Saturday, June 18, 2011

Reshaping the Anglican Church for Mission in the Third Millenium (Part 1)


By Robin G. Jordan

While a number of North American jurisdictions claim to be Anglican, none of these jurisdictions uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies or preserve the historic Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church. What is found in these jurisdictions is, to a large extent, not historic Anglicanism but a form of independent Catholicism, which is not far removed from the unreformed Catholicism of the Roman Catholic Church.

This development is attributable to the Tractarian and Ritualist movements of the nineteenth century that deliberately sought to undo the reforms that the sixteenth century Protestant Reformers had made in the Anglican Church. These two movements endeavored to revive the doctrines and practices of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church and to introduce the innovations of the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church into the Anglican Church. They worked to make the Anglican Church as Roman Catholic as possible.

The driving force behind their Romanization of the Anglican Church was the belief that if the Anglican Church adopted Roman Catholic doctrines and practices and became indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope would readmit the Anglican Church back into the Roman fold. Those they could not convert to their Romanist principles, they tried to drive out of the Anglican Church.

Pope Benedict XVI’s issuance of Anglicanorum coetibus and its Complimentary Norms in Novemeber 2009 was more than a shot across the bow of the Romeward movement. It hit the Romeward movement right at the waterline, and the Romeward movement has been taking water since then. It revealed the Romeward movement’s dream of the Anglican Church reunited with the Roman Catholic Church to be the mirage that it is—an illusionary image that Anglo-Catholics and liberal ecumenists have been pursuing to the detriment of the Anglican Church. They have done untold damage to the Anglican Church and repairing the damage may take generations, if it can be repaired at all.

While the coveted recognition as a uniate body within the Roman Catholic Church is beyond the reach of Anglo-Catholics, this development has not discouraged those for whom becoming Roman Catholic under the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus and its Complimentary Norms is not an option, from continuing to pursue the agenda of Romanizing the Anglican Church, in particular the newer Anglican bodies that have broken away from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States, and the global South Anglican provinces that were established in the second half of the twentieth century.

A number of factors explain the championing of pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices in the Anglican Church. For some Anglo-Catholics reunion with Rome has so long been their objective that they cling to the hope that some future Pope may go a step further than Benedict XVI, recognize the orders of Anglo-Catholics like themselves, and give Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Church the uniate status in the Church of Rome that they desire. Others see an authoritarian system like that of the Church of Rome as the best response to the uncertainties of the twenty-first century. A third group sees an authoritarian system modeled upon that of the Roman Catholic Church as a way to achieve their personal ambitions and to expand their personal influence and power. A fourth group has bought into the mistaken notion that adopting and spreading pre-Reformation Medieval and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic beliefs and practices makes the Anglican Church more catholic. They desire to convert more people groups to what they believe to be genuine catholic Christianity. A fifth group believes that in accepting such beliefs and practices they are helping to reunite a divided Church.

These doctrines and practices form a significant hindrance to the salvation of those who espouse them. Richard Hooker is often quoted as maintaining that Roman Catholics are not beyond hope of salvation. While Hooker did not entirely exclude the possibility that a Roman Catholic might come to a saving faith in the Roman Catholic Church, he also recognized that Roman Catholic beliefs and practices formed a serious obstacle to that possibility and greatly reduced their odds of coming to such faith. The nineteenth century Tractarians and Ritualists and their Anglo-Catholic successors have tended to be selective in their citing of Hooker, misrepresenting what he wrote. They did the same thing with his mentor and patron, Bishop John Jewel.

These doctrines and practices substitute for the teaching of the New Testament, the teaching of so-called “Holy Tradition,” a body of teaching that diverges from the teaching of Scripture but which Anglo-Catholics and Roman-Catholics maintain does not contradict what Scripture teaches on the basis of the spurious argument that “Holy Tradition” cannot contradict Holy Scripture. If “Holy Tradition” appears to differ from Scripture, the person who sees a divergence between the two is misinterpreting Scripture. “Holy Tradition,” they claim, is infallible, as is the Church as the interpreter of “Holy Tradition.” The Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic concept of “Holy Tradition” elevates the authority of the Church and “Holy Tradition” above the authority of the Bible. It stands in sharp contrast to Christ’s own teaching regarding the authority of Scripture and the apostles’ recognition of the New Testament as Scripture. It also conflicts with the central place the early post-Apostolic Church gave to Scripture in the life and teaching of the Church.

Among the beliefs that “Holy Tradition” upholds is the inadequacy of the Holy Scriptures and the need for a supplementary body of teaching like itself; the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world and the need for the representation or reiteration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead; the ability of a priest to make Christ present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist through reciting the Words of Institution and then to extinguish Christ by consuming the bread and wine, thereby putting Christ to death again; the existence of an intermediary state in which the dead atone for their sins before their admission to Heaven; the need for intermediaries between man and God particularly for a priesthood to make intercessions and offerings to God, the need to confess one’s sins to a priest and to receive absolution from the priest, and the ability of a priest to absolve the sins of the dying and the dead. None of these teachings is found in Scripture or may be proved from Scripture. Indeed they are incompatible with the teaching of Scripture.

Among the practices that “Holy Tradition” countenances are communicating with the dead and seeking favors from them; worshiping images; venerating the bones, hair, and teeth of the dead; making offerings to the dead in various forms; blessing inanimate objects; invoking the Holy Spirit upon such objects; elevating and reserving the consecrated bread of the Lord’s Supper for adoration; exposing the bread in special containers and carrying it about in processions for the same purpose. None of these practices are sanctioned by Scripture. As in the case of the aforementioned doctrines they are contradictory to what Scripture teaches.

Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics would dismiss these objections, on the grounds of the infallibility of “Holy Tradition” and the Church. Belief in the infallibility of “Holy Tradition” and the Church is the primary reason why the beliefs and practices that Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics share constitute a serious hindrance to their salvation. This belief encases false teaching in a protective armor of inerrancy. The same false teaching denies to Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics the life-giving gospel of grace.

These doctrines and practices form the constituent parts of the false religion that would replace Primitive and Apostolic Christianity in the Middle Ages. They comprise the sacerdotal and sacramental system of the Medieval Catholic Church and its present day manifestations—the contemporary Roman Catholic Church and the various Anglo-Catholic, Independent Catholic, and Old Catholic bodies.

The Protestant Reformers recognized pre-Reformation Medieval Catholicism and post-Tridentian Roman Catholicism for what it is—a false religion. They sought to free the Anglican Church from its corrupting influence and to return the Anglican Church to the Primitive and Apostolic Christian Faith. While they did their best to reform the Anglican Church and to safeguard it against further corruption, they also recognized the process of reform was an ongoing one. Each generation would have to defend the Anglican Church against those who would try to corrupt the Church with their false teaching.

False teaching does not declare itself. It assumes many guises. It may ride piggyback on seemingly innocent practices. This is how the false religion of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church and the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church would come to replace authentic historic Anglicanism in a number of parishes in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in the nineteenth century. These practices, their proponents argued, were to brightened and enliven the worship of the Anglican Church. But it soon became quite evident that their proponents had a larger agenda than making Anglican worship brighter and livelier. They were seeking to turn back the clock and to return the Anglican Church to the Middle Ages.

Wherever pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices continues to influence the life and teaching of the Anglican Church, they also represent a serious obstacle to the Anglican Church’s fulfillment of the mission that Christ has given to His Church. This mission is to go into the world and to proclaim the gospel to the whole creation, making disciples of all people groups, baptizing them, and instructing them in what Christ himself taught. The Anglican Church cannot fulfill this mission if the gospel that its clergy are preaching is not the true gospel but “a different gospel.” Wherever pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices exercise a continuing influence upon the Anglican Church’s life and teaching, “a different gospel” is indeed preached. It is not the gospel of grace and therefore it is not the gospel that Christ commissioned His Church to proclaim to the furthest corners of the earth. It is a false gospel. It proclaims another Jesus than the one the apostles and the early post-Apostolic Church proclaimed. It is a Jesus whose death on the cross at Cavalry was not sufficient for the sins of the world and whose sacrifice a priest must re-offer every day at a celebration of the Mass.

This is not the only reason why these doctrines and practices constitute a major barrier to the Anglican Church’s fulfillment of the Great Commission. In the second article in this series, “Reshaping the Anglican Church for Mission in the Third Millennium.” I will take a further look at how else they severely hamper the Anglican Church from carrying out the mission that Christ has entrusted to His Church.

6 comments:

The Hackney Hub said...

Robin,

I believe a recovery of Protestant High Churchmanship is crucial for American Anglicanism in addition to real evangelical Anglicanism.

Jordan

http://solideogloria10.blogspot.com/

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George said...

Robin,

I disagree with your conclusion about Anglo-Catholics wanting to brought back in the "roman fold". CB Moss and Francis J Halls writings are proof that Roman had erred. Anglo-Catholics want to re-unite the separated churches and we consider the Anglican church equal and fully catholic. As Moss put it the Church of Rome became the "Roman Catholic Church".

And more evidence is many of Continuum churches, which I would guess you would call Tractarian turned down the Pope's offer. And many of us in the Continuum are glad that those who really thought the CCC was the statement of Faith decided to finally just admit to themselves that they wanted to be Roman Catholic. I suggest reading Bishop Marsh's recent statements on the future of Continuum and Anglicanism. (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14449)

I am also curious Robin. How do you view the (Eastern, Greek, etc..)Orthodox Churches? You can't separate the inherited practices of the pre-schism of the East and West and than Reformation from the fact the Church of England left intact some of those practices.

The Anglican understanding of Holy Tradition comes from Hooker. The three legged stool. However, Scripture always remained Supreme. However, Hooker denied the Puritans view that if Scripture didn't literally express something than it was not allowable.

George said...

here is the CB Moss i recommend:
http://anglicanhistory.org/cbmoss/as1931.html

Robin G. Jordan said...

George,

My concern is the state of the Anglican Church. The doctrine and practice of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Catholic Churches is not germane to my article series which is on how the efforts of 19th century Tractarians and Ritualists and their Anglo-Catholic successors to undo the reforms of the English Reformation and to Romanize the Anglican Church have created conditions in the Anglican Church that constitute serious impediments to its fulfillment of the Great Commission and what reforms are needed in the 21st century Anglican Church in North America to reduce and eliminate these barriers to its carryout of this divine mandate. In the 20th century the Episcopal Church put ecumenism and inclusivism before evangelism and we see in that denomination the results of its substitution of a mission of its own choosing for the mission that Christ entrusted to his Church.

As you will see from the article series a number of pre-Reformation Medieval and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices and an ecclesiology that grew up around these doctrines and practices, where they are the most influential in the Anglican Church, keep the Church from fulfilling this mission. Indeed they may be described as not only as antagonistic to the English Reformation but also to the Great Commission.

The concept of Scripture, reason, and tradition as three-legged stool is a myth like the concept of Anglicanism as a via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Richard Hooker never compared Scripture, reason, and tradition to the three legs of a stool, as if they were of equal length and therefore of equal authority in the Church in matters of faith and practice. What Hooker did say was that Scripture should be interpreted first by Scripture and then by reason. Only as a last resort should Scripture be interpreted by tradition.

The Edwardian and Elizabethan divines were much more cautious in their use of the writings of the early Church fathers in backing their own interpretation of Scripture than were the later Caroline divines who relied often uncritically upon their interpretation of Scripture. The Edwardian and Elizabethan divines took a much more critical approach to the Patristic authors.

Bishop John Jewel, Hooker’s mentor and patron, refused to cite any work that had been written later than the 6th century, preferring to quote the earliest writers to the later ones during the first five centuries of Christianity. He refused to cite isolated voices or later writer’s quotation of an earlier writer. He would only cite the opinions of the early Church fathers where several were in agreement as to what a verse or passage of Scripture might mean or on a particular issue and where he believed their shared opinion was in agreement with Scripture. He then presented their opinion on the meaning of a Scripture verse or passage or on a particular issue as opinion. He did not cite the opinions of Patristic authors who interpreted Scripture allegorically.

Hooker, while he wrote Ecclesiastical Polity as a defense against the presbyterian Puritans was himself Reformed in theology. In fact, he was more Calvinistic than a number of those whose views that he opposed. Bear also in mind that Puritanism was a school of thought within the reformed Church of England and therefore Anglicanism. While some Puritans championed presbyterianism, others were satisfied with episcopacy or experimented with congregationalism. The Puritans were not separatists. It is also inaccurate to characterize them collectively as non-conformists. (Cont'd)

Robin G. Jordan said...

Where does this leave modern-day Anglo-Catholics? It depends upon how much they are wedded to pre-Reformation Medieval and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, to unreformed Catholic sacerdotalism and sacramentalism. Whoever has a heavy investment in the Medieval Catholic – Roman Catholic system of faith and worship cannot serve the cause of gospel. If we are not serving the cause of the gospel, we are not serving the cause of Christ.

The world is changing. It is becoming more hostile to Christians here at home as well in other countries. If Anglican Christianity is to survive, it must serve the gospel. To serve the gospel, it must recover its Biblical and Reformation heritage. What prompted the Reformation in the sixteenth century was the recovery of the Bible and with the Bible the gospel of grace.

In the 21st century less and less congregations are going to be able to purchase land, build replicas of Medieval Gothic churches, decorate them like Medieval Gothic churches, hire priests, clothe them in ornate vestments, and convince themselves that what these priests are doing at an altar is what Christ instituted. There will not be the money to do it and local governments are not going to let them have taxable real estate on which they can do it.

The future of the Anglican Church is with those who embody the gospel as well as proclaim it. Jesus said to the apostles and to the Church, “You are my witnesses….” As witnesses we are called to testify not only with our words but also our lives that we have met Christ and he has transformed us. This only happens when the gospel is made known in both word and deed.

In the 21st century the most common form of the Church of Christ will be a small congregations of Jesus followers who have banded together to spread the gospel, to serve as missionaries to the people of the locality where God has placed them, to make more Jesus followers, and to build each other up in the Christian faith and life. They will have no priest but will be priestly communities. This is the real Ancient Future Church to which the Holy Spirit is pointing us, not to a revival of the Medieval Catholic Church.