A Guide to Anglican Church Planting

The Great Commission can only be fulfilled by church planting. As neither the Old nor New Testaments know anything of mere private religion, there is no other way. It is not enough for people to hear the Gospel, or even to receive Christ as Lord and Saviour; they must be grafted into the Church - the Body of Christ - where they can share in its sacramental and corporate life. As the Scripture says, “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). Scriptural Christianity is not a private religion. It is ecclesiastical. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and in the prayers” (Acts 2:42).

In 1838, the Rev. William Wilberforce, who would later become Bishop of Oxford, wrote: “The great object, I am sure, which we ought now to aim at in our missionary exertions is to give them a much more distinct Church character than we have done - to send out The Church, and not merely instructions about religion. This is the way in which in primitive times the world was converted” (Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., 1880, I, 109-110).

In the days of its orthodoxy, the Protestant Episcopal Church USA was a rapidly growing, mission oriented Church. In 1830, there were only 30,939 communicants, but in just 20 years that number tripled to 98,655! In 1870, some 20 years later, the Church more than doubled to 231,591 communicants. It more than doubled again in the next 20 years; and by 1900 there were 742,569 communicants. Now that is real growth! And the growth continued through the first half of the 20th century, until the pan-heresy of liberal-modernism began to cripple the Church and its outreach. Despite two World Wars and the Great Depression, there were 1,640,101 communicants in 1950. In 1830 there was only 1 Episcopal communicant for every 415 Americans; but by 1950, despite the rapid population growth of the United States, there was 1 Episcopal communicant for every 91 Americans! Historically the Protestant Episcopal Church was as evangelistic and soul-winning as any evangelical Church in America, and more so than most. Keep reading

The title of this article, "A Guide to Anglican Church Planting," is misleading. It suggests that there is only one approach to planting new Anglican churches, which is far from the case. The claim that the approach described in the article is apostolic is also misleading. A careful reading of the New Testament reveals that more than one approach was used in New Testament times. Moreover, because the New Testament may describes a particular approach to church planting does not mean that the New Testament prescribes that approach. There must be clear evidence that the author of the description intended it to serve as a precedent.

As Ed Stetzer and others have observed, there are as many approaches to planting new churches as there are new church plants. What may work in one area may not in another.

I also have problems with the use of the 1928 Prayer Book. My primary objections are to its doctrine and liturgical usages, and not to its traditional language. At the same time accessibility of liturgical materials is a consideration that should not be dismissed lightly. With some population segments its Tudor English may prove a significant barrier.

As for the 2003 REC Prayer Book, it has been strongly influenced by the 1928 Prayer Book. It may contain some material from the 1662 Prayer Book but not enough to support the claim that it is an American version of the 1662 Prayer Book.

Furthermore it strikes me as ironic that a presbyter of the Reformed Episcopal Church should be championing the use of the 1928 Prayer Book. The 1928 Prayer Book is the fruit of the Ritualist movement whose spread and growing influence in the Protestant Episcopal Church prompted the founding of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. It embodies Ritualist principles and thinking. It stands for everything to which the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church were opposed. Its doctrine and liturgical usages are even more Roman than the 1789 Prayer Book, which they became convinced contained “the germs of Romanism.”

The article, however, does contain useful information which is why I am posting it.