By Robin G. Jordan
With their approval of the proposed ACNA catechism the ACNA
bishops have rejected the Protestant and Reformed heritage of the Anglican
Church and aligned themselves doctrinally with the unreformed Catholicism of
the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They have espoused a
revisionist redefinition of Anglicanism. This redefinition disconnects
Anglicanism from the New Testament and Reformation doctrine of justification by
grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone and embraces Anglo-Catholic and
Roman Catholic beliefs and practices at the expense of the supreme authority of
the Bible.
The ACNA bishops have proscribed in effect the teaching of
the doctrinal views of conservative Evangelicalism and classical Protestant and
Reformed Anglicanism in the Anglican Church in North America. The ACNA canons
requires conformity to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship” of the Anglican
Church in North America from its clergy. This means that they must teach what
the catechism teaches even though the catechism goes against their own beliefs
and convictions. Otherwise they are subject to disciplinary proceedings under
the provisions of the ACNA canons.
The Anglican Church in North America has not to date shown
any inclination toward a policy of full inclusion of all conservative schools
of Anglican thought. The lack of any appetite for such a policy among its
leaders has been evident since its Common Cause days. It may be seen in the
ACNA’s fundamental declarations, its canons, its “theological lens,” its proposed
ordinal, and its trial services of Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy
Communion. It is clearly evident in the proposed catechism.
The Anglican Church in North America has also demonstrated
that it is not entirely unfriendly toward liberalism. The wording of Title II.2.2 of the ACNA canons is suggestive of a liberal understanding of the Scriptures. It is the view that the Bible contains the Word of God rather than is the Word of God. Only parts of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The proposed ACNA Ordinal does not
require blanket belief in the canonical books of the Old Testament and the New
Testament, as does the classical Anglican Ordinal. Both the canons and the proposed ordinal were approved by the ACNA College of Bishops. The
proposed ordinal has yet to receive canonical approval, as is also the case of
the proposed catechism.
The proposed catechism adds to the dilemma of Anglicans who
subscribe to the doctrinal views of conservative Evangelicalism and classical
Protestant and Reformed Anglicanism and who joined the Anglican Church in North
America out of the naïve belief that the different schools of Anglican thought could
coexist together without one school of thought seeking to gain ascendency. They
are faced with the difficult choice of further compromising their beliefs and
convictions or leaving the ACNA.
The proposed catechism also adds to the dilemma of another group of Evangelicals in the Anglican Church in North America, those who are Protestant and
Arminian in their doctrinal views. The catechism’s only concessions to Arminian
Evangelicalism are its teaching about prevenient grace and faith preceding
regeneration.
The time has come for those concerned about these
developments in the Anglican Church in North America to go on the offensive. The ACNA College of Bishops, Provincial Council, and Provincial
Assembly will be meeting this coming June. The twin issues of the present
direction of the ACNA and its lack of genuine comprehensiveness need to be
raised at these gatherings whether or not they are on the agenda. There needs
to be a concerted effort to ensure that these issues are properly and
satisfactorily addressed not only during the 90 days preceding these gatherings
but in the months following them. If the ACNA cannot deal evenhandedly with the
different school of Anglican thought represented in that body, it has no place
seeking recognition as a bona fide
Anglican province.
18 comments:
It concerns me greatly that you have gone to great lengths to unobjectively attack the ACNA Catechism, finding anti-Protestant Catholic teachings where there are none.
You have also spread a lie about what it says about the Bible. Here is a quote from paragraph 2 of Part 2 of the catechism:
Anglicans affirm that the Bible, the Old and New Testament together, is “God’s Word written”
(Articles of Religion, 20), from which we learn these authoritative facts.
I suggest you go back and study the catechism without preconceived notions and prejudices.
Stephen,
Reread my article. Here is what I wrote:
The ACNA 'theological lens' states that the Bible contains the Word of God rather than is “the Word of God written.” The implication is that everything in the Bible is not God’s Word, is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is a liberal understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures."
I make no reference to the proposed catechism.
The proposed catechism favors doctrinal views of one school of Anglican thought on a number of key issues. In doing so, it precludes the teaching of the doctrinal views of other schools of Anglican thought.
The proposed catechism has a decided Anglo-Catholic bias. It also incorporates Roman Catholic teaching. It contains substantial material that is objectionable to Anglicans who subscribe to conservative Evangelical and classical Protestant and Reformed Anglican doctrinal views. It also contains material that is objectionable to Anglicans who, while being Protestantant and Evangelical have Arminian views on grace, election, the atonement, and perseverance.
The material in the proposed catechism is hardly material that ALL recognized schools of Anglican thought can use with confidence.
If you believe that the proposed catechism is "Protestant," I recommend that you devote some time to studying the Protestant Reformation, the three main schools of Protestant thought, the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Settlement, and the theology of the English Reformers.
I read some of your other posts and you misinterpreted what was being said. I am not sure what the source of this "theological lens" quote you mentioned is from. Is it from: http://www.anglicanchurch.net/media/Theological_Lens.pdf
If so, look at section VI number 1. It clearly states that the Bible is "God's Word written".
Yes, the Anglican Church of North America is seeking common ground with what is right in Roman Catholicism just as it is seeking common ground with what is right in other traditions. You brought up some valid concerns, but most of your other opinions were based upon the prejudices you brought to the table, not the wording contained in the catechism. I read through it with a lens of 37 years in the evangelical tradition and only one year in the Anglican tradition. I found little to no issue with the catechism. Perhaps we can discuss certain issues to see each others' perspectives. I am looking to be confirmed in the near future, so attesting to the elements contained in the catechism is something I am analyzing closely.
Stephen,
I reread the ACNA “theological lens” and reviewed my eight part article series on that document in which I made a detailed analysis of the document. The ACNA “theological lens” does indeed state that the Scriptures are the Word of God written. I should have checked my source before citing it.
I have analyzed a number of ACNA documents and my conclusions about liberalism in the Anglican Church in North America are in part are based upon this analysis. Among the passages in these documents that points to a liberal view of the Scriptures is Title III.2.2 of the ACNA canons. It contains this phrase, “…nothing be established that is contrary to the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” The qualifying clause in italics implies that the Scriptures contain the Word of God, as opposed to being the Word of God. Compare this choice of wording with that in Article XX, “…and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written….” The Thirty-Nine Articles uses the Scriptures and the Word of God or God’s Word interchangeably. A number of ideas I have heard from clergy and lay members of the ACNA have been liberal ideas and the ways of thinking they have evidenced have liberal ways of thinking. I stand by my observation that the Anglican Church in North America is not entirely unfriendly to liberalism.
I also stand by my analysis of the catechism. I do not believe that I am misrepresenting what it states or infers, how it is open to interpretation, or what it allows to be taught.
If you come an American evangelical background, then I must point to your attention, a major criticism of American evangelicalism in recent years is its theological shallowness. It also has been criticized for its loose attachment to what were once its historical theological moorings. If this is the environment in which you spent 37 years, you may not be equipped to discern what is genuinely evangelical and what is not.
You may have little or no issue with the catechism but I do not believe that has anything to do with you looking at it through an evangelical lens. None of the three major evangelical Protestant schools of thought—Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist, recognize confirmation, matrimony, ordination, and anointing of the sick as sacraments. Some Lutherans regard penance as a sacrament; most do not. This is one of a number of sections of the catechism where someone who was genuinely evangelical Protestant in their doctrinal views whether Lutheran, Reformed, or Anabaptist would have difficulty with the catechism.
J. I Packer listed three guidelines that the writing team was supposed to follow in its drafting of the catechism. As I showed in my articles, the writing team did not follow these guidelines. All the material in the catechism cannot be used confidentially by all recognized schools of Anglican thought.
The Anglican Church of North America is very clear that Jesus Christ is the Word of God living and that the Bible (Holy Scripture) is the Word of God written. When they write "the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" they are distinguishing between Jesus and the Bible, not making a liberal false claim that the Bible only contains the Word of God among other things.
As for the other rites commonly called sacraments, that is tricky. They do distinguish between Sacraments necessary for salvation and other instruments of grace instituted by God for godly living (what I will call small-s sacraments). I believe this is a proper balance.
Stephen,
Why would the ACNA seek to make such a distinction in the particular context of that canon? I do not think that you can explain away the choice of wording in the canon in that fashion. It ignores the context. The wording is one of a number of inconsistencies that appear in ACNA documents.
The Prayer Book Catechism recognizes only two sacraments as generally necessary to salvation--baptism and the Lord's Supper. "Generally necessary" means that they are not absolutely essential. It is the Roman Catholic Church that teaches that they are absolutely essential.
What the ACNA catechism teaches is not the doctrine of classical Protestant and Reformed Anglicanism, which is found in the historic Anglican formularies and the writings of the English Reformers and the Elizabethan divines. Rather the ACNA catechism teaches Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic doctrine.
Stephen,
The Thirty-Nine Articles, Anglicanism's confession of faith, does not recognize confirmation, absolution, ordination, matrimony, and anointing of the sick to be "instruments of grace," only as the corrupt following of the apostles or states of life allowed in Scripture.
What you are embracing is not Anglicanism but Anglo-Catholicism. I think you need to be aware of the choice you are making and not be under any allusions that you are choosing something else.
Again I must reiterate that the introduction to the catechism claims that all the material in the catechism is acceptable to all recognized schools of Anglican thought. As I have shown in my articles, this is clearly not the case. The catechism favors an Anglo-Catholic and even Roman Catholic position on a number of key issues.
Title III Canon 2 section 2 contains no such wording.
http://www.anglicanchurch.net/media/acna_constitution_and_canons_june_2009.pdf
Can you post a link to what you are referencing?
The catechism makes the same "generally" distinction the Prayer Book catechism does. Sorry that I did not.
What else especially concerns you?
It is II.2.2. I also looked at Title III and I must have inadvertently substituted III for II. Or I made one key stroke too many. I do occasionally make those kinds of mistakes, especially during an all-nighter.
A question I believe that you need to ask yourself is, "Am I so intent on joining the Anglican Church in North America that I am not willing to consider any information that might dissuade from carrying out this intention?"
I just moved to Yakima, the church is aging, I am not yet confirmed, the weight of being a part of a church plant is exciting, yet very overwhelming. This is the perfect time to make excuses and walk away. What better way than to find that the ACNA is walking away from the Truth. I would then bs perfectly justified to walk away and take an easier path. However, that isn't happening.
I read the section you were referring to. You are reading far too much into the wording. We are to obey God. We are to obey His Word. We are to obey His Word as found in holy scripture. For you to make the conclusion that I somehow just advocated the idea that holy scripture contains something other than the Word of God is obnoxious. If scripture was polluted with error, it would cease to be holy, wouldn't it? Therefore, if semantics rules the day, then didn't the ACNA just affirm that scripture is holy and thus contains nothing but the Word of God?
I will ask that you examine your heart and determine if your disappointment in some minor things is clouding your judgement regarding major things, such as the theology laid out in the ACNA catechism.
I would venture to say that the quote in question is actually in opposition to the Roman Catholic position that Spirit-initiated tradition also is the Word of God.
As I noted, the wording is one of the many inconsistencies in ACNA documents. I also drew no conclusions about what you believe. I only pointed to your attention that the choice of wording is suggestive of a liberal view of Scripture. I did caution you in a roundabout way against allowing your desire to affiliate with the ACNA to cloud your judgment.
When all the doctrinal statements that the ACNA has produced to date are considered together, they clearly favor Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic doctrinal positions on key issues that have historically divided Anglicans. There is no way of getting around it.
I just think you have truly seen it in some places which is making you think you are seeing it in all places (real or imagined). Unfortunately, I can't read everything everyone associated with the ACNA ever wrote. You previously stated that evangelicals have been marked with shallowness. I agree. I would go on to say that they, along with other Protestants, have been marked with overcorrection on a whole host of issues. Anglicans believe in throwing out the bathwater, but holding onto the baby.
Give me an example of something very questionable, I will review it and give my take, and you show me what I am missing. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
How about telling me about your particular background, what you believe, and how you came to these beliefs. I can share with you what I have garnered from my study of the public statements of ACNA leaders, ACNA documents, and other sources. You can email me at heritageanglicansatgmaildotcom. This may help you make a more informed decision about the ACNA. I do not discourage folks from joining the ACNA if they truly believe that God wants them to serve him in that body. But I do encourage them to join the ACNA with their eyes open and know what they are getting into.
I sent you an email. Feel free to respond.
Post a Comment