The Lord’s Supper Explained: The Historic Anglican View of the Sacrament—Part 2

Read Part 1.

By Robin G. Jordan

A third catechism that made a significant contribution to the historic Anglican understanding of the Lord’s Supper was John Calvin’s The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, also known as Calvin’s Genevan Catechism. Calvin prepared two catechisms, one in 1537 and the other in 1542. Calvin prepared the first catechism for the instruction of children in the Reformed faith. However, the first catechism proved too difficult for children and Calvin was forced to revise it. Calvin arranged the second catechism in a question and answer format to make its contents easier to understand. The second catechism was translated into Latin in 1545 and then into English in 1556 and was used in the two English universities and to a lesser extent in English grammar schools. Calvin’s Genevan Catechism would contribute to the historic Anglican understanding of the Lord’s Supper in two ways.

First, the Genevan Catechism would influence the thinking of Englishmen who read and studied the catechism. If they already held Reformed view, the Genevan Catechism would reinforce those views. Second, the Genevan Catechism would reinforce the thinking of the Heidelberg theologians that prepared the Heidelberg Catechism and the thinking of Dean Alexander Nowell who prepared a catechism of his own, the Larger Catechism. The Genevan Catechism would also furnish material for the Heidelberg Catechism and Nowell’s Catechism.

 Nowell’s Larger Catechism is based upon a catechism that is attributed to Bishop John Ponet, a English Protestant churchman and the most senior in rank of the Marian exiles, and which was appended to the 42 Articles of Religion of 1553. This catechism did not see use since Edward VI died in the same year and his older sister, Mary, a staunch Roman Catholic, ascended the throne.

In 1815 Rev. Elijah Waterman, an American Congregationalist pastor and scholar, published a new translation of Calvin’s Latin catechism of 1545. The Rev. Waterman concluded from a comparison of Calvin’s Latin catechism with Dean Nowell’s Latin catechism that in a number of places Dean Nowell had borrowed language from Calvin’s Latin catechism. The two catechisms were in agreement not only in doctrine but also in word. Waterman further concluded that the similarity of the two catechisms showed that Calvin and the Reformed Church of England shared a common Reformed theology.

In 1562 Nowell laid the catechism before Convocation of which he was prolocutor of the Lower House. In the Upper House four bishops who are believed to have been Bishops John Jewel, William Alley, Thomas Bentham, and Richard Davies corrected the catechism. After the bishops corrected the catechism, it passed the review of both Houses and had their full approbation, Nowell then submitted the catechism to Elizabeth I’s Secretary of State William Cecil who returned the catechism to Nowell after a year with the notes of a number of “learned gentlemen” whom had reviewed the catechism for Cecil. Nowell adopted the changes that they had recommended. It was five or six years before Archbishop Matthew Parker obtained Cecil’s permission to publish the catechism. The catechism was then sent to the printer’s.

Calvin’s view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is summed up in these questions and answers from his 1560 reformulation of the Genevan Catechism.

353. Do we have in the Supper simply the testimony of the things already mentioned, or are they truly given to us in it?

See that Jesus Christ is the Truth, there can be no doubt that the promises which He made at the Supper, are actually fulfilled in it, and that what He figures in it is made true. Thus in accordance with what He promises and represents in the Sacrament, I do not doubt that He makes us partakers of His very substance, in order to unite us with Himself in one life.

354. But how can this be, when the body of Jesus Christ is in heaven, and we are pilgrims on this earth?

By the incomprehensible power of His Spirit, who conjoins things separated by distance.

355. You do not think, then, either that the body is enclosed in the bread, or the blood in the chalice?

No. On the contrary, in order to have the reality of the Sacraments, we must lift up our hearts on high to heaven, where Jesus Christ is in the glory of His Father, from whence we expect Him in our redemption, and do not seek Him in these corruptible elements.

356. You understand, then, that there are two things in this Sacrament, material bread and wine, which we see by the eye, handle by the hands, and perceive by the taste, and Jesus Christ by whom our souls are inwardly nourished?

Yes, but in such a way that we have in it also a testimony and a kind of pledge for the resurrection of our bodies, in that they are made partakers in the sign of life.

In the nineteenth century the Tractarians would claim that the Prayer Book Catechism taught the Real Objective Presence in the consecrated bread and wine. The doctrine of the Real Objective Presence is the belief that Christ is really or substantively present in the consecrated elements. The Tractarians based this claim upon the wording of one of the questions and answers in the section on the sacraments and their interpretation of John Overall’s view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified?

Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.

John Overall who succeeded Nowell as the Dean of St. Paul’s condensed the Prayer Book Catechism's section on sacraments from Nowell’s Catechism. Overall’s view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be gleaned from Praelectiones seu Disputationes de Patrum et Christi anima et de Antichristo.

In the Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are indeed really present, and are really received by us, and are really united to the sacramental signs, as signs which not only signify but also convey, so that in the right use of the Sacrament, and to those who receive worthily, when the bread is given and received, the body of Christ is given and received; and when the wine is given and received, the blood of Christ is given and received; and therefore the whole Christ is communicated in the Communion of the Sacrament. Yet this is not in a carnal, gross, earthly way by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, or any like fictions of human reason, but in a way mystical, heavenly, and spiritual, as is rightly laid down in our Articles.

Overall’s interpretation of Article XXVIII is the key to his view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In contrast to the then prevailing Reformed view of the sacrament, Overall ties Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper closely to the consecrated bread and wine. At the same time he seeks to remain within the bounds set by the Articles of Religion. While maintaining that “the whole Christ is communicated in the Communion of the Sacrament,” Overall does not explain what he means. This leaves his view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper open to all kinds of misinterpretation.

Overall, like Lancelot Andrewes, was an early High Churchman. They both had a high view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which, while tying Christ’s presence closely to the consecrated elements denied any change in the substance of the bread and wine. Andrewes in his disputation with Cardinal Bellamine writes:

Christ said, “This is My body”. He did not say, “This is My body in this way”. We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the “This”, we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the “this is in this way” (namely, by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By transition there is no word expressed. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith. … We believe no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly, and, I add, we do not anxiously inquire, any more than how the blood of Christ washes us in Baptism, any more than how the human and divine natures are united in one Person in the Incarnation of Christ

Overall and Andrewes represent a second strand in historic Anglicanism, which is associated with the Caroline High Churchmen and which departs from what was the prevailing Reformed view of the time, that  is, Christ is truly and spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper but his presence is not tied to the consecrated elements. The latter view (and not Overall and Andrewes’) form a part of what J. I. Packer describes as the “central theology” of the Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the two Books of Homilies.  

Among the purposes of the Articles of Religion is to provide doctrinal standards by which rites and services of The Book of Common Prayer, including the Prayer Book Catechism, must be interpreted. These doctrinal standards are Augustinian in regard to sin and Reformed in regard to the sacraments.

As we have seen in the first article in this series and in the preceding paragraphs, Nowell’s Catechism is Reformed in doctrine. The bishops and the Puritans at the 1604 Hampton Court Conference understood this section also to be Reformed in doctrine. The Puritans at the Savoy Conference fifty seven years later had the same understanding of the section on the sacraments. While the Puritans offered additions to the section, they had no objections to it.

In order to claim that the Prayer Book Catechism taught the Real Objective Presence in the consecrated elements, the Tractarians not only paid no attention to the received interpretation of the Articles of Religion but also did not take account of the historic context in which section on the sacraments was first authorized and subsequently reauthorized. John Henry Newman in Tract 90, Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-Nine Articles, countenanced the disregard of authorial intent and historic context in the interpretation of the Articles, a practice that would characterizes Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the Prayer Book as well as the Articles. The Tractarians also misinterpreted Overall’s view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. What they did was bend the facts to support their interpretation of the Prayer Book Catechism’s section on sacraments, a conclusion that both their nineteenth century critics and more recent scholars have drawn from their lectures, sermons, and writings.

As a safeguard against such misinterpretation the 1926 Irish Prayer Book Catechism added an additional question and answer.

Question.What is the inward part, or thing signified?

Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.

Question. After what manner are the Body and Blood of Christ taken and received in the Lord's Supper?

Answer. Only after a heavenly and, spiritual manner; and the mean whereby they are taken and received is Faith.

Note that the additional question and answer are taken word for word from the Articles of Religion.

In regard to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, two doctrinal strands are discernible in historic Anglicanism by the conclusion of the seventeenth century. Both strands respect the doctrinal boundaries set by the Articles of Religion. Both strands reject the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a bare memorial, a view associated with the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. Both strands maintain that “to those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the Lord’s Supper, 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.”Both strands deny that the bread and wine, when they are consecrated, undergo a change in substance. The consecrated elements retain their natural substance. The only changes in the consecrated elements that the two strands recognize are a change of dignity and a change of use. Both strands reject Luther’s view that the substance of Christ is intermixed with the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated elements. Both strands maintain that “the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” The means by which the Body of Christ is received and eaten is faith. Both strands value frequent communion.

Where the two strands differ the most is their formulation of the faithful’s spiritual feeding upon Christ. The central strand posits that this spiritual feeding occurs concurrently with the eating and drinking of the consecrated elements but separately from their consumption. This formulation admits the view expressed in the 1559 Words of Administration, “The body of our lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life: and take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, feed on him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving,” and Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.” It also admits the views expressed in Calvin’s Geneva Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, and Nowell’s Catechism.

The second strand, which Peter B. Nockles describes as the “Old High Church” strand, posits that eating and drinking of the consecrated elements and the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ are tied to each other. When the faithful consume the consecrated bread and wine, they are in a mystical, spiritual, and heavenly manner partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood. How this occurs is a mystery. This formulation admits the view that the consecrated elements, while they retain their natural substance, become Christ’s Body and Blood in “virtue, power, and effect.” The Old High Church strand would influence John Wesley and Methodism.

In a separate article I am going to examine To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, the Anglican Church in North America’s catechism, and what it teaches and permits to be taught in regards to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In my examination of the catechism I am going to employ criteria that J. I. Packer outlines in his 1961 critique of the then proposed revised catechism of the Church of England. Adopted in 1962, this catechism would replaced by a simplified catechism, The Pilgrim's Way, in 2017.

Thursday's Catch: Power and Pastors and More

Power and Pastors: Part 1

Recovering a Biblical understanding of power. Read More

Power and Pastors: Part 2

Too many Christians fail to consider the propensity leaders have to abuse power. Read More

9 Best Practices for Leading Multi Generational Worship

Leading multigenerational worship is challenging. David Santistevan offers nine best practices for meeting this challenge. Read More

4 Reasons VBS is Mission-Critical for Your Entire Church

Here are four reasons VBS is critical to the mission of your church—making disciples and reaching your neighbors with the gospel. Read More

9 Reasons Why I’m Excited about Evangelism Today

This post may surprise you. I know that culture is increasingly anti-Christian, and the work of the gospel ministry faces new challenges every day. On the other hand, I’m excited about doing evangelism today. Here’s why…. Read More

First Steps Towards Gospel-Shaped Worship (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this post, I suggested that when a worship service is shaped by the gospel, a church doesn’t need to decide between edifying existing Christians and evangelizing to non-Christians. Gospel-shaped worship means a church can do both at the same time, all the time.

While that article laid the foundation for the importance of gospel-shaped worship, it wasn’t very practical. It didn’t address how a church can lead worship services shaped by the gospel. What follows is an attempt to do just that.

Here are three principles for arranging gospel-shaped worship services in your church.... Read More

Don’t Mistake Transfer Growth for Evangelism

“Our numbers are down.”

Few words have inspired more dejection among American pastors. For many, the emotional ups and downs of their labors are tethered to the attendance figures of Sunday mornings and ministry events. This fixation on numbers plagues churches of all shapes and sizes. Some may acknowledge that such ups and downs are unhealthy—even ungodly—yet they still can’t help being downcast when attendance flags.

For those who wish to break their unhealthy fixation on numbers, the challenge is answering this question: How do I become less obsessed with numbers while also taking seriously the call to evangelize?

We live in a society in which numerical growth is equated with success. Numbers are the currency through which we evaluate the health of organizations, from cities to non-profits to businesses to, yes, even churches.

One of the first questions pastors are often asked is “How many people go to your church?” Such questions are at least partly evaluative—people want to know how successful a church is, and attendance figures seem to be the most tangible way of assessing success. Here’s the tacit, common assumption: the larger the church, the more successful the church. The pastor of a storefront church is not qualified to publish books on the secrets to successful ministry. Those books should be written by megachurch pastors—so the thinking goes.

Insofar as size equals success, when our ministry grows we’ll feel better, and when it declines we’ll feel worse. How might we be set free from such emotional rollercoasters and instead lean into our calling? Read More

Tuesday's Catch: The Importance of a Community's History to Church Planting and More

Good Church Planters Are Historians

Knowing demographics is essential, but in order for that understanding to be accurate, we must also know the history of our community. Every community’s present state has been forged in the past. No place can escape its history. And if we fail to rightly understand such history, our churches risk doing more harm than good. Read More

The Mainstreaming of Sexual Fluidity

James White weighs the long-term implications of Generation Z sexual and relational amorphousness. Read More

What to Do When Your Ministry Honeymoon Runs Out

When we take a new job or assume a new ministry role in a church (paid or volunteer), the honeymoon effect can mask the realities of this new role. So what do we do when the ministry honeymoon wears off? I suggest five ideas that may help. Read More

8 Reasons Pastors Must Have Faith

We know that believers must live by faith, as “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). I’m not sure, though, that pastors strive hard enough to let faith guide them in their ministries. Here are some reasons pastors must have faith. Read More

No, the Church Didn’t Create the Bible [Video Podcast]

A discussion with Don Carson and Mike Kruger. Watch Now

Also see Do You Know How We Got the Bible? and Lectures on the Canon

Seven Ways Churches Make Prayer Central to Their Worship Services [Audio Podcast]

We constantly hear from pastors wanting to see prayer increase in their churches. The secret to becoming a praying church is to…pray. Listen Now

6 Myths About Vacation Bible School

You still have some resistance to Vacation Bible School (VBS). You keep thinking of those “Yes, but …” statements that people are quick to toss your way when the subject of VBS is mentioned. Read More

What Is Islam?

In reality, there’s as much diversity in the Muslim world as there is in the Christian world. Just as we wouldn’t want non-Christians to pigeonhole us with a “one size fits all” view of Christianity, we should acknowledge and respond appropriately to the plurality of perspectives, traditions, and practices that exist among contemporary Muslims. In this article, we’ll survey some major points of diversity found in Islam today and consider the implications for how we engage with Muslims. Read More

Leverage Your Short-Term Mission Trips for Long-Term Goals

According to both data and my own observation, the vast majority of STM is designed toward social ministry and poverty relief, with teams comprised primarily of teenagers and youth. If we believe that Acts provides us a template for Great Commission ministry—that Paul and the apostles teach us how to obey Jesus regarding missions—perhaps it’s time to reevaluate our STM strategies in light of the New Testament. Read More

Do 47 Percent of Christian Millennials Think Evangelism Is Wrong? - Part 1

Many young Christians clearly hold a negative view of evangelism. But why? Read More

The Equality Act Accelerates Anti-Christian Bias

The bill represents the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed in America. Read More

The Lord's Supper Explained: The Historic Anglican View of the Sacrament

Read Part 2

By Robin G. Jordan

The two most widely-used catechisms in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Churches, Heidelberg Catechism and Alexander Nowell’s Larger Catechism, would make a significant contribution to the shape of historic Anglicanism, particular to its doctrine of the sacraments. Like the European Reformed Churches, the Church of England recognized only two sacraments--Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

In An Homily Wherein Is Declared That Common Prayer and Sacraments Ought to Be Ministered in a Tongue That Is Understood of the Hearers is set out in more detail the position of the Reformed Church of England on what the 1571 Articles of Religion refer to as “those five commonly called sacraments.”

And although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other Rites and Ceremonies about the institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of the children, by examining them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick: yet no man ought to take these for Sacraments, in such signification and meaning, as the Sacrament of Baptism. and the Lord's Supper are: but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances, as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church.

Nowhere does the homily suggest that these "other Rites and Ceremonies" are a means of grace.

In regard to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper the Heidelberg Catechism and Alexander Nowell’s Catechism agree on most points. The two catechisms take the position that the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice but a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. The meal points to what Christ did for us on the cross. They both share the position of the 1552 Declaration on Kneeling.

Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our Savior Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places then in one, at one time.

The two catechisms teach that Christ is not substantively present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine. The elements undergo no change at the time of consecration. They retain their natural substance. Like the 1552 Declaration on Kneeling they reject Luther’s appeal to ubiquity.

The two catechisms share the position of the 1552 Communion of the Sick and the 1571 Articles of Religion on how the believer feeds on Christ. This feeding is a spiritual operation. The means by which it is accomplished is faith.

The Heidelberg Catechism states:

75. Q. How does the Lord's Supper signify and seal to you that you share in Christ's one sacrifice on the cross and in all His gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup in remembrance of Him. With this command He gave these promises:[1] First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely was His body offered for me and His blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and the cup of the Lord as sure signs of Christ's body and blood, so surely does He Himself nourish and refresh my soul to everlasting life with His crucified body and shed blood.

[1] Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; I Cor. 11:23-25.

76. Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?

A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal.[1] Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us.[2] Therefore, although Christ is in heaven[3] and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones,[4] and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.[5]

[1] John 6:35, 40, 50-54. [2] John 6:55, 56; I Cor. 12:13. [3] Acts 1:9-11; 3:21; I Cor. 11:26; Col. 3:1. [4] I Cor. 6:15, 17; Eph. 5:29, 30; I John 4:13. [5] John 6:56-58; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15, 16; I John 3:24.

Nowell’s Catechism states:

M. Sith we be in the earth, and Christ's body in heaven, how can that be that thou sayest?

S. We must lift our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up by faith to heaven, where Christ is.

M. Sayest thou then the mean to receive the body and blood of Christ standeth upon faith?

S. Yea. For when ' we believe that Christ died deliver us from death, and that he rose again to procure us life, we are partakers of the redemption purchased by his death, and of his life, and all other his good things; and with the same conjoining wherewith the head and the members are knit together, he coupleth us to himself by secret and marvelous virtue of his Spirit, even so that we be members of his body, and be of his flesh and bones, and do grow into one body with him.

Nowell’s Catechism further states

M. Go on

S. In both the sacraments the substances of the outward things are not changed; but the word of God and heavenly grace coming to them, there is such efficacy, that as by baptism we are once "regenerate in Christ, and are first, as it were, joined and grafted into his body; so when we rightly receive the Lord's Supper, with the very divine nourishment of his body and blood, most full of health and immortality, given to us by the work of the Holy Ghost, and received of us by faith, as the mouth of our soul, we are continually fed and sustained to eternal life, growing together in them both into one body with Christ.

In regards to the sacrament of baptism Nowell is not teaching what is commonly called "baptismal regeneration". It is a view that a number of the Reformers shared, including John Calvin. In his article, “Calvin and Baptism: Baptismal Regeneration or the Duplex Loquendi Modus?” James J. Cassidy explains this view.

…Calvin's view might be summed up by the term "baptismal efficacy". In other words: for Calvin, baptism is a means of grace. According to the Reformers there were three means of grace in the church: Word, sacrament, and prayer. And these three means become effectual in a qualified sense. And that qualified sense is this: they are efficacious only in the lives of the elect when they are received by faith and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

He further explains:

In other words, for Calvin there is no automatic ex opere operato connection between the means of grace and the person receiving them. Grace is not communicated automatically, in a mechanical fashion, to the person receiving its means. This is not what it means to say the sacraments are "effectual". Instead, the term "means of grace" denotes the earthly and human way through which the Holy Spirit ordinarily communicates grace to the believer.

This is what the 1571 Articles of Religion means when they refer to the sacraments as “effectual signs” and baptism as an “instrument” by which those who receive the sacrament “in the right manner” receive its benefits. The Heidelberg Catechism is more precise in its explanation of how the believer eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ.

In Your Confirmation: A Christian Handbook For Adults (1969), pp. 135-136, John Stott takes a similar view.

Jesus did more than take and break bread, and take and pour wine, saying “this is my body, this is my blood”; he also gave the elements to the apostles, saying “take, eat and drink”. Thus they were not only spectators of the drama (watching and listening), but participants in it (eating and drinking). Just so today the Lord’s Supper is more than a “commemoration”, by which we recall an event of the past; it is a “communion”, by which we share in its present benefits. This was the apostle Paul’s emphasis when he wrote: “Is not Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

From this it is clear beyond dispute that in some sense at Communion we are meant to “participate” in Christ’s body and blood. But two questions now confront us. First, in what do we actually participate? Secondly, how do we participate in it?

First, in what according to God’s purpose do we participate at the Lord's Supper? The answer must be “the body and blood of Christ”. But what does this mean? It means the death of Jesus Christ, together with the benefits which he obtained for us by his death. It is important to be clear about this because some people teach that “the body and blood of Christ” mean his life, not his death. Since our body is the instrument of our personality, they argue, and since our blood is the carrier of life-giving oxygen, therefore Christ's body and blood together symbolize his living personality, and it is this that we receive at Communion. But this is not what Jesus himself said. He spoke of his body not as it lived in Palestine but as it was to be “given” on the cross, and of his blood not as it flowed in his veins while he lived but as it was to be “shed” in his sacrificial death. Thus “the body and blood of Christ” is a figure of speech for the benefits of his death, not for the power of his life.

Secondly, how do we participate in Christ's body and blood? The Catholic answer to this question is that the “inner reality” of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ (traditionally called “transubstantiation”), so that to eat and drink the elements is ipso facto to partake of Christ. Lutheran churches teach “consubstantiation”, which is somewhat similar. The Anglican Articles reject this, however. Article 28 declares both that transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture, and that it overthrows the nature of a sacrament by confusing the sign with the thing signified. Article 29 says that those who lack a living faith, even though they receive the sacrament, “yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ”. If, then, it is not by eating and drinking that we receive Christ, how is it? It is by faith, of which eating and drinking are a vivid picture. For just as by eating the bread and drinking the wine we take them into our bodies and assimilate them, so by faith we feed on Christ crucified in our hearts and make him our own. Thus, to return to Article 28, it states that those who “rightly, worthily and with faith” receive the sacrament also partake of Christ’s body and blood, and that “the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith”. Similarly, the famous sixteenth century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker wrote: “The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament”.

As we saw in an earlier chapter, the sacraments have been given to us in order to stimulate our faith. In fact, they are means of grace mainly because they are means to faith. And the Lord’s Supper is a means to faith because it sets forth in dramatic visual symbolism the good news that Christ died for our sins in order that we might be forgiven. Hugh Latimer, the great preacher of the English Reformation, explained this symbolism during his trial in Oxford, before going to the stake:

“There is a change in the bread and wine, and such a change as no power but the omnipotency of God can make, in that that which before was bread should now have the dignity to exhibit Christ's body. And yet the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine. For the change is not in the nature but the dignity.”

This is sometimes called “transignification”, in distinction to “transubstantiation”, for the change which is in mind is one of significance, not of substance. As the officiant offers the bread and wine to our bodies, so Christ offers his body and blood to our souls. Our faith looks beyond the symbols to the reality they represent, and even as we take the bread and wine, and feed on them in our mouths by eating and drinking, so we feed on Christ crucified in our hearts by faith. The parallel is so striking, and the corresponding words of administration are so personal, that the moment of reception becomes to many communicants a direct faith-encounter with Jesus Christ. This was so, for example, in the case of John Wesley’s mother, Susanna, just over a year following her son’s conversion. As the cup was given to her she heard the minister saying “the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee”, and at that moment “the words struck through my heart, and I knew God for Christ’s sake had forgiven me all my sins”.

Like The Homily for Worthy Receiving and Reverend Esteeming the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Heidelberg Catechism and Nowell’s’ Catechism view this spiritual operation as the work of the Holy Spirit:

But (as the Scripture saith) the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the Annunciation of his death, yea the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation, which by the operation of the holy Ghost (the very bond of our connection with Christ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality (1 Corinthians 10.16-17).

The Heidelberg Catechism and Nowell’s Catechism share the position of the 1571 Articles of Religion that the wicked and those who lack a vital faith receive no benefit from sharing the Lord’s Supper. Rather they bring condemnation upon themselves by taking the sacrament lightly.

With the Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Homilies these two catechisms would shape the Elizabethan and Jacobean Churches’ understanding of the Lord’s Supper. This understanding comprises what has been described as a “central church” understanding of the sacrament. It recognizes the true and spiritual presence of Christ in the sharing of the meal but does not localize Christ’s presence in the bread and wine. Rather Christ is present to the hearts of those who believe in him and trust in his suffering and death for their salvation. It is the understanding of the Lord’s Supper embodied in the Articles of Religion and The Book of Common Prayer. The only change that it recognizes in the bread and wine is a change of dignity. For this reason Anglicans who subscribe to this view treat the consecrated elements with reverence—in a manner that befits the signs and tokens of our Lord’s offering of himself once for all time for our sins.

Church Armour: A Short Catechism for Young Churchmen, Chiefly on the Thirty-Nine Articles

Church Armour was written by the Rev. W. F. Taylor Vicar of St. Chrysostom’s, Everton, Liverpool, for use in schools in Liverpool in the late nineteenth century. Church Armour was intended to familiarize young people with the text of the Thirty-Nine Articles and to furnish them with answers in the words of the Church of England to important questions that were being raised at that time. Many of these questions are still being asked today.

Church Armour was published by the Church Association as Tract 59. The Church Association was one of the forebears of the Church Society, which has been described as the “senior evangelical body in the Church of England.” The Church Association was established “to defend the Church of England against ritualistic (Anglo Catholic) teaching which was making inroads into the Church.” The catechism is written in a clear, easy-to-understand style and offers churches and church schools a useful resource for instructing adults as well as young people in the doctrine and principles of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It is available in a downloadable PDF format.

But Is It Anglican?

What We Say and How We Say It Matters

By Robin G. Jordan

In 2014 I wrote a series of articles on To Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism. They may be found on the Heritage Anglicans blog. They show how choice of language can be very revealing into the doctrine of a catechism. For example, Protestant theology views grace in terms of God’s goodwill and mercy shown to us and his divine influence exercised in our lives. Catholic theology, while accepting this view of grace, also views grace as something that may be infused into human beings through the sacraments—in particular the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Catholic refers to this kind of grace as “sanctifying grace.” It imparts not only spiritual life to the soul but also holiness without which the soul may not enter heaven. This view of grace is found in To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism in a muted form.

In 2015 I wrote an article series on the theological leanings of the various doctrinal statements of the Anglican Church in North America. This included an article on the ACNA’s catechism, “The ACNA Catechism: A Tool for Instruction? Or a Tool for Indoctrination?” which examines the positions that the catechism takes on key issues over which Anglicans have historically been divided.

I recently reread the catechism and it confirmed my initial observation that to properly understand what the catechism is teaching or in a number of cases permitting to be taught, one must pay close attention to the wording of each set of questions and answers in the catechism—what is said, what is omitted, and what is inferred—and to the questions and answers in the other sections of the catechism. One also benefits from a familiarity with the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; their original intended meaning; the Prayer Book Catechism; the source of its section on the sacraments, Alexander Nowell’s Larger Catechism; and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as the Scriptural references cited in the catechism and how these passages have been interpreted and misinterpreted.

Although To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism comes with an impressive list of editors and consultants and the endorsement of the ACNA’s College of Bishops, it would be a mistake to conclude from this list and this endorsement that catechism is faithful to the teaching of the Scripture and the doctrine and principles of the Anglican formularies. A careful examination of the catechism shows that it deviates from the doctrinal foundation of the Anglican Church in a number of areas. Rather than being a doctrinal statement on which all legitimate schools of theological thought can agree, it incorporates a number of partisan positions—sometimes in the questions and answers, sometimes in the omissions and inferences, and sometimes in the interpretation of the referenced Scripture and Anglican formularies.

To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism is one of the longest, if not the longest, of the more recent Anglican catechisms. It shows the influence of the Episcopal Church's An Outline of the Faith and the Roman Catholic Church's The Catechism of the Catholic Church. I believe that a comparison of To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism with the three catechisms that helped to shape historic Anglicanism and with later catechisms in the reformed Anglican tradition will show that To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism is not genuinely representative of historic Anglicanism.

Monday's Catch: The Resurgence of Rural Ministry and More

Small Town Pastors See More Than Small Wonders

Rural ministry is experiencing a resurgence in the US even as economic and demographic numbers continue their decline. Read More

Where the American Dream Died 

You can find the communities where the American dream is dead by looking for vacant church buildings. Read More

These social dynamic may not be limited to the United States. They may have their parallels in other countries in which one or more segments of the population has become alienated from the mainstream. In the United States 'Alienated America' may prove to be a useful resource for church planters and pastors seeking to better understand a community.

6 Takeaways From “The Church Growth Gap” LifeWay Research Survey

We seldom see the value of smaller congregations, even when the facts show them to us. Read More

New Research and Insights on the Online Church

I see a pattern developing in online churches. Perhaps it is a trend. The overall pattern is that online ministries of churches are becoming a strategic part of the overall church ministry. They are not viewed today as much as a separate congregation than as an entry point for people ultimately to connect to the physically-gathered church. Read More

How Universalism, ‘the Opiate of the Theologians,’ Went Mainstream

Michael McClymond decries the rising popularity of an idea Christians have rejected for most of church history. Read More

Sin Is Cosmic Treason

“The sinfulness of sin” sounds like a vacuous redundancy that adds no information to the subject under discussion. However, the necessity of speaking of the sinfulness of sin has been thrust upon us by a culture and even a church that has diminished the significance of sin itself. Read More

How VBS Shapes Our Culture—and the Future of the Church

The ministries of local churches in teaching the Bible to the children of Christian families and communicating the gospel to neighborhood children who have never heard it is among the most important and effective aspects of Christian ministry today. Read More

5 Rules to Help You Fail Less Often with Social Media

In his new, thoughtful, helpful book, The Common Rule: Habits of Purpose for an Age of Distraction (IVP, 2019), Justin Whitmel Earley talks about five things he has started doing to retain some sanity when it comes to social media. Read More

7 Social Media Reminders for Pastors and Ministry Leaders

If social media is here, and an almost necessity these days in ministry, it stands to reason we should keep in mind it’s impact. This should actually influence our use of social media. That’s the purpose of this post. Read More

A New Addition to Anglicans Ablaze: The Heidelberg Catechism

I have added a Heidelberg Catechism page to Anglicans Ablaze. Heidelberg would influence the Reformed Church of England during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I as well as Geneva and Zurich.

The original title of the Heidelberg Catechism was Catechism, or Christian Instruction, according to the Usages of the Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate.

The Heidelberg Catechism was translated into English in 1571. However, the Latin version of the catechism was already circulating in England in 1565.

During the reign of Elizabeth I students were expected to be skilled in Latin. It was the lingua franca that scholars in the different countries of Europe used to communicate with each other. The most of the books that were used as textbooks in the universities were written in Latin.

In Elizabethan grammar schools the younger boys studied Latin grammar and vocabulary; the older boys read the works of the classical writers like Ovid and Martial.

The original version of the Heidelberg Catechism was written in Latin. It was from the Latin version that the catechism was translated into German, Dutch, French, English, and other languages.

Alexander Nowell’s Larger Catechism which was commissioned by Convocation in 1563 was also written in Latin. It was published in 1570 and translated into English in 1571.

The Heidelberg Catechism would have exercised an influence upon England’s educated classes well before its translation in English.

The Heidelberg Catechism and Nowell’s Catechism would supersede John Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, which had been translated into English in 1556. All three catechisms would be used to teach the essentials of the Christian faith to the English people along with the first and second Books of Homilies and the Prayer Book Catechism.

In future articles I hope to compare different sections of the Heidelberg Catechism with the corresponding sections of Nowell’s Catechism, the 1571 Articles of Religion, the 1604 Prayer Book Catechism, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church in North America’s To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism. I believe that such a comparison should prove very interesting to say the least. 

Practical Preaching Advice for Pastors and Lay Preachers #40

6 Must-Have Qualities You Should Find In Any Good Preacher

God has called preachers to be faithful rather than successful. How can we be sure we are staying true to the call? What makes a faithful preacher? Read More

4 Deep Changes Your Preaching Should Produce

God's work is transformational. Is our preaching doing God's work? Read More

6 Themes To Help Your Preaching Come Alive

In my theological tradition, the preparation and practice of preaching sometimes feel more like science. But I think we lose something if a sermon is primarily a position paper we could construct in a laboratory. Read More

4 Vitamins for Healthy Preaching: Lessons from the Reformers

Here are four lessons we can learn from the Reformers. You might think of them as four vitamins for healthy preaching. Read More

Preacher, Show your Working Out

Adam Ch’ng explains why evangelical preachers need to reprioritise explicit exposition. Read More

You Exegete Your Text, But Do You Exegete Your People?

"Bob Easley may not have gone beyond sixth grade, but he taught this quasi-educated preacher that there's a lot more to be learned about preaching than I ever got inside a book." Read More

Why Sermon Notes Are Like Training Wheels [Video; Transcript]

I believe sermon notes are like training wheels for your preaching. Watch this video (or read the transcript) to find out why. Plus, I’ll give you a few tips on how you can preach better. Watch Now or Read More

Preacher's Block: 8 Sure-Fire Ways To Beat It

Time ticks by and Sunday's deadline keeps approaching. What should you do if you feel stuck? Read More

How Can I Possibly Do Sermon Prep When I'm Just Not Feeling It?

God feels far away. Everybody at home is mad at you. Even the dog won’t talk to you. What do you do when you need to do sermon prep but you just aren’t feeling it? Read More

A Sermon Notes Sheet for Young Children

Ryan Higginbottom has written before about how to help children listen to the sermon. In that article he focused on what to do before, during, and after the sermon. In this post, he provides a practical tool to use during the sermon. Read More

Saturday Lagniappe: The Praying Church

I am devoting this week’s Saturday Lagniappe to the subject of prayer. If a church is to become a praying church, it must have a pastor and elders or their equivalent who pray, not only publicly but in private. While Anglican and Episcopal churches do not formally have elders beside their pastor, they do have a number of people in leadership positions who informally act as elders—deacons, lay readers, church wardens, bishop’s committee, parish council, or vestry members, ministry leaders, small group leaders, and so on. These individuals, like the pastor, should set an example for church members and others.

One of the challenges that Anglicans and Episcopalians face in their use of a variety of set forms of prayer in their services of public worship is the temptation to assume that they have covered all the bases. Yet too often prayer in these services is perfunctory with little attention to what is said or to the thoughts behind it. The words and thoughts are not allowed to penetrate the inner recesses of the worshiper’s being and to evoke the prayer of the heart. How different are our services of public worship when we pray the liturgy from the heart, when we own what we are praying and it becomes our prayer.

Whether a church uses set forms, composed prayers, extemporaneous prayers, or a combination of the three, I believe that these posts will help the church become a praying church.

4 Ways Martin Luther Encourages Pastors to Pray

Mark Rogers shares the encouragement he finds in the writings of Martin Luther to keep from sliding into prayerlessness. Read More

10 Ways to Pray More

Most of us struggle with having a consistent prayer life. If you struggle, too, here are some simple options to pray more.... Read More

7 Things to Do Wen You Can't Even Pray

I’ve been there – when the anguish of life is so heavy that you can’t even speak . . . even to God. Yet, not praying hardly seems to be the right thing to do in those times. So, here are some things to do when you’re struggling so much that you can’t even pray.... Read More

A Test: What Kind of Praying Leader Are You?

Use these descriptions to evaluate what kind of “praying leader” you are, recognizing that more than one category can describe you. Read More

Five Highly Effective Ways to Enhance Corporate Prayer in Your Church [Podcast]

Corporate prayer is instrumental in shaping the DNA of a church. A praying church is often one who realizes that they are fully dependent on God’s power. Today, Thom Rainer and Jonathan Howe discuss five ways you can increase the power and frequency of prayer in your church. Listen Now

Suggestions for Redeeming Your Church’s Prayer Meeting

What can we do to redeem the perception and practice of the “prayer meeting” in our churches? I offer these five strategies.... Read More

What Romanian Believers Taught Me About Prayer

I love to listen to the testimonies of my American friends who have recently been to Romania to do mission work. They inevitably comment on the prayer practices of Romanian churches. Read More

2 Reminders from the Korean Church about Prayer

Here are two areas in which the Korean church has something to teach us in the West. Read More

Tongsung Kido (A Unique Korean Prayer)

A unique and special Korean prayer style is called Tongsung Kido. Tongsung means, “cry out together loudly,” and Kido means, “pray.” So, Tongsung Kido means, “praying together out loud.” This unique form of Korean prayer is an important part of prayer life among the spirit-filled prayer life of Korean Christians. Personally, I think that Tongsung Kido has value as an example of a fervent and earnest way of crying out to God. Read More

Prayer Walking: A Way to Pray Specifically for Our Neighborhoods

When you hear the sounds and see the sights of a particular place, you understand better how to pray for the people in that location. Read More

 Photo by Igor Rodrigues on Unsplash

A Gospel-Shaped North American Province

By Robin G. Jordan

During the twentieth century traditional Anglo-Catholicism which had been a major school of thought in the Episcopal Church was overshadowed by what Les Fairfield, professor of Church history at the Trinity School for Ministry from 1976 to 2006, calls “Catholic Modernism” – a blending of unreformed Catholicism with modernism—“a movement toward modifying traditional beliefs in accordance with modern ideas.”

While emphasizing the centrality of the sacraments and retaining traditional Catholic worship practices, “Catholic Modernism” takes a modernist view of the Bible and a liberal, or progressive, approach to its interpretation. It has become unwaveringly liberal in its commitment to inclusivity, supporting the full inclusion of all individuals in the life and ministry of the church irregardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Since the 1980s it has championed the ordination of non-celibate LGBT individuals and the development and authorization of same sex marriage rites.

While Anglo-Catholic traditionalists will deny the existence of any connection between the Anglo-Catholic movement and Catholic Modernism, it may be viewed as an offshoot of the Anglo-Catholic movement. The influence of the Anglo-Catholic movement upon Catholic Modernism is evident not only in the central place that it gives to the sacraments and its retention of traditional Catholic worship practices but also in its application of Newman’s theory of doctrinal development. A number of what its critics view as innovations are justified by the use of Newman’s argument that they are “the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first.”

Catholic Modernism also takes a similar position to Anglo-Catholicism in regards to the interpretation of the Bible, that is, the Bible is too complex for the average layperson to understand on his own and therefore he must rely on the Church to interpret the Bible for him.

The similarity of their positions explains the ease with which Catholic Modernism has displaced Anglo-Catholicism in the Episcopal Church. Both discourage the laity to think for themselves and to let the clergy do the thinking for them. As long as the ambiance of the Episcopal Church went unchanged, most laity did not notice the shift in doctrine. Only as practice became more radical did some laypeople begin to take notice of what else was happening in the Episcopal Church.

The upheavals that the Episcopal Church experienced in the 1970s and the opening decade of this century were caused by changes in practice—the revision of the Prayer Book and the ordination of women in the 1970s and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, the blessing of same sex unions, and the consecration of an openly gay bishop in more recent times.

With the formation of the Anglican Church in North America the remaining Anglo-Catholic traditionalists were able to move from beneath the shadow of Catholic Modernism. In the ACNA they are pursuing a longstanding aim of the Anglo-Catholic movement—to replace the Protestant identity of the Anglican Church with a Catholic one. This is evident from the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership that established the ACNA; the Solemn Declarations of the ACNA’s constitution; a number of provisions of the ACNA’s canons; To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, the catechism that the ACNA’s College of Bishops has endorsed; and the 2019 Proposed ACNA Prayer Book, the service book of which the College of Bishops has also publicly expressed its approval.

In this regard this group of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics is no different from the group of Anglo-Catholic traditionalists who broke with the Episcopal Church over Prayer Book revision and women’s ordination in the 1970s. Both groups do not view historic Anglicanism as sufficiently Catholic and have sought to move the Anglican Church in what they consider a more Catholic direction. While their motives have changed from their nineteenth century predecessors, their aims have not. Changing the theological identity of the Anglican Church has always been one of these aims.

The predicament of North American Anglicans who are committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and to historic Anglican beliefs and practices is that the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America are hostile environments for them. By historic Anglican beliefs and practices I am referring those beliefs and practices that conform with the doctrine and principles embodied in the historic Anglican formularies—The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the Forms for Ordering and Consecrating Deacons, Priests, and Bishops of 1661—and the two Books of Homilies commended by the Articles for their godly and wholesome teaching, necessary for the times. In several instances the doctrine of the Articles is taught more fully in one of the Homilies.

The Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America are moving away from historic Anglicanism but in different directions. All three conceal their divergence from historic Anglicanism behind the trappings of Catholic worship.

In his book Converting Christians to Christ: Evangelizing the Church (1990) Episcopal priest Rob Smith notes that the primary attraction of the Episcopal Church has been its ambiance. This particular ambiance can not only attract people from other traditions but also mask doctrinal shifts as I have previously noted.

The Anglican Church in North America to a large part is an offshoot of the Episcopal Church and shares its ambiance. As well as containing various groups that broke with the Episcopal Church, the ACNA also contains more recent converts to the same ambiance. They include individuals who have been influenced by the worship renewal movement and the related Ancient-Future Church movement. These two movements emphasize the importance of forms of worship and downplay the importance of doctrine—a criticism often leveled at the late Robert Webber who was a prominent figure in these two movements until his death.

An idea that has influenced these two movements is the notion that if disparate traditions adopt the same patterns of worship, they can occupy the same ecclesiastical body. This idea harkens back to one of the recommendations of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, which was that a common structure of the Holy Communion service should form the basis of Anglican unity. As events have shown since that time, the 1958 Lambeth Conference’s recommendation is a very flimsy basis for Anglican unity. The same idea also ignores the confessional nature of historic Anglicanism.

At the same time this idea holds a certain appeal to those who subscribe to the notion that what is emerging in the Anglican Church in North America is a synthesis of the three main theological streams of Christianity—Catholicism, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism. They are flowing together as one river. This synthesis, if it really can be described as such a fusion of ideas, bears a very strong resemblance to unreformed Catholicism that two are for the most part indistinguishable.

The reality is that this kind of thinking creates a doctrinal vacuum, a vacuum which the most opportunistic school of thought will fill with its own doctrine. This is what is happening in the Anglican Church in North America. We hear little complaint from the laity since this school of thought is not tampering with the ambiance to which they are attracted or to which they are accustomed. It is not engaging in any alarming practices that may draw their attention.

Just as an army can move under the cover of a smoke screen, this school of thought is moving under the cover of a particular ambiance. It is also able to take advantage of the biblical and theological illiteracy of American Christians.

Former Archbishop Robert Duncan’s charge to the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force to make the ACNA’s rites and services as appealing to people as possible is very telling. It suggests that Bishop Duncan recognized the preoccupation of ACNA’ers with forms of worship and ambiance. In his charge he makes no mention of making these rites and services doctrinally sound and genuinely Anglican. The emphasis is upon their attractiveness.

However, this preoccupation with the outward forms of rites and services and the atmosphere of the church makes ACNA’ers highly vulnerable. This is one of the lessons that we can learn from what happened in the Episcopal Church. If the worship does not appear to be too different from what they are accustomed and the atmosphere of the church has not changed greatly, Episcopalians and ACNA’ers are apt to be oblivious to gradual or subtle changes in doctrine. I am not so naïve to believe that those introducing such changes are not aware of this tendency and do not exploit it.

Since Anglo-Catholics have found a place in the sun in the Anglican Church in North America, they are not going to let go of this position of advantage. Rather they are going to press home their advantage. They have natural allies in other ACNA’ers who dismiss the English Reformation and look to the pre-Reformation medieval and earlier Church for inspiration and direction. The conditions are ripe for an Anglo-Catholic resurgence. From their perspective they would be foolish not to make the best of this opportunity.

North American Anglicans who are committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and to historic Anglican beliefs and practices need to face up to reality. Maintaining a genuine Anglican presence and witness in the Anglican Church in North America may be an appealing idea but from a historical perspective it has nil chance of success. Once a movement reaches critical mass and gains momentum it is unstoppable until it has run its course. At most they can do is to create an enclave for themselves and use it as a base from which they can attempt to regain lost territory. Such an enclave would be easier to establish outside the ACNA than within the province since its formularies are designed to discourage any other school thought beside Catholic Revivalism from flourishing.

At the same time they need to learn from the lessons of the Free Church of England and the Reformed Episcopal Church. Both enclaves were formed outside the province from which they broke away. One lacked evangelistic vigor while the other quickly lost that vigor. Both would become inward-looking. Both have fallen prey to the same infection from which they sought to quarantine themselves due to leaders who are not committed to the evangelical principles of their founders and who have redefined these principles to bring them in line with their own aspirations.

For example, George David Cummins who founded the Reformed Episcopal Church is now touted as a disciple of William Augustus Muhlenberg, a self-identified “Evangelical Catholic,” who was an early proponent of the Social Gospel movement and whose doctrinal views have been compared to those of the Tractarian Edward Bouverie Pusey. They have also been described as paralleling those of John Henry Newman. Muhlenberg was initially sympathetic to the Ritualist movement. George David Cummins, on the other hand, was a conservative Evangelical who vigorously opposed the spread of Tractarianism and Ritualism in the Protestant Episcopal Church. He would eventually break with the Protestant Episcopal Church over the growth and spread of their influence in that body.

In creating an enclave for North American Anglicans who are committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and to historic Anglican beliefs and practices such Anglicans would not be just protecting historic Anglicanism. They also would be safeguarding the truth of the gospel. This alone is sufficient reason for the creation of such an enclave. It would be a terrible thing to see the gospel lost in the North American Anglican Church as it was lost in the medieval Catholic Church. I would not want to see that happen on my watch. I would hope that North American Anglicans who are committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and to historic Anglican beliefs and practices would not want to see it happen on theirs.

One thing about which historic Anglicanism is very insistent is that all Anglicans must be in agreement on the gospel. They can have different customs and forms of worship provided that they do not conflict with the Word of God. But they must proclaim the same gospel. They cannot add to the gospel or take away from the gospel. They cannot adopt doctrine or practices which, if not openly, by inference proclaim a different gospel. The gospel sets the boundaries of Anglican comprehensiveness. It is our ultimate touchstone.

5 Ways to Get to Know Your Community

My first Easter as a lead pastor saw a standing room only crowd. We had to set up chairs in the foyer and leave the auditorium doors open to accommodate the number of people we had that Sunday.

The next year, we were better-prepared…sort of. We decided to do two services on Sunday morning because we were anticipating a similar, if not larger, crowd than the previous year.

This decision, while necessary, terrified me. I was so worried one of our services would be close to empty. To help ensure we had enough people in each service, we decided to rope off several sections of chairs for the first service.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, our early service was packed, and our late service was sparse.

At our next staff meeting, I asked the staff why things were so backward. They politely informed me we are in a rural community and rural folks are accustomed to getting up early on any given day.

I learned a valuable lesson that day, which many call “contextualization.” This was the first time I’d ever served a rural community. I hadn’t done my research to learn about the culture of my city. I’d assumed, based on previous experience, that things were going to be one way. I was wrong. Read More

Oh, and I’m Bisexual

A friend of mine was just at a family gathering talking with one of his nieces.

“How have you been?”

“Great. Been going to school, working a lot… oh, and I’m bisexual.”

How do you respond to that? Read More

Natural Ways to Share Jesus With Others

Recently, I walked into a conversation that others were having and I was ready to throw in my thoughts and contribute. So when I walked in and shared my super amazing insight, I realized they weren’t talking about a film but talking about someone’s actual circumstances. I was commenting like I was giving a movie review. Read the room, Alan.

Sometimes as Christians, we don’t necessarily “read the room” either. I think at this time, in our culture, we are just like this awkward moment. Culture is having spiritual conversations that Christians aren’t invited to because we are giving answers to questions that aren’t being asked. Read More

An Answer to Two Objections to a Second Alternative Anglican Province in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

Wouldn’t the formation of a second new province in North America break the North American Anglican Church into more pieces? Isn’t the North American Anglican Church fragmented enough already? Wouldn’t its formation further weaken the Anglican presence and witness in North America?

These three questions encapsulate what I anticipate would be two major objections to the formation of a second new province in North America. Before readers conclude that I am indulging in the fallacy of attacking a straw man, these two objections are the ones that I have heard the most often when I have in the past brought up the subject of forming a second new province in North America.

The problem with these two objection that they make a number of assumptions which upon close examination do not hold up.

The Anglican Church in North America was not organized as an ecclesiastical home for the several different conservative Anglican theological schools of thought that existed in the United States and Canada at the time of its formation. It was organized as a new home primarily for Anglo-Catholics and others sympathetic their particular form of doctrine and practices. This may have not been the intention of a number of the founding entities involved in its formation but it was clearly the aim at the back of the minds of the members of the Common Cause Roundtable that played a key role in the drafting of the Common Cause Theological Statement, which was subsequently incorporated into the ACNA’s draft constitution as the province’s Solemn Declarations. This aim, while evident in the Solemn Declarations and other provisions of the ACNA’s constitution clearly comes to the fore in ACNA’s canons, its catechism and its proposed 2019 Book of Common Prayer.

If the Anglican Church in North America had been organized as a new home for all these schools of thought, it would have been organized along more comprehensive lines in its doctrine and practices and more synodical lines in its governance. Its formularies would not favor one school of thought over the others. It governing structure would not permit the same school of thought to dominate its decision-making bodies.

A major contributing factor to the fragmentation that has characterized the St. Louis Continuing Anglican movement was that its Catholic Revivalist wing sought to impose its form of doctrine and practices on the rest of the movement. It caused a deep fracture in that movement. The ACNA’s Catholic Revivalist wing is doing the same thing in the Anglican Church in North America, causing a similar fracture in that province.

Rather than being a force for greater unity in the North American Anglican Church the Anglican Church in North America is the cause of division but not in the sense that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church claim. The ACNA is the cause of division within the conservative wing of the North American Anglican Church. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church created their own fracture in the North American Anglican Church when they adopted the liberal agenda for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the life and ministry of the church and ordained non-celibate LGBT clergy and authorized same-sex marriage rites.

The formation of second province in North America would recognize the existence of a fracture that the ACNA’s Catholic Revivalist wing has already caused. This fracture is one which that wing has no interest in repairing since closing the rift would require that wing to relinquish the gains that it has made in the Anglican Church in North America. Repairing the fracture is not in its self-interest.

A second fracture in the ACNA is the issue of the ordination of women. Those opposed to women’s ordination in pressing for a moratorium on the practice are contributing to the widening of that fissure.

When the ACNA’s bishops gather together twice a year, they may give a nod to the unity of the province. But the Anglican Church in North America is already fractured and any unity is an illusion. Instead of being a symbol of unity, the bishops are actually one of the causes of its fracturing. Rather than working to make the province more comprehensive in its doctrine and practices, the College of Bishops has been working to create an environment in the province, which is unfriendly to all conservative schools of thought but one—Catholic Revivalism. Rather than working to make the province more synodical in its governance, the College of Bishops has been encroaching about the authority of the other decision-making bodies in the province.

As for weakening the Anglican presence and witness in North America the formation of a second province in North America would have the opposite effect: it would strengthen the Anglican presence and witness in the Canada, Mexico, and the United States and their overseas territories. It would create a genuine Anglican presence and witness in North America, a presence and witness that is firmly built on the doctrinal foundation of historic Anglicanism—the Holy Scriptures and the historic Anglican formularies.

The ACNA’s constitution relegates any reference to the Jerusalem Declaration, which upholds the historic Anglican formularies as essential to a genuine Anglican identity, to its preamble where it is incidental to the narrative of the province’s formation and is not binding in anyway upon the province.

The ACNA’s Solemn Declarations equivocate in their acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. They dilute the authority of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as an integral part of Anglicanism’s longstanding standard of doctrine and practice.

The ACNA’s canons go further and take positions that are contrary to the doctrine and principles laid out in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The ACNA’s catechism is a hodgepodge of Arminian, Eastern Orthodox, Semi-Pelagian, and Roman Catholic doctrine. It misinterprets the Thirty-Nine Articles in several places and conflicts with the Articles in a number of places. Missing from the ACNA’s catechism is the Augustinian-Reformed doctrine that characterizes historic Anglicanism.

The ACNA’s 2019 proposed Book of Common Prayer embodies Roman Catholic doctrine and practices. It may borrow texts from the 1662 Prayer Book but in doctrine and liturgical usages it has little in common with the classical Anglican Prayer Book. The Roman Catholic Church also cannibalized texts from The Book of Common Prayer to produce a traditional language liturgy for the Anglican Ordinariate but like the ACNA’s 2019 proposed Prayer Book it also has little in common with the 1662 Prayer Book.

The catechism and the 2019 proposed Prayer Book are what the Anglican Church in North America is presenting to an unsuspecting public as representative of genuine Anglicanism. To my mind what the ACNA is doing comes pretty close to fraud. The criminal intent to deceive may be missing but the ACNA is clearly misleading people.

What is happening cannot be entirely dismissed as ignorance on the part of the ACNA’s leaders. A number of them do know better. They know what they are packaging as Anglicanism is not historic Anglicanism. They are a part of a movement that has sought to replace historic Anglicanism with its own form of doctrine and practices.

Former ACNA Archbishop Bishop Robert Duncan, for example, has called for a “new settlement;” Bishop Keith Ackerman for a “new Oxford movement.” Presiding Bishop Ray Sutton has played an influential role in leading the Reformed Episcopal Church away from the evangelical principles of its founders into what he claims is the mainstream of the Anglican Church, into what bears a strong resemblance to Catholic Revivalism in its form of doctrine and practices.

A number of the ACNA’s clergy and congregations have never been exposed to genuine Anglicanism. They may come from an Episcopal background. By the 1960s Catholic Modernism had become a major influence in the Episcopal Church. It had both Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church antecedents. In the 1960s and 1970s the Episcopal Church experienced the charismatic renewal movement and in the 1980s and 1990s the third-wave movement. They would also influence thinking in the Episcopal Church.

A number of these clergy and congregations may come from denominational or non-denominational backgrounds in which an Arminian-Pentecostal theology is the prevailing theology. They may have been influenced by one or both of the forms of Catholic Revivalism in the Anglican Church in North America—the Anglo-Catholic movement and the Ancient-Future Church movement.

The Ancient-Future Church movement had its beginnings in the Episcopal Church in which the late Robert Webber was a major figure in that movement. Webber’s books had a strong influence outside of the Episcopal Church, particularly among evangelicals and charismatics. One of the results was the formation of the convergence churches which blended liturgical worship with Pentecostal and later Roman Catholic theology.

While the Anglican Church in North America claims to be Anglican, independent Catholic or convergence might be a more accurate description of the denomination, based upon its governing documents, catechism, and proposed service book. The ACNA certainly does not represent authentic historic Anglicanism.

Except for the clergy, congregations, and dioceses that are fully committed to biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism, genuine Anglicanism is in very short supply in the Anglican Church in North America. Consequently the ACNA cannot be viewed as a strong Anglican presence and witness in North America. What would be weakened by the formation of a second province in North America would not the Anglican presence and witness but the mistaken perception that the ACNA is genuinely Anglican.

The Anglican formularies are the touchstone of historic Anglicanism. They distinguish the real thing from the bogus. The Thirty-Nine Articles serve four important purposes. I am for a large part quoting what J. I. Packer wrote in The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today. The Articles identify what the Anglican Church stands for in a divided Christianity. They safeguard the apostolic gospel. They guard the pulpit against anti-evangelical heresy. They circumscribe comprehensiveness with the gospel.

In equivocating over accepting the authority of the Articles in its Solemn Declarations and then disregarding their authority in its canons, its catechism, and its proposed service book, the Anglican Church in North American not only seeks to change Anglican identity but also the gospel. The doctrine expressed directly or indirectly in the ACNA’s canons, catechism, and proposed service book and the related practices carry a theological freight that not only promotes a different identity but also proclaim a different gospel.

Whatever language a province may, for example, use to avoid referring to Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Penance, and Unction as sacraments—sacramental rites, sacramental ministries, church sacraments, and so forth—that province in viewing these rites as means of grace has aligned itself with the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church. It has left the door wide open for other Roman Catholic doctrines such as actual and sanctifying grace and Roman Catholic views of justification and sanctification associated with these doctrines. It has tacitly abandoned the New Testament, Reformed, and Anglican doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It has set foot on a different path than the genuine Anglican Way.

Bringing together into a single province all the clergy, congregations and dioceses that are fully committed to biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism is a critical step toward creating a genuine Anglican presence and witness in North America. It would establish a much-needed network of churches for planting and growing new churches that share this commitment, remissioning existing churches; training,ordaining, and licensing clergy; equipping other church leaders; and developing and distributing resources for the use of churches both in and outside this network. It would provide the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans with a much-needed second option. Members of the FCA who are fully committed to biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism would not be faced with the awkward choice of supporting an ecclesial body with which they have no affinity other than a traditional view of marriage and human sexuality.

A string of kites can fly higher than a single kite. Each kite provides more lift, enabling the entire string to fly to great heights. Several churches together can also do far more than a single church alone. Imagine what several networks of churches can do.