Second Order:: Holy Communion: Sections of Service

Three Orders ('order' as in an 'order of worship') of Holy Communion are set out in A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA, 1995). 

(Technically, the APBA also allows for a 'Fourth Order' which can be 'created' by a parish priest et al. with the approval of the regional bishop (=overseer) as long as it contains certain features common to Anglican worship)). 

In all three Orders a specific pattern of worship is established with slight variations among the three.

Introduction to Anglican Prayer Book History

"A Prayer Book for Australia"

Anglican worship is typically ordered by the use of a prayer book. In fact, Anglicanism may be said to be recognisably Anglican because of its use of set forms of worship based on a prayer book usually found in the pew for worshippers to use.

In Australia, Anglicans used the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) (1662) until 1978 when the first modernised An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was produced.  The Prayer Book was again revised in 1995 to make its language more inclusive; hence A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) is now commonly used in most parishes using a prayer book today. (The BCP is still in use in some Australian parishes and is still part of Church practice by church law in the Anglican Church of Australia.)


Though some still call the Anglican Church of Australia 'The Church of England', the Anglican Church of Australia was constituted in 1981. However, the history of the English church is relevant to Australia because of the fact that the Anglican Church of Australia is derived from The Church of England.

Church of England in the 16th Century

Catherine of Aragon

All this emphasis on the use of a prayer book will seem strange to those who are Non-Conformists (Pentecostal, Baptist, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, etc.) but the Anglican use of a prayer book arises from its birth in the Reformation period of the middle of the 16th century just as many regular practices thought odd in other churches arise out of their past tradition too.

Henry VIII

Some allege that the Church of England arose simply because King Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and was denied by Pope Clement VII.

Anne Boleyn

Certainly this political event did hasten the formation of a Protestant, non-Catholic wing in the English church but the winds of the Protestant Reformation which were blowing on the continent were also being felt in England.

The Pope's refusal to grant the annulment to Henry led the king to undertake one of the boldest moves in English history. Henry assumed supremacy over the English Church which allowed him to separate from Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn hoping for a male heir.

Again we don't realise the raw courage of Henry in taking this action because many monarchs trembled at the word of the Pope because of his powers to excommunicate. (To be excommunicated from the Church of Rome meant you would be lost forever in the fires of Hell.) It was no small thing to challenge a Bishop of Rome and Henry was duly excommunicated for his defiance along with other Reformers in the Church of England.

Thomas Cranmer(1490-1556)

Thomas Cranmer was a pivotal figure in the Church of England and for Anglicanism worldwide. He had been appointed as an ambassador for the King and while abroad came into contact with continental reformers such a Ulrich Zwingli (Swiss Reformer) and others. However, he got a surprise call to become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532 at the instigation of the Boleyn family. (He had formerly been the chaplain of this family.)

He became responsible for reform of the Church in Henry's time and then more so in Edward VI's short reign. Cranmer also played a large part in arguing for the validity of Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church in England which led effectively to the annulling of his marriage to Catherine. 

Cranmer was responsible for Church services being conducted in English. We can hardly appreciate this change in our time but imagine walking into church--and everyone went to church; it was mandatory--and hearing for the first time the Liturgy spoken by priest and people together in English!

We might wonder about the slowness of reform but the Protestant movement was a Reformation not a Revolution! (Luther in particular was not interested in starting the Church off from scratch after 1500 years. That's why Luther retained many aspects of catholic practice--as opposed to Roman Catholic practices--at which evangelicals today might baulk. Luther wanted to reform the catholic tradition not obliterate it.)

A Christian Church had been in existence in England by AD 208. It became part of the Roman Church in the AD 664. However, the Church of England as a reforming church wanting to remove doctrines and practices that were forbidden in scripture (indulgences, masses for the dead, prayers to the saints, veneration of the sacrament) but not necessarily removing practices that were not forbidden. 

Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553)

From Henry and Anne's union came Elizabeth (later to be Elizabeth I). Anne was later executed on trumped up charges which left the King able to marry his latest interest, Jane Seymour; she died 11 days after bearing a son, Edward who became Edward VI, a Protestant king guided by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. (Be aware that Henry VIII was not protestant or Lutheran. He regarded himself as 'catholic' but it was a form of personal Catholicism.)

With Henry's death in AD 1547, Edward assumed the throne at 9 years of age and only lived until he was 15 but during those six years the move away from Catholicism became pronounced. For example, in 1549 the first English prayer book was produced through the work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Clerical celibacy was ended as was the Roman Mass with its view of transubstantiation (which had led to adoration of the host and other superstitions).

The newer English Church did not abandon the whole liturgy it had inherited from the papal church however but Cranmer reformed it extensively. It did not abandon the past because it believed that God had preserved some good things within the old church's liturgical practice even if it had become corrupted by faulty doctrine and practice over centuries. (Rome itself sought to respond to the Reformation by calling the Council of Trent [1545-1563].)

After Edward's short but significant reign, his half-sister Mary became Queen (1553-1558) even though Edward tried to prevent her ascension to the throne. Mary was a fanatical 'Romanist' and persecuted the Reformers by seeking to destroy the English Reformation through martyring Protestants and Reformers. She had 400-500 Protestants executed mostly by fire including Bishops Ridley and Latimer and also Cranmer (who first recanted his Protestant faith and then dramatically changed back again on the day of his execution). These executions made her very unpopular but she didn't relent. Indeed, her subjects disliked even more for her marrying King Philip I of Spain (a fierce opponent of all things Reformed and Protestant).

Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Elizabeth I

Elizabeth Tudor had waited quietly enough in the wings of a 12-month stay in the Tower for her opportunity to reign which came in 1558. She was a Tudor with all the vigour and determination of her father and as the daughter of Anne Boleyn she was a Protestant. (She never married and so Henry's worst nightmares were realised in the discontinuance of the Tudor dynasty.)

She was wise enough to know that she had many enemies at home and overseas in France and more especially in Spain. (Remember the Spanish Armada in 1588?) She sought a more conciliatory approach to Catholics even while presiding over a Protestant Church of England. She adopted the title Supreme Governor of the Church (rather than the 'Supreme Head' title her father and half-brother had used). Elizabeth II holds this same title to this day.

Her great importance is that she brought the Church of England back to its Protestant form under Edward but she was also stubborn. She had a fear of civil war which inclined her towards conservativism, and according to Zahl, her bishops wondered throughout her reign, 'How Protestant is she?' (p. 21).

Introduction to Anglican Prayer Book History

"A Prayer Book for Australia"

Anglican worship is typically ordered by the use of a prayer book. In fact, Anglicanism may be said to be recognisably Anglican because of its use of set forms of worship based on a prayer book usually found in the pew for worshippers to use.

In Australia, Anglicans used the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) (1662) until 1978 when the first modernised An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was produced.  The Prayer Book was again revised in 1995 to make its language more inclusive; hence A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) is now commonly used in most parishes using a prayer book today. (The BCP is still in use in some Australian parishes and is still part of Church practice by church law in the Anglican Church of Australia.)

Cranmer's Bequest: The Book of Common Prayer

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP)--'common' means 'public' in this context--came out of the fires of the English Reformation and its words have found their way into the English language and into the liturgies of other denominations. We speak of 'the world, the flesh and the devil' which we might imagine is a Biblical phrase but no, it's found in the prayer book during the time of Edward VI (1549) composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

Archbishop: Thomas Cranmer

Cranmer was a genius without doubt, a learned scholar and not a combatant but he was used to translate the former Roman Catholic liturgical forms from Latin into English and purge them from their Romish errors. However, he was no mere translator but an active shaper of the religious consciousness of the English people. He was responsible for the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1552 ). The definitive BCP of the period was appointed for use in the Church of England in 1662.

What is the Gospel (3)

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples. 

Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear.

But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are:

• His distinction between gospel and salvation

I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus at his coming, 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2Tim 1.10, emphasis mine).

In Ephesians, the gospel is called, 'the gospel of your salvation' (Eph1.13) which at least suggests that the link between the two is very close. 

Or further, it might suggest that the gospel is the message of salvation through Jesus the Messiah! Jesus we remember was called 'Jesus' because he was to save the people from their sins (Matt1.21)! Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luk19.10).

I also wonder whether all the preachers and teachers beginning with the Reformation have been failing to preach the gospel simply because they are concerned about the salvation of their hearers. I don't think so. Rather I believe that when preachers focus on the salvation of the unsaved, they will also preach Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

• Is Jesus always to be preached as the fulfiller of the story of Israel?

We know that Paul didn't always do this type of preaching because of his ministries at Lystra and at the Areopagus. Paul adapts his message [the gospel] to his audience. These two audiences were mainly pagan. However, McKnight still wants to see Israel's story implied in Acts 13. Well I think that's a stretch! And I think it's a stretch to find this suggestion of Israel's history in the Acts 17 passage as well. Paul appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 and to the idolatry subsequent to the Fall but any direct reference to Israel's story is absent. 

It can't be argued that because Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17) that this means he preached about the Story of Israel: that line of argument is clearly begging the question! That's the point McKnight is trying to establish so he can't assume it proven as part of his argument in Acts 17.

I think it better to say that the gospel is adapted to the audience. When hearers know nothing about Israel's story one can then appeal to the God of creation who is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would the preaching of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story be of benefit to those outside the church today? I hardly think that too many within the church would understand the point much less those outside.

• The relevance of the ecumenical creeds

McKnight, it appears, has discovered the Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene believing them to support his case. However, even a cursory look at these two creeds shows that McKnight is battling to argue that the creeds solely confess the gospel--as he understands it.

The Nicene says, 'For us and for our salvation/ he came down from heaven'. The creed is saying--just as the scriptures do--that Christ's coming was about sinful humanity; it was for our salvation, our rescue from the power and penalty of sin. And the Apostles' Creed (perhaps formulated originally to be used at baptism hence the use of the first person pronoun) finshes with 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN'. These are distinctly present and future salvific terms. The Trinity and their work of salvation are confessed as an integral whole.

• 'Story'

This point is more a quibble than anything else but we do have to keep in mind that in talking about 'story' and narrative, we are leaving out the majority of the bible! When we talk about the Bible's story we are talking about a humanly created storyline that theologians have developed about the Bible's content.  Nothing wrong with that in itself. We are all in the same boat. Most of us wish to have some over-reaching theme that covers the Bible's content.

The Bible's text is made up of many different genres: saga, genaealogy, law and ordinance, prophecy, parable, psalm, narrative, epistle, and apocalyptic. Without doubt, a movement from beginning(s) to final consummation exists from Genesis to Revelation. Interestingly, this sweep of history used to be known as 'salvation history', 'covenant history' or 'redemptive history' and all of these terms do give insight into the nature of this history.

It's all right to call it a story or a drama but then we are left with the question as to what is the subject of the dramatic history. What is it about?

As you would expect various answers are given. Redemption, Jesus Christ and covenant are often mentioned. Another favourite is the Kingdom of God.

My point is that just talking about the drama or story of the bible is inadequate because it doesn't furnish us with a theme for the dramatic story.

Let me finish with a summary quote from the last link above proposing the Kingdom of God as the unifying theme/story of the Bible:

Like redemption, the covenant is definitely a unifying theme of the Bible, but it also seems to be inadequate to bring together the full range of Biblical revelation. By itself, the notion of covenant tends to be abstract and difficult to define. What we need is a theme that is broad enough to embrace every major Biblical idea, a theme that includes redemption, gives proper honor to Christ as the Creator and Savior, and also does justice to the centrality of the covenant.

Such a theme is the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, all of the other suggested major themes are included and given proper place. In addition, the kingdom of God includes other themes important for our understanding of the Bible, such as creation, the Biblical teaching about angels and demons, the doctrine of final judgment and everlasting punishment. Christ Himself remains a central theme of the Bible because as the King, He is the center of the kingdom, its very essence. Redemption as a central theme is the unfolding drama of God’s restoring the kingdom to its original purpose (p. 5).

What is the Gospel (2)

In the last post we sampled some Scot McKnight's ideas in The King Jesus Gospel. We concluded by saying that the author believes the gospel is the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel.

McKnight's big idea is that the gospel is not equal to SALVATION. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1.16) and the gospel is preached so that hearers will receive salvation; but the gospel, the good news about Jesus Christ is not essentially salvation.

How does McKnight support this hypothesis?

He says, ponder 1 Cor 15.1-8, 12-28. Paul speaks expressly of the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and he starts with the fact that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that he was seen by Cephas (Peter), and then by the twelve. . . seen by over five hundred brethren at once . . . . Then last of all He was seen by me also' (1 Cor 15.3-8). A death-burial-resurrection-appearances theme is evident.

So when the gospel is preached, Christ is preached as the One who died for our sins, who was buried and rose again on the third day etc. but Paul adds this crucial phrase: ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. He uses it twice in two verses.

Which scriptures is he talking about? He's talking about what we call the Old Testament (OT) and what the Jews call the Tanakh, a word based on the three parts of the OT: torah, prophets and writings. All but the first 11 chapters of the Tanakh document God's dealing with the Patriarchs, and with Israel. These OT Scriptures testify to the Christ, the Messiah. Isaiah 53 tells us in detail about the Messiah's dying for sin and our healing. We remember that Jesus used these scriptures with the two disciples he met on the Emmaus Rd.

McKnight then says, examine the preaching of the Jesus Christ and note that primarily Jesus preaches Himself as the realisation of the pious hopes of Israel! Jesus Christ is the good news embodied; revealed even in his name (Yahweh saves)! No wonder some of the leaders--not all--but many rail against Jesus because of what he says about himself. Jesus's primary message is 'Look at Me!'. (Young ego-centred children use that phrase but Jesus is centred in the will of his Father. His 'look at me' is a getting followers to look to the Father through Jesus.)

But we need to see that that's the gospel (according to McKnight)! The good news is that Jesus's story is the capstone and fulfilment of Israel's story. (I'm not so enamoured of the term 'story' which is big in theology circles at the moment but I'll say more about this at a later time.)

And then says McKnight, look at the 'sermons' throughout the Acts of the Apostles. If you go through them you will find that over and over they focus on Jesus death, burial and resurrection as the culmination of Israel's travail. Now in two places that does not happen (Acts 13, and Acts 17) but nevertheless we find it in Acts 2.14-39; 3.12-26; 8-12; 10.34-43 with 11.4-18; 13.16-41. McKnight adds Acts 14.15-17; 17.22-31 and Stephen's sermon in Acts 7.2-53.

McKnight's thesis is that Israel's story 'frames' all the apostolic preaching of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts 28); however the point becomes whether he can fully sustain this thesis.