BCP Commentary 2 - 'the prayers' Part 2

Let's continue looking at the 'prayers' section of the BCP - a section full of good teaching and Biblical prayers which offer us a fantastic model for our own.

Prayer in the time of war and tumults

O ALMIGHTY God, King of all kings, and Governor of all things, whose power no creature is able to resist, to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to them that truly repent: Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; abate their pride, asswage their malice, and confound their devices; that we, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee, who art the only giver of all victory; through the merits of thy only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

War is a terrible thing, as are times of civil unrest.  From the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, to the civil wars in Syria and the Central African Republic, for many people war is simply the reality in which they live.  Even here in the UK war is not so distant, our troops are abroad and the risk of war is ever present.  But what do we learn from this prayer?

1)  Firstly God is the "King of all Kings, and Governor of all things".  God is in charge, He is the ultimate ruler, this is not a democracy it is a benevolent theocratic dictatorship.  All earthly kings and governors are only in power because God allows them to be.

2)  "Whose power no creature is able to resist" is an important line.  God is so powerful that no living thing, including ourselves, can resist Him and His will.  If God wants to change a sinners heart that it might turn to Him that is not a problem.  There is nothing - no thing - that God in His mighty power cannot make happen.  Free will is not inviolable, that is one of the simple Biblical truths that foolishly we love to deny.  If God cannot 'override' human free will then what is the point in praying that God would bring our friends and family to Himself? - if He can't act against their 'free will' then there is no point in such prayers.

3)  God is perfectly just in punishing sinners, indeed it is His 'job.'  The role of judge of the universe belongs to God alone.  Yet in His mercy He always accepts true repentance.  The word true is very important because God is not impressed by window dressing and crocodile tears.

"God is in charge, He is the ultimate ruler, this is not a democracy it is a benevolent theocratic dictatorship"

4)  In calling on God to deliver us from our enemies we pray that He would, above all else, change their hearts and minds. We pray that He would humble their pride and lessen their malice.  This is a prayer for God to send His Holy Spirit to regenerate our enemies and give them new birth that they might become not enemies but family through faith in Jesus.

5)  Our greatest defence is war and trouble is not tanks and big guns, body armour or numbers, but God - we are armed with His defence not our own.  This is important because if we try to win the war on our own strength we will find that we are too weak, if we try to win it by our own cleverness we will find that we are too stupid.  In Christ alone is victory found.

6)  All of this we can confidently pray because Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of holiness and righteousness, He merits the Father's love and action.  We don't, but when we pray in Jesus name we are given His holiness and righteousness, we have these 'imputed' or placed on us by someone else, and thus God hears and acts.

Prayer in the time of any common plague of sickness.

O ALMIGHTY God, who in thy wrath didst send a plague upon thine own people in the wilderness, for their obstinate rebellion against Moses and Aaron; and also, in the time of king David, didst slay with the plague of pestilence threescore and ten thousand, and yet remembering thy mercy didst save the rest: Have pity upon us miserable sinners, who now are visited with great sickness and mortality; that like as thou didst then accept of an atonement, and didst command the destroying Angel to cease from punishing, so it may now please thee to withdraw from us this plague and grievous sickness; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

1) Once again this prayer speaks Scripture back to God - it looks to the plagues brought upon the Hebrews during their Exodus and during the time of David.  Why is this relevant?  Because in these instances God remembered His mercy and saved Himself a remnant. God is merciful and will always save for Himself a remnant of the faithful who are elected to eternal life.

 "Free will is not inviolable, that is one of the simple Biblical truths that foolishly we love to deny."

2)  When God sends 'punishment' upon nations and people, or disciplines His children, it is not a dispassionate affair.  Like us God gets angry, His wrath burns when He acts in such a way.  But His anger and wrath are always perfectly just and right whilst ours are nearly always not.  It simply will not do to try and pretend that the God of the Bible - Old and New Testaments - is not at times a very angry God.

3)  The right response to God is to recognise that we are "miserable sinners" who need pity not a slap on the back or a fist bump.  

4)  The prayer again turns to stories it first mentioned and how God accepted an atonement for the sins of the people and  thus stopped the "destroying Angel"  (who biblically may actually be the pre-incarnate Jesus!).  The only way for God's just and holy wrath to be sated is by atonement, by sacrifice.  Thankfully God paid for and made that sacrifice Himself upon the Cross for us.  When we are facing difficult times we should always first go back to Calvary and remember for ourselves that the price has been paid.

Prayers for in the Ember Weeks, to be said every day, for those that are to be admitted into Holy Orders. 

Once again there are two different prayers for the people to be made by officially recognised ministers in the Church.  We will look at them together and mine their deep and plentiful riches in terms of teaching and doctrine.

ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who hast purchased to thyself an universal Church by the precious blood of thy dear Son: Mercifully look upon the same, and at this time so guide and govern the minds of thy servants the Bishops and Pastors of thy flock, that they may lay hands suddenly on no man, but faithfully and wisely make choice of fit persons to serve in the sacred Ministry of thy Church. And to those which shall be ordained to any holy function give thy grace and heavenly benediction; that both by their life and doctrine they may set forth thy glory, and set forward the salvation of all men; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

ALMIGHTY God, the giver of all good gifts, who of thy divine providence hast appointed divers Orders in thy Church: Give thy grace, we humbly beseech thee, to all those who are to be called to any office and administration in the same; and so replenish them with the truth of thy doctrine, and endue them with innocency of life, that they may faithfully serve before thee, to the glory of thy great Name, and the benefit of thy holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

1)  The universal Church, God's people, the Body of Christ, was purchased from sin and error and darkness by God.  The price of this ransom was paid in the currency of the drops of blood of Jesus Christ.  The buying of our salvation from sin, the ransoming of us from our deserved fate in hell, was a costly, costly, thing - we should rejoice in the love of God to pay this price for us.

2) Bishops are not just people in pointy hats (not that they should be wearing mitres in the first place - mitre as well go to Rome if you want to wear such things!).  In this prayer we see their vital role in safeguarding the Church from error by only bringing into the Ministry - a 'sacred' and holy thing - those who are fit to serve in it under Christ.  Bishops, and these days by extension their "Bishops Advisory Panels" desperately need the mind of Christ that they might not only wisely choose those God is calling but do so faithfully by abiding to the Gospel and the truth of the Scriptures.  

4) God has in His wisdom given us different kinds of Ministers or "divers Orders" for the organising and building up of His Church just as He has given different gifts.  The Bible only seems to give two: Presbyters/Elders or Bishops/Overseers and Deacons.  However, even in Scripture it seem apparent that certain Presbyters and/or Overseers led and had the greatest authority.  Paul clearly left the likes of Timothy and Titus in charge of congregations and told them to oversee the ordaining of new Ministers.  By 90AD we know from Bishop Ignatius of Antioch that the 'threefold order' of Bishop-Presbyter-Deacon was in place in many areas but not universal.  It seems to have caught on completely till the Reformation shortly after.  Whilst I do not believe the three-fold order is the only acceptable one, it is certainly eminently Biblical and to my mind the best for order and discipline in the Church.

3)  Your ministers really, really, need your prayers!  We need God's grace each and everyday and His blessing upon us.  Recently being a Minister was ranked by Forbes Magazine as the 5th most demanding  kind of job in the world.  We are sinners just like you and need prayer and support just like you.

4)  Ministers are to display, show, and proclaim the glory of God - His majesty, His Holiness, His love, His power, by not only preaching the Bible but by their life and doctrine.  Whilst still sinners like everyone else Ministers are called to be in the words of St. Paul to Timothy

"Above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy... have a good reputation among outsiders"  1 Timothy 3.1-3, 7

So no pressure!  

But not only must our lives be above reproach, our doctrine must be too.  This is perhaps the single most important issue facing the Church today - bad doctrine.  In Anglican terms this means that Ministers should adhere to the teaching of the Scriptures without question, to the Creeds of the ancient church, to the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the Ordinal.  This is the depository of correct and true doctrine, the faith revealed in the Scriptures.  Without acceptance of these things no one should be ordained into the Church of England.

"The right response to God is to recognise that we are 'miserable sinners' who need pity not a slap on the back or a fist bump. "

5) Ministers are to "set forward the salvation of all men" that is to say that we are to preach the Gospel all day and all night, in season and out of season.  As Bishop J.C. Ryle said

"[nothing] will ever do so much good to souls as the powerful, fiery, fervent, preaching of God's Word.  Daily services without sermons may gratify and edify a few handfuls of believers, but they will never reach, draw, attract, or arrest the great mass of mankind.  If men want to do good to the multitude, if they want to reach their hearts and consciences, they must walk in the steps of Wyclif, Latimer, Luther, Chrysostom, and St. Paul.  They must attack them through their ears; they must blow the trumpet of the everlasting Gospel loud and long; they must preach the Word."

Oomph - nothing like a bit of Ryle to stir up a fire down in your soul!

A Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, to be read during their session.

We turn now to the prayer for the government which lays down many Biblical principles.

MOST gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for this Kingdom in general, so especially for the High Court of Parliament, under our most religious and gracious Queen at this time assembled: That thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and her Dominions; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations. These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole Church, we humbly beg in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

1) This should be obvious from this prayer: we should pray for our government - whether we like them or not!  St. Paul calls on us to "pray for all those in authority so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" 1 Timothy 2.2  We pray that we may have peace and happiness, truth. justice etc.  For this to happen our leaders need to be directed by God and for God to bless and prosper all their decisions.  

"At a time when gay 'marriage' has been pushed through parliament, when people are facing prison for denouncing such sinful things, when street preachers are arrested and Christian freedoms hypocritically quashed we really must pray for our government"

2)  The main reason why we should want our governments to rule and govern justly and rightly is not so we don't have to pay so much tax or so we get looked after but that everything may be "to the advancement of thy glory" when the Reformers spoke of everything being 'to the glory of God alone' they meant it to be taken literally.

3) We should pray in particular for the government to look after and promote the good of the Church that for both now and for our children there may be true religion and piety in our land.  Great Britain has a noble and glorious history when it comes to Christianity - the greatest church of the Reformation, the forefront of world missionary activity, the birth place of the likes of Whitfield and Wesley, the home of Wycliffe and Cranmer, the land of Spurgeon and Ryle, the country of Lloyd-Jones and Stott.  Yet today our legacy is in tatters, our once shining shields of gold are now in the bottom of a ditch covered in the cow dung and sewerage of liberalism, sin, bad doctrine, ritualism, and cowardice.  We should pray that not only our leaders be emboldened in the Gospel but that the government should not hinder this happening - indeed they should promote it.  

At a time when gay 'marriage' has been pushed through parliament, when people are facing prison for denouncing such sinful things, when street preachers are arrested and Christian freedoms hypocritically quashed we really must pray for our government - prayer is powerful and can move mighty empires (or little islands!)

A Collect or Prayer for all Conditions of men, to be used at such times when the Litany is not appointed to be said.

And so we turn to our final two prayers in this section of the BCP - both of a more general nature.  This first one covers just about everything, it is the 'Lord's Prayer' of the Anglican Church in its all-encompassing scope  (though Jesus' one was better.)

O GOD, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men; that thou wouldest be pleased to make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health unto all nations. More especially we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life. Finally we commend to thy fatherly goodness all those, who are any ways afflicted or distressed in mind, body, or estate; [*especially those for whom our prayers are desired;] that it may please thee to comfort and relieve them, according to their several necessities, giving them patience under their sufferings, and a happy issue out of all their afflictions. And this we beg for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen.

1) God not only created us but preserves us, each and every second we are alive, each and every breath we take and beat of our heart only happens because God preserves us and the universe.  For this we should never cease to be in awe and give mighty thanks.

2) In this prayer just about everything is prayed for, yet the very first petition is that God would reveal Himself to us and all people, that He would bring us to Him and show us His ways and truth.  Is this really our top priority when we pray?  I know it is generally not mine, but I am challenged to make it so.

3) More specifically we should pray for the "the Catholick Church".  This is a phrase many stumble over so I will make it simple.  When we read 'Catholick' in the BCP or the Articles, or the Creeds it does not mean nor is it at all related to the Roman Catholic Church.  The word catholic means 'Universal' - when we pray for the 'Catholick Church' or 'catholic church' we are praying for the true Church of God, the Body of Christ.  When we confess in the Creeds that there is "one holy and catholic apostolic church" we mean that that there is an 'invisible church' which is the one true and holy church consisting of the true believers, the elect, who hold to the apostolic teaching and who will go to heaven.  Not everyone who goes to the church we see around us - the visible church - is actually Christian or will go to heaven.  In this prayer we are praying that the church we see around us would indeed by that 'invisible church' of true believers and that God would make this so by keeping the visible church in good doctrine, faith, and practice: or in the words of this prayer "That it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life"

4)  Only once you have prayed for the conversion of the world to Christ, for the Church of God, only then can you or should you pray for other people and yourselves about needs of body, mind, spirit, or life.  We can lift all things to God in prayer no matter how small or large, there is no concern we have which God is not interested in hearing about and lovingly responding to - whatever that response may be.  We should pray for people by name, lifting them up to God our Father trusting that as they are His children He will love them with a perfect love. 

5) Finally, when we pray we beg.  You beg for something when you need it but know you don't deserve or have a right to get it.  This is us.  If our prayers don't sound like we are begging then we are not praying right.  Think of the tax-collector who prayed to God in the parable we find in Luke 18.9-14

“But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even raise his eyes to heaven but kept striking his chest and saying, ‘God, turn Your wrath from me—a sinner!’"

This is what we call begging, this is what we call real prayer  - and this is the kind of prayer and the kind of man whom Jesus said walks away justified.

And it is this kind of prayer, this kind of humble heart, which is recognised in the final prayer of this part of the BCP - it is a prayer which can be said after any of the above to reinforce the point that we are sinners who don't deserve God's love and care but that He is merciful nonetheless:

A Prayer that may be said after any of the former.

O GOD, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy and to forgive, receive our humble petitions; and though we be tied and bound with the chain of our sins, yet let the pitifulness of thy great mercy loose us; for the honour of Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

And the people said: AMEN!

BCP Commentary 2 - 'the prayers' Part 1

In our last commentary on the BCP we looked at the start of the services of Morning and Evening Prayer - the Scriptural and Reformed prayers which bring the congregation not only to a true understanding of repentance but also a true understanding of their hope in Christ.  

Towards the end of the BCP services of Morning and Evening Prayer there is an opportunity to add in prayers and thanksgivings for various things.  These are all written out under a section following the Litany which Cranmer, in his original wit, named "Prayers and Thanksgivings."  This section of the BCP is kind of like Ronseal - it does exactly what is says on the tin.  Yet there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of deep and important teaching about God and humanity in this part of the BCP.  In this article were are going to look at the Prayers, and in the future we will turn to the Thanksgivings.  I have underlined important parts of the prayers to draw you attention to the key words and phrases I will be looking at.

Prayer for rain

Recently the UK has had a terrible problem with rain, storms, flooding, and tidal surges.  Huge parts of the country are simply a mess and a number of people have died - I would hope that no one has been using the first of these prayers, the prayer for rain:

O GOD, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ hast promised to all them that seek thy kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, all things necessary to their bodily sustenance: Send us, we beseech thee, in this our necessity, such moderate rain and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth to our comfort, and to thy honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

So, what does this prayer teach us?  

1)  Firstly, that when we pray to God we pray not to some distant and abstract idea or figure but to our "heavenly Father" - someone we have an intimate relationship with.  Someone who loves us and who we love back.  Someone who cares for us and who we want to obey and respect.  This is important because it means we can trust Him fully to have our best interests at heart. In all our prayers we should pray "not my will, but Yours be done" - we should not demand but humbly request, with an emphasis on the humble.  Ultimately, when we pray we should always remember that 'Dad knows best'

"One basic principle of Biblical prayer to is to pray Scripture back to God."

2)  Secondly, we learn that God has promised those who believe in Jesus "all things necessary to their bodily sustenance."  Listen to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew chapter 6.25-34 concerning prayer:

25 “This is why I tell you: Don’t worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the sky: They don’t sow or reap or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they? 27 Can any of you add a single cubit to his height by worrying? 28 And why do you worry about clothes? Learn how the wildflowers of the field grow: they don’t labour or spin thread. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendour was adorned like one of these! 30 If that’s how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the furnace tomorrow, won’t He do much more for you—you of little faith? 31 So don’t worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32 For the idolaters eagerly seek all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you. 34 Therefore don’t worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Recognise any of that from the BCP prayer for rain?  That is because this prayer is pregnant with Biblical foundations and principles.  Does this mean that if you have faith you will never go hungry, that all those people in Africa who profess Christ with their lips but starve to death are not really Christians?  No, this is a general principle, but importantly God wants us to seek first His Kingdom and Righteousness which is what matters most; we shouldn't spend all our time praying for our basic needs.  This is something the BCP prayer for rain recognises.  Rather than just praying for the basics it boldly affirms that those who seek the Kingdom and the righteousness within it God will provide for as He sees fit.  One basic principle of Biblical prayer to is to pray Scripture back to God.

It is in light of this promise that God has made, not because of our own worthiness of His mercy, that the prayer can go on to beseech God to send moderate rain and showers.  The rain is needed to receive the fruits of the earth - it is needed to help the crops grow.

3)  But there is one final point this prayer makes which is very important.  The prayer ends by saying that we need this rain to receive food "to our comfort, and to thy honour."  Whenever we pray for something it should not only be that we ourselves should be satisfied but also, and more importantly, that God is glorified and honoured - that God is shown to the world to fulfil His promises, that God's mighty power to affect and change anything and everything, including the weather, is supreme.  Not only should we live lives that honour God, but our very prayers and requests to Him should be ones that will bring Him the most and the highest honour.

"Because of our sin we deserve bad things.  It really is that simple."

Prayer for fair weather

Having dealt with a prayer in case of drought, we turn to the prayer in case of flooding - a prayer we in the UK should be using at times like these!

O ALMIGHTY Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again: We humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season; and learn both by thy punishment to amend our lives, and for thy clemency to give thee praise and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
1) Rather than starting with an emphasis on God as Father, and thus one who loves us and will provide for us, this prayer takes a different tack.  Here the prayer is to the "Almighty Lord God".  The God we pray to is not weak or unable to change things, He is not just mighty but He is all-mighty.  He is so mighty that He can do anything He chooses, there is no task too small or too large He cannot accomplish.  Even where the human mind cannot fathom the awesome power needed to change something - like the weather (think of all the tiny things that create the weather systems we know, think of how they are all interlinked, think how even with all our science we cannot even begin to control weather - and remember God can do it easily.)  Not only is God Almighty, but He is also Lord - He is the King, the Emperor, the Tsar, the Ruler of the world, the earth is but His footstool.  Not only can He change the weather and whatever He chooses to at a whim, but as Lord of the Universe He has the perfect right to do so.  This earth is to God is like a world a child builds from LEGO - the child can do and change whatever he or she pleases in their world they have built and the little plastic men are helpless to change that.  God made this world and all that is in it, God sustains this universe and everything that happens - it is His creation and He is the creator, the story of the Universe is His story and as the Author He can write in to the story whatever He likes.  As my favourite Bible verse says:

"Our God is in heaven, He does whatever He wants." Psalm 115.3

2) Again this prayer begins with Scripture and repeats the facts of the world back to God - God did once drown all the world, except for Noah and his family.  Importantly, the prayer recites back to God another promise He has made - in God's great mercy He promised never to destroy the world by flooding again.  Note the use of "great mercy" for it was indeed great because God would have been perfectly just if He had destroyed all life and not kept a sinner like Noah and his family alive.

"The answer to this problem is not just to ask God for good weather but above all else and before all else - to repent."

3)  Because of our sin we deserve bad things.  It really is that simple.  Sin is an offence to God and for it we don't just deserve His wrath and anger and judgement and all kinds of bad stuff in this life, we deserve death and an eternity in Hell.  Does God still use natural disasters to 'punish' people for their sins?  That is a difficult question.  I do not believe that, except for some extraordinary reason, God punishes believers for their sin in this life now that Christ has died.  The reason is that Jesus took all of the punishment we deserve for all our sins past, present, and future, and thus it would be unjust for God to still punish us when Christ took the sentence and punishment already.  But God does chasten and discipline His children as any good parent does, and in a sense this could be understood as 'punishment'.  Importantly, it is not punishment for the sake of justice, it is 'punishment' for the sake of building us up and teaching us: it is part of loving us. As Hebrews 12.6 tells us

"for the Lord disciplines the one He loves,and punishes every son He receives." 

The matter is very different when it comes to non-believers, those who are not part of God's people, not part of the elect, and I would say (with some controversy!) Jesus did not die for in this way. This doctrine is called "definite/particular atonement" or, rather unhelpfully, "limited atonement."   Jesus has never taken the punishment that justice demands for their sins and thus God is perfectly just and right to punish them as He sees fit not only in the afterlife but in this life as well.  This can be applied to nations even when there is a remnant within the nation who believe.  We see this in the history of Israel where God often punishes the whole kingdom for abandoning Him and turning to idolatry, though He always spares a remnant of the elect.  If a nation turns its back on God there is no Biblical reason to say that God is not entitled to 'punish it.'  That said we should be very cautious about ever ascribing specific natural disasters to specific sins or indeed anything of the sort.

4)  Nonetheless, the answer to this problem is not just to ask God for good weather but above all else and before all else -  to repent.  This is exactly where the prayer now heads "We humbly beseech thee... upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather..." Repentance and prayer go hand in hand just as repentance and a relationship with God go hand in hand - this should not surprise us.

5)  So why would God send such weather?  As we have already shown, God doesn't really 'punish' His people because Christ has taken their punishment.  But He does teach them and discipline them.  This is what the prayer goes on to explain to us when it calls upon God to not only give us fair weather that we might have food but also that we might be changed by this experience.  The prayer calls on God to help us learn of God's right to discipline or 'punish' in order to bring and teach His children to repent and turn back to Him.  It also calls on God to help us to learn of Hiss mercy and love for us, His never pushing us beyond our ability and His always providing once repentance is genuine.

6)  And why should we learn these things - God's discipline and mercy?  That God might be praised and glorified of course!  All things should be about glorifying God, including our learning.

Prayers in time of dearth and famine

This was obviously an important kind of prayer to Cranmer because the BCP provides two different ones.  In an age before machinery and booming international trade fame and times of dearth (that is times of lacking and scarcity of resources) were common and much more problematic than in the Western world today. Let us look at these prayers in turn.

O GOD, heavenly Father, whose gift it is that the rain doth fall, the earth is fruitful, beasts increase, and fishes do multiply: Behold, we beseech thee, the afflictions of thy people; and grant that the scarcity and dearth, which we do now most justly suffer for our iniquity, may through thy goodness be mercifully turned into cheapness and plenty; for the love of Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

1)  We return again to God as our Father.  But the first major thing to point out is that the rain falling, the earth being fruitful and beautiful, the animals and fishes increasing in number is all a "gift" of God.  We don't deserve it and He doesn't have to provide it, but He does because He is generous. We should not take any of these things for granted because as with anything that you have no right to, it is all too easy for it to be taken away and you left with nothing.

2)  The prayer calls on God to see and behold the pain and need, the afflictions, of His people - a common prayer and call in the book of Psalms.  Again the prayer places this all in the correct context - that of sin.  The only reason that this world is fallen and groaning to be redeemed is because Adam and Eve sinned and the whole cosmos was thus brought under the curse of death.  Sin is at the heart of all that is wrong in the universe, and that sin is not from God but from our foolish use of the blessing of free will He gave to Adam and Eve.  Till Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead this world is going to suffer - but His victory and return has been made certain by His death and resurrection, a foretaste of what is to come.  We justly suffer need because of our sins.

"Ultimately, when we pray we should always remember that 'Dad knows best.'"

3) But God is ever merciful and above all good.  God is good all the time and always.  This prayer calls upon His goodness and mercy, as should we, for we know from Scripture that this is who God is and He loves to show His mercy because He is, above all things, good.  Thus it is trusting upon His attributes and personality that we pray for plenty.

4) And why should God show us this goodness and mercy?  For the love of Jesus Christ our Lord who died in our place to take upon Himself all of our need and lack.  For Jesus Christ sake we call on the Father to answer our prayers, and this is the very reason Jesus told us to pray in His own name when calling on His Father.  Obviously, the prayer ends by emphasising the honour and glory God deserves for whatever He chooses to do.

O GOD, merciful Father, who, in the time of Elisha the prophet, didst suddenly in Samaria turn great scarcity and dearth into plenty and cheapness: Have mercy upon us, that we, who are now for our sins punished with like adversity, may likewise find a seasonable relief: Increase the fruits of the earth by thy heavenly benediction; and grant that we, receiving thy bountiful liberality, may use the same to thy glory, the relief of those that are needy, and our own comfort; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

1)  God is not just a heavenly Father, but a "merciful Father".  This second prayer fleshes out the Biblical background that we have explored concerning God punishing or disciplining nations for their collective sins.  It emphasises that often this can be very sudden and unexpected - like a thief in the night or a freak earthquake.  The story of Elisha in 2 Kings is recounted concerning God's punishing of Samaria for turning its back on Him.  Just like Samaria, so are we today punished with the same kind of adversity - God doesn't change so we shouldn't expect His ways to change either.  

2)  But just as God brought relief to Samaria so we can trust in Him and call on Him to do the same with us. Scripture is chock full of God showing mercy and giving generously to the nations that He chose.  

3)  God is called on to increase the fruits of the earth that we may receive of His great and enormous goodness so that three things may happen.  These expand on the two given in the previous prayers.  Firstly, and primarily, we pray for God to provide for us that we may use what He lovingly gives to glorify Him. Secondly, we use what He gives to provide relief for those who are most in need, those other than ourselves. And then, after God is honoured and others are cared for, only then should we begin to think and look to our own comfort.  God - others - you.  This is an important order to remember in being a disciple of Christ for it is exactly the kind of servant-hood He modelled and called on us to follow.

"Repentance and prayer go hand in hand just as repentance and a relationship with God go hand in hand - this should not surprise us."

The ACNA Catechism: Part Two

In my previous post I looked at the new ACNA Catechism which has been released for commenting upon before a final version is reached.  I considered  the fact that in many ways it is a truly great Christian resource ,yet in two significant areas is not 'Anglican.'  These are that it takes an Arminian view of election which is clearly contra the Articles, and it calls things other than the Lord's Supper and Baptism 'Sacraments.'  

"As Anglicans we believe that there are only two Sacraments, whilst other things may often be called such they are not and it is unhelpful and confusing to call them Sacraments."

When writing that post I uummd and aaahd over whether or not to include a section on the Homilies - after all I had previously pointed out that they give the most authoritative account of the theology and interpretation of the 39 Articles and BCP etc.  In the end, for the sake of brevity (at the best of times I am not well known in either writing or preaching to understand the concept of brevity!), I decided not to include reflection on the Homilies.  Having spoken to some people though I do feel comment needs to be made for, whilst I think they completely support what I said, they are in themselves a very important resource on the matter.  The Homily in question is the "Homily That Common Prayer and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue"  from the Second Book of Homilies.   There is one section which deals with meaning and number of Sacraments.  For the sake of simplicity, I will copy out this section below. 

 You can find the whole Homily at:     

http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/Bk2_TongueUnderstand9.pdf   

I would highly recommend you get yourself the actual Book of Homilies and read one a night to the growing and strengthening of your faith in truth.  You can buy it here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Homilies-Church-England/dp/1573833916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393975347&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Book+of+Homilies

What do the Homilies say?

"Now with like or rather more brevity you shall hear how many Sacraments there be that were instituted by our Saviour Christ, and are to be continued and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For, although Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign, I mean laying on of hands, is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are; and therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And, though the Ordering of Ministers hath his visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other Sacraments besides do.  Therefore neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian Doctrine, affirmeth that the Sacraments of the Christians, as they are “most excellent in signification”, so are they “most few in number”; and in both places maketh mention expressedly of two, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 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 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 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."

What does this mean?

In my previous post I said that the earliest commentary on the Articles (and if you look even at the slightly later ones you find the same thing) takes the uncompromising position that those things "commonly called" Sacraments - confirmation, penance/absolution, ordination, marriage, extreme unction/anointing - are simply not Sacraments and should not be called such.  I believe this is the position to hold and to call these other five things 'Sacraments' is confusing, unhelpful, and not strictly speaking true.   Does the Homily support this idea?  Let us have a look.   

The Homily from the start points out that, strictly speaking, concerning the exact meaning of the word there are only two Sacraments: 

"as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord"

There can be no doubt that there are only two real Sacraments.  The Homily then goes on to explain why the other five things which are often called Sacraments are not actually Sacraments: namely they are not commanded or given visible order by the New Testament or there is no specific promise attached to them concerning God's conveying grace.

"The earliest commentary on the Articles takes the uncompromising position that those things "commonly called" Sacraments are simply not Sacraments and should not be called such."

The Homily then gets to the most important part for our topic:

Therefore neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are.

Only two things are truly Sacraments in the fullest and truest meaning of the word: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  BUT it is generally accepted that a wider meaning of the word Sacrament is anything by which "an holy thing is signified."  This rather opens the playing field!  The Roman Catholic Church came to the number 7 for the Sacraments as official teaching during the Council of Lyon in 1274, this was reaffirmed at the Council of Florence  in 1438-1445.  The Council of Trent which lasted from 1545-1563 (not all in one sitting!) and gave the definitive response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestant Reformation likewise said that there were seven Sacraments.

This teaching differs from that held by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Whilst the Eastern Orthodox, from whom the Roman Catholic Church split officially in 1054, accept that the 'seven sacraments' are indeed Sacraments (and many would say are the primary ones) they do not accept that number.  In the Eastern Orthodox Church what we call Sacraments are called Mysteries - things through which God mysteriously works - and there is no number given to them for God can work through many, many, many things.  Thus for the Orthodox the blessing and using of oil is a Mystery/Sacrament as is the liturgical washing of feet, or the blessing of nuts etc. When the Homily refers to the "ancient writers" it refers to the teaching still followed by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Numbering the Sacraments at seven is not following the teaching of the apostles or the early church but rather the corrupt teaching of Rome which is at dissonance with the testimony of the early Fathers.  (To be fair the Roman Catholic Church can at times be slightly more nuanced about the number of Sacraments as it says the whole Church is a Sacrament, but in general the definitive number is seven just as in Anglicanism it is two.)  

"If we call these other things sacraments we need to qualify it EVERY TIME by saying that they are not really Sacraments in the truest sense."

So if we use the word sacrament in this much wider and broader sense, then these other five things can indeed be called sacraments - but not Sacraments in the same way or meaning or 'signification' of the Lord's Supper and Baptism.  

The problem with the ACNA Catechism as it stands is that it doesn't say this.  What it says is that there are two Sacraments of the Gospel, and five other things which we can call sacraments and which God conveys grace through.  Hence it asks concerning each of the other five "What grace does God give you in...."  No where in the Homily does it speak of God using these things to convey grace in the same way as the Lord's Supper or Baptism.  No where does the Homily limit this wider meaning to only five things, indeed it widens it to include oil and feet washing - yet these are not mentioned as Sacraments in the ACNA Catechism and as things that God uses to give us grace.  

The Homily ends by making clear why these five things commonly called Sacraments have been retained in some form in the Anglican Church:

"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 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 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."

What does this tell us?  It tells us (again) that no one should take these things as being Sacraments in the same way that Baptism or the Lord's Supper are.  Given the number of times this point is repeated in this short section of the Homilies we have been looking at I get the impression that the author is at pains to make this point!  Instead these things are either

-  Godly states of life which people go through and it is good to proclaim and pray for publicly

or

- things which are useful for instruction in the faith, comfort of mind and soul, and the building up or edification of the whole Church of Christ.

So what are we to make of this?

The Homilies affirm the two things that the Articles do - that there are only two real Sacraments in the full and true meaning of the word, and that there are other things which are often, commonly, or generally called Sacraments but which are strictly speaking not.  

What the Homilies add to this is important:  if we use the wider meaning of the word sacrament - something which signifies something holy - then not only should these five commonly called things be called sacraments but so should lots of other things like the blessing of oil or the washing of feet etc.  

The problem today is, and in the current version of the ACNA Catechism, this wider meaning is not explained to the people in the pews and because of how we act and what we say great confusion arises.

If we call these other things sacraments we need to qualify it EVERY TIME by saying that they are not really Sacraments in the truest sense.  In reality this just does not happen.  Indeed the confusion can be seen even in what Ritualists wear.  Whilst, in my humble opinion, no real, historical Anglican should ever wear a stole in the first place, if one does it should be only for the Sacraments: these are only two in number. Yet many Ritualists wear their stoles for weddings, and ordination, and absolution, and anointing, because they are also 'sacraments.'  This practice only brings confusion and shows that despite what they may say (but likely don't) they don't really believe there is any difference in practice between these things and the Lord's Supper or Baptism.  

Today same sex relationships which are recognised by law are "commonly called" marriage.  But they are not Marriage in the true and Biblical sense of the word.  If ministers were to go around calling these relationships 'Marriage' just because under a wider meaning of the word commonly accepted they could be it would cause havoc and confusion.  Whilst this is an extreme example the exact same thing applies to the Sacraments.  As Anglicans we believe that there are only two Sacraments, whilst other things may often be called such they are not and it is unhelpful and confusing to call them Sacraments.

It remains my prayer that the ACNA Catechism will drop reference to these other things as sacraments all together for doing such is not only eminently Anglican but saves everybody the time and effort of rooting out misunderstandings and error in the Church created either unintentional or, regretfully, intentionally.  

The ACNA Catechism - An Anglican Resource?

"The Episcopal Church has abandoned Scripture and no longer sees it as infallible at all"

Recently ACNA  (Anglican Church in North America - an orthodox breakaway from the Episcopal Church which has serious issues with what would historically have simply been labeled as heresy, unbiblical practices,  and apostate beliefs) have released the first draft of their Catechism for the training and teaching of the church about true doctrine.  You can download it here http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/catechism .  By many it has been praised, and many 'big names' have given it their stamp of approval.  But is this epic 345 question long session really a solid and game changing resource?  More importantly, is it actually 'Anglican'?

Now for many people the answer to the question of 'what is Anglican' is kind of like asking how many decimal places π has - an impossible thing to answer.  I, however, think the answer is quite simple, if unpopular.  The canons of the Church of England, the 'Mother Church', ask this question: what is the "doctrine of the Church of England"?  The answer given in Canon A5 is this

"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal."

To put this is plain English, the doctrine of the Church of England is that of Scripture, and the doctrines of the early church are accepted as authoritative only to the extent that they are agreeable to the Scriptures.  But what does this look like?  What is the right theology that is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and which of the many teachings of the early church are agreeable to Scripture?  The answer from an Anglican point of view is crystal clear and no-nonsense:  This correct theology and doctrine is found in the Historical Formularies the Church of England: The 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP (not 1549!) and the Ordinal.  Basically everything you find in the modern printings of the 1662 BCP.   Canons A2, A3 and A4 affirm that the doctrines of the 39 Articles are agreeable to the Scriptures and any real Anglican can assent to them in good conscience, likewise the doctrines of the BCP and Ordinal are agreeable to the Scriptures and not repugnant to them and are thus authoritative.

What makes a theology Anglican?  It's agreement with the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the Ordinal.  It really is that simple.

As a real Anglican I obviously think that these Historical Formularies are the correct interpretation of Scripture, thus when looking at the ACNA Catechism I am not going to proof text it from Scripture, I am going to proof text it against the 39 Articles and the BCP because what these say sums up the teaching of Scripture.  In the following if I capitalise the word article and give a number, e.g. "Article 10", I am referring to the 39 Articles.

"What makes a theology Anglican?  It's agreement with the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the Ordinal.  It really is that simple."

The Positive

I think that there is much which is positive and truly great about the ACNA Catechism, and so I will begin there.

The Catechism starts with Jesus.  How great this is cannot be overemphasised.  Christianity is all about Jesus, He is Lord, God, and Saviour, all the Scriptures are about Him and all of time revolves around Him.  Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.  The first section of the Catechism is called "beginning with Christ."  Fantastic!

Many of the answers given in this first section are top notch stuff.  They are short, sound, and helpful.  For example: 

8. How does God save you?

God saves me by grace, which is his undeserved love given to me in and through Jesus. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)


10. Is there any other way of salvation?

No. The Apostle Peter said of Jesus, “There is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the only one who can save me and reconcile me to God. (1 Timothy 2:5)

Here we see two very important doctrines affirmed which are central to the Gospel and the true Protestant and Reformed religion. Namely we have salvation by grace alone - and grace understood as the undeserved gift of God to us. We also have, and this is becoming increasingly important to recognise, the orthodox teaching of the church on salvation - only Jesus can bring salvation, only belief in Him can grant entry to heaven. Praise God for this stand for the Biblical Gospel!

Another very good answer in this section is given to this following question:

16. What does God grant in saving you?

God grants me reconciliation with him (2 Corinthians 5:17-19), forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13-14), adoption into his family (Galatians 4:4-7), citizenship in his Kingdom (Ephesians 2:19-21, Philippians 3:20), union with him in Christ (Romans 6:3-5), new life in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-5), and the promise of eternal life (John 3:16; 1 John 5:12). 

This is a great answer, it takes in not just a limited and blinkered view of salvation but the whole testimony of the Scriptures, it is broad but Biblically so.  A lively presentation of the Gospel and the preaching of it week in and week out should involve all of these things.  

Secondly, it is worth noting the number of Scriptural proof-texts offered in the Catechism.  The authors are clearly aware of the need to ground their beliefs in God's revealed Word.  This is commendable and sets out the only good way to do theology - namely with the support of Scripture.

The questions dealing with Holy Scripture (26-37) are strong especially towards the end when it looks to the paramount importance of reading and learning and growing through the Scriptures as a Christian.  The central place given to Scripture in discipleship is something which cannot be emphasised enough and the answers to 35 and 36 are very strong in modelling this.  This is even further expanded in 224-229 which are likewise great in modelling Biblical study and Scriptural based Christianity.

Part Two of the Catechism is "Believing in God" and begins by looking at the Apostles Creed as the most simple and essential of the creeds given its early nature and use in baptism preparation by the early church.

The Answer to question 23 is solid; why do we recognise  the creeds as authoritative?  Because they are grounded in Scripture and bear witness to the teaching of the Word.  This is the answer of Article 8 and is both true and Anglican.  As a Church we do not reject Tradition just because it is Tradition, we weigh it against the Scriptures and if it is true and useful we accept it, if it is untrue or potentially abused we discard it.

"Many of the answers given are top notch stuff.  They are short, sound, and helpful"

In dealing with the teaching of the Apostles Creed the Catechism is to be commended, it sticks to orthodox teaching on the deity of Christ and His death, it affirms the Virgin Birth, and a bodily resurrection of Jesus.  An example of this is the teaching on Christ's death which says:

"Though humanly a miscarriage of justice, his execution fulfilled God’s plan that Jesus would bear my sins and die the death that I deserve, so that I could be saved from sin and eternal condemnation and reconciled to God." ACNA Catechism 60.

Good stuff, keeps it simple and accessible but proclaims the substitutionary nature of the atonement from which many are these days shying away from - to their shame. The substitutionary nature of the atonement is inherently Anglican. The Collect for the 4th Sunday in Lent shows that we deserve death and damnation and God by His grace forgives us: 

"Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

This doctrine of substitutionary atonement is even more apparent in the Homilies, especially the Homily Of The Salvation Of All Mankind and also the Homily for Good Friday. Remember that though not strictly part of the Historic Formularies, we are told in no uncertain terms in Article 35 that the doctrine the Homilies contain is "godly and wholesome doctrine" and indeed they are to be read in churches as authoritative teaching from the Church. Following the Historic Formularies there is no resource more important in defining what is truly Anglican than the Homilies. Indeed Article 11 creates the principle that the Homilies are the truest commentary upon the Articles and how we should understand them. Importing an understanding upon the Articles which is completely rejected in the Homilies is simply historically untenable - much to the distress of Ritualists. 

Questions 68-70 deal with the Ascension and it is good to see some sound teaching and application on this often overlooked aspect of Jesus' saving work. Too often has the Ascension and Session of Christ been ignored or over-spiritualised. Much of our assurance and hope is founded on the present ministry of Christ before the throne of God and to see it so clearly portrayed is indeed heartening.

To conclude the good points about the ACNA Catechism I would want to say two things. Firstly, anything I have not mentioned here and will not mention in a moment is not mentioned because it is neither outstanding nor terrible, neither Anglican nor un-Anglican. Much of the Catechism is just good, simple, basic, Christian teaching which it is hard to find issues with. Secondly, I think the biggest strength in this Catechism is that it makes a conscious effort not only to ground itself in Scripture but to actually apply it to our daily lives and ask the question "what does this look like in real life?" The Catechism is not just a Question and Answer session on bland points of theology but an interactive and passionate plea for Christian living.

"Importing an understanding upon the Articles which is completely rejected in the Homilies is simply historically untenable - much to the distress of Ritualists. "

From the above it will hopefully be apparent that I believe there are many strengths to the ACNA Catechism. There are, however, two major issues with it concerning whether or not it is 'Anglican' and a few side issues too. Let us deal with these major issues first.

An 'Anglican' Catechism?

The first alarm bells rang early on in the document, when considering salvation in Question 2 it looks to the 'human condition' with these words:

2. What is the human condition?

The universal human condition is that, though made for fellowship with our Creator, we have been cut off from him by self-centred rebellion against him, leading to guilt, shame, and fear of death and judgement. This is the state of sin. (Genesis 3; Romans 3:23)

The problem is that this reads potentially as meaning that our being cut off from God is purely by our "self-centred rebellion against Him".   But we are clearly told in Article 9 that the human condition of sin and separation from God "standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man..."  

Sin is not just 'self-centred rebellion against God' - it is the cause of that self-centredness, namely our corrupt and depraved nature: this is the 'human condition.'  Whilst Answer 47 recognises that we have inherited a "fallen and corrupt nature, and I too sin and fall short of God's glory" this is a far cry from the fullness of the doctrine of Total Depravity as shown in Articles 9-11 in that it does not name this fallen and corrupt nature as itself sin.  Question 106 concerning the inward and spiritual grace received through baptism is much better in affirming "I am born a sinner by nature, separated from God" but this comes too late and is arguably still too little.   When starting out with Jesus and Gospel it is vital to get the 'bad news' and the reality of our plight crystal clear.  There is no good drawn from dressing up our nature and sins as not as bad as they are, no help for the Gospel in even allowing the possibility that, as the mantra of modern society chimes, we are all good people at heart.  

"The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism."

You could still read the above Question and Answer as not being against the Articles but its deficiency is made clear in  Question 14.  Question 14 looks at how a person may repent and place faith in Jesus Christ.  It's very first word sets  the Arminian and non-Anglican tone.  

14. How may a person repent and place faith in Jesus Christ?

Anyone may repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ at any time. One way to do this is by sincerely saying a prayer similar to the Prayer of Repentance and Faith given above. (John 15:16; Acts 16:31-34; Romans 10:9; Hebrews 12:12)

  Really?  Anyone at any time?  I was under the impression from both Scripture and the Articles that because we are Totally Depraved not just by deeds but by nature that 

"The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have good will, and working with us when we have that good will."  Article 10.  

Clearly, contra the Catechism, we cannot just turn to God and "at any time" because we need God's grace to 'prevent' us - that is 'enable us' to do so.  

Arminians, especially of the Wesleyan kind, generally argue that God gives everybody 'Prevenient Grace' thus enabling  'anybody at any time' to turn to Him in faith.  But Article 17 is quite clear that before the foundations of the world, before time itself and creation, God 

"hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour."  

The important phrase here is "those whom He hath chosen.... out of mankind" - that is, not everybody but only the elect.  Only these people may turn to Christ, and even they only when God graciously and for no good works of their own opens their hearts to His Word.  The Historical Formularies of the Church of England are unashamedly Reformed - uncompromisingly Calvinist (not in the 5 point Dort sense but the historical sense).  To claim that true and historical Anglicanism is not Reformed concerning election is nothing but an insidious lie.  There are good reasons why Wesley rejected the Articles and removed the ones about election when he rewrote them for his churches abroad - he was an Arminian.  There are good reasons why Whitfield and Toplady and Ryle all railed against their opponents not just with Scripture but by wielding the Articles - because they plainly supported their position and claim to be the true heirs of Anglicanism.

The Arminian tone of the ACNA Catechism is simply inconsistent with true Anglicanism.  Even its emphasis on 'praying the prayer' and its 'asking Jesus into your heart' mentality is painful to read from a historical perspective.  Whilst it is not wrong to call people to commit their life to Christ and 'pray the prayer', without the Biblical doctrine of Assurance found only in the Reformed Tradition this revivalist spirituality is a recipe for disaster and cycles of fear and doubt in the life of the believer.

Secondly, we turn to the teaching on the Sacraments in the Catechism.  All I can say is "Oh dear."  It seems that the revisionist enterprise of the Tractarians has won the war in the USA so completely that on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins.

Questions 102-115 which are on the Lord's Supper and Baptism are fine, they largely just repeat the teaching of the 39 Articles and BCP Catechism.  But in 116 comes the *facepalm* moment:

116. Are there other sacraments?

Other rites and institutions commonly called sacraments include confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick. These are sometimes called the sacraments of the Church. 

When the 25th Article speaks of  "Those five commonly called Sacraments" it is NOT endorsing these things as Sacraments or suggesting it is fine to call them such.  There are only two things which can truly be called Sacraments - that is signs and symbols which God uses to convey Spiritual grace - and they are Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  Why are these other five not Sacraments - and thus should not be called such?  The Article is pretty clear on this.  These other five are things which have arisen out of the corrupt teaching of the apostles and are stages of life allowed in Scripture, more importantly they were not instituted by God as a form and ritual to be followed by which He will convey grace.

The ignoring or subverting of the Articles is seen in Question 117 which asks how these five differ from the two Sacraments of the Gospel.  

117. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?
They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.

Do you see the difference?  117 here says that these arise from the practise of the apostles and the early church - done, finished, fin.  But this is not what the Articles say.  The Articles say that they arise  from the corrupt following of the Apostles.  The inclusion of the word 'corrupt' is very significant.  

To say that "God clearly uses them as a means of grace" is to seriously overstep the allowance of the Articles' teaching.  Nowhere do the Articles or the BCP Catechism say these things convey grace as do the Sacraments of the Gospel.  Now in the services we may pray for God's grace, as we do in marriage, but it is not a vehicle of grace in the same way as the Sacraments of the Gospel for they "have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Article 25.  What is a Sacrament?  It is an outward visible sign and ceremony ordained and appointed by God which we are ordered to continue by which He has chosen in His mercy to work His grace through.  These other things are simply not this.

"on some issues people cannot see where Roman Catholicism ends and Anglicanism begins."

This is made abundantly clear in the first commentary on the Articles which was written by Thomas Rogers in 1587 (or at least the part dealing with the final 20 Articles was, the first 19 were published some time before).  Written so close to the time of the writing of Articles it gives a very important guide on how they were intended to be understood.  In his commentary on Article 25 Rogers bluntly and unapologetically calls the other five "no sacrament".  Rogers lists under 'the errors of adversaries to this truth' Papists who claim that there are seven sacraments.  

Concerning confirmation Rogers says "the sentence and judgement of the true church is,  that rightly used, as it was in the primitive church, it is no sacrament;  but a part of Christian discipline, profitable for the whole Church of God."  Whilst the ACNA Catechism considers the inward grace imparted by confirmation to be "In confirmation, God strengthens the work of the Holy Spirit in me for his daily increase in my Christian life and ministry" Rogers tells us that it is an error of the Papists to believe that "confirmation is a sacrament whereby the grace the was given in baptism is confirmed and made strong by the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost."

Concerning Penance or Absolution, Rogers says "The blasphemies are outrageous, and the errors many and monstrous, comprised in this popish doctrine of penance.  For neither can the manner of this their sacrament, nor the form, nor the minister, nor the effect, be drawn from the word of God.  They say penance is a sacrament, yet they can show no element it hath to make it a sacrament."  The BCP clearly allows the ministry of private confession.  In the ministry to the sick, in extreme cases where assurance of forgiveness cannot be given even by plain and comfortable words of the Scriptures, it even allows the minister in this pastorally extreme situation to use the words 'I absolve you."  Furthermore, in the first exhortation to receive the Lord's Supper in the BCP service it is written:

"if there be any of you, who by this means [the knowing of God's assurances through is death and the Scriptures] cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with the ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and disobedience."

The issue is not so much with the idea that God calls ministers to administer absolution, we are told in the 'absolution' of the BCP Morning and Evening Prayer that ministers are both called and instructed to do such by Christ, but the issue is the fact that it is not a sacrament for it was not ordained of Christ to be such.

Likewise, nowhere does the BCP call Ordination a sacrament, nor does it ever call Marriage such.  As Rogers rails against the idea that Ordination is a sacrament "What element hath it? What form? What promise? What institution from Christ?" or as he says about marriage "Marriage... was never commanded by God to be taken for a sacrament.  Again, it hath neither outward element, nor prescribed form, nor promise of salvation, as a sacrament should, and baptism and the Lord's supper have." 

I will leave it to you to discover Rogers' choice words concerning the idea that anointing with oil or 'unction' is a sacrament.  You can find his book free online at   http://prydain.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the_catholic_doctrine_of_the_church_of_e.pdf 

and go to page 263 in the book itself.  

Suffice it to say that these things, whilst commonly called Sacraments, are simply not, and thus should not be called such.  Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments.  In accepting such Popish teaching the Catechism sells out to the Ritualists and capitulates to the Tractarian agenda, siding with Romish Tradition over the Historic Formularies of Anglicanism.

"Whilst much of what the Catechism says concerning the hopes of our prayers during these things is spot on, that does not make them Sacraments"

Other niggling issues

So far we have seen many good points to the ACNA Catechism, and two areas in which it is distinctly un-Anglican.  I will finish by making a few observations on other issues in the Catechism, some relating to Anglicanism and some simply to Biblical theology.

Firstly, Whilst what 110-115 say concerning the Lord's Supper is carefully worded and correct Anglican teaching, given the broader nature of this catechism compared to that of the BCP I am surprised it does not staunchly defend the position laid out clearly in the Articles - namely the Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper as opposed to that of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies.


Secondly, it over-spiritualises the end times in the Lord's prayer. Whilst indeed the Kingdom is something here and now among us and which grows with the fulfilling of the Great Commission, the Biblical picture is not just that at the end of time Jesus hands it back the Father (179) but that Christ comes as a warrior to smash and crush the opposition and to instigate His earthly reign over a literal Kingdom. As one may gather from what I just said, I hold to a historic pre-millennial position. I do not think the questions of post-mill, a-mill, and pre-mill are something we should divide over, but whilst the Catechism leaves open the possibility of taking a post or a-mill position it is far too prescriptive in seemingly writing against a pre-mill one. In doing so it steps beyond the teaching of Scripture.


Thirdly, the view of why Christians should say morning and evening prayer is also very shallow in number 248. We do not just follow these prayers because it is a sacrifice that pleases God or so we are aware that our "time is sanctified to God." The exhortation to repentance at the start of the BCP services of Morning and Evening prayer make clear why we say the offices and do so ideally as a gathered fellowship "to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at His hands, to set forth His most worthy praise, and to hear His most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul..." We say the offices to praise and thank God, to ask of Him things through prayer, and to learn from and be edified by the reading of the Scriptures. Indeed, the whole bent of this part of the Catechism with its 'rule of life' and what not is pregnant with Tractarian theology and practice. I fail to see how 251-254 is traditional Anglican teaching and is drawn from the Historical Formularies. Whilst the teaching is not unhelpful by any means, I am not convinced its presence in the the Catechism for an organisation such as ACNA is helpful.


Fourthly, number 324 says that  for Christians the tithe is 10% and this is a minimum. Really? Where are Christians told to tithe in this legalistic way? We are certainly called to give generously and as the Article 38 says "every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to this ability." but this is a far cry from imposing a legalistic 10%. Is this of pre or post tax deductions? What if you cannot afford 10%? Making such a blanket statement, unsupported by Scripture concerning the New Covenant, is unwise.


Finally, whilst much of what the Catechism says on Scripture is great - it is God inspired, it is vital that we read and learn and memorise it - I was left disappointed that the Catechism failed to say that Scripture is infallible and cannot teach untruth. The infallibility of Scripture is a central doctrine of the Reformation, so much so that it was hardly worth even mentioning it at the time because it was simple assumed by all sides and parties. But to lack clear mention of it in our modern age, especially in light of the fact that ACNA has arisen because The Episcopal Church has abandoned Scripture and no longer sees it as infallible at all, is to my mind a serious mistake.

"In leaving open the 'real presence' the Catechism does a disservice to the heritage of faith handed down to us in the Historic Formularies."

I want to close this topic by again affirming that there are many great things about the ACNA Catechism, and it has many strengths which will be vital to keeping ACNA healthy. But, regretfully, because of its Arminian leanings and its Tractarian understanding of the Sacraments, it cannot truly be called 'Anglican.'  It is my prayer that ACNA will address these issues when they release the final edition of what is largely a superb Catechism.