The Articles of Religion, Churchmanship, and the American Church

The ongoing debate over the Ornaments Rubric of 1559, which is going on in several internet forums is moot in the American Church. It is purely academic and has no practical significance. In the nineteenth century the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, which at the time represented the Anglican Church in the United States, rejected a proposed canon that would have regulated clergy and church ornaments in the American Church.

Whatever judicial rulings that were made in the United Kingdom in regard to clergy and church ornaments in the Church of England during that century have no bearing on the American Church. The Protestant Episcopal Church USA was established as an independent jurisdiction. While the new church would maintain ties with the Church of England, it was no longer subject to judicial rulings that affected its mother church.

Since that time the American Church has expanded to include the Continuing Anglican Churches and the second Anglican Church in North America. All these churches are independent jurisdictions with their own standards of doctrine and practice. 

This debate is a rehash of the debate that occurred in the nineteenth century and at its heart is a debate over churchmanship. It is overshadowing a far more important issue—the place of the Articles of Religion of 1571 in the American Church.

Among the functions of the Articles are to safeguard the reformed Anglican understanding of the gospel and to set the bounds of comprehensiveness in the reformed Anglican church. For the preservation of authentic historic Anglicanism adherence to the principles of doctrine and practice in the Articles is far more important than loyalty to any one particular school of churchmanship. One should not be confused with the other.

As the late James Packer pointed to our attention, the Articles of Religion establish a relatively broad comprehensiveness on secondary matters. The broadness of this comprehensiveness has benefited the Anglican Church, enabling it to adapt to a variety of different circumstances. In seeking to replace this comprehensiveness with a much narrower standard that would move the Anglican Church in a more High Church or Low Church direction, those championing a more constrictive standard would be inhibiting the growth of the Anglican Church. They would be taking away its adaptability at a time in church history when the Anglican Church, while holding the line on primary matters, needs to be flexible on secondary ones. They would also be elevating to the level of primary matters things that are secondary—not essential to our salvation. The result would be the kind of legalism against which Jesus himself warned. Legalism is a very real danger that has historically beset churches in the Reformed tradition.

One of the attractions of the Anglican Church for Reformed clergy is that, while the Anglican Church stands in the Protestant and Reformed tradition, it is not rigid on secondary matters. It permits more latitude and freedom of thought in these matters than do some Presbyterian and Reformed denominations.

The Articles of Religion of 1571 are the shortest of the Reformed confessions of faith. While their brevity has drawn fire from critics, they address those matters that the English Reformers believed were the most important while leaving other matters to the conscience of the individual. They provide guard rails for Anglicans, identifying areas that constitute serious error from a biblical perspective and which consequently are off-limits to clergy and congregations. At the same time, they do not dictate how Anglicans should think on matters on which they can have a diversity of opinions. They represent a moderate form of Reformed belief and practice, one which shows the influence of the early Reformed theologians.

If our aim is to give the Articles of Religion a central place in the American Church as the standard of doctrine and practice, second only to the Bible, we should not tie adherence to the Articles to allegiance to a particular school of churchmanship or permit adherence to the Articles to become associated with allegiance to such a school in the minds of Anglicans. This would substitute the beliefs and practices of this school for the principles of the Articles. It would deprive clergy and congregations of the leeway in secondary matters that the Articles afford. It would elevate preferences of one group as a standard while disallowing choices of other groups, which are within the bounds of the Articles. It would defeat the purpose of the Articles to provide the maximum of liberty on secondary matters. It would also discourage clergy and congregations that do not subscribe to the beliefs and practices of that particular school of churchmanship from embracing the Articles as the American Church’s standard of doctrine and practice.

The Articles themselves make allowance for diversity of practice in the Anglican Church provided that nothing is “ordained against God’s Word” or is “repugnant to God’s Word” and provided further that “all things be done to edifying.”

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The Articles do not demand an Ultramontane uniformity in the Anglican Church, one that does not permit differences in practice. It does, however, require that practices should be compatible with Scripture and should instruct and improve Anglicans morally and spiritually.

For example, the Scriptures teach that the gathered church is the temple of the Holy Spirit, in other words, God’s temple; that the Holy Spirit, God himself, indwells believers, and that when two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, he is in their midst. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, he was facing the disciples. He did not have his back turned to them. Whatever we do in our gatherings should build up the faith of those present. Our prayers should be understandable to even an outsider who wanders into one of our gatherings off the street. The New Testament recognizes only three sacrifices that believers may offer to God—the offering of our praise and thanksgiving for what God has done for us; the offering of ourselves, our bodies, and our souls in response to his mighty deeds; and the offering of our good works that arise from our faith in God. 

For the foregoing reasons, “God’s board” should be placed in the body of the church where the congregation not only has an unobstructed view of what the minister is doing at the table but also can hear what he is saying. The minister should stand behind the table, facing the congregation and not with his back turned to the congregation. The only things on the table should be a bread plate with a loaf of bread, a chalice of wine, a flagon for additional wine, a liturgical book, and a pillow to support the book. The table should be spread with a fair linen tablecloth. It may have a cover of best fabric. The color of this cover may be changed with the liturgical seasons, but it is not necessary. A cover of best fabric might be used during church festivals and the seasons of Christmas and Easter; second best on ordinary Sundays, and burlap or sackcloth during Lent and Passiontide. If candles are desired, they should be on floor stands, flanking the table. 

Nothing should be on the table that draws attention away from the signs—the bread and the wine. Clunky brass or wooden bookstands should not be used as they give too much prominence to the liturgical book. The manual acts—the taking and breaking bread and the taking of the chalice and the laying of the hand on the wine flagon—were meant to be seen, not hidden behind someone’s back or by a bookstand. 

The eucharistic prayer should be said in an audible voice, not mumbled or whispered. The people should understand to what they are adding their “Amen” and ratifying as the prayer of the assembly. The minister, in saying the eucharistic prayer, is acting as the “tongue” of the assembly and should be heard. 

Ideally the eucharistic prayer should have other parts beside the Sursum Corda, the Sanctus-Benedictus, and the Great Amen in which the people can join such as a memorial acclamation like “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus Christ.” 

The minister may wear a loose fitting white Old English surplice with wide sleeves over a white monastic alb, a loose-fitting white cassock alb with wide sleeves, a loose-fitting white concelebration alb with wide sleeves, a loose- fitting white Genevan gown with wide sleeves, or even a loose-fitting white monastic chasuble with wide sleeves. All these vestments fit the description of the white robes of the Revelation to John. The congregation may also don white robes.

Everything that I have just described falls within the bounds of the Articles. This includes the vestments that I listed. The Elizabethan Church adopted the surplice and the cope for church services because they were choir vestments and had no association with the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass. Today’s choir vestments are barely distinguishable from eucharistic vestments and some are even more elaborate. While the principle behind the adoption of the surplice and cope made sense at that time and to some extent makes sense today, a decisive overriding factor in the twenty-first century is what will serve the best as an aid to the spread of the gospel in a particular segment of the population of a particular community and what will act the most as a hindrance. We do live and minister in a different time.

As the late William Palmer Ladd wrote, “The student of Church history must try to discover both the beacon lights and the warnings, and should seek to interpret both for the benefit of his own time.” The vestments we wear can convey the wrong message. They are not entirely neutral. At the same time, we can put too much emphasis on externals. We should not dismiss a fellow pastor who genuinely subscribes to the principles of the Articles but does not wear a surplice for church services. Our adherence to the Articles is not tied to our devotion to a particular school of churchmanship. That school of churchmanship may itself violate the spirit of the Articles.