By Robin G. Jordan
To succeed in engaging and reaching unchurched population
segments in North America the churches in an Anglican ecclesial body or network must proclaim the New
Testament gospel. Doctrines that have no real basis in the Scriptures should
not be allowed to dilute the gospel, much less displace it. Only the
proclamation of the New Testament gospel has the power to transform lives.
Doctrines like the medieval Catholic-modern day Roman
Catholic doctrine of eucharist sacrifice and the Lambeth doctrine of
eucharistic sacrifice do not come from the Scriptures nor are they agreeable to
the Scriptures. They are human innovations.
These doctrines affect primary matters. They are not
doctrines on which Anglicans can agree to disagree. They are doctrines that
have no place in an Anglican ecclesial body or network that unreservedly accepts the
authority of the Bible and the Anglican formularies and is wholeheartedly
committed to fulfilling the great commission. They are doctrines that should
not be preached from its pulpits, taught in its classrooms, or expressed in its
liturgies.
How then should an Anglican ecclesial body or network deal with worship
practices that have their origins in the cultus of the medieval Catholic Church,
in its system of religious beliefs and ritual. How should it deal with
practices associated with the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice?
One argument is that these practices are adiophora—matters of indifference. They
are matters that are not regarded as essential to faith. They are nevertheless
permissible for Christians and allowable in church. The Scriptures neither
mandate them nor do the Scriptures forbid them. This doctrine is known as the normative principle of worship.
Another argument is that elements of worship must have a
clear warrant in Scripture. If the Bible does not enjoin a practice, it should
not be followed. This doctrine is known as the regulative principle of worship.
A number of these practices, when considered apart from the
origins and the doctrines with which they have a long association, at first
glance may appear to be adiophora. Due
to their origins and past and present doctrinal associations, however, they
cannot be regarded as matters of indifference. They give expression to beliefs
that do not come from the Scriptures and which are not agreeable to the
Scriptures. They therefore should be avoided even though they may not be
specifically prohibited by the Scriptures.
Against this view it is argued that their origins and past doctrinal
association no longer hold any meaning for the modern day congregation and that
Anglican worship would be impoverished without them. The problem with this
seemingly reasonable argument is that congregations and clergy exist for whom
the origins and doctrinal associations of these practices do have meaning. The
doctrinal associations for them are not historical but current. These folk do
change churches and bring their understanding of the practices with them to
their new churches. Whenever they have an opportunity, they will teach this
understanding to the congregation of the new church. If their understanding of
the practices is shared by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic
Church, they will bolster their arguments with the claim that they are teaching
what these two branches of Catholic Christianity teach. Consequently the first
premise of this argument is not true. It may be true in some instances but it
is not true in all cases.
Whether the elimination of these practices from Anglican
worship would impoverish it is a subjective judgment. In accordance with the
liturgical principle, “less is more,” their omission would greatly enhance the
quality of Anglican worship: Anglican worship at its best is marked by “a noble
simplicity.”
The apostle Paul in his epistles
sets out a number of principles that historically have guided the conduct of
worship in Anglican churches. While some things may be permissible, Paul
writes, they may not helpful. Christians should respect the tender consciences
of their fellow Christians. Whatever they do, they should do it for the glory
of God. They should refrain from actions that may cause trouble to the church.
Christians in their gatherings
should speak in a language that is understandable to outsiders. They should
make greater use of the gifts of the Spirit that help build up the church. Whatever
is done should be edifying to the church. It also should be done “in a proper
and orderly way.” Whatever promotes erroneous belief and superstition should be
avoided
When these principles are
consistently applied, it quickly becomes evident that many of the practices
that were reintroduced (or in some cases, introduced for the first time) in the
Anglican Church in the nineteenth century really have no place in Christian
worship. They cause trouble to the church. They are not edifying. They also
promote erroneous belief and superstition.
In the sixteenth century the
Caroline High Churchmen revived a number of practices that the English
Reformers had rejected at the time of the Reformation. Archbishop William Laud
who was a leading figure in this revival saw Scriptural warrants for this
revival in1 Chronicles 16:29, Psalm 29:2, and Psalm 96:9, which contain a
command to worship the Lord in “the beauty of holiness.” Laud interpreted this
phrase as a reference to the ornaments of the church and the clergy. What it
actually refers to is the spiritual state of the worshiper. These passages,
when properly interpreted, are not a warrant to beautify church worship
according to our own notions of beauty. Yet even today we may hear members of
the clergy make reference to the beauty of holiness in their explanation of
certain practices.
In the Old Testament we find
specific instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, its equipment,
its adornment, the consecration and adornment of the priests who were to
perform the rites in the Tabernacle, and the manner in which they were to
perform these rites. These instructions we
may on occasion hear cited as establishing precedent for adorning the rites of
the church, the buildings in which they are performed, and the ministers who
perform them. The Old Testament’s description of the adornment of the Temple is
also cited as establishing precedent for adorning church buildings. But does
the Old Testament really establish precedent for the ornamentation of the
church and the clergy. The instructions for the Tabernacle, its rites, and the
Aaronic priesthood were given to a specific people and were specifically for
them and their descendents. They were not intended to serve as precedent for
the Church. Later generations of Jews would understand them to apply to the
worship of the Temple but not to the worship of the synagogue. The Council of
Jerusalem, in determining what requirements of the Law with which Gentile
converts to the Christian faith would be expected to comply, did not see in
these instructions precedent for how Christians should worship God. From Paul’s writings we can gather that he
and the first Christians also did not see them that way.
The Old Testament’s description of
the adornment of the Temple is simply that—a description. Unless a passage
describing a practice in the Bible is accompanied by clear evidence that
whoever originally wrote the passage intended to establish a precedent in
writing it and the precedent is applicable to Christians, it should not be
interpreted as establishing a precedent for Christians. To do so is to
misinterpret Scripture. This is one reason that we should not give too greater
weight to the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Medieval Schoolmen, and
the Caroline divines and should subject their thought to Scripture. They
misinterpreted Scripture in a number of different ways. This is one of them.
Subsequent generations of Christians have also misinterpreted Scripture in
these ways. We should be similarly critical in reading their writings.
A principle that can be derived
from Paul’s teaching about speaking in a language understandable to outsiders
is that whatever is done in church worship should make sense to outsiders. It
should not be strange, incomprehensible, or nonsensical to them. If anything
that we do requires a lengthy explanation, we ought not to be doing it.
We need to recognize that visitors
to our churches may not perceive our practices the way that we do. Without
realizing it, we may have erected cultural barriers between ourselves and those
we are seeking to engage and reach. We take these practices for granted—a
familiar part of the way we worship. Visitors, however, may perceive them as quaint,
alien, or pointless. In visitors’ eyes these practices may mark us as living in
the past or in a different world from them. This first impression may be enough
to make them decide not to return for a second visit.
Visitors may have negative associations
with our practices. If visitors have a liturgical church background, the
practices may evoke memories of bad experiences in past churches. If visitors
have a non-liturgical church background, they may have picked up prejudices
against these practices: the visitors’ initial reaction may be “this is not my
kind of church” and the resulting discomfort may also be enough to keep them
from coming back.
The practices may also create
barriers to visitors’ participation in worship. Instead of adding to visitors’
worship experience, they take away from it. They may prevent visitors from
focusing on what is most important.
In the second part of this article
I will look at specific practices, their origins, their doctrinal associations,
and the appropriateness of their use in the worship of an Anglican church that
adheres to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican
formularies and for which making disciples is its first priority.
.jpg)
.jpg)
