Whither Now?

December 3, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 48 Comments

By Robin G. Jordan

Well-meaning friends tell me that Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics cannot walk together, especially Evangelicals who hold to the Biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and The Ordinal of 1661. They insist that Evangelicals should come out of the constituent bodies of the newly forming Anglican Church in North America and form their own separate entity. Evangelicals who have not joined one of these bodies should not become a part of the new province. While I see their point, I do not believe that separation is the best option for Evangelicals at this moment in time. Here is why.

In 1873 Bishop George David Cummins and a group of conservative Evangelical clergy and laity succeeded from the Protestant Episcopal Church and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church. One hundred and twenty five years later the Reformed Episcopal Church is a small denomination with no churches in Kentucky where Cummins was assistant bishop. The Reformed Episcopal Church is also no longer “Reformed.” A large segment of the church has been influenced by the Tractarianism and ritualism that prompted the founders of the church to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church and have departed from the principles of the church’s founders. Among the evidence of the church’s departure from the evangelical faith of its founders is its adoption of rites of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the first major revision of the American Prayer Book which introduced far-reaching and even radical changes into the American Prayer Book and moved it in an unreformed Catholic and liberal direction.

After Bishop Cummins and conservative Evangelicals succeeded from the Protestant Episcopal Church, the remaining Evangelicals succumbed to liberalism and adopted Broad Church principles. Evangelicalism virtually disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. For sixty years the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church were Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church liberalism. In 1925 the General Convention adopted a resolution authorizing the removal of the Thirty-Nine Articles from the Prayer Book. This effort was abandoned in 1928 because the removal of the Thirty-Nine Articles from the Prayer Book would have required revision of the church’s constitution.

In the United Kingdom conservative Evangelicals did not withdraw from the Church of England due to the growth and increased influence of Tractarianism and ritualism. They went on the offensive. One hundred and twenty-five years later Evangelicals still maintain a substantial presence in the Church of England albeit we see a number of significant divisions in the church’s Evangelical wing. During those 125 years Evangelicalism spread throughout what is now the Anglican Communion. The largest group of churchgoers in the Anglican Communion is Evangelical. Anglo-Catholics and liberals are minority groups—highly vocal minority groups exercising a degree of influence disproportionate to their size but nonetheless minority groups.

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the Episcopal Church experienced a resurgence of Classical Anglican Evangelicalism. This resurgence began with a few isolated individuals who largely came from the English Evangelicals or were influenced by them. They included Peter Moore, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, and John Guest. The resurgence resulted in the opening of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in 1976.

In 2008 we find two major groups of Evangelicals in North American Anglicanism—charismatic Evangelicals and confessional, or Reformed, Evangelicals. The second group is made up of a number of subgroups. Several subgroups of Reformed Evangelicals can be found in the formerly Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and Common Cause Partners such as the Anglican Mission in Americas and the Reformed Episcopal Church. One subgroup consists of graduates of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and their congregations. A second subgroup consists of pastors who came from these bodies and trained in Reformed seminaries and their congregations. A third subgroup consists of candidates for Holy Orders coming from the same bodies and training in Reformed seminaries. A fourth subgroup consists of Reformed pastors who came from outside of these judicatories, who were attracted to Anglicanism’s historical formularies and liturgical worship, and are now serving congregations in one of the same judicatories, and their congregations. A fifth subgroup consists of the Reformed Evangelical pastors and congregations in the Reformed Episcopal Church, who have remained faithful to the doctrines and principles of the REC founders. A sixth subgroup consists of Evangelical pastors who, while they may have not studied in a Reformed seminary, embrace Reformed doctrines and principles, and their congregations. Several subgroups of Reformed Evangelicals can also be found in Continuing Anglican judicatories and even in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church.

Reformed Evangelicals are dispersed among a number of judicatories and are not concentrated in any one judicatory. They are widely scattered and isolated from each other. They typically share a judicatory with other groups that have different views of the character of Anglicanism, of the history of the Anglican Church, and of the place of their own school of thought and that of other schools of thought in the Anglican tradition. These groups also have doctrinal beliefs and practices that are fundamentally different from those of Reformed Evangelicals and which do not harmonize with them.

Both inside the constituent bodies that are going to form the new Anglican Church in North America and outside those bodies Reformed Evangelicals lack strong, dynamic, and consistent leadership. Even where they have numerical strength, they do not enjoy a degree of influence commensurate with their numbers. Other groups are better organized than they are and exercise greater influence. They have no organizations like the Church Association and the National Church League that brought together Church of England Evangelicals in the nineteenth century.

None of the existing Anglican judicatories in North American genuinely represents the Reformed Evangelical tradition. Some judicatories may lay claim to the Reformation heritage of the Anglican Church but the actions of their leaders belie their claim. The Prayer Book Society of the USA and the Anglican Mission in Americas collaborated to produce two service books—Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008). The Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration of Principles stipulates that alternative rites developed for use in the Anglican Mission must conform to the doctrines and forms of the classic Anglican Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. Despite its title Services in Contemporary English from The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (2006) does not meet this requirement. Neither does An Anglican Prayer Book (2008). Both draws heavily from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer, and the 1928 English Revised Book of Common Prayer and embody their Catholic theology and not the Biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The so-called “1662 English Order” for the Holy Communion in An Anglican Prayer Book (2008) contains a number of Catholic elements that are not found in the 1662 BCP. Yet two senior bishops of the Anglican Mission, in contradiction to the Solemn Declaration of Principles of that body, endorsed both service books. This also shows that even in judicatories that are ostensibly committed to classical Anglicanism and Reformation Christianity, Reformed Evangelicals cannot expect their bishops to defend the Reformed Evangelical tradition.

Some Evangelicals may see the foregoing as very good reasons to separate. However, they need to consider the following.

In the Continuum judicatories in which the constitutions, the canons, and the church leaders promote the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer cannot be regarded as truly standing in the Reformed Evangelical tradition however these judicatories choose to describe themselves. The 1928 BCP is a contradiction of the Reformed Evangelical tradition.

In Archbishop Cranmer’s Immortal Bequest – The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: An Evangelistic Liturgy Samuel Leuenberger analyzes what he calls the “revivalistic,” or evangelistic, elements in the three principal liturgies in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. He points out that the text of the penitential sentences at the beginning of the services of Morning and Evening Prayer are so compiled that they let one discern for oneself the way to overcome sin through repentance. The Holy Spirit can also use them as he uses a minister’s preaching to convict a sinner and bring him to repentance. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer does away with these sentences and replaces them with sentences like Habakkuk 2:20, John 4:23, and Acts 1.8. A number of the penitential sentences are retained but they have been turned into seasonal sentences and scattered among the other sentences. They no longer serve the purpose that they serve in the 1662 Prayer Book. When one compares the 1928 BCP with its predecessors, it becomes apparent that the penitential language of these first two American Prayer Books has been diluted and a number of references to God’s anger or his wrath have been expunged. With these changes the 1928 BCP downplays not only the depravity of man but also de-emphasizes the response of a holy God to human sinfulness.

The two dominant schools of thought in the Episcopal Church at the time of the adoption of the 1928 Prayer Book were the Anglo-Catholics and the Broad Church liberals. The theology of these two schools of thought is reflected in the 1928 BCP. Anglo-Catholics supported these changes in the American Prayer Book because the changes are consistent with the Catholic view that man is not wholly depraved and the believer can save himself with the help of the grace that flows from Christ through the sacraments. In The American Prayer Book: Its Origins and Principles Edward Lambe Parson and Bayard Hale Jones provide an explanation of why Broad Church liberals supported these changes:

“They looked at…the interpretation of the Bible. In a way greatly different from that of previous generations. They were surer of God’s love, and less dogmatic about his wrath. They were increasingly eager to make worship more beautiful, and thus more worthy.”

The alteration of the language of the American Prayer is just one of a number of ways that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer helped to pave the way for the ascendancy of liberalism in The Episcopal Church. The 1928 BCP not only spread unbiblical doctrines and practices throughout the Episcopal Church but also fostered a disregard for biblical authority and an acceptance of doctrinal beliefs inconsistent with the Scriptures.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer introduced several major doctrinal changes into the American Prayer Book:

1. The 1928 Prayer Book restores the two-fold offering of the bread and wine of the Medieval service books, the first offering at the Offertory and the second during the Prayer of Consecration, which has a long association with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. The Anglican Church had rejected these doctrines as “repugnant” to the word of God at the Reformation in the sixteenth century.

2. In the 1928 BCP the second offering of bread and wine follows the Words of Institution as it does in the Medieval Mass and the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office. In both liturgies this offering is seen as not as an offering of the bread and wine to God for use for the sacrament but as the offering of Christ’s Body and Blood to God as a reiteration or representing of Christ’s sacrifice.

3. The 1928 BCP directs the priest to stand in the eastward position, his back to the congregation, at the beginning of the Communion Service and of the Prayer of Consecration, a position has a long association with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

4. The 1928 BCP moves the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access to a position immediately before the distribution of Holy Communion. The rubrics make provision for the singing of a hymn before the distribution. This provision permits the singing of the Agnus Dei. Steven Gardiner pointed out that these three elements in this arrangement in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Martin Bucer in his Censura also drew the same conclusion. He also pointed out that the epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit in the 1549 Canon also suggests that the eucharistic elements undergo some kind of change other than in use. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration is a revision of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration and like that prayer has an epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit. The two Scottish Non Juror Bishops who compiled the 1764 Consecration Prayer were Usagers and believed that Christ did not offer himself to God upon the cross for our redemption but at the Last Supper. He was only slain on the cross. They taught that the priest re-offers Christ’s offering of himself symbolically in the consecrated bread and wine, God accepts the offering, blesses and sanctifies it, and then offers Christ’s Body and Blood to the communicant. The Words of Institution consecrate the bread and wine and the invocation of the Holy Spirit blesses and sanctifies the eucharistic elements.

5. In dropping the Flood prayer and recasting the prayer, “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, etc.,” the 1928 BCP places much greater emphasis upon the priestly consecration of the water in the font than do the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the previous American Prayer Books. This is consistent with Catholic sacerdotalism and sacramentalism and the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

In adding the Second Office of Instruction to the Catechism, omitting the 1662 Preface from the Order of Confirmation, adding a presentation of the candidates for confirmation similar to that of candidates for ordination, and adding Acts 8 as an optional reading the 1928 BCP interprets confirmation as a sacrament in all but name only. It teaches that when the bishop lays hands upon the confirmand, a “measure” of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit’ gifts are invariably conferred upon the confirmand. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer interprets confirmation as a catechetical rite in which those baptized as infants have opportunity to profess their faith before the church and to own for themselves the baptismal vows that were made on their behalf and to receive the prayers of the church for the strengthening of the Holy Spirit. It assumes that, since the candidate for confirmation is making a profession of faith, he has received the Holy Spirit. For without the Holy Spirit he could not make a genuine profession of faith. The bishop prays that God will “daily increase in them the manifold gifts of grace” and not that God will give them a “measure” of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit’s gifts.

7. The 1928 BCP drops the “militant here in earth” from the title of the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church and inserts a petition for the departed into the prayer. The 1928 BCP also adds prayers for the departed to the Order for the Burial of the Dead.

A Continuing Anglican judicatory that promotes the use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer is not Protestant, much less Reformed. The Episcopal Church may have not yet dropped the “Protestant” from its name in 1928 but even then it was Protestant in name only and certainly not in its doctrine or its worship.

The lack of strong, dynamic, and consistent Reformed Evangelical leadership exists not only in the constituent bodies that are going to form the new province but also outside them. At the present time there is no Reformed Evangelical judicatory with leaders who are mission-minded and capable of leading a growing and vibrant judicatory. There is nowhere to go.

Most Reformed Evangelicals in North America are investing their energies, resources, and time in the new Anglican Church in North America. They are like a young couple, which have bought their first home. They are oblivious to bad plumbing, the faulty electrical wiring, the loose shingles, and the termite damage. It may take them several years and a lot of money later to realize that their first home is not the dream house that they thought it would be.

The way forward I believe is to organize Reformed Evangelicals both in the constituent bodies that are going to form the new Anglican Church in North America and outside these bodies, to establish a network of Reformed Evangelicals that crosses judicatory boundaries and to use this network to not only take steps to ensure that the Reformed Evangelical tradition grows and thrives in the new province but also outside it. The lesson today’s Reformed Evangelicals can learn from the nineteenth century Evangelicals is to stay in the new province as long as they can. In doing so they will not only advance the cause of Reformed Evangelicalism but also that of the gospel.

Should they, however, discover that their new home is not the house of their dreams and they must find somewhere else to live, they have already established the foundation of another new home upon which they can build. Their next step would be to elect a college of bishops who would provide the kind of mission-minded, capable leadership that a growing and vibrant Reformed Evangelical judicatory would need, and to secure their consecration.

But this option they really should put out of their minds altogether so that they can wholeheartedly devote themselves to establishing a strong Reformed Evangelical presence in the new province and even stronger zone of Reformed Evangelical influence. They also need to remember that a number of the other groups that comprise North American Anglicanism would be only too glad to see them go. These groups already dismiss Reformed Evangelicals as not being truly representative of authentic Anglicanism. The departure of Reformed Evangelicals from the new province would be a significant victory for them. They could then represent themselves as the mainstream of North America Anglicanism and Reformed Evangelicals as a fringe group. They could shape the life and worship of the new province to their liking. They could, as The Episcopal Church does now, claim to be the official representative of Anglicanism in North America. Having recognized a second North American province, the global South primates might be reluctant to recognize a third. Reformed Evangelicals would be robbed of their Anglican identity even though they embody genuine Anglicanism.