Harmful Doctrine and Practices in the Anglican Church: Further Thoughts

By Robin G. Jordan

When I write an article, I reread the article over and over again after I have posted it, checking for mistakes that I missed when I proofread it. I may alter the wording of a phrase, sentence, or paragraph and even add a new section. When you read one of my articles, you might want to read it again in a few days. I may have rewritten a part of the article. Even if I have not, it will not hurt to reread the article since you may notice things that you did not notice the first time you read it.

I also read my articles for new article ideas that they may suggest. In my last article I used the phrase, “pernicious doctrine and practices.” I only touched briefly on what I meant when I offered one test of such doctrine and practices—they eat away at the doctrinal foundation of the Anglican Church, which are the Holy Scriptures and the historic Anglican formularies.

The harmful effects of pernicious doctrine and practices may be gradual or subtle. They may appear to be insignificant at first but becomes more serious as they builds upon themselves until they reach the point of producing great harm. They may move beyond this point and become disastrous.

An example of how the harmful effects of pernicious doctrine and practices can snowball is the movement to fully include lesbian, bisexual, gay, transsexual, and queer (LBGTQ) people in the life and ministry of the church. It had a relatively small beginning. The more it succeeded, the larger it grew. It now has become the primary focus of the Episcopal Church.

Among its harmful effects are that it has undermined the biblical doctrine of marriage and human sexuality; stimulated distrust of the Bible, its inspiration, and its perspicuity; and eroded its authority. As well as maintaining that homosexuality is not a sin, it teaches that human beings are innately good; God loves everybody so much that God gives eternal life to everybody; and the realization of how much God loves us is a life-transforming experience which leads us to love our fellow human beings as God loves them. In doing so, it has relegated Christ to the role of a religious visionary who was persecuted and killed for his teachings. It has made Christians the target of misguided hostility and criticism. It has also made the task of spreading the gospel and making disciples more difficulty.

The harmful effects of pernicious doctrine and practices are not always apparent as those in the foregoing example. Yet they may be just as insidious in their operation or even more so.

The doctrine of the “Real Presence” has been enjoying a revival in the Anglican Church since the nineteenth century Tractarian movement. In its medieval form it maintains that Christ is substantively present in the consecrated elements: They have become his body and his blood even though they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

This belief is predicted upon a particular interpretation of Scripture, which gives more weight to how the Roman Catholic Church  has traditionally interpreted a text than to the careful exegesis of the text, using Scripture and reason to interpret Scripture.

Among the results of interpreting Scripture in this fashion is that the body of Church tradition by which Scripture is interpreted and the Roman Catholic Church as the interpreter of this body of Church tradition come to be regarded as more authoritative than Scripture itself.

With Christians who subscribe to this body of Church tradition and the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of this body of Church tradition they carry weight for two reasons. The Roman Catholic Church claims great antiquity for the body of Church tradition and its own interpretation of this body of Church tradition. The Roman Catholic Church also claims divine inspiration for the same.

As we have just seen, one of the harmful effects of the medieval doctrine of the “Real Presence” is that it eats away at the position of the Holy Scriptures as the Anglican Church’s plenary authority in matters of faith and practice.

This, however, is not its only harmful effect. When considered in the context of the medieval Catholic Church’s sacramental system, it negates the New Testament doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

The medieval doctrine of the “Real Presence” and its modern-day variants are based upon a flawed interpretation of Scripture. It may be the way the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally interpreted certain passages of Scripture but a flawed interpretation of Scripture hardened into tradition is still a flawed interpretation of Scripture. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformers drew attention to the problematic nature of how the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted these passages as have successive generations of Anglican divines to this day.

This particular interpretation of Scripture focuses upon the first part of what Jesus said in instituting the Lord’s Supper when he gave the bread and the cup to the disciples.”This is my body...” “This is my blood…” It ignores the second part of what he said. “Do this in remembrance of me…” And what he said afterwards--how he would drink no more wine until he drank it fresh with his disciples in his Father’s Kingdom. It assumes that Jesus is speaking literally when it is clear from these words, he is speaking figuratively. It takes Jesus’ words out of context and reads its own meaning into them. This is a common mistake that people make in interpreting Scripture. But then it enshrines this mistake in tradition.

This particular interpretation of Scripture includes a reading of the “I am the Bread of Life” discourse in the Gospel of John, which, like the preceding reading of Jesus’ words by which he instituted the Lord’s Supper, is based upon Church tradition rather than sound exegesis.

John’s Gospel contains a series of “I am” discourses, all of which use figurative language and points to who Jesus is and what our response to him should be. The “I am the Bread of Life” discourse follows Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the five thousand, which occurs well before the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels. This particular interpretation of  "I am the Bread of Life" discourse focuses upon Jesus’ reference to eating his flesh and blood, in the Greek, gnawing him, then swallowing him down and digesting him—taking him completely in. It understands them literally, not figuratively, as if Jesus has suddenly and abruptly shifted gear from speaking figuratively earlier in the discourse to literally. It takes these references out of context, not just out of the context of the discourse itself and what precedes and follows the discourse but also the context of the entire gospel. Like the preceding reading of the words that Jesus used to institute the Lord’s Supper, it is flawed but has become enshrined in tradition.

This particular interpretation of Scripture also includes a reading of Paul’s reference to the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper as a sharing or joint participation in Christ’s Body and Blood. This reading, like the preceding two readings is also based upon Church tradition. It assumes that Paul is speaking literally. However, if Jesus was speaking figuratively when he referred to the bread and the cup as his body and blood as appears to have been the case from the context of the institutional narrative and Paul understood him to be speaking figuratively, Paul himself could not have been speaking literally. This is what Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformers and succeeding generations of Anglican divines have concluded was the case.

Later on in the letter Paul tells that church at Corinth that in eating the bread and drinking the cup, its members are proclaiming the Lord’s death until comes again. This points to an entirely different reading of Paul’s earlier words from that of the Roman Catholic Church's reading of the passage. The late John Stott concluded that Paul was referring to the benefits of Christ’s death on the cross—what he secured for us with his broken body and shed blood. The way Anglicans have historically understood how we receive these benefits is through faith.

The modern-day variants of the medieval doctrine of the “Real Presence” rely on the same three readings of Scripture. They dance around the issue of the nature of the substance of the bread and wine after its consecration. Some maintain that it is Jesus’ “glorified body” and others a union of bread and wine and his body and blood, like the mingling of fire and iron in a red-hot iron, Martin Luther’s description of the “Real Presence.” But all insist that Christ is present under the form of bread and wine and through this medium God’s sanctifying grace is imparted to the communicant.

The concept of sanctifying grace is a Roman Catholic one. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are two kinds of grace—actual and sanctifying. Actual grace is transient. It nudges us toward receiving sanctifying grace through the sacraments. Sanctifying grace is cumulative. It makes our souls holy. It gives our souls spiritual life. Indeed it is spiritual life. If a soul does not accumulate enough sanctifying grace in this life, the soul cannot enter heaven and enjoy eternal life.

In C. S. Lewis’ Narnia Chronicles, in The Voyage of the Dawn Tread, Lucy meets “a star at rest”—a star so old that it no longer dances the great dance in the heavens but has come down to earth. Every morning a bird brings the star a fire-berry from the sun and places it on his lips. The fire-berry burns away his age until he is as young as the day before he was born. He then may return to the heavens and once more join in the great dance.

In Roman Catholic sacramental system each time we receive a sacrament, particularly the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, it is like receiving a fire-berry from the sun—a little bit of holiness that makes us more and more holy until we are holy enough to enter heaven.

Needless to say this view of grace is not found in the Bible or the historic Anglican formularies. It is purely speculative. It does not fit with what the Bible and the historic Anglican formularies do teach. “We are accounted righteous before God solely on the account of the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through faith and not account of our own good works or what we deserve” Article XI. We do not earn our way to heaven through the accumulation of sanctifying grace.

As well as eating away at the Bible’s position as the Anglican Church’s plenary authority in matters of faith and practice, the doctrine of the “Real Presence” also eats away at the position of the historic Anglican formularies as the Anglican Church’s authoritative standard of faith and practice next to the Bible. This is evident from the three preceding readings of Scripture which not only do not agree with what the Scriptures really teach but also what these formularies teach, based upon the teaching of Scripture. It is also evident from the Roman Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace that rides piggyback on the doctrine of the “Real Presence” into the Anglican Church wherever that doctrine has been revived.

What do the historic Anglican formularies teach in regards to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? I am citing from Church Society’s modern English translation of the Thirty-Nine Articles. “The sacraments instituted by Christ are not only badges or tokens of the profession of Christians but are also sure witnesses and effectual signs of God's grace and good will towards us. Through them he works invisibly within us, both bringing to life and also strengthening and confirming our faith in him….” Article XXV. As “effectual signs” they accomplish God’s purpose for them. Their end-product is faith.

Article XXVIII goes on to tell us:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the mutual love that Christians ought to have among themselves. Rather, it is a sacrament of our redemption through Christ's death. To those who rightly, worthily and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and similarly the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not instituted by Christ to be reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.

As can be seen from Article XXVIII, the Thirty-Nine Articles emphasize the importance of receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper “rightly, worthily, and with faith.” The Articles do not countenance the belief that Christ is substantively present in the consecrated elements in any way. This would include the mingling of the substance of Christ's body and blood with the substance of the consecrated elements as the Lutheran Churches teach. While the Articles do not specifically reject this idea, it is inconsistent with the principles laid out in the Articles.

The manner in which we feed upon Christ in the Lord’s Supper is heavenly and spiritual. It is a supernatural transaction between us and Christ and is not tied to the consecrated elements. The means is faith. Our spiritual feeding upon Christ is not confined to the Lord’s Supper but is something that we do every time we drawn near to Christ in faith and turn to him as our source of spiritual nourishment and sustenance.

Article XXIX further tells us.

The wicked who partake of the Lord's supper do not eat the body of Christ. The wicked and those who lack a living faith, although they physically and visibly 'press with their teeth' (as St Augustine says) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless are in no way partakers of Christ. Rather, by eating and drinking the sign or sacrament of so great a thing, they bring condemnation upon themselves.

Those are unrepentant or lacking in a vital faith receive no benefit from the Lord’s Supper. Indeed they offend God in taking lightly the remembrance of his Son’s death on the cross for our sins that he instituted in the Lord’s Supper.

The Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer establishes three requirements for receiving the Lord’s Supper—repentance from sin and resolution to lead a new life, a living faith, and love and goodwill toward one’s fellow human beings. The Declaration on Kneeling which is incorporated into the rubrics at the end of the service denies that Christ is substantively present in the consecrated elements, maintaining that the bread and wine retain their natural substance and that Christ’s natural body is in heaven and cannot be at one time in more places than one.

The Prayer Book Catechism teaches that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was ordained for the continual remembrance of Christ’s death and the benefits we receive from it. It teaches that the body and blood of Christ are truly taken and received only in a heavenly and spiritual manner, by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper. The benefits that we receive from sharing the Lord’s Supper are that we are strengthened and refreshed in our souls by Christ’s body and blood as our bodies are by the bread and wine. It further teaches that those who come to the Lord’s Supper must examine themselves to see whether they truly repent of their sins and have resolved to lead a new life. They must have a living faith in God's mercy through Christ with a thankful remembrance of his death. They must also have love for their fellow human beings.

John Overall adapted this section of the Prayer Book Catechism from Alexander Nowell’s Larger Catechism during the reign of James I, at which time it was incorporated in the Prayer Book. Nowell’s Larger Catechism was a reformed catechism that was commissioned by Convocation in the reign of Elizabeth I. However we understand the Prayer Book Catechism must not only respect its original meaning but also the doctrinal standards of the Thirty-Nine Articles. As J. I. Packer points to our attention in The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, these standards are meant for the interpretation of the Prayer Book. We are not free to interpret the Prayer Book any way that we wish, as did the Tractarians in the nineteenth century.

The 1926 Irish Prayer Book adds to this section of the Prayer Catechism that the means by which the body and blood are taken and received is faith. This addition was made for the sake of clarification and is consistent with the doctrinal standards of the Thirty-Nine Articles. For the same reason the 1956 Free Church of England Prayer Book adds “spiritually received in Lord’s Supper” after the words, “The strengthen and refreshing of our souls by the Body and the Blood of Christ….” The addition is also consistent with the same doctrinal standards.

The rubrics of the Order for the Communion of the Sick affirm that those who truly repent of their sins and who firmly believe that Christ died on the cross for their sins and shed his blood for their redemption, remembering that the benefit that they have received as a result of what Christ did and giving heart-felt thanks for these benefits, spiritually feed upon Christ to their own profit without receiving the consecrated elements.

The incompatibility of medieval doctrine of the “Real Presence” and its modern-day variants and the various doctrines that piggyback on this doctrine with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine and principles embodied in the historic Anglican formularies should be self-evident at this point. Where these doctrines have gained a foothold in the Anglican Church they have caused extensive damage to the Anglican Church’s doctrinal foundation. For this reason they cannot be placed in the category of “innocuous doctrine and practices,” doctrine and practices that are harmless. Those who have embraced these doctrines have thrown open the door for a flood of harmful doctrine and practices into the Anglican Church.

Such doctrines can cause great harm in other ways. During the last 50 odd years a growing number of Anglican churches have been admitting infants and young children to the Lord’s Table. A number of arguments have been put forward in support of the practice. We baptize infants and children. No one fully understands the nature of a sacrament. Natural faith can develop into a saving faith. And so on. But the most harmful of these arguments is the one that even infants and young children who have no living faith may receive some kind of benefit from their receipt of the sacrament. Scripture and the historic Anglican formularies do not support the Lutheran view that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper confers faith. Article XXIX rejects this view. The admission of infants and young children to the Lord’s Table is often tied to a variant of the doctrine of the “Real Presence.” While it may not be articulated, the implication is that infants and young children can begin accumulating a store of sanctifying grace at a tender age and repentance and faith is not required for them to do so. Among the other implications is that faith is not necessary for their salvation. As long as they accumulate more and more sanctifying grace, they will enter heaven.

The doctrine of the “Real Presence” and the practice of infant communion are not always tied together. Infant communion, however, is an example of how a seemly innocuous practice can actually turn into a harmful one. In attempting to solve what some perceived as a problem—the exclusion of infants and young children from the Lord’s Table, we have created a problem, which may cause more trouble than the supposed problem that it was intended to solve.

The liberal wing of the Anglican Church does not have a monopoly on introducing pernicious doctrine and practices into the Anglican Church. As we have seen, Catholic Revivalists have introduced their share of harmful doctrine and practices too

The GAFCON Theological Resource Group in  The Way, The Truth and the Life and the Life Theological Resources for a Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future concurs with this assessment. The group identifies two major contributors to the erosion of Anglican Church’s doctrinal foundation, which, as I previously noted, are the Holy Scriptures and the historic Anglican formularies. They are the liberal movement and the Catholic Revivalist movement.

An unfortunate tendency is focus upon what the liberals are doing while ignoring what the Catholic Revivalist wing is up to. In the Anglican Church in North America, however, it is not the liberal wing that is creating problems. It is the Catholic Revivalists.