There Is Nothing New Under the Sun

That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV

In his article, “Scripture, Tradition, and the Deposit of Faith,” (Virtue Online), REC/ACNA priest Victor Novak presents an Anglo-Catholic reinterpretation of Anglican identity that has gained popularity in some quarters of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America in recent years. The views that Novak expresses are the opinions of one school of thought in Anglicanism. They do not represent a historic consensus of Anglican thought on the matters in question.

The notion that Anglicanism represents a “western Orthodox” tradition is relatively recent in origin. It is traceable to the nineteenth century Tractarian leader and theologian, Edward Bouvrie Pusey. Pusey maintained that Anglicanism constituted a third Catholic tradition alongside Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Novak may be described as a modern-day Puseyite.

In the sixteenth century English Church leaders undertook a series of major doctrinal and ecclesiastical reforms. The Church of England became Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical in its self-identity. In the seventeenth century the adoption of the Coronation Oath Act affirmed this identity, and marked the conclusion of what some historians describe as the “Long Reformation.”

In the nineteenth century Tractarians like Pusey deliberately tried to change the identity of the Church of England. They created confusion over the identity of the Anglican Church that has lasted to this day. With his article Novak is adding to this confusion.

In his article Novak make inaccurate, misleading, and at times false statements. For example, he claims that the Anglican Church accepts the teaching of the first seven Councils of the undivided Church and holds their teaching to be free from error. Article XXI does not apply to these Councils.

Thomas Roger’s The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the oldest commentary written on the Thirty-Nine Articles, first published in 1579, and countenanced by Archbishop Richard Bancroft to whom the 1607 edition was dedicated, does not support Novak’s contention. It shows that Article XXI was intended to apply to the first seven Councils of the undivided Church. Article XXI is very emphatic that “the things ordained by general councils are so far to be embraced and believed as they are consonant to God's holy word.”

This is the official position of the Church of Englnd to this day. Canon A5 of the Church of England states:

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures [my emphasis].

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

It is the position affirmed by the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans "are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to help reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world." The Jerusalem Declaration is the basis of their fellowship.

Clause 3 of the Jerusalem Declaration states:

We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Produced during the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in June 2008, and incorporated into the Statement on the Global Anglican Future, The Jerusalem Declaration sets out fourteen tenets of orthodox Anglican belief. “Its purpose is to define Anglican identity for contemporary Anglicans, in a way which is faithful to Scripture, and to the Anglican formularies.” The Jerusalem Declaration gives these Councils a special place of honor because at them debates about the teaching of Scripture on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit were settled in a way that Christians from all traditions in all generations have embraced. The Jerusalem Declaration represents the beliefs of the largest segment of the global Anglican community.

Novak also resorts to the kind of selective use of sixteenth and seventeenth century Anglican divines to back up his assertions for which the Tractarians were notorious. A wider reading of the works of these divines does not support his claims.

Novak’s central thesis that the writings of the early Church Fathers, the three Creeds, the seven Councils of the undivided Church, and the liturgy are a part of the apostolic tradition alongside Scripture is not a position that the English Reformers took. Cranmer preferred to base his views upon Scripture not the writings of the early Church Fathers even though he was well acquainted with their works. Jewel was very cautious in his use of the early Church Fathers in his writings. Hooker took the position that Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture and reason, and only as a last resort should the Patristic writers be consulted. Cranmer, Jewel, and Hooker held that the thought of the early Church Fathers, like all human thought, should be subjected to Scripture.

In support of his views Novak cites a passage from the Proposed Canons of 1571 that Anglo-Catholic writers frequently take out of context.

But chiefly they shall take heed, that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe, and believe, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the old Testament, and the new, and that which the catholic fathers, and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.

The context of this passage emphasizes conformity to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571. This includes the passage that immediately follows it.

And because those articles of Christian religion, agreed upon by the Bishops, in the lawful, and godly convocation, and by their commandment, and authority of our noble princess Elizabeth assembled and holden [= held], undoubtedly are gathered out of the holy books of the old, and new Testament, and in all points agree with the heavenly doctrine contained in them: because also the book of common prayers, and the book of the consecration of Archbishops, Bishops, Ministers and Deacons, contain nothing repugnant to the same doctrine, whosoever shall be sent to teach the people, shall not only in their preaching, but also by subscription confirm the authority, and truth of those articles. He that doth otherwise, or troubleth the people with contrary doctrine, shall be excommunicated.

The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future points to our attention that Article XIX “implies that ‘orthodoxy’ cannot be equated with any one church or tradition.” Rather “orthodoxy” must be proved by Holy Scripture (Article VI). It goes on to stress that Archbishop Cranmer intended that the Thirty-Nine Articles should be confessional.

Clergy in the Church of England were expected to affirm them ‘from the heart’ (ex animo), and some churches today (e.g. Nigeria) continue this practice. This standard of orthodoxy is upheld by the Anglican Ordinal, in which two key vows are required of priests and bishops: “Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?’ and ‘Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word….?’

Novak’s article shows how much the Reformed Episcopal Church has changed since its establishment in the nineteenth century. It is a telling indictment of that church’s departure from its founders’ Protestant and evangelical principles. By no stretch of the imagination can the views expressed in the article be construed as moving the Reformed Episcopal Church closer to the Anglican mainstream. The latter is represented by GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration.

The positions that Novak champions in the article are clearly at variance with the positions of GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration. The countenancing of such views in the Reformed Episcopal Church suggests that genuine support for GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration is negligible in that church. It raises questions regarding the extent of the backing for GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration elsewhere in the Anglican Church in North America.

The ACNA College of Bishops’ approval of an ordinal that revives pre-Reformation Medieval Catholics ceremonies and ornaments and sanctions the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic beliefs and practices connected to these ceremonies and ornaments does not represent a positive response to The Jerusalem Declaration’s calling of the Anglican Church back to the Thirty-Nine Articles “as being a faithful testimony to the teaching of Scripture, excluding erroneous beliefs and practices and giving a distinct shape to Anglican Christianity.” It is quite the contrary.

The silence of the GAFCON Primates in regards to theological differences between The Jerusalem Declaration and the ACNA governing documents and their ineffectualness in dealing with the Anglican Communion’s liberal wing appears to have emboldened elements critical of the doctrinal positions of The Jerusalem Declaration to press their agenda at the highest levels in the Anglican Church in North America. Like their counterparts in The Episcopal Church, the bishops of the Anglican Church in North America appear to be prepared to chart a course for that church independent of the larger Anglican community. Rather than recovering the classical doctrinal and liturgical formularies they appear to be intent upon moving the Anglican Church in North America further away from them.