The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look

By Robin G. Jordan

In the Introduction to To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism J. I. Packer refers to three guidelines that he maintains the writing team followed in drafting the document. These guidelines are:

1. Everything taught should be compatible with, and acceptable to, all recognized schools of Anglican thought, so that all may be able confidently to use all the material.

2. Everything taught should be expressed as briefly as possible, in terms that are clear and correspond to today’s use of language. There should be as little repetition as possible, though some overlap is inevitable. 

3. All the answers and questions should be as easy to explain and to remember as possible.

But as we shall see, everything taught in the catechism is not compatible with and acceptable to all recognized schools of Anglican thought. Indeed the catechism favors the doctrinal views of one particular school of Anglican thought over the views of the other schools of thought. Everything taught in the catechism is not explained in clear terms. At times the use of language is awkward and clumsy. All the answers and questions are not easy to explain and remember. The catechism also suffers from a number of other defects.

The version of the catechism that we will be examining is the extended version, which includes, in addition to the Introduction, the Letter of Commendation of the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, and Parts I-IV of the catechism, five appendices. Among these appendices are Toward an Anglican Catechumenate: Guiding Principles for Catechesis Task Force, Anglican Church in North America, June 2010 and Vision Paper for Catechesis in the Anglican Church in North America.

We will be looking at key sections of this document. They exemplify the particular weaknesses of the catechism and show that all recognized schools of Anglican thought are not able to use all the material in the catechism with confidence.

In the ACNA College of Bishops’ Letter of Commendation a reference is made to the Articles of Religion of 1563 as “the doctrinal norm for Anglicans around the world.” However, historic Anglicanism’ s confession of faith is the Articles of Religion of 1571, not the Articles of Religion of 1563. Under Archbishop Matthew Parker, during the reign of Elizabeth I, Thomas Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles were revised. These revised Articles were submitted to Convocation, which reduced them to thirty-nine. Only thirty-eight were published in 1563: one was apparently omitted by the Queen herself.  Between 1563 and 1571 the Articles would be revised again. They would be strengthened in a Protestant direction.

This work was due mainly to Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, though partly also to Archbishop Parker. Jewel prefixed “de” to the Latin titles and “of” to the English, and added the names to the list of Books of the Apocrypha in Article VI. Article XXIX was inserted, and accepted by the Queen, while the first clause of Article XX was accepted by Convocation. Article X was changed to “working with” instead of “working in,” and Article XXVII added “or new birth” to “regeneration.” The only change of importance was the reinsertion of Article XXIX, and this was profoundly significant of the Church doctrine on the Holy Communion. (W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles)

These Articles would be approved by Convocation, enacted into law by Parliament, and given the royal assent by the Queen. The subscription of the clergy to the Articles would be required for the first time.

The 1571 Articles’ view of the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is Reformed or Calvinist. The 1563 Articles with their omission of Article XXIX, however, permit a Lutheran view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

The ACNA College of Bishops’ Letter of Commendation is itself a theological statement. In the letter the ACNA bishops declare their public approval and support of the doctrine of the catechism. Their reference to 1563 Articles in their Letter of Commendation raises two important questions. Are the ACNA bishops interpreting the catechism as teaching a Lutheran view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Are they endorsing such a view? A Luthern view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, however, would not be compatible with and acceptable to any school of Anglican thought that held to the 1571 Articles’ view of Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

In the fundamental declarations in the provisional and draft ACNA constitutions the 1563 Articles were the Articles that were received by the Anglican Church in North America. This was corrected after Bishop Martyn Mimms drew to the attention of the provisional Provincial Council that the 1563 Articles were not the Articles widely recognized as the doctrinal standard of historic Anglicanism. It was the only change that the Anglo-Catholic members of the Council would permit in the fundamental declarations. We will never know if the substitution of the 1563 Articles for the 1571 Articles was intentional or simply a mistake. If the latter was the case, it does suggest that those who drafted the ACNA constitution were not familiar with the history of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It must be noted that language used in the fundamental declaration in which the ACNA “receives” the Thirty-Nine Articles evades fully accepting their authority as historic Anglicanism’s doctrinal standard.

The Letter of Commendation also contains a reference to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Since the discussion that follows concerns the 1662 Prayer Book, this reference appears to serve only one purpose, that is to link the 1549 Prayer Book in readers’ minds with the 1662 Prayer Book. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is one of the historic formularies of the Anglican Church. However, the 1549 Prayer Book has no such standing. It was a transitional service book. Unlike the 1552 Prayer Book upon which the 1662 Prayer Book is based, it is only partially reformed and does not reflect the mature thinking of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. While Anglo-Catholics may have a high opinion of the 1549 Prayer Book, conservative Evangelicals do not share their opinion of that service book. Anglo-Catholics have also used features of the 1549 Prayer Book to reintroduce unreformed Catholic doctrines and practices into the Anglican Church.  

The Letter of Commendation goes on to assert that the Lambeth Quadrilateral serves not only as an instrument for ecumenical dialogue with other church traditions but also as a basis for Anglican identity. While the Lambeth Quadrilateral may have been useful in discussions between the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church and some Lutheran Churches, it has proven a significant obstacle to talks with Protestant denominations.  Anglicans themselves are divided over whether it constitutes an adequate basis for Anglican identity. The GAFCON Theological Group takes the position that acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles is constitutive of Anglican identity. The Lambeth Quadrilateral makes no mention of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The Letter of Commendation states that the Jeruselem Declaration has become the theological basis of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America is a part of the GFCA. We are invited to conclude from this statement that the Jerusalem Declaration has become the theological basis of the ACNA. The ACNA, however, relegates its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the preamble of its constitution where it is purely incidental to the narrative explaining the formation of the ACNA.

Among the tenets of orthododoxy declared in the Jerusalem Declaration to underpin Anglican identity,is this tenet:

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.

In its fundamental declarations the Anglican Church in North America uses language that equivocates in its acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles. An examination of the ACNA canons, “theological lens,” ordinal, trial services of Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy Communion, and new catechism, shows that the ACNA does not fully accept the Thirty-Nine Articles’ authority.

The tone of the ACNA College of Bishops’ Letter of Commendation is decidely partisan. It favors one school of Anglican thought over the other schools of thought. As we shall see in our examination of Parts I-IV of the catechism, this partisanship is evident in the catechism itself.