The prophet Ezekiel was, in a manner of speaking, Israel's messenger of gloom and doom; an emissary of God, sent to announce judgment and calamity on a disobedient church and nation. Through thirty-six chapters of prophetic pronouncement Ezekiel inveighs against a people who have profaned their heritage, desecrated the Temple of God's holiness, abdicated His immutable standards of moral responsibility, forsaken the faith of their fathers, perverted judgment and justice, and betrayed their covenant trust. The images of his prophetic writing paint an ecclesiastical landscape of lifeless, forsaken desolation. Then, in the narrative of chapter thirty-seven, the Spirit of God leads Ezekiel down into a valley strewn with parched, desiccated bones - another barren landscape of death and desolation. And God asks his prophet: "Son of man, can these bones live?" And with a spirit that discloses a glimmer of hope behind the grim visage of despair, Ezekiel replies: "O Lord God, only you know that."

And now, in your mind's eye, allow the scene to shift to a much different time and place. The date is more than twenty-one hundred years later: October 16, 1555. The place is England; the city, Oxford. And on this day, two of the great reforming bishops of England, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, are to be put to the stake and burned. Chained to a gibbet, the fire is lit, and Hugh Latimer speaks his final words to the friend and colleague by his side: "Be of good comfort, Mr. Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust never shall be put out."

Over the centuries of Anglican history the flame of that candle has been carried from England to the shores of distant lands, including our own. And throughout that span of time, the flame, set alight by eminent worthies of the past and tended by a host of faithful successors, has often flickered against some adverse wind, always to be revived, and then again to flourish. But today, winds of greater magnitude threaten to extinguish the flame and put out the light. And some observers, confronted by a vista that seems as bleak and desolate as that which faced Ezekiel in his day, are heard to wonder whether or not the flame of that great light can ever again be revived. "Can the candle burn again?" "O Lord God, only you know that."

The Rev. Dr. Allen C. Guelzo, in writing the epilogue to his account of the Reformed Episcopal Church's past, allows himself to speculate about the prospects for a Reformed Episcopal Church of the future, and relatedly, about the future of Anglicanism itself. In particular, Dr. Guelzo takes note of the efforts made by Reformed Episcopalians of the past decade to reaffirm the church's Anglican identity. In that regard, he writes as follows:

"Unfortunately, the diffusion and dispersion of identity which has been Anglicanism's greatest weakness renders this reaffirmation problematic, and for the Anglican Evangelicals fully as much as the Reformed Episcopalians. The Reformed Episcopalians may well have come back to Anglicanism only to discover that no one is quite sure what Anglicanism is...or...[to discover] that there really is no Anglicanism left to come back to."

Has the candle been extinguished? Has the light gone out? From our present vantage point, on the threshold of the twenty-first century, is the Anglican landscape nothing but a bleak, barren wasteland strewn with the skeletons of what once was, but never again shall be? Can the light burn brightly again? Can these bones live?

While these references and images may seem dispiriting or depressing, I am certain you know that I offer them for a better purpose. We need to draw from these negative assessments the challenges and opportunities which summon us to response and to action. Ours is the great privilege of partnership in restoring and revitalizing the church of our heritage and ancestry. The light of classical Anglicanism can once again burn brightly, if we as God's people will give ourselves without wavering to those essentials which, from the beginning, have constituted her greatness and her glory. A church which is truly Catholic, and truly Reformed, can rise with renewed strength, and can impact the twenty-first century world with transforming vitality, if we who are committed to her historic distinctives will apply ourselves with all diligence, determination and vigor, to the task of reestablishing her upon her sure foundations.

Illnesses are cured, not merely by treating symptoms, but by diagnosing and healing the underlying disorder. We cannot be instruments of helping to restore and revitalize a church that is to live out her faith in the Anglican way, unless we accurately identify those sinews of her former strength which, through negligence and atrophy, have left her body weak and frail. It is by giving ourselves to the rehabilitation and repair of those essential components that we, by God's grace, can be effective participants in seeing that church return to health and strength.

What, then, are the particular needs to be addressed? And how can we decisively and effectively address them?

It seems to me beyond dispute that the fundamental crisis in Anglicanism today - if not, indeed, in the entire world of Christendom - is a crisis of authority. And it is clear beyond all contention that the ultimate authority for classical Anglicanism, as indeed for all of historic Christianity, has been the authority of Holy Scripture. Throughout her history Anglicanism has stood for what Bishop Stephen Neill calls "the position held by the church through the centuries" - the ultimate authority of Scripture alone. John Wyclif summoned Christians in England back to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture well over a century before other Reformers came to issue that same call on the European continent. The reform of the English church was carried forward on the principle that the belief and practice of the church must always be examined in the light of biblical precepts; and that every church must constantly remain open to being drawn into renewed conformity to the authoritative teaching of Holy Scripture. Anglican apologists of the sixteenth century espouse the conviction that there is a core of Christian belief which is absolute and inviolable - "the faith once delivered to the saints". It was their contention that the church must maintain fidelity to that core of belief, administering such periodic correctives as may be necessary to bring about renewed conformity. From these godly Anglican forefathers we have inherited the understanding that a church, willing to be obedient to scriptural authority in such a way, can be truly Reformed according to the Word of God, and truly Catholic in continuity with the apostolic faith, maintained and transmitted by the historic Christian church.

Classical Anglicanism fleshed out her commitment to biblical authority in a variety of ways. It was the genius of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer to produce a lectionary, which, as Bishop John W. Howe observes, "...in a stroke made the Church of England the greatest Bible-reading church in the world. Nowhere else is the Bible read so regularly, so comprehensively, and at such length as in the public worship of the Anglican Communion." In Anglicanism, the supremacy of Holy Scripture was made a reality of principle as well as practice. Nothing could be clearer from a reading of the Articles of Religion than their pervasive acknowledgement of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the divinely authoritative rule of faith and practice. The authority of Scripture is unique, absolute, determinative, ultimate, and final. "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith...." Throughout the Articles of Religion, points of doctrine are established on the basis of references to Holy Scripture, and are at times set forwards almost exclusively in the precise words of the Bible. Certain beliefs and practices are condemned in the Articles because they are said to be contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. Questions of church order, authority, tradition and practice are made subservient to the authority of Scripture, and are defined, tested by, and subordinated to its teaching. It is the uniform position of the Articles of Religion that Holy Scripture is the foundational, indispensable, unique and absolute authority for the church's faith and practice, and that there is no other coordinate authority. There are other subordinate authorities. For example, the creeds are authorities, because they may be proved "...by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." And the church is said to have authority in controversies of faith, so long as she does not "...ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written"; and provided she does not interpret any one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts any other.

Those who are responsible to see that this position of scriptural primacy is maintained in the church's life and practice are the clergy. Of great significance in this regard is the fact that, in the traditional Anglican ordinal, the question put to every candidate for ordination after he has vowed his sense of call, whether to the diaconate, the presbyterate, or the episcopate, concerns his conviction and commitment regarding Holy Scripture. The question varies only as to form.

"Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?"

The answer required is this:

"I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace."

The crisis in much that is called Anglicanism today is that this persuasion and determination are gone. It is a telling observation to note that the very question itself, intended to elicit commitment from every ordinand regarding this historic position on Holy Scripture, has been removed from the ordinal in the current American Book of Common Prayer. What is absent from the ordinal is also missing in much of Anglicanism's life and practice. One analyst within the Anglican Communion offers this assessment:

"The tacit consensus...that...resided in acceptance of the doctrines of the supremacy of Scripture, and justification by faith...has failed. The Articles have only a nominal, token authority and cannot be invoked against doctrinal deviations....The revised liturgies contain so many options and such a mass of material that they cannot function as a standard of orthodoxy as the Book of Common Prayer once did. Biblical criticism has weakened the authority of Scripture in practice, to the extent that...[although a certain institution or practice cannot] be derived from Scripture, [it is maintained that] it ought nonetheless to be accepted as God's will for the church."

Given such a scenario as this, the objectives set before us as a church are clear. In the first place, we must apply all diligence to ensure that our theological seminaries remain faithful and unswerving in their commitment to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, and to that essential core of historic Christian belief which is "the faith once delivered to the saints." In diagnosing the malaise of the contemporary church, Bishop John W. Howe writes:

"Our Episcopal seminaries must bear a good deal of the blame. Along with many other schools, they have moved away from any real confidence in the authority of Scripture...[viewing]...much of the Bible as myth to be demythologized. Many is the graduate who went to seminary to build his faith and lost it there instead. And no one can give to others what he does not have himself."

Can the light set ablaze by the English Reformers burn brightly again? A lot depends on those of us who are involved in the ministry of theological education. Our seminaries, as agencies of a church called to be "a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ", must maintain absolute fidelity to the authority and teaching of the Scriptures. The Rt. Rev. Alexander D. Stewart, writing the foreword to Bishop Howe's book, Our Anglican Heritage, rightly observes:

"The persistent conflict will be between Anglicans who wish to preserve the biblical roots of the apostolic tradition and those who would endorse the latest theological fad (which come and go these days in three-year cycles) and thus minimize the biblical basis of our faith."

Can the light burn brightly again? Our theological seminaries must bear responsibility for trimming the lamp and maintaining the flame. And our clergy must be held accountable for maintaining the faith once delivered to the saints.

Can these bones live? That further depends on our resolve to maintain the standards of biblical faith and practice in the corporate life of the church. And that means, for one thing, that we must restore the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion to their rightful place as the church's living statement of faith. To maintain, as some do, that Anglican churches are not confessional is to join in league, wittingly or unwittingly, with those who wish to denigrate, deny, or ignore the Articles of Religion. The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, writing on "The Articles and Homilies" of the English Reformation, says this:

"In drawing up and imposing the Articles the purpose of Cranmer and his colleagues was fourfold. They wanted to ensure that the Church of England was an apostolic Church in the sense that it taught apostolic doctrine; they desired to ensure that the clergy would be sound in their teaching and thus not expose the laity to unorthodox (radical or Roman) teachings; they wanted to have genuine unity within the church (as the full title of the Articles suggests); and they wished to set the perimeters of a comprehensiveness based upon the Gospel."

Heretic, radical, and medievalist alike might claim the support of Holy Scripture for their beliefs and practices. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion were intended to provide a standard that would define and describe the biblical faith of the Anglican Church. Are Anglican and Episcopal churches confessional? Apparently that was the understanding of Thomas Rogers, who issued the first commentary on the Articles of Religion, published in two parts in the years 1585 and 1587; because he entitled his commentary "The English Creede: Consenting with the True, Auncient, Catholique and Apostolique Church in all the points and articles of Religion which everie Christian is to knowe and believe that would be saved." Are we a confessional church? Apparently sixteenth-century scholars in other Reformation churches also understood us to be; because they included the Articles of Religion of the Church of England in the Harmony of the Confessions of Faith of the Orthodox and Reformed Churches, which was published in Geneva in 1581. What exactly do we mean when we say that we are a church, committed in faith and practice to the authority and teaching of Holy Scripture? Certainly the historic creeds give answer to that, in part, "for they may be proved by certain warrants of Holy Writ." But the answer is further fleshed out in the Articles of Religion, which are the confessional standard of the Anglican churches' biblical faith. That standard must be acknowledged, affirmed, upheld, and taught if a church which identifies itself as Anglican is going to live out its profession in a way that is viable, and vital, and strong.

Can these bones live? For that to happen, doctrinal integrity must not only be maintained and safeguarded; its truths must be taught. The faith of the church's standards must become the faith of the people. They must know it. They must live it. That necessity calls us to devote ourselves in a renewed way to two other matters which gave shape and thrust to classical Anglicanism. One of them is the practice of catechetical instruction. George Herbert, writing about "The Country Parson", devotes a chapter to "the parson catechizing", in which he writes:

"At sermons and prayers men may sleep and wander; but when one is asked a question, he must discover what it is. This practice exceeds even sermons in teaching."

It has been wisely observed that the question-and-answer method of catechetical instruction gives emphasis to the moral responsibility which each individual carries for his beliefs and actions. In a society undermined by erosion of belief and moral decay, and in an atmosphere of mental laziness and ethical irresponsibility, it would seem impossible to deny the need for the church to return with renewed vigor to one if its historic strengths of ministry - that of catechizing.

And we must also restore integrity and vitality to the pulpit. We must devote ourselves and our ministries to the priority of biblical preaching. The English Reformers inherited a spiritual wasteland when they came to leadership in the sixteenth-century church. The vast majority of the clergy knew virtually nothing of the scriptures, and the laity knew less. It was not without significance that the baptismal office required instruction in "the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, [and] the Ten Commandments", because the entire population, clergy and laity alike, were for the most part ignorant of even these fundamentals. To enliven such a wasteland of spiritual desolation the Reformers of the English church instituted preaching. Like Wyclif and the Lollards in preceding centuries, and following the example of our Lord Himself in His public ministry, the Reformers of England came preaching. Bishop Hugh Latimer, in particular, stimulated countless hundreds of his hearers to examine the Scriptures and come to a knowledge of the Gospel and its truth. So highly valued among the Reformers was the office of preaching as God's appointed means of capturing the minds, hearts, and wills of the people that Archbishop Cranmer himself undertook to compile, publish, and release a Book of Homilies in 1547, enabling even the poorly-trained among the clergy to have something substantial and orthodox to preach.

It could not be otherwise. The Rev. Dr. O. C. Edwards, Jr., Professor of Homiletics at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, has written:

"The Prayer-Book world view...involves a very propositional understanding of knowledge, including theological knowledge. It assumes that there are 'truths' that one must know, believe, and act on - truths that are revealed in the Bible - in order to have a fulfilled life both here and hereafter."

It is for that reason, Professor Edwards observes, that classical Anglicanism has placed a high priority on preaching as one of the most effective ways of communicating these essential truths, and of motivating the people of God to live them out. As George Herbert stated it,

"The Country Parson preacheth constantly; the pulpit is his joy and throne."

But, alas, it is not so throughout much of the contemporary church. The pulpit has become a lectern for literary criticism, a soap-box from which to pitch for social reform, a springboard for philosophical speculation, and a conduit for the dissemination of psychobabbel of the worst sort. The pulpit has become the platform on which unbelief is indulged rather than the place from which faith and truth are proclaimed. In a tragic and damnable reversal, the pulpit has become the place from which biblical issues are defined and decided in terms of political correctness, rather than the place from which political, social, and moral issues are defined and decided in terms of biblical correctness. With it all, much of the contemporary pulpit has come to stand mute as the place from which the church proclaims to the world, without compromise or equivocation, the authoritative Word of the living God.

Can these bones live again? For that to happen we will have to respond with obedience and vigor to the same summons that came to Ezekiel in his valley of desolation.

"And [God] said to [him], 'Prophesy to these bones'...[Preach to them],...and say to them, O dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord."

And Ezekiel testifies:

"So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army."

It still pleases God "...through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." God's church will flourish, by His grace, as God's people do God's work God's way. We must be diligent and determined to cultivate and maintain faithful, effective biblical preaching in the pulpits of our churches.

Will the Anglican light continue to burn brightly? If we are to be effective partners in making that happen, we need to devote ourselves to two further essentials. One of them is liturgical integrity. The genius of Archbishop Cranmer was to provide for the church a liturgy which was biblically faithful; which maintained continuity with the practice of historic Christianity; which unified the church; and which edified the people. Few would want to contend that Archbishop Cranmer's remarkable liturgy is beyond all alteration. Cranmer himself would have offered no defense for such a contention. And the process of liturgical development and maturation which took shape within Anglicanism between 1549 and 1662 provides eloquent witness to the progress which can issue from the church's constructive review and revision of the her worship forms. However, it must be acknowledged that Prayer Book revision will always have theological consequences for the church, since those who revise the church's service books will, of necessity, bring their doctrinal presuppositions to bear on any alterations which they make. Liturgical revision inevitably articulates an underlying theology. The Rev. Dr. Perry Butler, Vicar of St. Michael and All Angels in Bedford Park, London, most certainly understates the case when he observes that recent revisions of the historic Book of Common Prayer have "...modified doctrinal emphases and may thereby have, unwittingly, weakened the cohesion of the Anglican Communion." Cohesion has been weakened because the very liturgical fabric of Anglican church life has been rent and torn apart. Modern revisions of the Prayer Book have moved away from the benchmark of 1662 - the culmination of over a century during which the liturgy of the Church of England was brought to full maturity. Modern liturgical change has been paralleled by serious breaches of doctrinal integrity, by declining spirituality, and by all sorts and conditions of aberration and deviation, both in belief and in moral practice. And we cannot expect it to be otherwise. Worship is both an articulation of belief, and a didactic experience through which faith and spirituality are continually shaped, nurtured, and directed. There is a profound mutuality between what the church believes and what she prays. Liturgy simultaneously express faith and nurtures faith. Lex orandi lex credendi. If the church's liturgy is distorted, her life will be misshapen. These observations are not offered as an apologetic for some kind of irrational Prayer-Book fundamentalism. They are presented, rather, in support of the contention that since the time of the English Reformers the genius of our Anglican heritage has been embodied in a liturgical tradition which has united faith and praise in a Book of Common Prayer which has wedded scriptural, doctrinal fidelity with a form and order in services and offices befitting the nature and character of Almighty God. If our Anglican lamp is to be trimmed and burning, the essence of that Prayer Book heritage must be preserved and upheld without compromise.

If liturgy is the work of the people, and the law of prayer is the law of belief; then spirituality is the life of the people, and principles of morality and godliness are the law of that belief lived out. We have said that, for classical Anglicanism, the Scriptures are the norm for theology and belief. But according to Anglican history and heritage, faith and belief are never merely cognitive exercises. Belief is always enfleshed. The Gospel which proclaims forgiveness of sins also issues a summons to holiness of life. It cannot be otherwise in a sacramental universe in which, as Tertullian observed centuries ago, "The flesh is the hinge of salvation." Just as Christ came in the flesh to accomplish our redemption, so also it is in our flesh that redemption is lived out. The ministry of Word and Sacrament have direct moral implications. The sacramental theology of Richard Hooker is shaped by the conviction that the purpose of the incarnation was to alter human nature, bringing it into conformity with the divine. Hooker refers to the sacraments as "moral instruments" which must be linked to the inner core of the Christian's life. The intent of the Eucharist, in Hooker's understanding, is not to change bread and wine, but to change lives. And thus the words of the Prayer of Humble Access have, for him, the most profound significance:

"Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us."

Our entire being is to be involved in the response of faith, which means that there is a vital reciprocity between belief and morality. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are the ultimate authority for faith and belief, are also the supreme standard for moral and ethical behavior.

In the Eucharistic oblation, patterned after Cranmer's liturgy, Anglicans for centuries have offered to God "ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice" unto Him. The sacrifice offered is singular. But its elements form a composite: ourselves, our souls and bodies. We can only truly fulfill the first and great commandment to love the Lord our God - that is, to give ourselves up wholly to Him - by doing so with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind: in the totality of what we are. Anglicanism must hold itself faithful to this eucharistic principle and live out its scripturally defined commitment of faith in conformity with a biblically prescribed standard of moral and ethical life. Moral precepts are not subject to change through a negotiated consensus of human deliberation. Church councils and conventions cannot usurp to themselves the prerogative of interpreting Scripture and scriptural morality in a manner that simply chooses to ignore, discount, or contradict the church's historic witness and practice. Professor Henry Chadwick of Cambridge University has written:

"Human minds suffer the weakness of incomplete knowledge, bleary vision, partial understanding of the relevant considerations and facts, often a partisan self-concern, and seldom have the time and leisure to think through a complicated question. The community with its past wisdom and experience acts as a check on partiality and idiosyncrasy."

Richard Hooker maintained that "experience hath never yet found it safe" to vary from the judgment of antiquity or the long-continued practice of the church. No church body can legitimately represent itself as faithful to Anglican tradition if its deliberative and legislative agencies distort the witness of Holy Scripture, contradict the tradition of its historic understanding, and pervert the legitimate function of reason, by approving forms of belief or practice which deviate from that inviolable core of apostolic truth to which Anglicanism is historically and foundationally committed.

Standing on the threshold of the twenty-first century, is there an Anglicanism to come back to? Do we know what that Anglicanism is? Can its distinctives be lived out? Can its light yet shine? Can these bones live? The answer to these questions can be a glorious and resounding affirmative if we are willing to commit ourselves to what Bishop Lancelot Andrews articulated as the definitive parameters for Anglican Christianity over three hundred years ago:

"One canon reduced to writing by God Himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period - the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after - determine the boundary of our faith."

We must submit unreservedly to the authority of Holy Scripture. We must reestablish the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in their rightful place. We must restore vibrant, vital biblical preaching. We must catechize the church. We must preserve the full integrity of the historic Book of Common Prayer. We must work to deepen true spirituality and uphold the godly standard of biblical morality. We must hold the church and its leadership accountable to that inviolable core of belief and practice which is the foundation of our commitment as a Christian and an Anglican church. And if we will do those thing, by God's grace, the light will burn. The weak shall become strong. The dead will come alive. And God will be glorified in the midst of His people. And His church - this church - will be a trophy of His grace and a glory to His name. Amen.

"Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us; unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

© 1997-The Rt. Rev. Leonard W. Riches, D.D.

Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church