Bad to the Bone – Part 2

An Appraisal of American Anglicanism

By Robin G. Jordan

In this second part of my article,” Bad to the Bone: An Appraisal of American Anglicanism,” I continue my examination of the problems besetting Anglicanism in North America and what lies behind these problems. The two areas upon which I will be focusing in this part of the article are the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal annexed to the 1662 Prayer Book, and the Thirty-Nine Articles form together the long-recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism.

The Book of Common Prayer. The GAFCON Theological Resource Group in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today write:

We should not expect uniformity of liturgy across the Anglican Communion, but we should look for a common theological base.(Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 47)

They go on to write:

The 1662 Prayer Book provides a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 47)

If we test and measure the liturgies used in the North American Church from the 1789 Prayer Book on, we discern a persistent movement away from the theology of the classical Anglican formularies not only that of the 1662 Prayer Book and the annexed Ordinal but also that of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

This movement began with the adoption of the 1789 Prayer Book, which replaced the Prayer of Consecration of the 1662 Prayer Book with that of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer Book of 1764. The latter was compiled by two Scottish Non-Juror bishops—the surviving members of the Usager party, a Non-Juror faction that maintained that Christ made atonement for the sins of the world, not on the cross but at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. He offered or gave his natural body and blood under the emblems or symbols of bread and wine. He was only slain on the cross. The Usagers further held that a mixed chalice, invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the oblation of the elements in the Prayer of Consecration are necessary for the valid consecration of the sacrament. The Holy Communion is a “true and proper sacrifice commemorative of the original sacrifice and death of Christ for our deliverance from death and sin—a memorial made before God to put him in mind” of Christ’s sacrifice, a reminder to God of what Christ has done. (Mason Gallagher, The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored, pp. 82-83)

Most histories of the Episcopal Church tell us that the Scottish bishops consecrated Samuel Seabury on the condition that he would champion the Episcopal Church’s adoption of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. What they neglect to mention is that Seabury himself held this particular view of the Holy Communion, which is in direct antagonism to that of the English Reformers and the 1662 Prayer Book. (Ibid., pp. 82-83)

The 1552 and 1662 Prayer of Consecrations, unlike the 1549 Canon and the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Consecration Prayer contain no invocation of the Holy Spirit, a deliberate omission as such an invocation is not only unscriptural but also suggests a change is wrought in the substance of the bread and wine. There is no oblation of the bread and wine, either at the offertory or during the consecration of the elements in the 1552 and 1662 Communion Offices. Anything that might suggest that the Holy Communion is a sacrifice is omitted. The Prayer of Oblation is placed after the Communion, not in the Consecration Prayer as in the 1549 and 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office.

The invocation of the Holy Spirit in the 1764 Scottish Non Juror and 1789 Prayers of Consecration differs from that in the 1549 Canon and follows the Words of Institution. The invocation in the 1549 Canon precedes the Words of Invocation. These differences are significant. They express doctrinal differences between the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror and 1789 Consecration Prayers and the 1549 Canon. The 1764 Scottish Non-Juror and 1789 Consecration Prayers are more open to interpretation as supporting the belief that in the Eucharist the priest reiterates or represents the sacrifice of Christ, substantively present under the forms of bread and wine, a doctrine rejected by the Thirty-Nine Articles.

As can be seen the movement away from the doctrine of 1662 Prayer Book began at a very early stage in the North American Church, as soon as the Episcopal Church became an independent province from the Church of England. It would become more pronounced in the twentieth century with the 1928 Prayer Book in the United States and the 1962 Prayer Book in Canada. There are significant differences between the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and the classical Anglican Prayer Book.

E Clowes Chorley in The New American Prayer Book: Its History and Contents, published in 1929, states that the changes in the 1928 Prayer Book were "far reaching and sometimes radical." Edward Parsons and Bayard Jones in The American Prayer Book: Its Origins and Principles, published in 1937, share this assessment of the 1928 Prayer Book. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services are even further removed from the 1662 Prayer Book.

In a number of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions the American Missal has been used since the late 1970s – early 1980s. The additions to 1928 Prayer Book from the American Missal completely change the doctrine of the 1928 Prayer Book. They move it further away from that of the classical Anglican formularies.

An Anglican Prayer Book, published in 2008, was a joint undertaking of then Anglican Mission in America and the Prayer Book Society of the USA. The services ofAn Anglican Prayer Book were supposed to be contemporary language versions of the services of the 1662, 1928, and 1962 Canadian Prayer Books, providing a bridge to the traditional language services of these three Prayer Books for congregations accustomed to the contemporary language services of the 1979 Prayer Book. The editors of An Anglican Prayer Book could not resist the temptation of making doctrinal changes in the services of the three Prayer Books through additions and alterations to the services. Needless to say none of these doctrinal changes move An Anglican Prayer Book closer to the theology of the 1662 Prayer Book.

The Reformed Episcopal Church authorized a new Prayer Book for use in its churches in 2003. While this Prayer Book was touted as bringing the theology of the REC Prayer Book into conformity with that of the 1662 Prayer Book, it did nothing of the sort. What it did was replaced the theology of the 1785 and 1874 Prayer Books with that of the 1928 Prayer Book. The modern language version of 2003 REC Prayer Book, authorized this year, moves that Prayer Book further in an unreformed Catholic direction.

The Book of Common Prayer 2011, edited by Keith J. Acker, if it was adopted, would move the REC Prayer Book, in an even more unreformed Catholic direction.

The new ACNA ordinal, approved by the ACNA College of Bishops this past summer, represents a decided movement away from the Ordinal of the 1662 Prayer Book. Among its defects are that the Preface of the classical Anglican Ordinal has been altered to reflect a particular interpretation of the Preface on which Anglicans are not agreed. The ordinal does not require blanket belief in the canons of the Old and New Testament. A number of changes bring the ordination services more in line with pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic theology of apostolic succession, the sacraments, and ordination and introduce into the services doctrines and practices that the Anglican Reformers rejected. They also sanction associated doctrines and practices that are not agreeable to Scripture and are antagonistic to the classical Anglican formularies and historic Anglicanism. The rubrics make a distinction between the ordination of deacons and priests and the consecration of bishops regarding the singing or recitation of a Hymn to the Holy Spirit, which is not found in the classical Anglican Ordinal.

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) called for the recover of the classical Anglican formularies. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal annexed to it are two of these formularies. But as we have seen, there has over the past 200 years been an ongoing movement away from the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662 Prayer Book and the Prayer Book Ordinal in the North American Church. There has been no evidence of a reversal of this movement in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Rather there has been fresh evidence in the form of the new ACNA ordinal that this movement continues despite GAFCON’s call to return to the formularies.

The Thirty-Nine Articles. A decade would pass following the adoption of the first American Prayer Book in 1789 before the General Convention of the Episcopal Church would adopt the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Thirty Nine Articles had their opponents in the Episcopal Church from the outset. In 1799 the following resolution was brought to the floor of the General Convention:

Resolved, That the articles of our faith and religion as founded on the Holy Scriptures are sufficiently declared in our Creeds and our Liturgy as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, established for the use of this Church, and that further articles do not appear necessary.

It echoed a widespread sentiment in the young denomination.

The House of Delegates would adopt the resolution. The House of Bishops would veto it. While the bishops were not particularly enamored of the Thirty-Nine Articles, they were of the opinion that the Episcopal Church needed to adopt an official statement of doctrine.

When a revised version of the Thirty-Nine Articles was adopted in 1801, it was given no regulatory force. The clergy of the Episcopal Church were not required to formally subscribe to the revised Articles, as the clergy of the Church of England were to the Thirty-Nine Nine Articles.

In 1925 the General Convention passed a resolution removing the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book and in effect abolishing the Articles as the Episcopal Church’s official statement of doctrine. The constitution of the Episcopal Church required the passage of the resolution at two successive General Conventions before it would be binding upon the denomination. In 1928 the General Convention the resolution failed to muster sufficient votes to pass a second time, apparently due to concerns that its passage might affect the passage of the revision of the Prayer Book.

The prevailing attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles in the Episcopal Church in the twentieth century was that the Articles were “foreign to the genius of the Church of England” and that "the adoption of such a detailed system of theology was contrary to her history and traditions…." The Thirty-Nine Articles were dismissed as being no longer relevant for today and representing “a watermark of a previous tide.” The Thirty-Nine Articles would eventually be relegated to the historical documents section of the 1979 Prayer Book.

The negative attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles that characterized the Episcopal Church in the twentieth century would carry over to this century and is found in the Anglican Church in North America, the Anglican Mission, and the Continuing Anglican Churches.

The Anglican Church in North America does not fully accept the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles, as can be seen from Article I.7 of the ACNA’s constitution.

We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

The inclusion of the phrase “taken in their literal and grammatical sense” was at an early stage seen by Anglo-Catholics in North America as an endorsement of John Henry Newman’s fanciful, ahistorical approach to the interpretation of the Thirty Nine Articles, in which he reinterpreted the Articles in a Roman direction.

In earlier versions of Article I.7 the Articles to which Article I.7 referred were the Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, which omit Article 29 and its recognition that the Holy Communion is no participation in Christ’s body and blood for the wicked and those in whom a vital faith is absent. The article “the” preceded “fundamental principles” in the phrase, “as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” The dropping of this article would significantly change the meaning of this phrase and Article I.7.

Article I.7 was originally a part of the Common Cause Theological Statement. In the proposed Common Cause Theological Statement the following clause was put forward for what would eventually become Article I.7:

We affirm the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as foundational for authentic Anglican belief and practice and as correctives to doctrinal abuses.

Compare this clause and the final version of Article I.7 with Clause 4 of The Jerusalem Declaration:

We uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

The Jerusalem Declaration identifies 14 tenets of orthodox Anglican belief. The purpose of The Jerusalem Declaration “is to define Anglican identity for contemporary Anglicans, in a way which is faithful to Scripture and to the Anglican formularies.” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 147) Clause 4 fully accepts the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles. There is no mincing of words. It is a straightforward affirmation of their authority.

In the Anglican Mission the Thirty-Nine Articles have formal authority but they are neglected as a living formulary. In its willingness to subscribe without reservation to Article I.7 as a ministry partner of the Anglican Church in North America the Anglican Mission has shown its real attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles. In the Continuing Anglican Churches the Thirty-Nine Articles, if they are accepted as a standard of Anglican teaching, are apt to be reinterpreted as Newman reinterpreted them.

The North American Church is one of those parts of the Anglican Church in which “over the last two hundred years an unwillingness has grown up to bind itself to confessional formulae, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historical Anglicanism Today, p. 91)
The Episcopal Church has been at the forefront of the movement in the Anglican Church to demote the Thirty-Nine Articles from a test of faith to at best a historical background informing the life and witness of the Church. Those who broke away from the Episcopal Church to form the Continuing Anglican Churches, the Anglican Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America brought this attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles into these bodies with them.

What might have been a positive development—the publication of Essential Truths for Christians, Anglican Mission Bishop John Rodger’s commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles and introduction to systematic theology, is blunted by Bishop Rodger’s propensity to make assertions in regards to Anglican belief and practice that are not supported by a careful reading of Anglican Church history, the Anglican Reformers, and the benchmark Anglican divines. This propensity throws Bishop Rodger’s scholarship into question.

The recovery of the classical Anglican formularies is emphasized in The Way, the Truth, and the Life, The Jerusalem Declaration, and Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today. Yet as we have seen in the North American Church a movement away from the formularies has been going on in that Church for the past 200 years. This movement shows no signs of abating. While liberalism has contributed to the movement away from the formularies, it is not the only factor driving this movement. The movement away from the formularies may be such an integral part of the North American Church that there is little hope of the recovery of the formularies in any of the present Anglican bodies in North America, including the Anglican Church in North America. Only in a new province in which the classical Anglican formularies comprise the theological foundation of the new province and in which there is a genuine acceptance of their authority along with the authority of the Bible can we hope to see the realization of the GAFCON vision. This may require a fresh start with clergy and congregations who are fully committed to the vision of a reformed North American Anglican Church ruled by the plain sense of Scripture and the classical Anglican formularies.

In the third part of this article I will complete my examination of the problems besetting American Anglicanism and what underlies these problems.

To read Part 1 of this article, click here.