The ACNA Theological Lens: The Guiding Principles Behind the Proposed ACNA Prayer Book—Part 7

By Robin G. Jordan

In this seventh article on The Initial Report of the Prayerbook and Common Liturgy Taskforce of the Anglican Church in North America we will be examining the section entitled “3. Guiding Principles for Anglican Worship: an “exegesis” of these six principles for Prayerbook revision.” This section contains an exposition of the six principles that the taskforce has adopted to guide it in compiling an Ordinal and Prayer Book for use in the Anglican Church in North America. We will be scrutinizing the taskforce’s “exegesis” of these six principles.

A. Holy Scripture must be the foundation of all Christian worship.

Note the difference between this statement of the taskforce’s first principle of Prayer Book revision and the report’s statement of that principle in the earlier “Summary of Guiding Principles” section.

Holy Scripture must be the foundation and essential content of all Christian worship.

“Essential content” has been dropped.

1.The liturgy itself should summarize and illustrate the Biblical story, and should incorporate Biblical language.

The liturgy must do more than “summarize and illustrate the Bible story” and “incorporate Biblical language. It must embody sound biblical doctrine. It must teach nothing that is not found in Scripture or may be proved from Scriptures (Article 6).

2. Nothing should be authorized in ceremonial or language that might contradict the authority of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures.

The phrase “contradict the authority of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures” does not mean the same thing as the expressions “contrary to the Word of God” or “repugnant to the Word of God,” as used in the Thirty-Nine Articles. It emphasizes the authority of doctrines “taught in the Holy Scriptures” rather than the authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves. Anglicans may not agree that the doctrines in question are actually taught in the Bible. They may represent what a particular consensus and tradition maintains is taught in the Bible. By the use of this kind of language the report gives a larger place to tradition than authentic historic Anglicanism does.

3. The words and concepts, the metaphors and images, used in common worship should be as close to direct quotations of the Holy Scriptures as is grammatically possible.

As David Phillips points out in a 2002 Cross+Way article, “The reformed worship of 1552,” successfully combining sound doctrine and the eloquent use of language is one of the challenges that face revisers of the Prayer Book:

Good liturgy requires both sound doctrine and the eloquent use of language. More recent attempts at liturgy have failed to combine these too successfully. Whilst some modern liturgy does make effective use of language and some of the texts produced in recent decades have proved memorable, often they have been defective in doctrine. In contrast many evangelical attempts at liturgy, whilst admirable in doctrinal content often seem flat and unmemorable as a piece of liturgy. In the goodness of God the two elements were combined in Cranmer’s liturgy. It is intriguing that there are many today who love the language of the Book of Common Prayer whilst rejecting its primary doctrinal foundations, whilst other rejoice in its doctrine but would prefer something less archaic in word and phrase. Cranmer’s liturgy has been remarkable in the way that it has shaped the doctrine of the Church of England whilst also influencing the English language.

A rigid use of a word for word translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible in a Prayer Book can rob the language of the liturgy of the eloquence needed to make it alive and memorable. The translation of biblical texts for liturgical use frequently requires a combination of dynamic equivalence and word-for-word translation.

4. One translation of the Bible should serve as the standard for all liturgical texts (be it the RSV, NKJV, or English Standard Version) so as to encourage the memorization of Scripture and a resonance between Biblical and liturgical texts.

The problem with using one translation of the Bible as the standard for all liturgical texts is that some texts in the RSV, NKJV, and ESV are ill suited for liturgical use. For example the ESV translation of Luke 2:29-32 is particularly unsuitable for use as the Prayer Book canticle Nunc dimittis. Liturgical commissions preparing revisions of the Prayer Book have in recent years made their own translations of Scripture texts historically used as anthems and canticles in Prayer Book liturgies to ensure that they are suitable for congregational recitation or singing. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer contains texts from three different translations of the Bible as well as texts that were directly translated from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. A single translation of the Bible is not necessary to encourage the memorization of Scripture. The insistence upon “a resonance” between Biblical and liturgical texts is an innovation.

B. Tradition is to be carefully respected, especially the worship practices of the Undivided Church, as long as they do not contradict Scripture.

The report’s statement of the taskforce’s second principle of Prayer Book revision in this section has also been changed.

Tradition is to be carefully respected, especially if it is consonant with the worship practices of the Undivided Church.

In its original form the taskforce's second principle of Prayer Book revision makes no reference to Scripture.

1. We know that the 16th-century Reformers attempted to return to the practices of the Early Church in their liturgical revisions, but were hindered by a lack of primary resources.

The sixteenth century Reformers were primarily concerned with restoring to the worship of the English Church New Testament teaching and practice. They would reject on solid biblical grounds a number of doctrines and liturgical usages that have been introduced into the Church of England since the Reformation on the basis of the preceding claim in the ACNA “theological lens.” In making it the taskforce infers that the rule of antiquity has greater authority than the rule of Scripture. It also infers that the sixteenth century Reformers if they had not been “hindered by a lack of primary resources” would have produced liturgies closer to the ones that it is going to produce. This is highly debatable.

2. Scholars today have much more direct access to the primary sources of the liturgies of the Undivided Church, and are not hindered (as much) by the polemics of the 16th-century; therefore they can provide us with more authentic resources from which to draw for our contemporary liturgies.

The controversies that divided Christians in the sixteenth century continue to divide Christians in the twenty-first century. Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals differ on primary as well as secondary matters. These frequently conflicting differences in doctrine and practice arise from different readings of Scripture. What may be acceptable to Anglo-Catholics in a liturgy may be completely unacceptable to conservative evangelicals. Being ancient does not guarantee that a liturgy is Scriptural. As Cranmer points out in the Preface to the 1549 Prayer Book, which was altered in the 1552 and 1662 Prayer Books, “there was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in the continuance of time hath not been corrupted….” We read in the epistles of John, Jude, Peter, and Paul how in New Testament times how false teaching quickly sprung up. Liturgical corruption, as we have seen in the twentieth century, can occur within a decade or two.

3. Worship is much more than rational discourse; it is often best conveyed by non-verbal actions and internal structures unavailable to the conscious mind; memory and conditioned responses must therefore be considered as part of the “tradition” and must be taken into consideration when there are attempts to radically change liturgical orders.

This argument can be exploited to justify the use of practices that the Reformers rejected on solid biblical grounds and the opening of the floodgate to ritualism of the worst sort in the Anglican Church in North America. It can also be to justify the rejection of the Reformed liturgies of the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books.

Cranmer’s liturgies were more than devotional. They were didactic. They were mean to instruct. They were only intended to set forth “God’s honor and glory” but also to reduce the people to” a most perfect and godly living.”

C. Edification means that the language must be understood by the congregation, and that the ceremonies be correspondingly relevant to them.

The report’s statement of the taskforce’s third principle of Prayer Book revision is notable in that it has not been altered. As noted in previous articles on the report, the taskforce’s understanding of edification is inadequate.

1.“To edify” means “to build up” or to enhance and strengthen an individual's or a community's self-identity and understanding of its place in the world; Holy Scripture “builds up” our understanding of God and His relationship with us, and fellowship within the community of faith “builds up” our own identity and sense of purpose.

In his letters Paul identifies edification as an apostolic activity. It involves laying a foundation and building on it. It also involves planting a seed and watering it. Edification is also a community activity. Through the members of the Body of Christ and the proper exercise of their spiritual gifts, the Holy Spirit builds up the Christian community. Edification goes hand in hand with exhortation, or encouragement, and also with alleviation of grief or disappointment. Edification is the building up of the Christian community as well as individuals. Believers may be strengthened and unbelievers convicted by prophesy. Edification clearly involves much more than enhancing and strengthening self-identity and understanding of one’s place in the world. The liturgies of the classic Anglican Prayer Book embody the Pauline concept of edification, which strongly influenced Cranmer and the other English Reformers.

2. Edification must therefore be that which “is understood of the people” as Cranmer phrased it, which means in a language that is accessible to the majority of its hearers: archaic language can become idolatrous if it gets in the way of common comprehension, or when it is valued more for its beauty than its content.

The use of language that is intelligible to the congregation is only a part of edification as we have seen. It facilitates the edification process. Speaking in tongues, or ascetical utterances, is only self-edifying. It does not edify the Christian community as does prophecy. Preaching is a form of prophecy. The preacher is making know what God has said. As in the case of prophetic utterances made in an unknown language, texts in Tudor English are edifying if someone is present to interpret them, that is, to explain difficult and unfamiliar words. This can be done in the text itself. It must be pointed out that Tudor English, unlike Latin or ascetical utterances is not so far removed from contemporary idiom that it cannot be understood at all. Indeed it is classified by linguists as “modern English.”

3. Language is constantly changing, only “dead” languages like Latin or Archaic Greek do not change because they are no longer spoken; therefore for a language to remain understandable it has to constantly “morph,” i.e. “thee/thou” used to be an intimate form of address, now it is only used in a formal manner towards a “distant” God.

The report ignores the role that the language of the classic Anglican Prayer Book, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the King James Version of the Bible played in shaping the English language. The use of the second person familiar may have fallen into desuetude in the general population but to those acquainted with its proper use it is a no less intimate form of address to God than to past generations. The language used in the early Prayer Books was not exactly the language used on the streets in Tudor and Stuart England. It is a form of “literary English,” but like the English of Shakespeare’s plays, it is written to be read or spoken aloud. It was also the more refined language of the educated rather than the rough speech of the common people.

A number of arguments made for the use of popular idiom in worship are also arguments for the abandonment of set forms of prayer. It is often forgotten in the debate over the use of “traditional” versus “contemporary” language in worship that the traditional language texts are a part of a previous generation’s witness to the present generation—thous, thys, thees, and thines, difficult and unfamiliar words, and all. While it is in keeping with Anglican principles to render Prayer Book texts in Tudor English into a form of English more intelligible to people today, it is also in keeping with the same principles to help them understand and appreciate these texts in the original Tudor English—to learn the language of the classic Anglican Prayer Book.

D. Ceremonies do not have to be identical across nationalities and cultures, but they must also not contradict Scripture or the Creeds.

Here again the taskforce infers an equivalence of the authority of the Creeds, and by extension, tradition, with the authority of the Bible. As pointed out elsewhere in this article series, the authority of the Creeds come from their agreement with the teaching of Scripture.

1. Not only does language change over time, so do customs and ceremonies as well. An important question for liturgists today is whether 16th-century English Court rituals are still appropriate for the informal and egalitarian society admired in the West.

The taskforce offers no support for its claim that the appropriateness of sixteenth century English Court rituals in modern Western culture is a major concern for today’s liturgists. It does not even identify what it considers to be sixteenth century English Court rituals in the Book of Common Prayer.

2. Customs and habits not only change over time, they also change over cultures. What the appropriate dress and behavior for a snow-bound Wisconsinite would not be so for an inhabitant of sub-Saharan Africa.

At this point we are prompted to ask where is the taskforce going with this discussion.

3. The Anglican Church Year presupposes the northern hemisphere: Christ is born in the darkness of winter and rises from the dead in the spring, He does the opposite in Oceana—does that contradict orthodox teaching or merely northern European prejudices? Should there be a universal calendar for all circumstances?

The questions with which the taskforce includes in this subsection are more appropriate to a study guide than an “exegesis” of a principle of Prayer Book revision. It does little if anything to increase our understanding of the taskforce’s fourth principle of Prayer Book revision.

E. Words and liturgical forms should correspond to what the catholic faith has always taught and practiced (i.e. Vincentian canon) and emphasize our closeness to other Christian Communions rather than our uniqueness (ecumenical convergence vs. ecclesial divergence).

The taskforce greatly expands its fifth principle of Prayer Book revision in its restatement of that principle in this section of the report as a comparison of this statement with the statement of the fifth principle in the earlier “Summary of Guiding Principles” section.

5. The words and liturgical forms of the liturgies of our Communion should seek ecumenical convergence with one another and with the universal Church.

It includes reference to the Vincentian Canon and calls for emphasis upon “our closeness to other Christian Communions rather than our uniqueness,” upon what it describes as “ecumenical convergence” as opposed to “ecclesial divergence.” This rewording of the taskforce’s fifth principle of Prayer Book revision gives the appearance of being designed to resonate with Anglo-Catholics and adherents of the Ancient-Future, or Convergence, movement and “three streams, one river” theology. This is not surprising in light of the make-up of the taskforce.

1. The Book of Common Prayer (up to 1928 American and 1962 Canadian) and the KJV Bible remain foundational resources for English literature, and still resonate in modern British and American speech; but because they are so closely identified with monarchy and the C of E, many other non-Anglican liturgies have avoided using these texts; in particular, the International Commission on the English Text (ICET)established by the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II sought to establish a new standard of modern English texts that would be acceptable to most other Christian Communions (and consciously avoided any Cranmerian language). Which should we use today?

The taskforce’s claim non-Anglican liturgies have discontinued using the texts from the Tudor-language Prayer Books due to their close identification with monarchy and the Church of England is open to dispute. The taskforce fails to note that the Roman Catholic Church has itself abandoned the modern English texts that the International Commission on the English Text (ICET) developed. We have entered a new century and a new millennium but the taskforce appears to be stuck in the twentieth century. The taskforce concludes the subsection with a question that would be more appropriate to a study guide than an “exegesis” of one of its guiding principles.

2. Post Vatican II liturgical scholars have increasingly come to a consensus (ironically because of Dom Gregory Dix’s pioneering concern with the “shape” rather than the words of the liturgy) that there is a common ordo (common arrangement of parts) in the ancient liturgies more than any common text; therefore ecumenically-minded liturgists should look to the common ordo rather than seek identical wording. What does that do to our Anglican inheritance?

With its emphasis upon ecumenical models and the worship patterns of the early church the taskforce stands in continuity with the Episcopal Church’s Standing Liturgical Commission that compiled the 1979 Prayer Book. The report offers only one perspective of Anglo-Catholic liturgical scholar Dom Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. In more recent years his work has been sharply criticized by both Anglican and Roman Catholic liturgical scholars and theologians.

In Cranmer’s Reformed liturgy of 1552 the arrangement of parts of the service is integral to the doctrine of the Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion. As J. I. Packer and others have pointed out, any changes in that arrangement, which is also the arrangement of the parts of the 1662 Communion Office, changes its doctrine.

3. Words and liturgical forms should show a continuity with the Church’s historic tradition; change and development should take place in a way that creativity and innovation do not undermine either the orthodoxy of the liturgy or confuse the piety of the people.

•We recognize that liturgy is much more than written words, it is the engagement of our entire selves--body, mind, and spirit; and at every level of understanding.

•In worship, both public and private, repetition is an important element; it encourages memorization and therefore makes for edification and transformation.

•Worship should thus encourage gradual change over time, with the assurance that what is memorized today will be of usefulness tomorrow.

In this subsection what the taskforce identifies as a sixth principle of Prayer Book revision in the earlier “Summary of Guiding Principles” section of the report is reduced to a sub-principle of its fifth principle of Prayer Book revision.

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 taskforce continues its stress upon tradition in this subsection as if tradition trumps everything, including Scripture.

The place of tradition in determining the content and order of the liturgy has been a recurrent theme in the report. At the same time the place of Scripture has to a large extent been minimized or underplayed. In arguing that creativity and innovation should not be allowed undermine the orthodoxy of the liturgy or confuse the piety of the people, the taskforce does not offer any explanation of what it means by the phrase “confuse the piety of the people,” as noted earlier in this article series. This phrase is open to a variety of interpretations and can be used to justify the retention of unbiblical doctrines and unscriptural practices.

The subsection neglects to mention that Cranmer believed that God’s Word and the Holy Spirit working together brought about changes in the hearts and lives of people, a view found in the Bible. This is why he included two Scripture readings—one chapter from the Old Testament and one chapter from the New Testament in the services of Morning and Evening Prayer.

The arguments that this subsection makes in support of gradual change may be used to block needed changes in the liturgy to bring it in line with the teaching of the Bible where Anglo-Catholics have restored medieval tradition in disregard of Scripture as they have been trying to do since the nineteenth century.

In the eighth article in this series we will examine the final section of the report, “4. Recommendations for the Immediate Future.”