Anglican Catholicism and the Charismata

What is the Anglican Catholic position on the gifts of the Spirit, that is, those given for ministry in the Church, including healing, prophecy and tongues, for example? It is well known that gifts such as those aforementioned, with their more palpably “extraordinary” nature, are those which are emphasised and encouraged in the Pentecostal churches and Charismatic Movement. A common corollary claim is that these gifts were lost or repressed due to false Church teaching after the Apostolic Age and a progressive ritual and ceremonial Pharisaism in worship.

However, evidence from the post-Apostolic primitive Catholic Church indicates that gifts such as prophecy and healing did not cease with the Apostles and that liturgies were not considered so rigidly defined and prescribed that spontaneous words and worship were excluded. For example, the Didache allows prophets to offer the Eucharistic prayers by inspiration and St Justin Martyr notes that the celebrant “offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability”; St Irenaeus refers to recognised prophets and healers of the Church; and the practice of “Jubilation” (singing praise joyfully and freely “without words”) was commended by Ss Augustine, Chrysostom and Jerome, and Cassiodorus attests to its continuation in congregational worship in his time, the late sixth century. And, since that time, there has never been an official decree of the Church Universal condemning this earlier flexibility, nor could there be.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that fixed liturgical forms grew in size and detail of ceremonial instruction over time, such that there was no room left, it appeared, for either clergy or laity to offer spontaneous worship (out loud) or use gifts such as healing or prophecy within the liturgy. Outside the liturgy scope for use of these gifts remained, and it should be remembered that this is where the gifts had often been used from the beginning (e.g., Ac. 3.1f, 8.4f, etc., Jam. 5.14f).

In fact, many gifts are not naturally or mainly used within the liturgy. We see this when we look at a list of the gifts. There is no one complete list of them in the Bible. There are, instead, a number of partial lists, none of them identical to any of the others (e.g., Ro. 12.6-8; 1 Co. 12.8-10, 28; 1 Peter 4.11). Here are some of the gifts: practically serving the Church, giving practical aid to those in need, contributing generously financially, administration, encouraging people, communicating special knowledge and wisdom, creating beautiful art, architecture, music and literature for the Church (Ex. 31.3f, 1 Chr. 25.1, 28.12, 1 Ki. 4.29-34, the whole book of Psalms, Da. 1.17 cf. v.4), celibacy (1 Co. 7.7), teaching, pastoring, evangelising, prophesying and healings. Some gifts are obviously miraculous, some look less amazing, but all are necessary for the healthy running of the Church. How we categorise gifts does not seem particularly important, since, as St Paul said, the Spirit distributes the gifts to each as he wills (1 Co. 12). Jesus also taught that the Holy Spirit does what he likes, as it were (Jn 3.8). A number of the gifts overlap.

The charismata most relevant to the liturgy are those word-based ones implied in 1 Co. 14.26, where the congregational context is particularly in view. In other words, hymnody, teaching, prophecy, and tongues with interpretation (which is effectively equivalent to prophecy: 1 Co. 14.5).

It might be plausibly argued that there is a gradual concentration of the Ministry of the Word (and even ministries such as healing) even during the time of the New Testament into the presbyteral domain, the work of the ordained clergy. For example, one might suggest that the early liturgical, magisterial and preaching work (done in conjunction with the Apostles and Apostolic Men such as Timothy) of the prophets and teachers of the Church (Ac. 13.1f, 1 Co. 12, 14) becomes less and less associated with them as a distinct, named group and more and more associated with the presbyters/bishops in the later period and later letters of St Paul (Ac. 14.23, 15.2,23, 20.17, Ph. 1.1, 1 Ti. 5.17, Tit. 1.5, Jam. 5.14f). There is no mention of the former being appointed by means of human, even Apostolic, choice, but instead they appear to be inspired by direct Divine appointment and empowerment (1 Co. 12.11). The clergy, on the other hand, are appointed via human mediation, though also with Divine inspiration (1 Ti. 4.14).

Yet neither the New Testament authors nor the Fathers (in their consensual teaching) say that the miraculous or prophetic gifts had ceased or become exclusively clerical. Some Evangelical Protestants claim that 1 Co. 13.8f implies that prophecy and tongues ceased when the “perfection” of the completion of the New Testament came to be. But the context itself -- “then face to face” -- and the normal Patristic exegesis shows that the “perfection” which will replace these gifts is that on the other side of Death and Judgement, the Beatific Vision. While St John Chrysostom taught some gifts had been impermanent and had ceased, his was not the generally agreed position. St Augustine assumed cessation originally, but changed his mind in the light of further experience and observation. St Symeon the New Theologian insists on the continuing reality of the Charismata and our need for them and defends the practice of spiritually gifted, unordained monks giving absolution to penitents! Many Fathers attested to miracles or treated the Pauline lists of gifts as having contemporaneous authority, e.g., St Gregory of Nazianzus. So, there is a constant stream of witnesses to the miraculous and “renewal” in the life of the Catholic Church.

It was this very persistence of witness that Catholics used to verify their legitimacy against the Protestants in earlier polemics, and it is partly for this reason that the Calvinist/Reformed tradition came to the view that the gifts had in fact ceased and that evidence to the contrary was uniformly fraudulent or the result of superstitious credulity. In other words, widespread denial of the continuation of the charismata was an innovation of a large part of the Protestant Reformation.

The abovementioned persistence of the miraculous in the Catholic Church did not exclude the Anglican portion of it. Three English examples can be given easily even from the seventeenth century. King Charles I exercised at least once a healing ministry. Bishop Montague testified to miraculous effects of the use of the Sign of the Cross. Bishop Hall approvingly recounted the story, which he had verified himself, of a cripple miraculously healed in consequence of a dream instructing him to bathe in St Madern's well, which he did. Healing ministry became more widespread and officially sanctioned in the Anglican Communion from the early Twentieth Century. For example, the famous Fr Hope of Christ Church St Laurence in Sydney was involved in the healing ministry, and in an ecumenical context. My understanding is that three of the former Metropolitans of the Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) have had a positive experience of and appreciation for the Charismatic Movement: Archbishops Dean Stephens, John Cahoon, and Brother John Charles.

However, as much as Anglican Catholics can operate and have operated in all the gifts, they have usually been practically prevented from doing this within the liturgical context (except in sermons), unlike the situation in the early Church (see above) and in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. There is, I believe, a relatively simple solution to this deficiency, provided implicitly by the Prayer Book itself, and in just the right place.

In the Canadian 1962 Book of Common Prayer, on pages 62 and 72, we have two rubrics with the potential to grant us the liberty required for the intra-liturgical use of extemporaneous prayer and prophetic ministry:

[Of the Bidding Prayer] “To be used before Sermons ... The Minister, in his discretion, may omit any of the clauses, or may add others, as occasion may require.”

[Before the Sermon] “the Minister shall ... publish such other communications as are enjoined by lawful authority.”

The broad permission to omit any clauses and add other clauses must be a permission for personally composed prayer (or “bidding” to prayer, more precisely, though bidding originally did include prayer itself) at ministerial “discretion”, since no alternative clauses are provided. If said immediately preceding a period set aside for (extra-homiletic) charismatic ministry of the word, “before sermons”, the Bidding Prayer could prepare for that period by praying for revelation.

Since it is undeniable that the Bible authorises prophetic “communications” in the liturgy and that the Bible is the “lawful authority” par excellence, such exercise of the gifts may be considered suitably “enjoined”. And, since the Bible teaches that all Christians are “ministers” relative to their particular gift (1 Co. 12.5), this exercise of the gifts (and the saying of the Bidding Prayer in preparation) is not necessarily limited to the Celebrant or other clergy. Even the use of the word “Minister” capitalised does not prove exclusive application to the clergy, as this is the term used throughout the orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, and has long been understood to include lay readers for this purpose.

The fact that the Sermon would follow all of this means that the Pastor of the congregation is able to supplement, confirm or correct what has been previously said, insofar as this may be necessary, and so maintain doctrinal and moral soundness.

But, some might ask, if the Gifts can operate outside the liturgy, why should we make space for them within it? Because such explicit provisions can create expectation, from which it is a short step to faith, from which is a short step to action. It is essential and Biblically mandated that we avoid quenching the Spirit or despising prophesying (1 Th. 5.19-20). If we take no steps at all to encourage Christian people to seek the gifts (1 Co. 12.31), including by providing opportunity for their regular and corporate use, do we not risk “quenching” by neglect or indifference? This may not be the only way, but is it not a biblical, patristic and reasonable way?

Appendix 1

Here is an excerpt from a sermon of mine from 2003 on how each Christian can discover the Gifts with which God wants him or her to minister to the Body.

The answer to the ... question, about how I know which are my gifts, is not so easy to come by. That’s because it is so personal. It’s about you as an individual. One way we find our gift is simply to be available to God and see what role in the Church he leads us into. Another way we find our gift is listening to others. They can often see things in us we can’t see. But we must also pay attention to our own heart.

But all of this can only happen if we believe it can happen and if we want it to happen. In other words we have come to the answer to the third question: How do I make my gifts actually work? By faith and desire is the short answer. We must believe in Jesus, and that he has given us gifts. And we must desire God; seek him, love him and worship him; and desire to use the gifts. (St Paul said in 1 Co. 14.1,12, “desire spiritual gifts, seek that you may excel in building up the Church”.) St Paul also told Timothy, his protégé, to “stir up” his gifts. We cannot do this without faith and desire. It takes spiritual effort.

And thus it takes prayer, ... Jesus said “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

So, to play our part in the Church, we need to be filled with the Holy Spirit and his gifts to us. And that means we need to pray for this, with faith and desire. And we also need to be ready to listen to God and serve him, as he speaks to us through circumstances, fellow-Christians, and our own hearts.

Appendix 2

Here is another sermon-excerpt, this time from 2006, on the gift of tongues.

The gift of tongues (languages) has a special role in Acts. At Pentecost we have the only occasion in Scripture where those who spoke in these miraculously given languages were understood “naturally” by those standing about. Why? At least part of the reason was that this event was a great sign of the fact that the Gospel was for “every nation, tribe and tongue”, that is, all humanity. “[E]very man heard them speak in his own language … the wonderful works of God”, as it says.

In other parts of Acts this gift is specifically mentioned every time a previously unreached group first receives the Gospel or the prayer and laying on of hands of the Apostles. The Samaritans (ch. 8), the heathens (ch. 10), and finally those followers of John the Baptist who had only heard a portion of the Gospel (ch. 19). So, the Gift of Tongues symbolises the universality of the Gospel.

But what are its other purposes? How does it help Christians or the Church? Are all Christians supposed to have this gift because so many did in the earliest days? St Paul supplies us with some of the answers in his First letter to the Corinthians.

There he teaches that Christians have different roles and gifts to use in the Church. He asks rhetorically, “Do all have the gift of healing? Of miracles? Of tongues? Of the interpretation of tongues?” (12.29-30).

The last named gift is one where the listener could interpret any public utterence in an unknown, supernaturally-supplied language. And that brings us to another of the Apostle’s teachings: in the Church there must be no public praying in tongues unless someone with the gift of interpretation is present, otherwise the Church is not taught or encouraged because it does not understand what is said (ch. 14).

Finally, it should be noted that St Paul says that this gift has another role which is, apparently unlike other gifts, unrelated to edifying others and solely benefiting the spirit of the one using the gift. He says that it allows the spirit to pray independently of the mind and sees nothing wrong with this as long as this is how it is used privately, between the pray-er and God. Indeed, he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than his readers (14.18) and says he would like all to have this gift, so we can be sure the Apostle gained benefit from it in his own life. So, while he does not say that we cannot be filled with the Spirit without this gift or that all Christians must have it, he commends it, while noting that prophecy is better for the Church (unless there is an interpreter). There can be no problem, then, with Christians seeking this gift or any other in prayer. Paul explicitly says “earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy” (14.1). Let us not be afraid of any of his gifts.