The Anglican Church: Scripture, Sacrament, and Spirit? Kinda...

By Robin G. Jordan

As I have written elsewhere, I often visit the websites of Anglican and Episcopal churches in North America. I also visit Anglican church websites around the world. While I am primarily looking for articles and resources and church website ideas, I also want to learn more about the churches whose websites I visit.

I have noticed that Anglican churches in the United States which have been influenced by the “three streams, one river” paradigm have at least a page devoted to describing the Anglican Church in terms of the three “S”s—Scripture, Sacrament, and Spirit. Scripture is equated with the evangelical stream, Sacrament with the Catholic stream, and Spirit with the Pentecostal Stream.

Due to the popularity of this particular description among the churches of the Anglican Church in North America’s US branch, I decided to take a closer look at it and to examine a number of the myths and mistaken beliefs that it is spreading and promoting.

I am not suggesting that these churches are deliberately trying to mislead people. They have been influenced by what has become popular trend. A great deal of misinformation about the Anglican Church is floating around. When one church copies another, it may inadvertently pickup misconceptions without realizing it.

Scripture. Among the false notions that this description is spreading and promoting is the idea that a service book if it contains texts from the Bible is scriptural. However, a service book can draw heavily on biblical texts and not be scriptural. Whether it is scriptural depends upon how the texts are used.

A second false notion is that Anglicans give equal weight to Scripture, tradition, and reason, an idea that is erroneously attributed to Richard Hooker but which originated with the Tractarian John Keble and was perpetuated by later Anglo-Catholic writers. For Hooker the authority of Scripture was supreme in matters of faith and practice. He therefore gave the greatest weight to scripture. He emphasized the use of scripture and reason in interpreting scripture and considered the use of tradition as a method of last resort.

A third false notion is that the English Reformers relied heavily upon the Patristic writers in their interpretation of Scripture. This notion has had its champions from the nineteenth century on. However, it does not reflect an accurate picture of the English Reformers’ attitude toward the early Church Fathers. Rather it reflects the attitude toward the Patristic writers of those plugging it. They are making this claim to give weight to their argument that the early Church Fathers should be consulted in interpreting Scripture. While Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was familiar with the Patristic writers, he chose to solely use Scripture in defending himself against the charge of heresy.

In The Apology of the Church of England and his Defense of the Apology John Jewel cites the early Church Fathers but his citation of their opinions is secondary to his citation of Scripture in support of his arguments. Jewel followed certain rules in his citation of their opinions. First, he cited an opinion only when a group of the earliest Patristic writers shared that opinion. He did not cite isolated opinions. Second, he tried the thoughts of the early Church Fathers against the test of Scripture. Third, he never cited a later Patristic writer’s opinion of an earlier Patristic writer’s opinion. Fourth, he treated the opinions of the early Church Father’s as opinions, not statements of fact. Whether Jewel’s use of the Patristic writers is representative of the English Reformers as a whole is open to debate. His approach to the early Church Fathers has been described as humanistic on the basis that he gives greater weight to the opinions of the earliest Patristic writers than the later ones.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, while they make an occasional reference to the Patristic writers, treat Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and practice and say nothing of resorting to the early Church Fathers in interpreting Scripture.  A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture, which is attributed to Cranmer himself, offers this piece of advice:

A good rule for the understanding of Scripture. If we read once, twice, or thrice, and understand not, let us not cease so, but still continue reading, praying, asking of other, and so by still knocking (at the last) the door shall be opened (as Saint Augustine saith.) Although many things in the Scripture be spoken in obscure mysteries, yet there is nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the self same thing in other places, is spoken more familiarly and plainly, to the capacity both of learned and unlearned.

In this passage Cranmer points out that the more difficult passages may be understood from the clearer passages. He is voicing the widely held view of the English Reformers that Scripture is perspicuous and self-interpreting. Scripture does not contradict Scripture but one passage explains another. It is also the position of historical Anglicanism.

Jesus himself articulates the doctrine of perspicuity in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. When the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of his fate so that they might avoid it, Abraham answers that they have all they need for their salvation: they have the Scriptures. Implicit in this parable is that the Scriptures are understandable to the rich man's brothers. All they need to do is heed what they say. They do not need someone to interpret the Scriptures to them.

In a number of places in the Gospels Jesus himself uses Scripture to explain Scripture. He also criticizes the Pharisees and the teachers of Law for giving more authority to their tradition than to Scripture and nullifying Scripture for the sake of their tradition.

Sacrament. This description emphasizes that the sacrament or the sacraments play a central role in the worship life of the Anglican Church. When used in the singular, sacrament refers to the sacrament of Holy Communion. When used in the plural form, sacraments refer to the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic sacramental system.

From a historical perspective this placement of the sacrament or sacraments at the center of the Anglican Church’s worship life is not entirely accurate. Cranmer sought to revive the practice of frequent communion in the Church of England but was unsuccessful. In a large number of English churches Holy Communion was celebrated three times a year of which Easter was one. On most Sundays the lineup was Morning Prayer, Litany, and Ante-Communion. The sermon was preached at Ante-Communion.

In the nineteenth century a number of Anglo-Catholic clergy revived the practice of the non-communicating Mass. It became such a problem in the Episcopal Church that a rubric requiring that those present should be given sufficient opportunity to communicate was added to the 1892 Prayer Book.

The practice of weekly celebrations of Holy Communion did not gain traction in the Episcopal Church until the adoption of 1979 Prayer Book, which emphasized the centrality of the Holy Eucharist to Christian worship. Associated Parishes and the Liturgical Movement in the Episcopal Church and the Parish Communion Movement in the Church of England were largely responsible for encouraging more frequent Communion Services.

At Christ Church we celebrated Holy Communion on the first and third Sundays of the month when I was teenager. The Communion Service of the 1928 Prayer Book was long and tedious, with blocks of unrelieved text during which the congregation was required to kneel. Only members of the congregation who were confirmed could receive communion. My grandmother rarely went to church on communion Sundays due to her arthritic knees. Since I was unconfirmed, I often stayed home with my grandmother. The trial liturgies which permitted standing to receive communion enabled her to receive communion.

As for the sacraments, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer recognize only two—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. When the Thirty-Nine Articles refers to confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction as “commonly called sacraments,” it means mistakenly called.

The Anglo-Catholic movement revived the Roman Catholic sacramental system in the nineteenth century. While some Anglican provinces have adopted modifications of that system, they have, in doing so, diverged from historic Anglicanism.

While the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have a place in the worship life of the Anglican Church, describing Anglican worship as sacramental stretches the truth. Historically Anglican worship has emphasized the reading and preaching of God’s Word over the administration of the sacraments. The two sacraments have been seen as God’s Word made visible. The delivery of a Bible to the newly-ordained priest at his ordination has emphasized that he is first and foremost a minister of God’s word as does the order in which word and sacrament are placed in the formula that bishop uses when he lays hands on the ordinand.

Spirit. As I have noted elsewhere, the English Reformers took a dim view of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that the pope had a special gift of the Holy Spirit. They also rejected the claims of the Anabaptists that they received special revelations from God which superseded the teaching of Scripture. At the same time they did not completely dismiss the continuance of the charismas of the Holy Spirit to the present day but took the position that the Holy Spirit did not manifest himself with the same magnitude as he had in apostolic times. This position may be described as a modified cessionist position. It admits the continuation of some manifestations of the Holy Spirit but not others. It does not entirely rule out the sign gifts.

The English Reformers, however, did reject the practice of invoking the descent of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects such as water or bread and wine, finding no support for the practice in Scripture. They noted that the Bible describes the Holy Spirit’s descent upon people and not inanimate objects and concluded that invoking the Holy Spirit’s descent upon such objects was unscriptural.

The Puritans in their writings would emphasize the Holy Spirit.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries some Anglicans evidenced a negative attitude to what may be described as “enthusiasm” in worship. Others were more tolerant of such displays.

In the nineteenth century a number of Anglican clergy would adopt a view of the Confirmation that conflicted with how the English Reformers and historic Anglicanism understood the rite. In his critique of the 1962 Revised Catechism of the Church of England J. I. Packer does not mince words in his criticism of this view:

In the answer to question 42, however, we are told that "Confirmation is the ministry by which, through prayer with the laying on of hands by the bishop, the Holy Spirit is received to complete what he began in baptism . . . " which form of words (based, it seems, on the audacious assertion in the Scottish Prayer Book that "Confirmation is an apostolic and sacramental rite by which the Holy Spirit is given to complete our baptism") seems to force us to interpret answer 38 of some sort of baptismal regeneration. Yet it is a very odd sort of regeneration, for it is only a partial initiation into Christ and His Church, needing the further grace given in Confirmation (also ex opere operato?) to perfect it. Such a concept has breath-taking implications. It implies that every baptized Christian throughout the universal Church whose ecclesiastical system does not make available to him episcopal confirmation misses some grace, forfeits some blessing, foregoes some degree of union with Christ. On this view, as Professor G. W. H. Lampe has pointed out, "Christian Baptism would be reduced to the level of the baptism of John, a preparatory cleansing in expectation of a future baptism with Holy Spirit ; Confirmation would become, not merely a sacrament in the fullest sense (which the Anglican Articles deny), but the great sacrament without whose reception no man could call himself a Christian ... " (The Seal of the Spirit, 1951, p. xiii). Lampe calls these "monstrous conclusions". We agree. Are they historic Anglican teaching? Can they be proved by Scripture? Again, the answer in both cases is no. We know, certainly, that this view (the "Mason-Dix line") has been argued at various times during the past hundred years by a small band of very able men, that it has a certain following today, and that it has actually been embodied in the proposed new Confirmation rite. But most Anglicans, we think, still hold to the historic view expressed in the structure of the 1662 Confirmation service-namely, that Confirmation is simply a domestic institution whereby the Anglican community, acting through the bishop as its appointed representative, welcomes into adult fellowship, on the basis of a personal profession of faith, those who in baptism were originally received, normally as infants, with the status of sponsored members. The congregation prays that the Spirit may strengthen the confirmees for the new responsibilities which their increased status in the Church brings. But this is not in the least to imply that in the sight of God the blessings of the Spirit which their baptism signified-"union with Christ in his death and resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, and a new birth into God's family, the Church" (40)-are necessarily incomplete till Confirmation has taken place. Here again, then, we must protest against the intrusion into the new Catechism, which the whole Church, it is hoped, will use, of a minority opinion which most Anglican clergy in their teaching of Confirmation candidates would wish to ignore, or indeed repudiate.

The reformed Church of England retained Confirmation as a catechetical rite and not as a sacrament. It rejected the view of the Roman Catholic Church that Confirmation was a sacrament necessary to salvation. The Order of Confirmation in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books assumes that the confirmands have already received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The rite provides those who had been baptized as infants with an opportunity to profess their faith in Jesus Christ before the gathered church, to claim for themselves the vows that their baptismal sponsors made for them at their baptism, and to receive the prayers of the church.

 In the nineteenth century the doctrine that Packer excoriates in his critique of the Church of England’s 1962 Revised Catechism, however, would gain a large following in the Episcopal Church. Its influence is evident in the 1928 Prayer Book’s Offices of Instruction and its Order of Confirmation. The Anglo-Catholic monk and liturgist Dom Gregory Dix was one of its proponents. Professor Lampe’s work was not as well known in the Episcopal Church as in the Church of England. As a consequence the doctrine would influence thinking far longer in the Episcopal Church than in the Church of England. Its influence is discernible in To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism.

In the 1960s the charismatic movement emerged in the Episcopal Church. By 1967 it had spread to the Roman Catholic Church. In the Episcopal Church charismatics adopted the classical Pentecostal doctrine of a second work of grace, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, separate from water baptism and manifest by speaking in tongues. The Roman Catholic Church was quick to assimilate the charismatic movement, equating Spirit baptism with Confirmation, which it maintained was a sacrament.

In 1987 Michael Green offered an appraisal of the different views of the sacrament of baptism then current in the Anglican Church. As well as examining the two-step doctrine of Christian initiation which Lampe and Packer criticized, he also looked at the classical Pentecostal view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and a second view of Spirit baptism which equates Spirit baptism with the new birth and subsequent encounters with the Holy Spirit as the “release of the Holy Spirit.” In this view Christians received the fullness of the Holy Spirit when they are born again but may not experience his fullness until later in their lives. This view of Spirit baptism is similar to that of a number of Reformed continualists such as Sam Storm, a number of whose articles on the Holy Spirit I have posted on Anglicans Ablaze.

Anglicans are divided on Spirit baptism as they are on baptismal regeneration. It is not entirely accurate to claim that an emphasis on the work of the Spirit is characteristic of the Anglican Church. It would be more accurate to say that such an emphasis is characteristic of some parts of the Anglican Church.

In their oversimplified description of the Anglican Church in terms of Scripture, Sacrament, and Spirit, the ACNA churches employ this description may be perpetuating a number of misconceptions about the Anglican Church. These misconceptions, when they are viewed as a whole, represent what may be described as a revisionist reinterpretation of Anglicanism. If they are using this description as a marketing strategy, they are spreading and promoting an erroneous view of the Anglican Church at a time when its identity is already under attack from other quarters. If they are genuinely committed to Anglicanism, they need to develop descriptions that more accurately reflect what the Anglican Church is and what it stands for. Otherwise, they are doing a disservice to the Anglican Church and adding to the existing confusion over its identity.