By Robin G. Jordan
How would you react if you went to visit a church, an usher barred the entrance to the church and handed a questionnaire to you instead of a service leaflet? How would you feel when you discovered upon reading the questionnaire that you and people like you were not welcome at that church? In its constitution and its code of canons the Anglican Church in North America is doing exactly that. It is not just turning away liberal Anglicans who are heterodox in their beliefs but orthodox Anglicans who are biblically faithful and whose Anglicanism is historically genuine.
Article I of the ACNA constitution identifies as characteristic of “the Anglican Way” and essential for membership the doctrinal position that the historic episcopate is “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice.” It goes on to assert that this doctrinal position is of “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ” as the Anglican Way has received it. This doctrinal position is historically associated with the Roman Catholic Church, the Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism, and is not held by all orthodox Anglicans. With Article I the ACNA constitution raises a significant doctrinal barrier to the membership of conservative evangelical Anglicans in the ACNA.
Due to the influence of the 19th century Oxford Movement and 20th century Anglo-Catholicism many North American Anglicans are unfamiliar with the doctrinal position of the English Reformers on the historic episcopate. The English Reformers found no evidence in the Holy Scriptures that God had ordained any one form or order of church government. They concluded, however, that while episcopacy was not divinely ordained, it was in the words of Bishop John Jewel “ancient and allowable.” To the English Reformers the one necessary mark of the Church was its continuance in apostolic and scriptural teaching, not the institution of episcopacy. What mattered most was the succession of the word, not a succession of persons. A bishop was a successor to the apostles in so far as he taught what they had taught. He had no other grounds to claim to be a successor of the apostles. The authority of a bishop was derived from his adoption of apostolic doctrine. If a bishop did not teach what the apostles taught, the bishop had no authority. This is not only the doctrinal position of the 16th century Reformers on the historical episcopate, it is the doctrinal position of classical evangelical Anglicism and of 21st century conservative evangelical Anglicans in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, North America, and other parts of the world.
In identifying the Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate with “the apostolic faith and practice” and “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ” the ACNA constitution excludes from the churches, dioceses, and provinces with which the ACNA desires fellowship those who do not subscribe to this particular doctrine. This includes churches, dioceses, and provinces that are members of GAFCON and have supported the formation of a new province in North America. In equating the Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate with Anglican orthodoxy, conservative evangelical Anglicans who are biblically faithful and whose Anglicanism is historically genuine are excluded from the ranks of orthodox North American Anglicans for which the ACNA aspires to be seen as the spokesman.
The ACNA constitution gives carte blanche to the bishops of the ACNA to disqualify conservative Evangelicals from ordination in the ACNA or to refuse to license for ministry within their jurisdictions conservative Evangelicals who are already ordained. It also gives them authorization to do what they will to suppress the doctrinal views of the English Reformers and their Evangelical successors on episcopacy and apostolic succession in the ACNA. This includes taking disciplinary action against clergy who teach such views or belong to organizations whose members subscribe to these views.
Under the provisions of the ACNA canons only groups that subscribe “without reservation” to its Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate as well as its weak affirmation of the 1662 BCP as a worship standard and the Thirty-Nine Articles as a doctrinal standard may become ministry partners with the ACNA.
Under the provisions of Title I, Canon 10, Section 3 conservative Evangelicals who have committed their lives to Christ, are baptized and confirmed, and are following Christ in a biblically faithful and authentically Anglican way are disqualified from membership in an ACNA congregation because they hold to the doctrinal position of the English Reformers on the historic episcopate. Benchmark Anglican divines like Bishop John Jewel and Archbishop John Whitgift would be disqualified from membership due to their views on episcopacy and apostolic succession. A number of contemporary conservative Evangelical leaders and theologians, members of GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and supporters of the formation of a new North American province would also not qualify.
A number of sections of the ACNA, while they are in themselves not particularly problematic, present a problem for conservative Evangelicals because the ACNA constitution and code of canons identify the Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate with “the doctrine of Christ.” All clergy in the ACNA will be required to teach the Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate. The likelihood of the ACNA adopting a Prayer Book and Church Catechism that reflects this doctrinal position is a very real possibility.
Instruction in and adherence to the Catholic doctrinal position on the historical episcopate is a general requirement for admission to holy orders in the ACNA. All candidates for ordination to the diaconate and presbyterate and consecration to the episcopate in the ACNA must subscribe to a declaration in which they solemnly engage to conform to this doctrinal position. In the case of candidates for diaconal orders they must subscribe “without reservation.”
Title III, Canon 8, Section 2 establishes the Catholic doctrinal position on apostolic succession as the ACNA position: “By the tradition of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Bishops are consecrated for the whole Church and are successors of the Apostles through the grace of the Holy Spirit given to them…”. This is a reference to the Catholic belief that the consecrating bishops in the historic apostolic succession pass onto a new bishop a special grace that sets him apart as a bishop in that succession when they lay hands on him at his consecration.
Among the charges or accusation that may be presented against a ACNA archbishop, bishop, presbyter, or deacon under the provisions of Title IV, Canon 2, Section 1 are: “apostasy from the Christian faith,” “violation of ordination vows,” “acceptance of membership in a religious jurisdiction with purpose contrary to that of this Church,” “violation of any provision of the Constitution of this Church,” and “disobedience, or willful contravention of the Canons of this Church or of the constitution or canons of the Diocese in which he holds office,” and “willful refusal to follow a lawful Godly Admonition.” Since the ACNA constitution and code of canons identifies the Catholic doctrinal position on the historic episcopate as “an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice,” equates it with “the doctrine of Christ,” and adopts the Catholic doctrinal position on apostolic succession as the doctrinal position of the ACNA, a ACNA archbishop, bishop, presbyter, or deacon who subscribes to the Evangelical doctrinal positions on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession or accepts membership in ecclesiastical jurisdiction that subscribes to these doctrinal positions can be charged, tried, and deposed under the provisions of this section.
The application guidelines for groups of congregations seeking to be recognized as an ACNA diocese or diocese in formation require that nominees for the ACNA episcopate must fully embrace “the Fundamental Declarations of this Province.” The governing board of each congregation in an application must also subscribe to “the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America.” These requirements effectively bar conservative evangelical Anglican clergy from nomination as a candidate for bishop of a new diocese and conservative evangelical Anglican congregations from inclusion in a group of congregation’s application for recognition as an ACNA diocese or diocese in formation.
Conservative evangelical Anglicans are not the only group of orthodox North American Anglicans who are not welcome in the ACNA. In the second part of this article I examine the serious obstacles facing those who value a synodical form of government and who believe that a diocese should elect its own bishops and that the clergy and laity should play a substantial role in the nomination and election process of not only diocesan and auxiliary bishops but the primate of the province. I also look at what the members of these two groups can do in response to this state of affairs.
7 comments:
Hey Robin,
For some time, I and a good number of other evil, apostate, liberal Anglicans have been saying that the primary motive of the schism is power. I think you just made my case.
FWIW
jimB
test
Jim,
One of the factors behind the particular direction that the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons have taken is the problem of how to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the church. The Governance Task Force's answer to this question is church order, the preferred solution of Catholics, rather than sound doctrine, the preferred solution of Evangelicals. Indeed the church that these documents create is substantially Catholic in faith and order.
As for your contension that power is the primary motive for schism, a drum that you are fond of beating, as we both now from our past conversations, may I point that the same thing can be said in regards to developments in TEC. What is the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council's motive for their actions but the desire for more power and greater control so they can pursue their own agenda for TEC without interference.
The desire for power and control lay behind the refusal of the TEC bishops to make adequate provisions for alternative episcopal oversight of congregations and clergy in serious theological dispute with their bishop. The liberal TEC bishops did not want to relinquish their power and control over the congregation and clergy to a conservative bishop. This refusal is one of the reasons that TEC now has the ACNA setting up shop next door and hanging out its shingle.
As I have also drawn to your attention, the ones who cause the schism are the schismatics, and TEC entered into schism with a very large segment of the Anglican Communion with its moral and theological innovations. What we are now seeing are the consequences of that schism. The drafters of the ACNA constitution and canons may be overreacting to the threat of liberalism and heteredoxy in the ACNA but one has to admit that they may have good cause to react this way after what has happened and continues to happen in TEC.
Robin, before your readers get the impression that the ACNA Constitution is breaking some new ground on the historic episcopate, I think it only fair that they be reminded that the Constitution's views are not far from the mark set by the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilaterals of 1886, 1888.
In the Chicago statement it was agreed by the U.S. bishops 120 years ago that the "principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men" include "as inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following": "4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church." (1979 BCP page 877)
On the same page of the '79 BCP you will find the first Lambeth Conference's endorsement of this idea in 1888 (though in more restrained language, I admit).
The Chicago-Lambeth quadilateral has been as Anglican as anything I can think of for 120 years. Is it such a shock that ACNA has enshrined its ideas in its constitution?
TexAnglican,
You forgot to mention a couple of points. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was intended as the basis of a reunion with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches and was adopted by the House of Bishops meeting in Chicago in 1886 at a time when Anglo-Catholicism was at its height in the Episcopal Church. The 1888 Lambeth Conference adopted a scaled-back version of the resolution passed at Chicago two years earlier, more closely aligned with William Reed Huntington's original wording in his 1870 essay, and reads as follows:
"That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's Words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church."
This resolution does not state that the historic episcopate is "an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice," as does the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America.
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral has been the locus of heated debate since that time, especially its third and fourth points. By far, the fourth point has been the most controversial with Anglo-Catholics arguing that it opens the door to challenges to the Catholic doctrine of the apostolic succession that the succession of bishops, in uninterrupted lines, is historically traceable back to the original twelve Apostles and this succession is transmitted during episcopal consecrations by the laying on of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession.
This was the doctrinal position of the Church of Rome at the time of the English Reformation and it was rejected by the English Reformers who held that a meaningful apostolic succession was not found in a succession of bishops but in the succession of the word, in the faithful upholding and propagation of apostolic teaching and doctrine. The latter was the position of the Elizabethan Church, it is the position of classical evangelical Anglicanism, and it is the position of conservative evangelical Anglicans in and outside of North America, including members of GAFCON and supporters of a new province in North America.
The reaction of conservative evangelical Anglican leaders and theologians with whom I have been in contact has largely been one of surprise and alarm at the ACNA adoption of a decidely partisan position on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession. The reaction of at least one, a strong supporter of the ACNA was to question the truth of what I was saying because he could not believe that the ACNA would adopt such a position.
@ Texanglican:
As Robin G. Jordan said, you need to read the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in its context. If you read the "preamble" it is quite clear that this is NOT a statement of what apostolic church order entails but rather "the opinion" [note the word "opinion"] of "this conference" [note the words "this conference"] on "a basis" [note the use of the indefinite article; it does not exclude other possible bases] "on which approach may [note the word "may"] be by God's blessing made towards Home reunion [note the overarching purpose of this statement]. In other words, the C-L Quadrilateral is suggesting one possible basis of a principle of reuniting divided members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. In that respect I don't have a problem with it. It is a possible basis for any church reunion. I'm undecided on whether it provides a desirable basis for said reunion, but it is indisputable that it provides a basis.
But it would be a grave error to take this as a statement of the necessary marks of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church much less of Anglican ecclesiology. As the original post makes clear, the true Anglican position is that episcopacy is of the bene esse and not of the esse or even of the plene esse of the church. That's what the Reformation divines believed, that's what I believe and that is what millions of Anglicans across the ages and across the world today believe. ACNA is on dangerous ground writing a highly peculiar view of the episcopacy into its constitution. Other Anglican churches don't do this so why should ACNA?
The Anglican position is that non-episcopal particular churches have just as much claim to be full members of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church as episcopal churches. The Church of England historically considered itself in communion with the (non-episcopal) Reformed churches of the European Continent and non-episcopally ordained ministers came across from Europe and ministered in the Church of England without being re-ordained. In fact before 1662, non-episcopal ordinations took place in the Church of England itself (and I'm not justtalking about during Cromwell's Commonwelath). 1662 didn't change the doctrinal position of the Church of England on the validity of non-episcopal forms of church government and non-episcopal ordinations in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. What changed was the recognition of these for ministry in the particular church of the Church of England.
Post a Comment