Does the Anglican Church in North America Fully Accept the Authority of Scripture?

Common Fallacies in Circulation in the Anglican Church in North America (Part 2)

By Robin G. Jordan

We all engage in varying degrees in cognitive distortion. See the article, “15 Common Cognitive Distortions” for a description of the most common cognitive distortions and “50 Common Cognitive Distortions” for a more extensive list of common cognitive distortions.

Cognitive distortion is not confined to people with mental health problems. We all have mistaken beliefs about the world, ourselves, and others. These mistaken beliefs affect how we live our lives—what psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers refer to as “functioning.”

The mistaken beliefs that we have about the world, ourselves, and others may be picked up from the culture in which we live. The culture may reinforce these beliefs. For example, a woman may view herself as having little worth and consequently suffer from low self-esteem because she was born into a culture where women are viewed as inferior beings. The physical and sexual abuse of women and their economic and sexual exploitation is common, and strengthens this self-perception.

Mistaken beliefs are found in all areas of our lives. This includes the overlapping areas of religion and spirituality. In this article we are going to examine eight common fallacies that are found in the Anglican Church in North America. They form the basis of a number of doctrines and practices in that denomination.  

A fallacy is “a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.” Among the synonyms for the word “fallacy” are "misconception, misbelief, delusion, mistaken impression, error, misapprehension, misinterpretation, misconstruction," and "mistake.” In the study of logic a fallacy refers to “a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid” or “faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.” The Wikepedia article, “Fallacy” offers a more detailed explanation of what a fallacy is and includes a sampling of the different types of fallacies. The Wikepedia article, “List of Fallacies” enumerates the various kinds of fallacies.

In most cases the promotion of these eight common fallacies in the Anglican Church in North America is unintentional. Bishops and other clergy promoting these fallacies believe the fallacies themselves.

In some cases bishops and other clergy have fallen into the bad habit of stretching the truth or using imprecise language. If they are confronted with what they are doing, they may deny it or dismiss it as harmless. Only rarely will they acknowledge the problematic nature of what they are doing. Even then they can be expected to slip back into doing it again. Bad habits are difficult to change.

Few catechists, Sunday school teachers, or other lay church workers do not follow the example of the clergy in promoting these fallacies. They may recognize the fallacies for what they are but promote the fallacies nonetheless out of the desire to conform what passes as official church teaching in their diocese or parish. The ecclesiastical culture of the diocese or parish may discourage the open questioning of such teaching.

Fallacy # 1. It is inferred that the older a belief or practice is and the closer to apostolic times it originated, the likelier the belief or practice is apostolic. Indeed it may be inferred that it is apostolic.

The extreme age of a belief or practice or its origin in a very early period in Church history, however, does not guarantee that the belief or practice is in all likelihood apostolic. Even in New Testament times, error and superstition were rife. See Sam Storms’ article, “Can You Hear Me Now?” To be apostolic, a belief or practice must be clearly, directly, and unambiguously connected to the teaching of the apostles recorded in the New Testament.

Fallacy # 2. If a belief or practice has been preserved in church tradition for a very long time, the likelier it is apostolic. Here again it may be inferred that it is apostolic. It may also be inferred that church tradition as opposed to Scripture is the principal means by which apostolic teaching has been passed down to us. Scripture must be interpreted in the light of church tradition.

At the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church made church tradition more authoritative than Scripture, decreeing that it should be considered with Scripture as a final authority in matters of faith and practice and should be used to interpret Scripture. With the Scriptures “sacred tradition” was claimed to “comprise the totality of the deposit of faith.” This was tacit recognition that the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church could not be supported from Scripture alone. It made the Church as the interpreter of its tradition, in practice, the final authority in matters of faith and practice.

With the so-called Catholic Revival in the nineteenth century the post-Tridentian view of the relationship of Scripture, tradition, and the Church was introduced into the Church of England and the then Protestant Episcopal Church. The Anglo-Catholic element in various purportedly Anglican jurisdictions has perpetuated this view from the nineteenth century to the present.

A concomitant view is the notion that Scripture and church tradition do not disagree; indeed they cannot disagree. Any interpretation of Scripture that contradicts church tradition is not an accurate interpretation of Scripture.

The Roman Catholic view of “sacred tradition” as growing and expanding over time with the revelation of new doctrines was also introduced in the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century.

The position of the English Reformers, on the other hand, was that everything, including church tradition, must be submitted to Scripture. Church tradition and Scripture may disagree and where they do church tradition must give way to Scripture and not the other way around. Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. This is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: The Bible contains everything we need to know for salvation and holiness.

Christians should not be required to hold a belief that cannot be found in Scripture or proven by Scripture nor should they be required to observe a practice that is not agreeable to Scripture.

Scripture must first and foremost be interpreted by Scripture and then by reason. Last of all should the early Church Fathers be consulted in regards to what a difficult passage of Scripture may mean. Even then their opinion on its meaning must be agreeable with Scripture.

No passage of Scripture should be expounded so that it conflicts with another passage of Scripture.

Fallacy #3. It is inferred that the bishops in a particular line of succession are the successors to the apostles. Whatever beliefs they teach and practices that they condone may be viewed as apostolic as they speak with the authority of the apostles.

This claim enabled the Roman Catholic Church to maintain as apostolic beliefs and practices that had no connection with the apostles whatsoever. It was also one of the reasons that the English Reformers rejected the idea of apostolic succession as “a series of bishops, regardless of see, each consecrated by other bishops themselves consecrated similarly in a succession going back to the apostles.” Like Martin Luther and the Continental Reformers, the English Reformers insisted that only a belief or practice could be viewed as apostolic if continuity could be demonstrated between the belief or practice and what the apostles in their writings teach or condone.

Anglicans have historically not agreed on whether bishops and episcopacy are a divine institution. The sixteenth century English Reformers found no basis in Scripture for the view that bishops are a separate order from presbyters. They also did not find any mandate for a particular form of church governance or polity. The claim of presbyterians in the Church of England in the seventeenth century that the Scriptures mandated presbyterianism would prompt the counter-claim from episcopalians in the English Church that the Scriptures mandated episcopacy. However, both groups maintained the view that apostolic succession was a succession of doctrine. Roman Catholic notions of apostolicity and apostolic succession did not gain a foothold in the Anglican Church until the nineteenth century.

Fallacy #4. If a belief or practice has been long accepted by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, it is inferred that it is acceptable for Anglicans to hold the belief or to observe the practice. What is further inferred is that what is an acceptable belief or practice for the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches should be an acceptable practice for the Anglican Church. If these Churches accept it, the Anglican Church should accept it too.

The English Reformers made major reforms in the beliefs and practices of the Anglican Church in the sixteenth century, bringing its beliefs and practices in line with the teaching of the Bible. The implication is that the English Reformers were wrong to have brought the Anglican Church’s beliefs and practices in line with Biblical teaching. The possibility that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches might be wrong in holding their particular beliefs and observing their particular practices is denied or minimized.

An accompanying fallacy is that contemporary Anglicans are more enlightened and better informed than the English Reformers. If the English Reformers had known what we know today, it is argued, they would have drawn different conclusions.

It is inferred that modern-day theological and liturgical studies are accurate and unbiased. This, however, has been shown to be far from the case. Rather than developing a hypothesis upon the evidence, often as not the evidence is cherry-picked, used selectively, to support a pre-existing theory.

Certain assumptions are made about what the English Reformers sought to accomplish. These assumptions reflect a particular interpretation of their aims. For example, Archbishop Cranmer is assumed to have been attempting to reform the liturgy along the lines of earlier models. It is then erroneously concluded that Cranmer would have done things differently if he had access to more such models than he did. The principles that Cranmer himself laid out in “Concerning the Service of the Church” and “Concerning Ceremonies” are either ignored or interpreted in such a way as to support this view. Among these principles are to reduce the rules for the use of a service to a few that are plain and easily understood; to exclude what is untrue, uncertain, or useless and superstitious from a service; to include only Scripture or what is agreeable to Scripture in a service; to use a language and order that both the minister and the congregation have no difficulty in understanding; and to keep the order of service short and uncomplicated and the rules few and easy. Whatever ceremonies are used should be understandable not only as to their meaning but also to the use they serve. Whether Cranmer would have done things differently if he had access to more earlier models is highly debatable.

Fallacy # 5. If a belief is widely held or practice widely observed, it is inferred that it is acceptable to hold the belief or observe the practice. It is argued that so many people cannot be wrong. This fallacy is often used to back up fallacy #4.

As anthropological, historical, and sociological research has shown, large numbers of people can embrace erroneous beliefs and superstitions and the practices associated with them. In Mein Kampf the twentieth century German dictator Adolf Hitler advocated the cynical exploitation of this phenomenon. He pointed out that if a lie is repeated enough times, people will eventually accept it as the truth, including those who are perpetuating the lie. The more the lie is repeated and the more people accept it as the truth, the less effort will be needed to perpetuate it. The lie may eventually become self-perpetuating.

The reality is that many people accept beliefs and practices without critically examining them. Very few people actually compare what their church teaches with what the Bible teaches. This is particularly the case in churches which teach that the Scriptures are not perspicuous, or clear, apart from the interpretative framework of the particular denomination and its tradition

Fallacy #6. If a belief or practice originated before the Great Schism, or East-West Schism, of the eleventh century, it is inferred that the belief or practice comes from a time when the Church was not divided in its beliefs and practices and therefore what the Church believed and practiced then, we should believe and practice now.

The Church has at no time in its history been monolithic. By the time the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church broke with each other in the eleventh century, they had already been moving on different tracks for some time. The first ten centuries of the Christian Church was no Golden Age. Since New Testament times erroneous beliefs and superstitions and the practices associated with them have flourished in the Church. Some errors and superstitions would go undetected and unchecked until the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. Others persist to this day. Humanity is depraved and consequently is attracted to error and superstition.

The Anglican Church underwent its own reformation in the sixteenth century. It would make the canonical Scriptures its ultimate rule of faith and practice. All beliefs and practices would be submitted to the Scriptures. In this regard the Anglican Church adopted Christ and the apostles as its exemplar. It took to heart Christ’s condemnation of the scribes and the teachers of the Law for giving greater weight to tradition than to Scripture. Those promoting fallacy #6 and the other seven fallacies are promoting a different rule of faith and practice than the canonical Scriptures.

Fallacy # 7. If a belief or practice is found in the writings of the early Patristic authors, it is inferred that it is acceptable to hold the belief or to observe the practice. It may also be inferred that the writings of the early Church Fathers are as binding upon the minds or consciences of Christians as the Scriptures and such beliefs and practices are more than acceptable. They are obligatory.

The Patristic authors were fallible. Their writings are not free from error. Some handled Scripture rightly. Others did not. The first group of Patristic writers interpreted Scripture, using Scripture, and read the meaning of a passage out of the passage itself and its context. The second group of Patristic authors allegorized Scripture, reading their own meaning into Scripture. Those who read their writings uncritically do so at their own peril.  The English Reformers tried the truth of Patristic doctrine by the test of Scripture. They gave weight to the opinions of the Patristic writers only where their opinions were agreeable to Scripture. In the defense of his doctrinal views Cranmer who had studied the Patristic writings chose Scripture over these writings.

The Patristic authors did not view their writings as being on the same level as the Scriptures. Those who insist that their writings comprise a part of the totality of the deposit of faith and therefore approach the authority of the Scriptures or equal to the Scriptures in authority go well beyond how they themselves viewed their writings. The Holy Spirit did not illuminate the Bible for Patristic writers any more than He does for you and I. The Holy Spirit did not inspire their thoughts any more than He inspires ours.

Canon A5 of the Canons of the Church of England, which the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans identifies as “the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism” and as defining their core identity as Anglicans, states:

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures [emphasis added].

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

The caveat “…as are agreeable to the …Scriptures” is an important one. It sums up the historic Anglican position on the teaching of the Patristic writers. It is to be viewed as authoritative only where it is in agreement with the teaching of Scripture. It has no authority of its own. But where such teaching is in agreement with the teaching of Scripture, it derives its authority from its agreement with the teaching of Scripture.

In a number of key areas where their teaching is in agreement with the teaching of Scripture. it might be better viewed as persuasive rather than authoritative.

Where Anglicans have gotten themselves into hot water is not being critical in their reading of the Patristic authors, not submiiting their thought to Scripture, relying upon the Patristic writers’ own interpretation of Scripture, giving too much weight to what they wrote, and assigning to their writings an authority separate from the authority that comes from the agreement of the teaching of these writers with the teaching of Scripture. This is what happened in the so-called Catholic Reaction in the seventeenth century. The Caroline High Churchmen permitted their fascination with the early Church Fathers to influence their thinking and to color their judgment. They were not as rigorous in their handling of the Patristic authors as they ought to have been.

While they had a high view of the Scriptures, the Caroline High Churchmen displayed a proclivity for reading into Scripture or imposing upon Scripture meanings that could not be with certainty read out of Scripture, as well as reading Scripture through the lens of the Patristic writers. The result was that they either misunderstood Scripture or misapplied it. For example, they interpreted the phrase, “Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness,” in 1 Chronicles 16:29, Psalm 29:2, and Psalm 96:9 as a warrant for the beautification of church buildings through the use of ornaments that the English Reformers had rejected on Scriptural grounds in the sixteenth century. This phrase, however, has nothing to do with the ornaments of the church or the ornaments of the clergy. It refers to the state of holiness in which worshipers should approach God. See Kenneth Trent’s sermon, “The Beauty of Holiness.”  

Fallacy #8. If a belief or practice is found in the oldest liturgies, it is inferred that it is acceptable to hold the belief or to observe the practice. It is further inferred that we should model our modern-day liturgies upon these ancient liturgies.

If anything can be said about the liturgies from the second century on is that they show how quickly erroneous beliefs and superstitions became incorporated into the worship of the Church. They also show how liturgy can serve as a medium for perpetuating errors and beliefs and practices not grounded in Scripture.

Nowhere does the Bible infer that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. With the exception of The Didache the anaphoras of the oldest eucharistic liturgies use unscriptural sacrificial language to describe the Lord’s Supper, pointing to the influence of paganism upon the early Church as well as its equating of the ministry of the bishop and presbyter with that of the sacrificing priesthood of the Temple and the Lord’s Supper with the Temple sacrifices. Sacrifices were a common religious practice in the first five centuries of the Church and later and formed a part of its cultural context. The early Church, like today’s Church, was influenced by its cultural context. With the exception of the converts from Judaism and those born into Christian families, the early Christians were converts from paganism. The proliferation of heresies during the same period as well as the various ways the Patristic authors misread Scripture as evidenced from their writings reveal that the early Church was not infallible and was not only capable of erring but did err. It shows that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church is itself a fallacy.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find any reference to the Holy Spirit’s infusion of inanimate objects. We do, however, find numerous references to the Holy Spirit’s filling of people. While the Scriptures do not prohibit the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects, such practice is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach about the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, the belief that a god or spirit can inhabit inanimate objects and animals and humans through contact with such objects or animals or  consumption of them can acquire magical powers and other benefits is commonly found in animistic religions. It was also a common belief in the pagan religions that formed a part of the Church’s cultural context during its first five centuries and later. Again with the exception of The Didache the anaphoras of the oldest eucharistic liturgies contain an epiclesis in which the president of the eucharist petitions the Holy Spirit to infuse the eucharistic elements.  This can in part be attributed to a misunderstanding of the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament in which Jesus is described as blessing the bread and wine—a reference to the Jewish practice of blessing God over bread and wine as a form of giving thanks to God. The accounts themselves refer to Jesus giving thanks to God. But it also points to the influence of paganism upon the early Church’s thinking.

In the 1552 Communion Service Cranmer corrected these two longstanding errors in the eucharistic liturgy. He eliminated all language that suggested that the eucharist is a sacrifice. The 1552 Communion Service contains only references to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world and our offering of our praise, thanksgiving, and selves in response to what Christ has done for us. He replaced the Eastern Orthodox type epiclesis of the 1549 Communion Service with its invocation of the Holy Spirit with a simple petition humbling asking God to grant that those receiving the eucharistic elements might be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood, that is to say, they might receive the benefits of his sacrifice. In making these corrections Cranmer applied two principles laid out in his essay, “Concerning the Service of the Church.” First, what is untrue, uncertain, or useless and superstitious should be excluded from the liturgy. Second, only Scripture or what is agreeable to Scripture should be included in the liturgy. The 1552 Communion Service may not conform to ancient models. It does, however, conform to the teaching of Scripture.

The promotion of these eight fallacies in the Anglican Church in North America points to another unfortunate truth about that denomination. While a number of its constituent churches and their clergy may take Scripture, in the words of J. I. Packer, “with full seriousness as a functioning rule for faith and life,” the Anglican Church in North America as a denomination does not. Consequently, to paraphrase Packer, it does not in practice fully accept the authority of Scripture and its avowal of the Christian faith is thereby flawed.