Is an Anglican Mission Needed in the United States?

By Robin G. Jordan

The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 is, with the Articles of Religion of 1571 and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of 1661, the long-recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism. In Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today A Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group draw to our attention that the Jerusalem Declaration calls the Anglican Church back to the Thirty-Nine Articles as being a faithful testimony to the teaching of Scripture, which excludes erroneous beliefs and practices and gives a distinctive shape to Anglican Christianity. The Jerusalem Declaration also affirms the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

As the late Peter Toon observed, the Anglican Church does not need a Magisterium. The Anglican Church has its venerable formularies—the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and 1661 Ordinal. They are the Magisterium of the Anglican Church.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is substantially the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which reflects Archbishop Cranmer’s mature thinking on eucharistic sacrifice and eucharistic presence. It is his legacy to the Anglican Church. It is for his rejection of the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation that Cranmer suffered martyrdom in the reign of Edward VI’s older sister Mary.

In the transitional 1549 Prayer Book Cranmer did away with the oblation of the bread and wine in the Offertory—the Minor Oblation—and the oblation of the bread and wine in the Canon—the Major Oblation. He had also placed a rubric prohibiting any elevation of the elements or showing of the elements to the people before the anamnesis and the oblation of the Church in the Canon. In the 1552 Prayer Book Cranmer took the further step of removing the oblation of the Church from the Prayer of Consecration and placing it after the distribution of Communion, after the Lord’s Prayer, where the Church’s oblation of thanksgiving and praise and self could not be misunderstood to be anything else other than the Church’s response to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Cavalry and the benefits of his death that Christ offers to those who trust in him for their salvation, the same benefits that Christ gives to faithful who gather in humble obedience to his command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as the memorial of his death and passion.

While the Caroline divines and John and Charles Wesley may have entertained the unscriptural notion of the church’s pleading Christ’s death for the remission of our own and others’ sins in union with Christ as he supposedly pleads his earthly sacrifice before God’s throne, they did not incorporate this notion into the liturgy when they had an opportunity to do so—the Laudians at the Restoration and John Wesley in his abbreviation of the 1662 Prayer Book for American Methodists. The 1662 Prayer Book rejects as not consonant with Scripture any notion of the Lord’s Supper as a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice or a participation in the ongoing sacrificial activity of Christ. The only sacrifices to which the 1662 Prayer Book refers are Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary and the Church’s sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and self in response to that sacrifice. This is the doctrinal position of historic Anglicanism as articulated by the 1662 Prayer Book.

In the 1552 Prayer Book Cranmer rearranged the elements of the 1549 Communion Office and dropped a number of these elements from the Communion Office. He broke up the 1548 Order of Communion and placed the Invitation, Confession, Absolution, and Comfortable Words where they serve as a preparation for the Sursum Corda and everything that follows it. Cranmer inserted the Prayer for Humble Access between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration where it serves as preparation for the setting apart of the elements as well as their distribution. He replaced with a more restrained epiclesis the Easter Orthodox type of epiclesis with which he had experimented in the 1549 Canon, concluding that this type of epiclesis not only was unscriptural but also ministered to the idea of an objective presence in the elements. Cranmer dropped the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei and placed the Lord’s Prayer after the distribution of the Communion, eliminating the delay between the consecration of the elements and their distribution, which with these devotions also ministered to the idea of an objective presence. He removed the General Intercession from the Canon and placed it after Offertory, which he relocated after the Creed and the Sermon.

Other changes that Cranmer made in the 1552 Communion Office was to place the Gloria in Excelsis after the Post-Communion Prayers where it forms a fitting conclusion to the service, reminiscent of the hymn of praise that Jesus and the disciples sung after the Last Supper.

The doctrine of eucharistic presence historically associated with the 1662 Prayer Book may be summed up with these words, “Christ is present in the Ordinance, not in the Elements.” This doctrine of eucharistic presence does not deny that the Lord’s Supper, or the Holy Communion, is a means of grace. But it does reject the idea of an objective presence in the consecrated elements. This doctrine of eucharistic presence, however, may be described as a doctrine of the real presence. Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper actually occurs in fact. It is not imagined. The means by Christ is present is the Holy Spirit, which is present in the gathered church as well as the individual believer. In Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of the Eucharist Peter Brooks describes this doctrine as the doctrine of the “True Spiritual Presence.”

Two theories of how the sacrament conveys grace, which are associated with this doctrine are “receptionism” and “dynamic virtualism.” In the first theory Christ is present not in the bread and wine but in the heart of the believer where the believer feeds upon Christ by faith with thanksgiving. In the second theory the bread and wine, while they are unchanged, have the power or virtue of Christ’s Body and Blood to the believer. In A Catechism Alexander Nowell explains how the believer, when he rightly and with faith receives the bread and wine, by the operation of the Holy Spirit receives Christ’s Body and Blood.

In both the sacraments the substances of the outward things are not changed; but the word of God and heavenly grace coming to them, there is such efficacy… so, when we rightly receive the Lord’s Supper, with the very divine nourishment of his body and blood, most full of health and immortality, given to us by the work of the Holy Ghost, and received of us by faith, as the mouth of our soul, we are continually fed and sustained to eternal life, growing together in them both into one body with Christ.

Consuming the bread and wine for the believer entails a spiritual transaction—feeding upon Christ. The believer does not receive Christ’s Body and Blood through the medium of the bread and wine but through the medium of the Holy Spirit when eating the bread and drinking the wine. Christ is not present in or with the bread and wine. The Holy Spirit who knits all believers into the Body of Christ unites the believer to Christ.

As the rubrics in the Communion of the Sick state, “But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood: he shall be instructed that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor; he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.” Those in whom a vital faith is present may be a partaker of Christ without eating the bread or drinking the wine.

In The Christian Faith C. B. Moss argues that while the Declaration on Kneeling in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer may precludes any material presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the elements, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Prayer Book Catechism teach that Christ’s Body and Blood are present after a heavenly and spiritual manner. Moss, however, does not consider such factors as historical context and authorial intent in his interpretation of the Articles and the Catechism. He also argues unconvincingly that receptionism and dynamic virtualism are not consistent with the eucharistic doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book. To make this argument he ignores the uncontestable fact that these two theories have a long association with the 1662 Prayer Book and its predecessors, the 1552, 1559, and 1604 Prayer Books. The Restoration bishops who compiled the 1662 revision were receptionists. They did not replace the receptionist language of the Prayer of Consecration or the second Post-Communion Prayer.

The notion of the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the elements after a heavenly, spiritual manner, however, is too close to the idea of a substantive presence of Christ in the elements and carries a large part of the freight which that doctrine of the eucharistic presence carries. This includes the notions that the Christian ministry has a sacerdotal character, that the Eucharist is a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice or a participation in the ongoing sacrificial activity of Christ, that ministerial actions invariably confer grace, and that Christ is present to the wicked and those in whom a vital faith is absent.

In practice people especially small children fail to make the distinction between the two views of Christ’s presence in the elements. The view that Christ is present in the elements after a heavenly, spiritual manner is also used to justify the continuance of a number of practices associated with the view that he is substantively present. This includes Reservation of the Sacrament and adoration of the Sacrament.

What are the implications of the Jerusalem Declaration’s affirmation of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for Anglicans and Episcopalians in the United States? Anglicans and Episcopalians who embrace the view that the Eucharist is a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice or a participation in the ongoing sacrificial activity of Christ espouse a view that is at variance with the 1662 Prayer Book. This would, I hazard, describe a substantial number of Anglicans and Episcopalians in the United States in which the most commonly used Prayer Books and the most widely used Missal teach a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice in some form.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer contains a number of liturgical elements that are associated with the Medieval Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation as well as that of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Declaration on Kneeling denying a corporal presence in the elements was dropped from the American Prayer Book as early as the 1879 Book of Common Prayer. The bishops of the Episcopal Church promoted in the 1970s a view of the Real Presence in the elements akin to that which C. B. Moss championed and this view is embodied in the eucharistic liturgies of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The American Missal gives special emphasis to the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. This suggests that a substantial number of Anglicans and Episcopalians in the United States have a view of eucharistic presence that is also at variance with that of the 1662 Prayer Book.

The existence of substantial numbers of Anglicans and Episcopalians in the United States who maintain views of eucharistic sacrifice and eucharistic presence at variance with the eucharistic doctrine of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer goes a long way to explaining why the Common Cause Partners adopted a Theological Statement that effectively draws the teeth of the historic Anglican formularies. It also explains why they adopted the Anglo-Catholic position on bishops being of the essence of the Church. It is connected to the belief that apostolic succession is an unbroken succession of bishops going back to the apostles. Through this unbroken succession of bishops, it is believed, is transmitted the grace to bring Christ into being in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The Common Cause Theological Statement in slightly modified form is now the Fundamental Declarations of the Anglican Church in North America.

If Evangelicals in the Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, and the United Kingdom are serious in their affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration, they need to reappraise the notion that the Anglican Church in North America and its Ministry Partner, the Anglican Mission in Americas, is GAFCON in North America. Representatives of the Anglican Mission in the Americas were a part of the Common Cause Roundtable that drew up the Common Cause Theological Statement. The Ministry Partnership of the AMiA, otherwise known as the Anglican Mission, with the ACNA entails that the Anglican Mission fully subscribe to the ACNA Fundamental Declarations without any reservation.

According to sources within the Anglican Mission, while affirmation of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a part of that organization’s Solemn Declaration of Principles, the Articles and the Prayer Book are not living formularies for a large number of congregations and clergy in the Anglican Mission. The Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration of Principles requires that all alternative forms and rites used in that organization’s congregations should conform to the doctrine of the 1662 Prayer Book. However, the Anglican Mission produced a service book in 2008, which does not conform to that doctrine, and which its senior most bishops, Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers endorsed.

The Anglican Mission also played a major role in the drafting of the ACNA’s constitution and canons and the governing documents of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The latter is heavily indebted in doctrine, language, norms, and principles to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The governing documents of ACNA also show the influence of the RCC’s Code of Canon Law.

Add to this picture, the fact that the Anglican Mission is organized like a Roman Catholic archdiocese with all leaders deriving their authority ultimately from Chuck Murphy, the Primatial Vicar, the Rwandan Primate’s deputy in North America. This includes the Anglican Mission’s other bishops.

Also add to the picture that the ACNA Archbishop and Primate, Robert Duncan, has formed an Archbishop’s Cabinet, an administrative body that is typically found in Roman Catholic archdioceses and for which the ACNA constitution and canons make no provision. Archbishop Duncan has to date exercised his office with little regard for the ACNA governing documents. The key role that Duncan played in the establishment of the Common Cause Partnership and his involvement in the Common Cause Roundtable that drew up its Theological Statement, the way that he managed the deliberations of the ACNA Inaugural Provincial Assembly, effectively ensuring the ratification of the ACNA proposed constitution and canons, and more recently his use of the Roman Catholic practice of anointing a new bishop’s head with blessed oil at the consecration of Bishop Foley Beech, all raise questions as to whether the senior most bishop of the ACNA really subscribes to the Jerusalem Declaration.

The Continuing Anglican Churches in the United States do not subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration and make no pretence of adhering to the doctrinal positions articulated in that document. To them the Jerusalem Declaration is contrary to what they believe or it is irrelevant to their life as ecclesiastical organizations. For these jurisdictions their doctrinal standard is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or the American Missal. If they do affirm the Thirty-Nine Articles in their governing documents, it is generally (but not exclusively) interpreted in an Anglo-Catholic sense.

This leads to the question with which I titled this article, “Is an Anglican mission needed in the United States?” I personally believe that such a mission is desperately needed. As I see it, what passes as Anglicanism in the United States, even as orthodox Anglicanism, is too far removed from the “true gospel and the Protestant, Reformed religion established by law,” to which the 1688 Coronation Oath Act refers. It is to a large extent an independent form of unreformed Catholicism. This is not to say that all Anglican and Episcopal congregations and clergy in the United States have moved in this direction. But Anglican and Episcopal congregations and clergy that uphold the doctrine of historic Anglican formularies, subscribe to the tenets of Anglican orthodoxy identified in the Jerusalem Declaration, and represent authentic historic Anglicanism are a decided minority in the United States. They are not found in one jurisdiction but are scattered among several jurisdictions.

The characterization of the ACNA and the AMiA as GAFCON in North America is a mistake that I believe Evangelicals outside of North America will in the continuance of time come to regret. The ACNA presents itself as a reform movement but I observe no movement at the provincial level toward the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the ACNA, which I would expect in an ecclesiastical organization committed to authentic historic Anglicanism. I have already described the attitude toward the historic Anglican formularies in the Anglican Mission. Neither the ACNA nor the Anglican Mission has issued a doctrinal statement defining the gospel that their pastors are expected to preach and teach and their members to share. In both jurisdictions it is possible to preach, teach, and share “a different gospel,” indeed several different gospels.

The ACNA is considering the adoption of a new Ordinal that will be revealing in relation to the theological direction of the ACNA. The texts and rubrics of this Ordinal to my knowledge have not been made available for public scrutiny and comment, which has become typical of the way that the ACNA does things. The ACNA top leaders are not open and transparent, preferring to keep things under wraps until they are ready to announce what they are doing, and then usually after they have done it, thereby preventing any opposition developing to what they are proposing to do.

I believe that Evangelicals outside of North America will in the continuance of time discover that a number of Anglicans in the ACNA and the Anglican Mission, particularly those in leadership positions, are not unlike their liberal brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church. They have an agenda, which they wish to export to other Anglican provinces. They, like their liberal brothers and sisters, wish to shape world Anglicanism. While they may publicly acknowledge the growth of the Anglican Church in global South and the rise of global South Anglican leaders to prominence, they privately see themselves playing a lead role in a new Anglican Communion, in which they, not the global South, exercises leadership.

For the present US leaders may be willing to take a back seat. But wherever they sit, they are making sure they occupy seats from which they can exercise influence and expand their influence over time. You can count on it.