In its introduction the report refers to a meeting of the taskforce in Fort Worth on November 19, 2008, at which the committee requested that a subgroup of the taskforce develop what it describes as “a theological lens” through which the taskforce would “compose a thoroughly ‘orthodox’ prayerbook.” The report is the subgroup’s response to this request. The report notes that the taskforce did not feel that it could not compose a new Ordinal without complete agreement on its “theological lens.” The report does not identify who served on the subgroup that prepared the report and consequently we cannot determine from the subgroup’s composition the predominant theological influences represented in it.
In Tudor and Jacobean periods in English history the small panes of glass used in windows often distorted what was seen through them. As we shall see in this articles series, the taskforce’s “theological lens” like these early windowpanes provides a distorted view of Anglicanism. It is a view of Anglicanism that has been prevalent in certain quarters of American Church since the nineteenth century.
In 1833 the first Tract for the Times was published in England. The publication of the Tracts for the Time marked the beginning of what some Church historians describe as the Catholic Revival in the Church of England. The Tracts for the Times were also published in the United States. They would exert a strong influence upon the High Church wing of the then Protestant Episcopal Church. The view of Anglicanism found in the report is traceable to the Tractarian movement and the Ritualist and Anglo-Catholic movements, which were subsequent outgrowths of the Tractarian movement. It is essentially a revisionist view of Anglicanism, one that reflects an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Anglican Church history, the character of Anglicanism, and the development of the Book of Common Prayer and Anglican worship. It is noteworthy that the taskforce lists in the closing section of the report the preparation of “Contemporary ‘Tracts for Our Times’” as part of its future work.
In this article we will examine the first two sections of the report following the introduction.
Summary of Resource Materials. Early in the report the task force list the 1549 and 1928 Books of Common Prayer among the standard Prayer Books of the Anglican Communion. The task force’s use of the term “standard Prayer Book” is very misleading. A standard Prayer Book is simply a certified correct copy of the authorized Prayer Book for an Anglican Province. It serves as the standard for all the other copies of that Prayer Book printed in that Anglican province. The task force, however, uses this phrase in a way that infers that the books identified as “standard Prayer Books” were and continue to be Anglican standards of doctrine and worship. The semi-reformed 1549 Prayer Book was a transitional service book, and was quickly replaced by the fully reformed 1552 Prayer Book. Unlike the 1662 Prayer Book and its predecessor, the 1552 Prayer Book, the 1549 Prayer Book has never been viewed as an Anglican doctrinal and worship standard except by Catholic-leaning Anglicans who have repeatedly sought to make it an Anglican doctrinal and worship standard in place of the 1662 Prayer Book. This they have done by treating it as if it is such a standard, which it is not and never has been.
The 1928 Prayer Book—presumably a reference to the 1928 American Prayer Book and not the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book—has also never been an Anglican doctrinal and worship standard. The task force makes a reference to the Fundamental Declarations of the Anglican Church in North America, presumably to Article I. 6. Article I.6, however, does not mention the 1928 Prayer Book, only the 1662 Prayer Book and the books that preceded it. Arguably they include the pre-Reformation medieval service books. They do not, however, include the 1928 Prayer Book.
This emphasis upon the 1549 and 1928 Books of Common Prayer as if they were a part of the Anglican formularies occurs throughout the entire report. It represents a major distortion of Anglicanism. As the GAFCON Theological Resource Group points to our attention in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571), The Book of Common Prayer (1662) and the Ordering of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops (1661) are the long recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 35). The GAFCON Theological Resource Group further notes that “the 1662 Prayer Book provides a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured” (Ibid., p.47). As J. I. Packer directs to our attention in The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, the Articles “were meant…as doctrinal standards for interpreting the Prayer Book (The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, p.68). The 1549 and 1928 Prayer Books may be the preferred Prayer Books of a number of Catholic-leaning Anglicans in the United States but they do not by any stretch of the imagination form a doctrinal and worship standard for global Anglicans. What we have here is an example not only of theological partisanship but also ecclesiastical provincialism.
The report contains two passing references to the Articles. Otherwise, the report takes little notice of the Articles. In a number of places the report adopts positions in conflict with those of the Articles.
The task force commends five articles, or essays, to the attention of the readers of the report but does not incorporate these articles into an appendix to the report. With the exception of Archbishop Cranmer’s Concerning the Service of the Church, none of these articles are posted on the Internet. The Anglican Church in North America has made no effort to post these articles on its website with the report.
The task force’s use of the phrase “Biblically-based” in this section of the report does not adequately summarize what Cranmer wrote regarding the “Order for Prayer, and for the reading of the holy Scripture” in Concerning the Service of the Church.
…and nothing is ordained to be read, but the very pure Word of God, the holy Scriptures, or that which is agreeable to the same [Emphasis added]; and that in such a language and order as is most easy and plain for the understanding both of the readers and hearers. It is also more commodious, both for the shortness thereof, and for the plainness of the order, and for that the rules be few and easy.
The phrase “Biblically-based” has been used to describe forms of service that do not meet the requirements of being the very pure Word of God or that which is agreeable to God’s Word. Being based upon the Bible does not require a form of service to be Scripture or agreeable to Scripture. It only has to loosely rest on Scripture. This may include sounding Scriptural while not embodying Scriptural principles and truths.
In the report there is not one reference to the Global Anglican Future Conference or to the GAFCON documents, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, The Jerusalem Declaration, and Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today. As far as the report is concerned, the worldwide Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans does not exist and the Global Anglican Future Conference did not happen. In light of The Jerusalem Declaration’s strong affirmation of the classic Anglican formularies—the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the Ordering of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops of 1661—and the space devoted in The Way, the Truth, and the Life and Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today to matters affecting the Prayer Book and worship in the Anglican Church, the report’s omission of any references to the Global Anglican Future Conference and the GAFCON documents is highly significant.
Summary of Guiding Principles. This section of the report summarizes the “Chief Guiding Principles of Christian Worship” that are supposed to be guiding the taskforce in its creation of a Prayer Book for use in the Anglican Church in North America.
1. Holy Scripture must be the foundation and essential content of all Christian worship.
In the report’s articulation of this guiding principle a reference to Article 20 would clearly have been in order:
The Church has power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church is a witness and a keeper of Holy Scripture: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
So would have references to the passages of Scripture that form the basis of this Article.
2. Tradition is to be carefully respected, especially if it is consonant with the worship practices of the Undivided Church.
The second guiding principle reflects an Anglo-Catholic emphasis upon the authority of tradition and the rule of antiquity. In historic Anglicanism, however, tradition is subordinate to the authority of the Bible; the rule of antiquity must always give way to the rule of Scripture. No matter how ancient a tradition may be, if it is in conflict with what the Bible teaches, it must be rejected.
3. Edification means that the language must be understood by the congregation, and that the ceremonies be correspondingly relevant to them.
The concept of edification as developed in the writings of the apostle Paul, and as understood by Archbishop Cranmer refers to more than the use of the vernacular in worship and of ceremonies that are readily understandable to the congregation both as to their meaning and their use. Cranmer’s use of penitential sentences of Scripture, lengthy exhortations, readings from Scripture, “Comfortable Words,” and prayers that are both didactic and devotional reflect his understanding of edification. Among the functions of the liturgy are to convert, encourage, instruct, reinforce, and strengthen. All these functions are forms of edification. This helps to explain Cranmer’s insistence upon a liturgy that is the very pure Word of God or that which is agreeable to God’s Word. The Holy Spirit and the Word of God are the means by which God builds up his Church. One of the prerequisites of an edifying liturgy is that it embodies and expresses sound biblical doctrine.
4. Ceremonies do not have to be identical across nationalities and cultures, but they must also not contradict Scripture or the Creeds.
The fourth guiding principle suggests an equivalence of the authority of the Creeds (and by extension, the authority of Church tradition) with the authority of the Bible. Article 8 states, “The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” In other words, the authority of the Creeds comes from their agreement with the teaching of the Scripture. They are NOT equal in authority with Scripture. Nor is Church tradition.
Article 34 states, “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.” Article 34 further states, “Every particular or national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying” [Emphasis added]. In historic Anglicanism all ceremonies must be agreeable to Scripture. They must edify. They must “be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified” [Of Ceremonies, Why Some Be Abolished And Some Retained,” The Book of Common Prayer (1662), p. 8]
5. The words and liturgical forms of the liturgies of our Communion should seek ecumenical convergence with one another and with the universal Church.
The use of so-called ecumenical wording and liturgical forms in Anglican liturgies in the twentieth century led to the weakening of Anglican doctrine and the substitution of Roman Catholic doctrine for Anglican doctrine. Their use failed to take into consideration that there are major differences in doctrine and practice between historic Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. The notion of ecumenical convergence was also one of the principles upon which the 1979 Book of Common Prayer was based. It was used to introduce doctrines and practices that were not consonant with the Scriptures and historic Anglicanism.
As the phrase “universal church” is used in this guiding principle, it sounds more like a reference to the Roman Catholic Church than to the whole body of believing Christians.
6. Words and liturgical forms should show a continuity with the Church’s historic tradition; change and development should only take place in a way that creativity and innovation do not negate the orthodoxy of the liturgy or confuse the piety of the people.
The report does not define what it means by the phrase, “the Church’s historic tradition.” Such a phrase, if left undefined, is open to multiple interpretations. “The piety of the people” is a phrase typically found in Roman Catholic documents. Such piety may be grounded in false teaching and superstition.
It is noteworthy that none of these guiding principles contains any reference to sound biblical doctrine, which was a major concern of Archbishop Cranmer, the English Reformers, and the Elizabethan divines and which continues to be a major concern of biblically faithful, mission-minded Anglicans to this day.
What is noticeable in this section of the report as well as throughout the report is the absence of Scripture references and footnotes. The taskforce does not identify where in Scripture the basis of the conclusions that it draws are found or what passages of Scripture support these conclusions. The taskforce does not identify which Patristic writers, later theologians, or doctrinal commissions were involved in the development of the particular views expressed in the report. This is a serious defect of the report. It is surprising that the College of Bishops approved the report without Scripture references and annotation.
In approving the report, the College of Bishops endorsed the report as an official doctrinal statement of the Anglican Church in North America alongside the Fundamental Declarations of the Constitution and the doctrinal provisions of the Canons. The “theological lens” of the taskforce is now the “theological lens” of the Anglican Church in North America.
The lack of Scriptural references and annotation in the report not only reflects poorly upon the taskforce in that it prepared a report without any documentation of the scholarship behind the conclusions and views found in the report but also the College of Bishops in that it approved a report without such documentation. This documentation, however, could have been used to show the weakness of the taskforce’s conclusions and the defectiveness of its views. While it may not have been the intent of the taskforce to prevent critical examination of the basis for its conclusions and views, in failing to include this documentation—a must in a report of this magnitude—the taskforce opened itself to this criticism.
In my next article in this series I will begin my examination of what the report entitles “An Expanded Explanation of Our Guiding Principles." Rather than making more intelligible to its readers the six guiding principles that it summarized in the section we have just examined, the taskforce embarks upon a lengthy presentation of its views on “worship in the Anglican Tradition,” which offers little detail about the principles that it is using to guide it in its creation of a Prayer Book for use in the Anglican Church in North America. This presentation is, however, very revealing into the taskforce’s revisionist view of Anglicanism.
This is an excellent summary of the problems with the ACNA's entire approach to its formulation of doctrinal standards. It is also indirectly a critical examination of the same tactics used by the Reformed Episcopal Church to downplay The Declaration of Principles so that compromise with Anglo-Catholicism could be justified.
This is an excellent summary of the problems with the ACNA's entire approach to its formulation of doctrinal standards. It is also indirectly a critical examination of the same tactics used by the Reformed Episcopal Church to downplay The Declaration of Principles so that compromise with Anglo-Catholicism could be justified.
ReplyDelete