Jamey Bennett has written a thought provoking piece on this blog concerning the nature of Anglicanism. In Anglican and Reformed? he takes points from the 39 Articles and makes this the standard for orthodox Anglicanism. While I would agree they are certainly an acceptable standard for one form of Anglicanism, I would argue that they have ever been universally embraced by all Anglicans as the standard.
Before beginning I should place my cards on the table. I fall into what is called “Anglo-Catholicism” but hopefully not obnoxiously so. By Anglo-Catholicism I mean a belief that the Anglican Reformers intended to bring the Church of England to a true Catholicism minus medieval additions and not a housecleaning of the inherited traditions of Christendom. In this they would fall into the same category as other magisterial reformers and against the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation.
The difference with the Anglicans - and the root of their genius - is that they retained the existing ecclesial structure. Unlike the Reformation on the continent, the existing episopacy and priesthood largely stayed in place and continued with the reformed church. There was no reconstruction of the faith because the reforms were in the hands of the existing clerics and laity and not a few theological founders with a unique vision. Aside from the move to the vernacular and the reforms to a more Biblical model, things initially were as they had been before.
The first statements of the newly reformed Church of England were not nearly as Protestant in orientation as the 39 Articles. The latter are the result of a trajectory from the initial reform to a more Protestant outlook that evolved after the death of Henry VIII. The reign of the boy Edward VI gave the opportunity for more Protestant reforms that Henry had vehemently opposed. After the reign of Queen Mary (termed “Bloody Mary” by Protestant historians), there was a great deal of anti-Roman sentiment and a move towards an alliance with other Protestant churches was quite sensible. It should, however, be pointed out that much of the laity had Catholic leanings and Queen Elizabeth I was more concerned with unity than driving out the last remaining elements of “popery”.
The attack by the Spanish Armada and various other real and imagined attempts to force England back into the Catholic fold were enough to promote Protestant support but there always remained enough Catholic belief to keep the Church of England from being thoroughly Protestantized. It is important to note the various “High Church” or “Catholic” movements within Anglicanism were neither pro-Roman nor overtly ritualistic. They intended to keep the Church of England as a Reformed Catholic Church that adhered to the faith of the early undivided Christians without Roman additions or Protestant subtractions.
The 39 Articles is a document forged not just by theological but also political concerns. It was mainly designed to affirm credal orthdoxy and to enumerate the disagreements with Rome. However, they never attained the same position within Anglicanism as the great confessional statements of the Lutherans and the Reformed did in their communions.
The growing Protestantization of the Church of England that led to the 39 Articles took a major hit after the Puritan reign of Oliver Cromwell. True Catholics fled or went underground and a thorougly Protestant church took its place. When the Restoration restored Catholic order as well as the throne, the extreme forms of Protestant belief were seen as a threat alongside Rome. This cemented the via media orientation of Anglicanism.
While the 39 Articles are certainly important, they are not the final word within Anglicanism. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is the single most important statement of the Anglican Way. The Articles may be revered among some theologians but it was the BCP that was prayed and lived by generations of Anglicans in England and abroad. It is a simple fact that the BCP is a far more Catholic document than the 39 Articles. That these two are the statements of Anglican thought is illustrative of Anglicanism’s theological diversity. The Catholics within the Anglican Commnion choose to see the BCP as overruling the less attractive of the articles. The Protestants interpret the overtly Catholic parts of the BCP from within the context of the 39 Articles. At different points in time both sides have held the upper hand. The 39 Articles reflect one such time - but not all times.
Falling on the Catholic side, I would lean for the BCP. For me, it is more important what the Church prays every week than what it says in a convocation of clerics that may be overruled at a later date. History bears this out. When the forces of revisionism attacked the Church, they didn’t change doctrinal propostions. They went right for the prayers of the Church in the BCP and Hymnal. The various “alternative services” prepared the way for the abuses we now see within the Anglican Communion. The 39 Articles are still in place, but once they changed the prayers of the Church, it all fell apart.
The BCP then is the sum of Anglican theology. For the Anglican in the pews it was how the faith was taught. Even when they might tune out the sermon of a long winded priest, the prayers would form their consiences and their beliefs. These prayers were Catholic - Reformed Catholic, certainly - but Catholic nonetheless. Anglicanism is indeed Protestant as it did protest the abuses of the papacy. It is indeed reformed as it is a reform of Church faith and practice. But we must never forget that it is a reform of Catholicism and not a retreat from it. Anglicanism is not just Protestant but Catholic as well.
Albert, those are good points. When you say, “At different points in time both sides have held the upper hand. The 39 Articles reflect one such time - but not all times,” we are led to think of the very origins of the C of E, which dates much further back than the BCP. Although, the BCP, which now is fully inclusive to the 39 Articles (they are in the back of the BCP) makes up the C of Es very survival. Adherence to the 39 Articles as a doctrinal standard is not far-fetched, but to hold to them ‘alone’ is not fair. The BCP has a complete theology behind it that sometimes even makes one wonder if it contradicts the 39 Articles. But they do not and can actually compliment each other.
I know there are commentaries on the BCP, but what there isn’t, to my knowledge, is a comprehensive outlook on the theology of the BCP; why, for instance, we juxtapose one Old Testament reading to one New Testament reading for each day. I do not believe those are arbitrary placements. Perhaps we do not have all the ancient documents we need to see what men like Jerome were attempting to communicate, but nonetheless, shouldn’t we just put the pieces together ourselves then?
The work that really needs to be done in the Anglican church is a complete theology of the BCP by a scholarly man who believes in both the Reformed and the Catholic. After all, that is what the Anglican church is: Reformed Catholic.
BTW, the theme needs fixing so it may be tough to post comments without first being logged in.
Mike,
Although the 39 Articles are included in the BCP, the Articles and the 1662 BCP are not contemporary pieces and do reflect different theological emphases. The 39 Articles were based on Cramner’s 42 Articles written during the reign of Edward VI at the height of Protestant influence in the C of E. Cramner revised the BCP written during Henry VIII’s time and the Edwardian BCP was far more Protestant than both earlier and later additions. It was that BCP that the Articles would be in basic agreement. The BCP moved more toward a compromise view with Elizabeth I. The 1662 BCP came nearly a century after the 39 Articles and reflects a view after the Restoration in 1660 and may be said to have a view reflecting a definite anti-Puritan view. However, there were still fears of a possible Roman Catholic subversion of England that became more pronounced when the Catholic James II ascended to the throne and began to appoint Catholics to prominent positions of power (leading to The “Glorious Revolution” and the reign of William and Mary).
The point here is that the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles form boundaries that defined the “via media”. The Articles demonstrate the Protestant nature of Anglicanism while the BCP defines the Catholic nature of Anglicanism. While Anglicanism is definitely Protestant in that it rejects Roman claims to jurisdiction and Roman rights to define the deposit of faith beyond the witness of the early Church, it also rejects the individual’s right to define doctrine on their own. The BCP gives us “common prayer” - that is, prayers that in their use form and define the Anglican beliefs. In many ways, it is far more comprehensive that the Articles since it covers every aspect of the life of the Church. The Articles serve to place limits on the direction the BCP may be taken.
One correction to the above”
“early and later additions” should read “early and later editions”. Note to self - “drink more coffee”.