Or, in the vulgar tongue, “the law of what is prayed is the law of what is to be believed” – in short, your liturgy expresses your theology. Which is by way of an introduction to the third of my little pieces on the Book of Common Prayer.
It’s a commonplace (which is why I and so many use it, commonplaces are good) to say that the Church of England, and by extension the Anglican Communion, has no doctrine of its own. Of course it doesn’t. What we hold is in common with the “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” we affirm our membership of in the Creed. Getting into discussions with those who don’t agree that we are does no good. I respect their conviction and ask merely that they respect mine and that of millions of others like me.
There is no Luther or Calvin in Anglicanism, neither do we have a Magisterium as the Roman Catholics do. (My apologies to those who find the adjective objectionable, but in the English language as spoken by the English, it’s the easiest way to express my meaning). If I say the decisive influence for Anglicanism was Cranmer, that’s not because he expressed some wonderful theological insights, it is because he is the father of the Book of Common Prayer. Since the BCP was for so many years the definitive version of the Anglican way of prayer, and thus belief, it is worth dwelling for a moment on Cranmer’s work.
What did he do? First, Cranmer selected, arranged, and in some cases composed, the prayers we still pray to this day. Second, he drew up the rubrics which stipulate permissible variations in prayers and practice. Finally, he drew up the lectionary which sets out what portions of Scripture are to be read in Church throughout the liturgical year. To this might be added the fact that his original 1549 Prayer Book was in effect experimental in that it reflected reaction in the parishes to earlier versions. That, in itself, reflects one main feature of Anglicanism, which has been called the “English ethos.” Like it or not, and those with a fondness for strict order and logic won’t, there is an assumption that consensus and comprehensiveness are good ways of running things. It’s one reason we have tended to avoid civil wars since the seventeenth century. The second aspect is a tendency to pragmatism. We’re not hot on speculative approaches to the human condition. It is surely only of England that anyone could say that its Socialist Party owed more to Methodism than to Marx!
The 1549 BCP was a perfect example of pragmatic consensus. There were those who wanted to continue the ways of the (reforming) medieval church, taking their lead from Rome, and there were those who wanted to transform things in a major manner as in Geneva, and what we got from Cranmer was a sensible compromise. There was no speculative theological discussion of salvation of doctrine or dogma, there was the practical matter of how people would worship from week to week.
The downside of this is plain. Things change, a national church interacts with the culture within which it embedded, and it can be easy and pragmatic (which is why it has been done so often) not to update expressions of our common tradition in ways which make them more comprehensible to new generations, which then tends to lead to bitter arguments when change cannot be avoided.
What is clear though is that for Cranmer and therefore Anglicanism, God is worshipped primarily in terms of his love, grace and mercy. If we look at some of the Collects, this shines through. Take the Collect for today, the 12th Sunday after Trinity:
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we are to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.
This theme, the mercy of God, occurs again and again in our Collects, and is often linked to God’s forgiveness of sin. The first example of this is the earliest, which is the Collect Cranmer composed for the BCP of 1549 for the first Sunday in Advent:
Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light …
We see the same emphasis here for the fourth Sunday in Lent:
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.
God’s mercy and grace are brought together in the forgiveness for sinners. The doctrine of God revealed in our worship is not that of a distant being unconcerned with human pain, or a mighty Lord whose merit we might just be able to win if we behave ourselves, but a God who is near to us, loves us, cares for us and will hear our prayers.
It is this emphasis on God’s love which I first met in the BCP which infuses my own faith. It is expressed to perfection in the Collect for Palm Sunday:
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
If we look at what Cranmer did to the Latin original, we see he added the phrase “of thy tender love”, and he removed the petition that “we might merit to be partakers of his resurrection”, and substituted a petition that we might “follow” Christ’s “example.” This was at the heart of the Reformers’ concerns. There can be no question of Grace being “merited,” or “earned.” The grace and mercy of God are given lavishly and freely as expressions of his love, they are not rewards to be extracted from him in some way by our actions.
What is prayed is what is believed. What I pray in the BCP is what I believe.
[Renewed thanks to C451 for help here. JH].
I am loving your articles on the Book of Common Prayer. Well done, you.
May I suggest, if you can find it, The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary, by Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr. (Oxford University Press, 1950). This is what he writes for today’s Collect: “The ending of this Collect, derived from the Gelasian Sacramentary, was altered by the 1662 revisers. The 1549 wording, though less smooth in rhythm, was nearer the original Latin: ‘and giving unto us that our prayer dare not presume to ask’. In its teaching on prayer the Collect is similar to one written by Cranmer (see the fifth Collect, p.49). A sense of unworthiness often deters us from prayer, even makes us afraid of it; yet it is only through prayer that our sins are forgiven, and, more than that, an ‘abundance of mercy’ beyond our imagining awaits those seeking Him who is ever ready to hear and pardon. The Leonine Sacramentary contains an earlier form of the Collect: ‘O God of the heavenly powers, who bestowest more than we desire or deserve; grant, we beseech thee, that by thy mercy that may be conferred upon us, which we have not the confidence in our merits to ask.’
Shepherd does a masterful, and loving, commentary. The book is out of print but can still be found online but be prepared, it’s costly. I paid $80 for mine and it is worth every cent and more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aww, thank you 🙂 It means a lot. I am so glad to have your voice here, it’s been a long time since there was another female voice here.
I will look up Massey’s book xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Getting into discussions with those who don’t agree that we are does no good. I respect their conviction and ask merely that they respect mine and that of millions of others like me. ”
Traditions aside, isn’t this relativism? I think disagreement is fine, but disagreement can be done cordially and productive. Nicholas and myself I think disagree quite often on eschatology, but we generally have good chats.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What strikes me is the lack of the fullness of the theological proposition: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi or the Law of Worship informs our Law of Belief which informs our Law of Living. Seems to me that if you do not live as you believe then your belief is at the very least non existent and at the best very weak. And isn’t living according to the Law of Belief considered, in a way, a measure of merit (cooperation with the Law of of Creation and the nature: Lex Naturalis?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, for me the connection is axiomatic, so much so I didn’t think anyone ever thought otherwise.
LikeLike
It’s fine if one’s in that frame of mind, but I wasn’t 🙂 x
LikeLike
I like this one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. I am working on a Herbert post for you xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Super – his complexity (rather like Scoop’s beloved John of the Cross) appeals to the spirituality that now characterises my faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hope I can do it some justice then 🙂 It will be up tomorrow xx
LikeLiked by 2 people