Sunday, July 05, 2009

The Need for a New Rallying Point

By Robin G. Jordan

In his opening address to the inaugural Provincial Assembly Archbishop-designate, now Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America made the claim that it was essential for members of the ACNA to rally around the Fundamental Declarations in the then yet unratified ACNA constitution. He went on to claim that the Fundamental Declarations were word for word the Common Cause Theological Statement and that the latter was a miracle that God had used to bring together conservative Anglicans in North America. He further claimed that the Common Cause Theological Statement is “evangelical and catholic and charismatic.” It allows conservative Anglicans with opposing views of women’s ordination to engage in mission together. He also asserted that while it is “not perfect,” it is “enough.”

Is it essential that members of the ACNA come together around the Common Cause Theological Statement for a united effort for mission? Archbishop Duncan as the Moderator of the now defunct Anglican Communion Network chaired the Common Cause Roundtable that developed the statement. He naturally would have an investment in the document as it is presently written. The Roundtable consisted of two leaders from each of the eight Anglican entities-- the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Essentials Canada, Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Network in Canada, the Anglican Province of America, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church, which at that time formed the Common Cause Partnership. The Annual Council of the Anglican Communion Network adopted the final document that the Round Table came up with.

The Anglican Church in North America is no longer an eight-member coalition of Anglican entities. One of the members of that coalition, the Anglican Province of America, withdrew from the Common Cause Partnership. The founding entities of the Anglican Church in North America, while they included members of the original coalition, also numbered in their ranks entities that had not been a part of that group—the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the Missionary Convocation of Kenya, the Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone, and the Missionary Convocation of Uganda. Anglican Essentials Canada did not participate in founding the ACNA.

As can be seen, circumstances have changed. A statement articulating where members of the original coalition were in agreement or willing to compromise cannot be expected to do the same thing for a much larger and more theologically diverse group. Members of the ACNA cannot be expected to rally around a statement about which they have mental reservations, and which does not regard as orthodox Anglicans those who do not adhere to its views of the sacraments, the first seven councils of the undivided Church, the historic episcopate, and the Anglican formularies. This includes traditionalist Anglo-Catholics as well as conservative evangelicals.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement really “embedded verbatim” in Article I of the ACNA constitution? Only a part of that statement was incorporated into the Fundamental Declarations. The following important part of the statement was omitted:

The Anglican Communion”, Archbp. Geoffrey Fisher wrote, “has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.” It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith once delivered to the saints”.

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a “Mere Christian”, at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.

The seven declarations that were incorporated into the Fundamental Declarations are not quite word for word those that were adopted in the Common Cause Theological Statement. A number of people have drawn to my attention that the seventh declaration differs from that of an earlier version of the Common Cause Theological Statement in its omission of an article. In the earlier version of this declaration, “expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief,” read, “expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” The version of the same declaration ratified at the inaugural Provincial Assembly substitutes “1571” for “1562.”

Did the Common Cause Theological Statement really miraculously bring together the Common Cause Partners? Archbishop Duncan may be investing the Common Cause Theological Statement with a significance that it does not deserve. This may be irresponsible on his part since the Provincial Council needs to revisit the Fundamental Declarations in the very near future and to modify their language or even to replace them altogether.

There is not only the danger of Archbishop Duncan investing too much significance in the Common Cause Theological Statement but also the danger of bishops, clergy and other ACNA members investing too greater significance in the statement. Its provisions might quickly become sacrosanct and therefore untouchable in the minds of these groups. Even Archbishop Duncan admitted that the statement was not without its deficiencies and faults.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement really “evangelical and catholic and charismatic”? The statement contains no reference to salvation by grace by faith, the atonement, the need for personal faith and conversion, and the priesthood of all believers. Also noticeably absent is any reference to the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. One would expect to find such references in a theological statement that was evangelical and charismatic. The Common Cause Theological Statement dodges all these issues. On the other hand, a number of the declarations do reflect an Anglo-Catholic bias. In the Internet debate over the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement Stephen Noll himself acknowledged the possibility of a strong Anglo-Catholic influence upon that statement.

In what way do the Fundamental Declarations allow conservative Anglicans with opposing views of women’s ordination to engage in mission together? In his address Archbishop Duncan does not really say. We are simply invited to trust him that they do.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement “enough”? It depends upon what Archbishop Duncan had in mind by “enough.” Did he mean that is “enough” for a reasonable definition or description of Anglican orthodoxy that is agreeable to conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalist Anglo-Catholics? If he meant the statement is “enough” for such a definition or description, the Common Cause Theological Statement fails to meet that requirement. The wording of a number of the declarations is too partisan for conservative evangelicals and not partisan enough for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics.

The reality is that the Common Cause Theological Statement has outlived its usefulness. What is needed is a new doctrinal statement, one which is not only more comprehensive in its recognition of divergent opinions among orthodox Anglicans but also displays greater solidarity with the Anglican entities that have supported the establishment of a new orthodox province in North America and extend their recognition to the ACNA as that province in formation. Such a statement need not be complicated—just a few well-chosen words—around which all orthodox Anglicans can in good conscience come together in the cause of the gospel.

9 comments:

Charlie J. Ray said...

If only they could accept the Thirty-Nine Articles the plain confession of faith? But will that happen? I doubt it. Consider the remarks of the now deceased David Broughton Knox on the 39 Articles.

http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/07/thirty-nine-articles-historic-basis-of.html

Reformation said...

Concur with Charle's post.

This may well go to deeper moral issues, like integrity and theological conviction.

Third, Robin said:
On the other hand, a number of the declarations do reflect an Anglo-Catholic bias. In the Internet debate over the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement Stephen Noll himself acknowledged the possibility of a strong Anglo-Catholic influence upon that statement.

I believe it is time for an amicable parting of the ways between ACs and Reformed types

Fourth, it's my view that further Confessional documents are needed for commentary, confession and clarification. I see "fusion" in the "confusion."

Reformation said...

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/calvin-500-anglican-awol.html

Calvin 500 -- Without Surprise Anglicans AWOL

Anglicans, due to dystopia, dysphoria, poor educations and stunted growth are AWOL from this conference. Henry Orombi may be an Anglican in the list below, but that's it from what I can see. Four generations deep into the English Reformation and there would have been leaders on-hand. There were at Dordt. Instead, the new Province, formed up over homoerotica, feels they have a new Reformation. It's embarrassing, but the truth must be told; it is better than Prozac, however, to contemplate this new federation formed over homoerotica. We are thankful for those Protestant and Reformed Churchmen who are mature and have done some reading. A veritable lineup of more mature theological thinkers are on offer.

http://calvin500blog.org/speakers-2

Robin, a new rallying point? Any suggestions for leaders?

Reformation said...

Once upon a time, Calvin was revered in the Church of England.
A new rallying point? I have my binoculars, but see little theological virility and educations that command respect. I wish it were otherwise

The Speakers of the Calvin500 Tour and Conference

See the Calvin500 Tour and Conference Schedule here
Commemorating Calvin Conference: A 5-day international symposium with leading Ministers in Geneva (July 5-9, 2009).

Joel R. Beeke, PhD
Iain D. Campbell, PhD
Bryan Chapell, PhD
Edward Donnelly, MTh
Ligon Duncan, PhD
W. Robert Godfrey, PhD
Martin Holdt, PhD
Sinclair Ferguson, PhD
Hywel R. Jones, PhD
Steven Lawson, DMin
Peter Lillback, PhD
Henry Orombi
Philip Ryken, DPhil
Derek Thomas, PhD
Geoffrey Thomas

Tribute Conference begins: A 4-day international symposium with leading scholars in the historic Auditoire in Geneva (July 6-9, 2009).

Henri Blocher, PhD
Richard Burnett, PhD
R. Scott Clark, DPhil
William Edgar, PhD
Isabelle Grassle, PhD
Richard Gamble, PhD
Darryl Hart, PhD
Michael Horton, PhD
Terry L. Johnson, DMin
Douglas Kelly, PhD
Jae Sung Kim, PhD
Robert Kingdon, PhD
Anthony N. S. Lane, PhD
William McComish, PhD
Bruce McCormack, PhD
Andrew McGowan, PhD
George Knight, PhD
Hughes Old, PhD
Herman Selderhuis, PhD
John Witte, Jr., JD

The Young Calvin Scholars Symposium: July 8th in the historic Auditoire.

Matthew Button, MBA
Michael M. Dewalt, MAR
Tim Gwin, MDiv

Reformation said...

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/toronto-blessings-movement.html

Monday, July 6, 2009
Toronto Blessings Movement

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_109_2_OGorman.pdf

Some observations from this excellent summary brief on the “Toronto blessings” movement, but by parallel, to the larger charismatic movement and, extended from that, the new ACNA with charismatics.

Bishop Charles Morley of the Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church (http://www.reformer.org/) has frequently called attention to this. To wit, that a greater danger is posed by charismania to authentic Reformed Anglicanism than by Anglo-Romanism.

The author, the Rev. Paul O’Gorham, notes that this movement drew off people from his C o E parish, including "key leaders" from his own congregation. As a result, “small” is better he informs us following the settlement of the dust; Rev. Gorham calls attention to the individualism and ego-centricity of one departing member.

He issues a sage warning: “Oratory not disciplined by orthodoxy leads to heresy.” Our observation, anecdotal though it be, yet, based upon years of association with charismatics and their pastors by way of the U.S. Navy, supports the view that charismatics are anti-dogma, anti-Confession, and anti-intellectual; while we must be patient and utterly kind, we must resist these obstinate leaders.

O’Gorham calls attention to Gnosticism, Pelagianism, mysticism and even Arianism. These are considerable allegations.

Reformation said...

Part two on charismatics, Anabaptists and revivalists.
---------
On this scribe’s view, these charismatics seek an end-run around the “usual and ordinary” means of grace: Scripture, sacraments and prayer, established means by which God ordinarily or usually works. In short, they are lazy.

The standard responses, in my experience, are: theological illiteracy, manic enthusiasm, churlishness, insecurity, harshness, distemper of soul, forceful rejoinders and judgmental behaviours.

These have, in this scribe’s experience, been the stock-in-trade responses.
Although there are other excellent works available, we commend to our readers a book by Nancy Almovodar, one who has experience in this nether-world of doctrinal midnights and doctrinal Lilliputians.

Nancy’s work can be seen at:

http://wipfandstock.com/store/A_Modern_NinetyFive_Questions_Todays_Evangelicals_Need_to_Answer

The publishers, Wipf & Stock, give this assessment of Nancy’s book:

"In 1517 an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed ninety-five statements to the door at Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. to the door at Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This was not a means of open debate but a desire to discuss scholarly objections to church practices of the time. Five centuries later, many of the same errors and heresies have crept back into the evangelical church. A modern ninety-five theses, couched in new terms for a new generation, require scholarly debate once again. Through modern-day apostles and prophets, and through the elitists within the evangelical church, the doctrine of buying God's grace and favor has been propagated through appeals for seed offerings and "atonement-day" donations in order to garner God's blessings. Pragmatic approaches to preaching the gospel through such movements as the seeker-driven models have moved the focus of the message of Christ and the worship of God from being God-centered to human-centered. Sound historical doctrines, such as the Trinity, have been relegated to the sidelines in favor of unity and ecumenicalism with Oneness preachers. In the words of Martin Luther, "Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light," the following propositions need to be discussed in their entirety by church leaders, pastors, and laypeople alike."

Reformation said...

Part Three on charismatics.
This evening while reading and writing at Books-a-Million over coffee, a young college student of mine sat down for a discussion. He exhibited all the signs of this distemper of soul and the doctrinal disorders associated with the above. When challenged, he did so forcefully, defensively, and with the righteousness of the most committed Pharisee...and with the usual stock-in-trade approaches—as if any of that enhanced his case. With co-equal rigour and doctrine, yet, kindly and manfully, he was resisted. When done, he had the "look of the deer in the headlights" look.

He attempted to tell me that the Prayer Book was “over-traditionalism.” This man is 20-years old, drifts around, reads little on his summer vacation, and speaks about theology with a Papal assurance that would make the Pope blush.

Following "reality therapy, " he was left in silence and without speech when I informed him that 80-85% of the BCP service attended today was directly from Scripture—something his enthusiastic, backwoods, exhorting carnival-barker could not match. I wish I could find kinder descriptions, but adjectives and metaph0rs come to mind.

When will these leaders humble themselves? To learn? When will they take 4-5 years out of their life and go to seminary? To sweat? To struggle? To read and write? To listen, rather than assert? I am trying to be patient and kind about all this, but these appear to be the relevant issues.

Keep him and others like them in your prayers. We need to raise these same matters with Anglo-charismanites.

God works through the ordinary means of grace: His Word, His blessed and holy Sacraments, and prayer. God can work above, without, and against the secondary laws of nature, but ordinarily, God works through His appointed means.

We are thankful for a post from Kenneth Howes today, a Lutheran Churchman, for his insistence on the "Means of Grace" in conjunction with the Word. However, that is not an exclusive Lutheran view, but a Reformed and Anglican one as well.

By parallel, this will have to inform our discussions with charismatic Anglicans.

Let the Confessional and Protestant Church rise to the challenges. We know our duties. Let us do them. And let us resist--face-to-face with co-equal directness and force, with loving kindness--these Anabaptistic enthusiasts and revivalists.

Reformation said...

Robin, you speak of a new rallying point. You have analyzed the Canons and Constitution magnificently. You have pointed out the lack of procedural safeguards and regression in terms of learning from the past--on polity. You refer to a more comprehensive Anglicanism, occasionally referring to the Anglo-Catholics (your preferred term) and charismatics. As such, I run in the theological direction and offer the last few posts.

Hudson said...

ACNA adherence to the historic creeds begs the question: "Do you mean the original language of the creeds or the revisionist language of the 1979 BCP?"

There are several important differences. I'll leave it to you to comment on them, but one springs to mind as a result of Bp. Schori's goofy speech at GC in which she advocated a collectivist "we believe" to replace the "I believe" of Romans 10:9. She described as heresy the essential Christian formula that we individually accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior.

So one rallying point ought to be the outlawing of the 1979 BCP since this is where she learned her new doctrine. Let's note what happened when Moses came down from Sinai and saw that the people had returned to their former religion. He outlawed those liturgies. Good precedent.

Is it enough to outlaw the 1979 BCP and not insist upon a return to the 1662 BCP specifically? Maybe or maybe not, but that seems to be a question of tactics rather than of strategy.