I promise (fingers crossed)

According to Common Worship page xi, the following declaration of assent is made by deacons, priests and bishops of the Church of England when they are ordained and on each occasion when they take up a new appointment (Canon C15).

I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the saraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

I've no problem with the first bit, even if some people seem to think it gives them rather more wriggle room than I'd like.

And I could minister only using the forms authorized or allowed. But I think the use of only authorised or allowed forms is limiting. Though the minister has some discretion, it would seem that when there is an authorised or allowed service of public prayer or administration of the sacraments that form must normally be used without ammendments unless there are very special circumstances. It should not be a permenant change without special arrangements. Lots and lots of churches are not sticking to the rules.

It is a myth put around by some Evangelical Anglicans that any change the in direction of the BCP (or even the Bible) is acceptable. You have to use a CW or BCP service as is. No mucking about.

And you can't just declare everything a service of the Word. And even if you could that gives you less freedom than you may want. Even in a service of the word you must have authorised prayers of penitence, the collect, an authorized creed / declaration, the Lord's Prayer.

How many of our services are legal?

And loads of other non-Evangelicals seem to be happily and openly doing what is right in their own eyes, some even using Roman Catholic forms, which are not allowed. But our case for legal services would be much stronger if ours were!

I have lost count of the number of people who have encouraged us in more or less public settings not to bother too much about keeping that promise from college tutors, Archdeacons, Bishops, training incumbants, rural deans, ministry advisors / tariners. Very few people seem to stick to the rules or to the vows they made.

I think this is a serious problem and I would urge the powers that be to revise the oath into one that can be kept strictly and exactly by someone who interprets it according to the letter of the law.

Surely the church of England could find some form of words? It is famous for its powers of fudge and verbal dexterity.

Maybe, "I will minister with reference to the forms of service which are authorised", or "guided by", or "inspired by", or "and in faithfulness to the Scriptures, the creeds and the Articles and the Prayer Book" etc.?

A court could then decide what was unfaithful to Scripture, the creeds, the formularies and the Anglican inheritence if the need arose.

Can we expect God's blessing on our ministry if we begin them with solemn oaths in his presence that we do not seek to keep?

In the mean time, it seems to me that we have to include exactly what it says in the services unless there is some special pressing occassional reason to do otherwise (such as it is unhealthily hot and people are fainting or 10 toddlers have unexpectedly arrived, there is no creche and they are screeming). As I say, that would be okay, but I don't think its best.

For example, I would like to see a Lord's Supper service authorised that more closely and explicitly follows a Covanant Renewal pattern.