A moment of truth has arrived for ACNA’ers.
By Robin G. Jordan
As I anticipated, the College of Bishops in its most recent communiqué is claiming that it has approved a Book of Common Prayer for the Anglican Church in North America. One can search the governing documents of the ACNA—its constitution and its canons—and one will find no provision granting the College of Bishops authority to approve a Prayer Book for the province or recognizing that such authority is inherent in the College of Bishop. None what so ever!
The canons only give authority to determine what liturgical books may be used within his diocese to the ordinary of the diocese and then stipulate that the ordinary only may approve liturgical books that are in conformity with the teaching of the Bible. The canons do not give authority to the College of Bishops to approve a Prayer Book for the province. To claim that the College of Bishops has approved such a book is arrogate to that body authority that it does not have under the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons and is interpretable as a violation of the constitution, a willful contravention of the canons, an abuse of ecclesiastical power, and a cause for scandal. All of these offenses are offenses for which clergy, including bishops, may be inhibited, tried, and deposed under the provisions of the ACNA canons.
In the same communiqué the College of Bishops quotes the following claim from the Preface of the proposed Prayer Book:
At the beginning of the 21st century, global reassessment of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 as “the standard for doctrine, discipline and worship” shapes the present volume, now presented on the bedrock of its predecessors. Among the timeless treasures offered in this Prayer Book is the Coverdale Psalter of 1535 (employed with every Prayer Book from the mid-16th to the mid-20th centuries), renewed for contemporary use through efforts that included the labors of 20th century Anglicans T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis, and brought to final form here. The Book of Common Prayer (2019) is indisputably true to Cranmer’s originating vision of a form of prayers and praises that is thoroughly Biblical, catholic in the manner of the early centuries, highly participatory in delivery, peculiarly Anglican and English in its roots, culturally adaptive and missional in a most remarkable way, utterly accessible to the people, and whose repetitions are intended to form the faithful catechetically and to give them doxological voice.A careful examination of the proposed Prayer Book shows that it does not live up to this hyperbole. This claim for want of a better description is nothing more than revisionist twaddle!
One is prompted to ask to what “global reassessment of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 as ‘the standard for doctrine, discipline and worship’” is the Preface of the proposed Prayer Book referring. The Jerusalem Declaration makes no reference to such an assessment nor does the GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s official commentary, Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today. What they do, however, is uphold the three classical formularies of historic Anglicanism—the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the Ordinal of 1661--in their role as the longstanding Anglican standard of faith and worship.
The Preface of the proposed Prayer Book makes a series of assertions that are far from the truth:
--indisputably true to Cranmer’s originating vision of a form of prayers and praises that is thoroughly Biblical, catholic in the manner of the early centuries….
The culmination of Cranmer’s efforts to give the English Church and the English people a thoroughly reformed, thoroughly biblical liturgy was the second Prayer Book of Edward the VI, the reformed Prayer Book of 1552, not the 1549 Prayer Book which was prepared to facilitate the transition to a more reformed, more biblical liturgy. The proposed Prayer Book whose rites and services embody unreformed Catholic doctrine and whose rubrics sanction unreformed Catholic practices is a far cry from the reformed, biblical liturgy that Cranmer sought to give to the English Church and to the English people.
--highly participatory in delivery….
The rites and services of the proposed Prayer Book could give a far greater role to the congregation than they do.
-- peculiarly Anglican and English in its roots…
When did the Roman Canon which has greatly influenced the shape of the Eucharistic Prayers in the proposed Prayer Book become “peculiarly Anglican and English?” As well as adopting the Roman Canon as the primary model for its Eucharistic Prayers, the proposed Prayer Book incorporates language taken from the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. It authorizes practices that Cranmer and the English Reformers rejected on solid biblical grounds in the sixteenth century. When did this language and these practices become “peculiarly Anglican and English?”
--culturally adaptive and missional in a most remarkable way, utterly accessible to the people….
Saying that it is “culturally adaptive,” “missional,” and “accessible” will not making it so. The proposed Prayer Book is lacking into two essential characteristics for the North American mission field—flexibility and adaptability. -
--and whose repetitions are intended to form the faithful catechetically and to give them doxological voice
The repeated use of the proposed Prayer Book may result in the indoctrination of ACNA’ers in unreformed Catholic doctrine and their desensitization to unreformed Catholic practices. But it is not going to help them become more biblically faithful and genuinely Anglican in their beliefs and practices. As for giving them “doxological voice,” what is far more important is that they live their lives according to the rule of the Holy Scriptures, glorifying God not only in what they say but also what they do. The proposed Prayer Book is not going to help them do that
What we have in the proposed Prayer Book and the recent actions of the College of Bishops is an attempt by one wing of the Anglican Church in North America to impose its beliefs and practices upon the rest of the ACNA, beliefs and practices that do not conform to the teaching of the Bible or the principles of the classical Anglican formularies. They do not represent biblical Christianity, much less authentic historic Anglicanism.
It is time those who are faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the classical Anglican formularies to stand up to the College of Bishops and to demand a Prayer Book that is biblically faithful and genuinely Anglican; that is designed to meet the needs of clergy and congregations on the North American mission field; which, after lengthy open public examination and review and exhaustive revision, enjoys the support of the entire province; and which is authorized by a canon that has been, after extensive debate, approved by two successive sessions of the Provincial Assembly. It is time that they say no to any proposed formulary for the ACNA, whether it is an ordinal, a catechism, or a Prayer Book, that has not fulfilled these requirements.
It is time for those who recognize that the government of the Christian community properly belongs under Christ to the Church as a whole, both clergy and laity together, and not exclusively to the office of bishop, to reject the attempts of the College of Bishops to arrogate to itself authority that the constitution and canons do not clearly give to the College. It is time that they took the bishops to task for acting as if they are not bound by the province’s governing documents and are a law unto themselves.
The College of Bishops is hoping that no one says anything, that no one will question its actions. It was able to foist an ordinal and a catechism on the province. Now it is hoping to pass off as biblically faithful, genuinely Anglican, and mission-shaped a Prayer Book that falls short in all three areas. As long as the College of Bishops does not experience any negative or unfavorable reaction or response, it will keep pushing the boundaries to see what it can get away with. It will become more and more out of control.
Clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America need to ask themselves, “Do we really want to be a part of a church that is nothing more than the Roman Catholic Church without a pope? Or do we want to be a part of a church that is committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures and to longstanding Anglican doctrine and practices?” “Do we really want to be a part of a church in which the bishops lord over their fellow Christians 'like the rulers of the Gentiles?' Or do we want to be a church in which Christian leaders are humble servants as Christ himself has called them to be?” They need to give serious thought to these questions. The fate of North American Anglicanism is in their hands.
Related Articles:
The Leadership Crisis in the Anglican Church in North America
A Prayer Book for the Whole Province
What Is Wrong with the Proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book?
A New Year, a New Prayer Book
How really Anglican is the ACNA?
The Place of the Caroline Divines in Classical Anglicanism
The foregoing posts touch on issues raised in the article above. This includes the issue of Anglican identity.
5 comments:
Brother, I would stop slandering other brothers in the Lord who love God and love His word. You make huge charges and offer more opinion than fact; Have you entered into a Mt 18 discussion or face to face with those you are accusing? If so what was the result of the Mt. 18 process?
The BCP 2019 had wide participation and feedback. More than any BCP in history. Trial use. Constructive criticism. more usage. More feedback. Feedback was from across the entire ACNA. Bishops. priests, deacons, lay leaders. over 5,000 comments and each and every one were discussed and considered carefully
BCP 2019 isn't perfect (which BCP is?) but it is a great effort for a Book of Common Prayer that will be used by the whole church and even those outside ACNA
You have accused a man whom you call 'brother' of slander, and of violating what you call the "Matthew 18 process." Slander implies perpetuating a falsehood; in essence, lying. That is a serious charge. How specifically has Robin Jordan slandered you or anyone else in his remarks? How might you distinguish opinion from slander.
Quigg,
I have published a number of articles examining the rites and services of the proposed Prayer Book since the process of putting together the book began. In those articles I have documented how these rites and serviced deviate from more recent Anglican service books as well as earlier Prayer Books, including the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. When the proposed book is compared to these books and measured against Anglicanism's longstanding doctrinal and worship standard of the 39 Articles of 1571, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the Ordinal of 1661, the proposed book falls short in numerous ways. I am well-acquainted with the liturgies of a number of churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, and with the canons and catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. The influence of the Roman Catholic liturgical books is very evident in the proposed book as is the influence of the Roman Catholic Church's canons and catechism. The fact that you have resorted to questioning my character in defending the book as well as using hyperbole, to my mind suggests that you know very well that my assessment of the book is an accurate one. I have been involved in pioneering new churches since the 1980s and I have good idea of the conditions on the North American mission field and the kind of worship resources that clergy and congregations on that mission field need. The proposed book does not come even close to meeting their needs.
Charles,
Thank you for your support. I research my articles, using primary as well as secondary sources and older works now out of print as well as more recent ones. I do not write my articles off the top of my head. While I am not a professor of liturgics at a seminary nor did I attend a seminary and major in liturgics, I have spent a good part of my life studying Christian worship and liturgy, including the history and evolution of The Book of Common Prayer.
It has been my experience that a number of ACNA’ers do not handle criticism of the ACNA very well and they are quick to cast aspersions at anyone who writes anything that takes issue with how they choose to see the ACNA and how they would like others to see the ACNA. The fact is from a number of perspectives the proposed ACNA Prayer Book is a very flawed book. The argument that no Prayer Book is perfect when applied to the proposed book is a very weak argument.
What concerns me more than Quigg’s accusation that I am slandering fellow Christians is the remark that he made about promoting the use of the proposed ACNA Prayer Book outside the ACNA. When the ACNA catechism was first published, former Archbishop Bob Duncan made a similar remark about the catechism. Now the ACNA catechism displays the strong influence of unreformed Catholic doctrine just as the proposed ACNA Prayer Book evidences the strong influence of unreformed Catholic doctrine and practice.
To my way of thinking the promotion of the use of the catechism and the proposed book outside the ACNA collides with the Jerusalem Declarations’ affirmation of the classical Anglican formularies. It is as if the ACNA is working at cross-purposes to GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Former Archbishop Duncan has called for a “new settlement” and Bishop Keith Ackerman has called for “a new Oxford movement.” Duncan chairs the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force and Ackerman is a special consultant to that task force. The Jerusalem Declarations’ affirmation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal is, after all, an affirmation of the Elizabethan Settlement and a rejection of the Oxford movement.
Among the things that l learned from my dealings with the Governance Task Force at the time that the ACNA was organized was that a lot of things were decided outside the task force. The task force was open only to making minor changes. It was not the rank and file who had any real influence with the task force, it was the bishops. The period in which the rank and file was invited to offer feedback was very short and their observations and suggestions were, for the most part, ignored. They were frequently told that a problem area to which they drew attention could be fixed later. Later has come and gone and nothing has been done. In retrospect the task force was just putting them off.
I also gather that this was also the case with the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force. Unless a group or individual carried some weight, they were disregarded, especially if a major alteration would be required. For this reason, I am skeptical of the claim that the proposed ACNA Prayer Book is a result of the kind of process that Quigg asserts was involved in its production.
If indeed what Quigg claims is the case, there should be no objection to its further review both inside and outside of the ACNA, particularly with view to its conformity to Anglicanism’s longstanding standards of doctrine and worship, and for its subsequent revision if and where needed, and to its presentation to the Provincial Assembly for final approval—a process that should include section by section approval of the book and extensive debate of the strengths and weaknesses of each section as well as the book as a whole. These are entirely reasonable next steps to take toward the authorization of a Prayer Book for an Anglican province.
You have done a great service for those inside the ACNA and out. All who profess and call themselves 'Anglican' are the beneficiaries of your work. If there is a more scholarly critique of the proposed ACNA Prayer Book, I am not aware. You are to be commended.
Post a Comment