Formularies for What?
I eavesdropped on a conversation once in which a very nice lady said, “I love being Episcopalian; you can believe anything and still be one!” She would agree with William James who famously said, “Anglicanism remains obese and round and comfortable and decent with this world’s decencies, without one acute note in its whole life or history.” Is this true? Do Anglicans and Episcopalians have theological distinctives to ground them, or does un-tethered diversity win the day? The church that stands for nothing will fall for anything! Within the roominess and generosity of this church is a rich heritage with clearly defined Anglican essentials.
The English reformers were willing to die for certain doctrinal beliefs — “I think it my duty to exhort you… defend the faith of Christ even until blood and unto death,” (Bishop Edwin Sandys, The Sermons of Edwin Sandys). They were a diverse bunch, to be sure, but they were united in their commitment to the supremacy of Holy Scripture over other authorities, to the central doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, to the priesthood of all believers, and to a sacramental understanding that the grace of Holy Communion is Christ’s spiritual presence in the hearts and affections of the faithful recipients. These inviolable Anglican doctrines are enshrined and fixed in the Elizabethan Settlement and the recognized formularies of the English Reformation. The historic formularies — the Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, the Book of Common Prayer, and books of Homilies — name and explain the essential doctrines of the Anglican Communion. The foundation for our unity as Anglicans is not some invented connection to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or a three-legged stool of authority (Scripture, reason and tradition), or three streams (Protestant, Catholic, and Pentecostal), as some will say. The modern tendency is to replace any number of organizational inventions for what has long been recognized as a theological definition. Anglican identity is grounded in a cohesive theology that is biblically based, confirmed over time, and preserved in the historic formularies.
The Articles of Religion
The Articles of Religion are often dismissed with an offhanded comment that Anglicans and Episcopalians are not “confessional” like Lutherans with the Augsburg Confession and Presbyterians with the Westminster Confession. The thinking that Anglicans do not have a defining statement of belief is simply not true. Thomas Cranmer wrote the Articles at the same time as the other great Protestant confessions, with the same purpose in mind. The 1571 (and final) version of the Articles succinctly states their purpose: “For the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true religion.” While it is clear that the Articles speak to sixteenth century issues in the Church of England, they are much broader in scope and more comprehensive with their attention to such core Christian doctrines as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of Holy Scripture. By addressing many matters — controversial and noncontroversial to the times — the Articles show themselves to be the church’s confession of faith. Since the Act of Parliament that established the Articles in 1571, all clergy ordained in the Church of England have been required to subscribe to the Articles as an authoritative statement of Anglican beliefs. Moreover, in many parts of the Anglican Communion today subscription is still required of ordinands, as the Articles “bear witness to the faith revealed in Scripture and set forth in the catholic creeds” (Church of England, Canon C15). William White, the first Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church championed the Articles, but he did not require their subscription since they were included in the Constitution of the church, and everyone ordained already vowed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church (its Constitution and Canons). The neglect of the Articles in one of the great tragedies of Modern Anglicanism.
So what is an Article, and how are they organized? An Article is simply an official position statement on an important doctrinal matter. The Thirty-nine Articles can be organized and divided into three sections: the catholic (as in “universal”), the Protestant, and the Anglican. Articles 1-8, the catholic Articles, define and describe what is to be believed by all Christians, everywhere and in every age. Articles 9-34 are the Protestant Articles that describe how Anglicanism is distinctly Protestant and not Roman Catholic. The last ones (Articles 35-39) are considered the Anglican Articles, describing aspects of Anglicanism that are distinctive from other parts of Protestantism. As Gerald Bray explains: “Understood in this way, the Thirty-nine Articles have a logical and harmonious symmetry, starting with the universal and going on progressively to what is more particular, first to the protestant world in general and then to the specific circumstances of the Church of England” (The Faith We Confess). The Articles have doctrinal authority today because they are recognized as Anglicans’ key doctrinal statement. At the General Convention of 1801, the fledgling Episcopal Church adopted the Articles as its theological standard. The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) Constitution and Canons states: “We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” The Jerusalem Declaration (Gafcon, 2008) states that “We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”
Those who want to know what Anglicans believe about Scripture, predestination, transubstantiation, and whether or not the sacrament’s efficacy depends on the holiness of their minister need only to read the Articles of Religion.
The Ordinal
Of the formularies, the most neglected is the Ordinal: The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons According to the Order of the Church of England. Archbishop Cranmer wrote the ordination services in 1550, the same rites that are substantially reproduced in the 1662 Prayer Book. Compared to the Medieval Catholic rites, the Reformation Ordinal was much shorter and simpler, recognizing the historicity of the three orders of ordained ministry (bishop, priest and deacon), and emphasizing the preaching of the Bible. “Above all, the English Ordinal is distinguished from its medieval precursors in the emphasis it places upon the Holy Scriptures as the norm by which the Ministry of the Church should teach the Faith and pattern both its own life and the lives of those committed to its charge” (Massey Shepherd, The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary). In the 1552 Ordinal, Cranmer refocused the nature of the ordained ministry by mandating that all three orders would be given copies of the Bible rather than the Medieval symbols of a sacrifice: chalice and paten (communion plate and cup) for a priest, and a ring and miter for bishops. The emphasis on preaching and proclaiming the word is again seen in the prayer that ends the service for the Ordination of a Priest (1662):
Most merciful Father, we beseech thee to send upon these thy servants thy heavenly blessing, that they may be clothed with righteousness, and that thy word spoken by their mouths, may have such success, that it many never be spoken in vain. Grant also that we may have grace to hear and receive what they shall deliver out of thy most holy Word, or agreeable to the same, as the means of our salvation; that in all thy words and deeds we may seek thy glory, and the increase of thy Kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer
The third historic formulary of Anglicanism is the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, the recognized standard for worship and theology in the Anglican Communion today and throughout its history. The 1662 Book is “Archbishop Cranmer’s immortal bequest,” (the title of Samuel Leuenberger’s celebrated book on the sources of the 1662 Prayer Book), his 1552 Prayer Book with only a few minor changes. In relatively recent history, a popular slogan was invented to suggest that Anglicans “believe what we pray” (lex orandi, lex credendi — the law of praying is the law of belief). But actually the opposite is true: our prayers reflect our theology and not the other way around. The Bible is the core of our beliefs and Anglican worship is patterned and based on its teaching.
Cranmer’s Prayer Book was revolutionary in almost every way. For a church and society that was no longer conversant in Latin, Medieval worship was reduced to a Christian’s private devotions during the mass while magical, unintelligible words were uttered at a high altar. To have worship in English meant that it was liturgy, the work of the whole people of God, and not just a fancy-dressed priest performing his duties for the people. By calling it “common prayer” Cranmer emphasized that its purpose was to engage the congregation’s attention, devotion and participation. The Prayer Book and its lectionary (the schedule of daily and Sunday Bible readings), led the English people to explore the whole of the Bible based on the Old Testament read annually in sequence, the New Testament read three times a year, and the Psalms read several times through in a year. The liturgy itself was composed largely of words and phrases directly taken from Holy Scripture. And since everyone in Great Britain was required by the 1552 Book of Common Prayer to attend Sunday worship, the liturgy served to inculcate into British minds and hearts all the promises of God. The Book of Common Prayer was composed with the unashamed intention to bring all who would hear to everlasting salvation though Christ. Its liturgies and prayers are a bold proclamation of God’s love for sinners. As Ashley Null summarizes: “In short, the heart of Cranmer’s liturgies is moving human affections to serve God and neighbor by the power of the gospel” (Thomas Cranmer ‘s Doctrine of Repentance).
The Book of Common Prayer removed all suggestions of Eucharistic sacrifice, transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and purgatory. Stone altars, which suggested that Jesus was re-sacrificed in every mass, were replaced by wooden communion tables. The Word of God (God’s promised presence) replaced the priest as the instrument by which grace is offered in the sacrament. Other sacerdotal priestly actions were summarily removed: the lifting-up (elevation) and adoration of the sacrament, sanctus bells, and the prayer invoking the Holy Spirit (the “epiclesis”). Whereas in the Middle Ages the wine of Holy Communion was considered too holy for non-clergy, the new Prayer Book ordered that everyone, lay and clergy alike, were to receive both the bread and wine. Private confession to a priest, known as auricular confession, was offered as a pastoral option for some who might find it helpful, but it was no longer a requirement for receiving Holy Communion. All of this and more emphasizes the work of God on the people of God, and is contained in the recognized standard of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. In the words of the Jerusalem Declaration:
“We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.”
The Two Books of Homilies
The “Homilies” mentioned in Articles of Religion II and XXXV refer to the original 12 Homilies written in 1543 — were then forgotten — and then resurfaced to be published in 1547. The second book of Homilies, twenty-one of them, was published in 1563, and the 21st was added in 1571. The two books are usually published together. The Homilies are sermons of a topical nature that were written to be read (preached) in all the churches of England in sequence. It was not unusual for clergy in pre-Reformation times to be untrained preachers, and not at all uncommon for them to read a homily from an established collection. It was only with the Reformation that ministers rediscovered the power of the Word read aloud and preached.
The purpose of the two books of Homilies was to provide sound teaching in churches for its re-formation of church and society, to compensate for the lack of skilled preachers in England, and especially to systematically and memorably communicate the gospel. “Despite the Protestant priorities, and even the subject of the first homily [Holy Scripture], the Reformers’ intention for the homilies was not to teach people the Bible itself, but instead to teach them a systematic doctrinal framework” (Tim Patrick, Anglican Foundations). It’s easy to see how God used the Homilies to help ordinary people understand what the Reformation was about, and to impart a theological mindset around the authority of the Bible and the central doctrine of justification by grace through faith. They weren’t originally written to be official doctrine or to serve as a “formulary,” but over time they were recognized as a sound source of Anglican teaching. They are not easily read today because the sentences in Elizabethan English are very long. Thomas Cranmer was the author of four of the original twelve homilies: Holy Scripture, Salvation, Faith, and Faith and Good Works. Historian Gerald Bray writes that the homily on Holy Scripture gives us the context for which Articles 6 and 7 of the Articles of Religion were written and is “the most extensive exposition of the doctrine of Scripture to be found in any official Anglican document of the Reformation era” (Gerald Bray, A Fruitful Exhortation).
This question is always before Anglicans and Episcopalians: if our tradition is not defined and guarded by traditional Anglican formularies as identified in the English Reformation, then where does innovation stop? Can we add a regulative principle to our worship to satisfy our puritanical tendencies? Or a sacramental theology or view of ordination that is closer to Roman Catholic than Anglican because it meets our aesthetic sensitivities? Or just announce that the Episcopal Church has three equal legs of authority (Scripture, tradition, and reason) or three streams (Catholic, Protestant, and charismatic)? Such innovations inevitably lead to wilder conclusions that are unbiblical and offensive to the creedal faith of the church.
The nice lady I overheard was wrong. The most dangerous threat to Anglican identity today is the culture’s infatuation with “tolerance.” It sometimes seems more important to be polite than truthful, to celebrate our differences than to assert that we know something with confidence. Diversity, once only a description of the colorful variety that makes up our Church, has seemingly become the objective of our faith. A bishop I once heard said that it is better to be loving than to be correct. This must be true, as far as it goes. But the best is to be loving and correct. In fact, something cannot really be loving unless it is based in truth (“Love rejoices in the truth” 1 Corinthians 13:6). To pursue unity at the expense of truth does not lead to unity in the church, but unity of the church to the world. Jesus said that the truth will make us free (John 8:32), not some hollow sentimentalism that embraces every teaching that comes down the road. The hope for unity among Anglicans and Episcopalians in America and around the world lies in its history that is founded on the enduring truth of God’s revealed Word as reflected the historic formularies.