do not invariably “provide a setting for freedom of heart” whatever is meant by that phrase. Anglicans are divided over how much form and structure is needed in worship and whether too much form and structure can inhibit freedom in worship. What we see here is the view of only one school of Anglican thought. It is not shared by all schools of Anglican thought especially those schools of Anglican thought—charismatic and evangelical—that have adopted free-flowing forms of worship. They will point out that too much form and structure results in worship that is perfunctory and ritualistic.

The answer to question 248 asserts that Anglicans pray the Daily Offices because they believe that they are a sacrifice pleasing to God. Doing so also keeps them aware that their time is sanctified to God. This may be true for some Anglicans but it is not true for all Anglicans. This answer reflects the view of a particular school of Anglican thought.  Archbishop Cranmer revised the Daily Offices and required the daily reading of Morning and Evening Prayer in every parish church, cathedral, and collegiate chapel because he believed that through the regular hearing of God’s Word the moral and spiritual lives of the clergy and the people would be transformed.

The problem with the answer to question 250 is that the use of Scriptural terminology and texts in a Prayer Book does not guarantee that its teachings are Scriptural. Scriptural terminology and texts may be misused to teach doctrines that have no real basis in the Scriptures. Scriptural texts may be edited and lectionaries compiled that omit important Scriptural teachings.

The answer to question 250 asserts that a Prayer Book “leads the Church to pray in one voice with order, beauty, deep devotion, and great dignity.” This assertion is not true in all cases. Whether the particular forms used in worship are beautiful is highly subjective judgment. What may give pleasure to the senses of one person or may pleasurably exalt the mind or spirit of that person may not have the same effects on another person. Neither are "deep devotion and great dignity" givens when a prescribed liturgy is used. I have attended Anglican churches where the clergy and the people were quite obviously going through the motions of worshiping God. I also attended Anglican churches where "indifferent" and "sloppy" would describe Sunday worship. The use of a prescribed liturgy did not redeem the poor quality of the worship. Indeed the poor execution of the liturgy added to it

What is notable about the answer to question 250 is its omission of the better reasons for use of a Prayer Book. They include teaching and reinforcing sound doctrine, facilitating congregational participation, and making tangible the priesthood of all believers. What we do find is one school of Anglican thought’s views on liturgical worship.

The answers to questions 251-255 also reflects the views of one school of Anglican thought. The authors of the new ACNA catechism not only here but elsewhere in the catechism are not satisfied to form inquirers and new Christians as disciples. They seek to make them into adherents of this school of Anglican thought.

Scripture passages cited in support of answers in Part III frequently do not have a real connection to the answer. They may simply contain a word used in the answer. This is a pattern that runs throughout the entire catechism.

Like Parts I and II of Being a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, Part III offers ample proof that the new ACNA catechism is not a catechism that all Anglicans can use with confidence. It is clearly intended for the instruction of inquirers and new Christians in the views of one school of Anglican thought, and not for their instruction in what the Bible and the Anglican formularies teach. Unfortunately its teachings have begun appearing on a number of websites where they are misrepresented as what Anglicanism teaches, rather than presented as the views of one school of Anglican thought.

Conservative Anglicans who do not share the views of the school of Anglican thought expressed or inferred in the new ACNA catechism need to publicly criticize its defects and weaknesses and draw them to the attention of like-minded Anglicans. They need to raise the global Anglican community’s awareness of the harm this catechism can do. They need to oppose not only its mandatory use in the Anglican Church in North America but also its dissemination to other Anglican ecclesial bodies. There is too much at stake not to do anything.