Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If
so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.
Jeremiah 13:23
By Robin G. Jordan
Anglicans have been historically divided on whether readings
from the Apocrypha should be used in services of public worship. Evangelicals
and other Protestant-minded Anglicans have questioned the appropriateness of
the use of these readings for a number of reasons.
Among the principal objections to the use of readings from
the Apocrypha are that Jesus and the apostles make no reference to the Apocrypha
in their teaching.
The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as a part of God’s
revelation to his chosen people.
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially accept the Apocrypha
until the Council of Trent in 1546, more than 1500 years after its books were
written. Its acceptance was a part of the Counter-Reformation, the Roman
Catholic Church’s response to the Protestant Reformation.
Most of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries of
the Christian Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. They included Jerome,
Origene, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasias.
Before and after the Council of Trent the books of the
Apocrypha were separated from the canonical books of the Bible in the editions
of the Bible in which they were published.
The books of the Apocrypha contain false teaching. Tobit
countenances the practice of magic (Tobit 6:5-7). Tobit also teaches that
sinners may obtain forgiveness of their sins by giving alms to the poor (Tobit
4:11; 12:9). Second Maccabees teaches that the living may make atonement for
the sins of the dead with offerings of money (2 Maccabees 12:43-45). .
The books of the Apocrypha were not published in the Authorized
Version (or the King James Version) of the Bible after 1611. They appeared only
in the 1611 edition. The Authorized Version was the official Bible of the
Church of England until the Revised Version was published in 1885. The Revised
Version’s Apocrypha was not published until four years later.
In 1871 the Church of England’s Table of Lessons was
revised. The readings from the Apocrypha was reduced in number and were limited
to three books—Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Baruch. The books of the Apocrypha
which were known to contain false teaching such as Tobit and Second Maccabees
were avoided. This revision reflected the discomfort of English Churchmen with
the use of readings from the Apocrypha in public services of worship.
In 1922 the Church of England’s Table of Lessons was revised
again. This time the number of readings from the Apocrypha was increased. Readings
from the Apocrypha on Sundays were authorized for the first time. Before 1922
readings from the Apocrypha were confined to week days and holidays—a norm
which Anglican theologian Roger Beckwith notes is “a norm worth remembering.”
The 1922 lectionary was “the first installment in the Prayer
Book revision” that produced the ill-fated 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book,
which Parliament twice rejected due to its Anglo-Catholic doctrine and
practices. The new lectionary reflected the growing influence of Anglo-Catholicism
in the Church of England during the 1920s.
In 1926 the Church of Ireland revised its Prayer Book and
its Table of Lessons. While the Church of Ireland generally followed the Church
of England’s 1922 lectionary, it replaced the readings from the Apocrypha with
readings from the canon of the Bible, particularly the Revelation to John.
In its 1922 Prayer Book the Canadian Church also adopted the
new English lectionary. Where it differed from the English Church was that it
avoided readings from the Apocrypha on Sundays and on weekdays unless canonical
alternatives were provided. In this way Anglo-Catholics who used readings from
the Apocrypha in their public services of worship and Evangelicals who objected
to their use in public worship were able to use the same lectionary
The 2012 Church of England lectionary for The Book of Common Prayer and Common Worship, like the Canadian
lectionary 90 years earlier, provides alternative canonical readings for all
readings from the Apocrypha.
The new ACNA Daily Office Lectionary makes no such provision. The number of reading from the
Apocrypha is rather high when compared with the older Anglican lectionaries. They
include a number of readings from Tobit, which as we have seen contains false teaching.
The high number of readings from the Apocrypha goes well beyond reading the books of the Apocrypha for examples of life and instruction of manners. Rather it treats the books of the Apocrypha as if they inspired and therefore equal in authority to the canonical books of the Bible.
Indeed the new ACNA Daily Office Lectionary in its number of readings from the Apocrypha resembles the Roman Catholic Church’s Liturgy of the Hours lectionary.
The high number of readings from the Apocrypha goes well beyond reading the books of the Apocrypha for examples of life and instruction of manners. Rather it treats the books of the Apocrypha as if they inspired and therefore equal in authority to the canonical books of the Bible.
Indeed the new ACNA Daily Office Lectionary in its number of readings from the Apocrypha resembles the Roman Catholic Church’s Liturgy of the Hours lectionary.
The high number of readings from the Apocrypha and the
absence of alternative canonical readings points to the strong influence of Catholic
Revivalism and its unreformed Catholic doctrine and practices upon the members
of the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force and the College of Bishops and
to their lack of commitment to a comprehensive Prayer Book.
In an interview former Archbishop Robert Duncan justifies
the inclusion of readings from the Apocrypha in the new ACNA Daily Office Lectionary on the basis that two canticles used
in the service of Morning Prayer in a number of Anglican service books are taken
from the Apocrypha. These extracanonical canticles are Benedicite and Benedictus es.
They are two sections of an expanded form of the canonical Psalm 148 and were
used in synagogue worship in the Jewish diaspora. In the 1926 Irish Prayer Book Psalm 148 is
provided as a canonical alternative to the Benedicite.
Two other extracanonical canticles are commonly used in
Anglican services—Gloria in excelsis
and Te Deum laudamus. If one adopts former
Archbishop Duncan’s logic, then it is acceptable to use extracanonical readings
from other sources such as the lives of the saints or even the Quran or Bhagavad
Gita in the Daily Offices on the basis of the inclusion of these two canticles
in Prayer Book services.
Marginalization involves the relegation of an individual or
group to an unimportant position within an organization or society. This means
that their views are not taken into consideration when important decisions are
made—decisions like what readings will be included in a new Daily Office Lectionary.
To date the views of Anglicans who uphold and maintain the faith of the Church as expressed in the Holy Bible, the Anglican Formularies, and the Jerusalem Declaration are not receiving in the development of worship resources for use in the Anglican Church in North America the kind of thoughtful attention that they deserve as stakeholders in the ACNA. Their views are being treated as unimportant and inconsequential. In other words, they are being marginalized.
This has happened in the past in other Anglican jurisdictions whenever Catholic Revivalist ideologues have occupied the place of power in the jurisdiction. They invariably seek to shape the life of the jurisdiction according to their vision of the Church, marginalizing those who do not share their views. Like the leopard, they cannot change their spots.
They may talk a lot about church unity but it is a unity that serves them and their aspirations, discourages opposition to their shaping of the jurisdiction's life, and does not require sacrifices on their part.
To date the views of Anglicans who uphold and maintain the faith of the Church as expressed in the Holy Bible, the Anglican Formularies, and the Jerusalem Declaration are not receiving in the development of worship resources for use in the Anglican Church in North America the kind of thoughtful attention that they deserve as stakeholders in the ACNA. Their views are being treated as unimportant and inconsequential. In other words, they are being marginalized.
This has happened in the past in other Anglican jurisdictions whenever Catholic Revivalist ideologues have occupied the place of power in the jurisdiction. They invariably seek to shape the life of the jurisdiction according to their vision of the Church, marginalizing those who do not share their views. Like the leopard, they cannot change their spots.
They may talk a lot about church unity but it is a unity that serves them and their aspirations, discourages opposition to their shaping of the jurisdiction's life, and does not require sacrifices on their part.
2 comments:
Have you stopped posting about ACNA now?
In answer to you question, I have not found any recent developments in the ACNA worth writing about. Right now I think that it is up to the people in the ACNA to push back against any developments in that jurisdiction that they do not like. They are the ones that are going to have to live with such developments and they are the ones that the ACNA leadership is going to heed if it heeds anyone. If the trends that I have observed in the past persist, the larger segment of the ACNA will continue to be made up of evangelical and charismatic leaning clergy and congregations while the College of Bishops, which is the focus of power in the ACNA, will continue to be dominated by Catholic Revivalist leaning bishops due to the way the ACNA is structured. This is not a formula for unity and may eventually lead to serious tension in the jurisdiction. I think that it is increasingly becoming obvious that the power of the College of Bishops needs to be balanced by an assembly of clergy and lay delegates which has real legislative and executive authority and which is representative of the larger segment of the ACNA. The proposed ACNA Prayer Book could have been far more comprehensive than it is, which is saying a lot because the proposed book is not comprehensive at all. Since the early twentieth century a number of Anglican service books have been produced that seek to comprehend the disparate views of the various schools of thought found in Anglicanism. The proposed book, on the other hand,caters to one school of thought within the ACNA and gives little heed to the other schools of thought in that jurisdiction. This too is not a formula for unity.
Post a Comment