Confessional Anglicanism and Prayer Book Revision

By Robin G Jordan

Historic formularies such as the Articles of Religion of 1571 and The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 have no inherent authority of their own. They only have the authority that we choose to give them. We may recognize a formulary as authoritative because it conforms in its principles with the teaching of the Bible or more accurately with what we believe the Bible to teach. Other Anglicans, however, may not recognize that particular formulary as authoritative in matters of faith and practice as we do. They may give more weight to church tradition or some other form of consensus. This is one of the reasons that the Anglican Church is divided on many key issues. There is not agreement on what is most authoritative in matters of faith and practice—the Bible, church tradition, a particular consensus, special revelations from God, and so on.

Confessional Anglicans maintain what has been the historical position of the Anglican Church since the English Reformation. The Bible is the Church’s primary authority in matters of faith and practice. Second are the Articles of Religion, the Anglican Church’s confession of faith, whose authority is derived from the Bible. The two Books of Homilies are also authoritative because they further expound upon principles articulated in the Articles and are recognized by the Articles as containing “a godly and wholesome doctrine” and “necessary for these times.” It is noteworthy that the Articles make no mention of The Book of Common Prayer, only the Ordinal of Edward VI.

Being a confessional Anglican does not require using a particular Book of Common Prayer in our services of public worship But it does require using forms that embody the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Articles of Religion or conform to them. Where the official Prayer Book of a jurisdiction does not conform to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles, it is incumbent upon confessional Anglicans to revise the forms in that Prayer Book so that they conform to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles. This includes historical Prayer Books like the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book as well as more recent service books like the Anglican Church in North America’s 2019 Proposed Book of Common Prayer. If we do not undertake their revision, we are giving them more authority than the Bible and the Articles and violating our theological integrity as confessional Anglicans.

We cannot argue that since the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a formulary of the Anglican Church, it is sacrosanct. If it does not fully uphold the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles, it must be revised to bring it into conformity with biblical teaching and Article principle. Otherwise, we are giving it more authority than the Bible and the Articles. Its revision is a measure of our commitment to confessional Anglicanism.

What is more important is that the forms that we use in our services of public worship embody biblical teaching and Article principle or conform to them. The use of the vernacular in these forms is a biblical requirement as the congregational and participatory nature of the forms. The invocation of God’s blessing or the descent of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects like bread and wine and water is not a biblical practice and conflicts with what is the biblical practice—to invoke God’s blessing or descent of the Holy Spirit upon people. Consequently it cannot be regarded as something that is not forbidden by the Bible and therefore we are at liberty to do it. While it may not be expressly prohibited by the Bible, it does not conform to what the Bible recognizes as acceptable practice.

To be true to the teaching of the Bible and to the principles of the Articles, confessional Anglicans need forms which embody the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles or conform to them—forms for the Daily Offices, the Service of the Word, the administration of the gospel sacraments, confirmation, matrimony, ministry to the sick, the burial of the dead, and the ordination of new ministers and their installation into office. They also need a catechism that meets the same requirements. They should not be expected to “make do” with liturgical books that uphold “strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word.”

The ongoing revision of the forms that we use in the rites and services of the church to make them more useful in the twenty-first century and in a particular culture is a principle implicit in the Bible and recognized by the Articles. Most Anglicans have a passing acquaintance with Paul’s teachings about orderliness in the church’s gatherings, the importance of doing things for edification, and the need for what we say to be understandable to the unexpected visitor. They may be less familiar with what he wrote about all members of the assembly having different gifts, participating in the gathering, and making a contribution to the gathering. To fulfill or achieve what Paul taught requires the use of forms that are not static but are tailorable to changing local circumstances. We cannot reach and engage a new generation with a Prayer Book that is almost 360 years old and that is written in a language with which only a tiny segment of the English-speaking population is acquainted, a Prayer Book that in a number of places does not live up to the standard of embodying the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles or conforming to them.

This does not mean that we must reinvent every form in The Book of Common Prayer, change everything for the sake of being “new-fangled.” But it does mean that we should not cling to forms that do not really meet this standard and which are not serviceable in this century. We need to make necessary changes in these forms or replace them with new forms that do meet these requirements.

It also does not mean that we should reject the old for its age. We may use the old where it may be “well-used.” This means not using the old simply because it is old but using it where it can still be put to good use. When Cranmer articulated this principle, he had in mind old texts and practices that embodied the teaching of the Bible or conformed to it or which could be changed to embody biblical teaching or conform to it. He was not talking about using the old due to its antiquity or its long-time use regardless of whether it is scriptural. This is a misinterpretation and misapplication of his principle.

Cranmer was not as careful at applying this principle as he might have been. The result was the inclusion of problematic texts and practices in the reformed Book of Common Prayer of 1552.

What may be a good use for the old in one century may not be a good use in a later century. An example is Cranmer’s placement of the Nicene Creed before the sermon in the 1552 Prayer Book, a position that would be replicated in later Prayer Books up to the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book. This is not a good position for the Nicene Creed because it creates a lengthy gap between the proclamation of the Word in the readings and its exposition in the sermon. It may have made sense in the sixteenth century when there was a shortage of licensed preachers. However, it does not make sense in the twenty-first century in which congregations are better served when there is no gap between the proclamation of the Word and its exposition.

Some confessional Anglicans may resist the revision of The Book of Common Prayer out of an irrational fear of change. Change is not always negative. It can also be positive. A Prayer Book that more closely embodies or conforms to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the Articles and which is more serviceable in the twenty-first century is a positive change, a change for the better. Our Lord commissioned his first disciples to make disciples of all people groups, to baptize the new disciples, and to teach them what he had commanded. He gave that commission not just to them but to future generations of his followers. Our Lord did not commission his disciples to promote the use of a particular Book of Common Prayer.

Indeed, the carrying out of the Great Commission in every generation is a Biblical warrant for Prayer Book revision. The Church has a responsibility to provide every generation with the tools to reach and engage the next generation and the generation after that. If the Church fails to provide those on the front line of mission with the right tools for the task, then confessional Anglicans must step into the gap and equip themselves with the right tools. They should not let a sentimental attachment to an older Prayer Book hinder them in carrying out the task that the Lord has set for them. The younger generations are faced with enough obstacles to their coming to faith. They do not need our preference for an older Prayer Book to further hamper them.