“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3, KJV
By Robin G. Jordan
I only briefly watched the beginning of new ACNA
Archbishop’s investiture. A video of the service can be found here, the text of Archbishop Beech’s
sermon here, and the program for the
service here.
As I had anticipated, the Anglican Church in North America
pulled out all of the stops for the occasion. Archbishop Beech himself was
resplendent in cloth of gold vestments. After the ritual anointing of his head,
lips, and hands with blessed oil—an unreformed Catholic practice of which the
English Reformers would not have approved and which speaks volumes about the
theology of the Anglican Church in North America—I would not have been
surprised if Archbishop Wabukala had placed a papal tierra on Archbishop
Foley’s head.
The willingness of Archbishop Wabukala to so anoint
Archbishop Beech is suggestive of how far the chairman of GAFCON will go to
show solidarity with the ACNA. On the other hand, Archbishop Wabukala may not
have had any qualms about anointing Archbishop Beech. If this was the case, it
says a lot about Archbishop Wabukala’s own theology and raises questions about
his commitment to what Dr. Mark Thompson describes in his recent article as the “confessional formularies” of historic Anglicanism.
The service program
lists the Global South primates and bishops who were present at the
investiture. Their presence may have been intended as a display of support for
the Anglican Church in North America. But like Archbishop Wabukala’s anointing
of Archbishop Beech, it raises questions about their own theology and their
commitment to the “confessional formularies.”
The Anglican Church in North America does not in actuality
affirm the Jerusalem Declaration despite its claim on its website. In its constitution the ACNA relegates its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the preface where the affirmation is purely incidental to the narrative of why the ACNA was founded and is not in any way binding upon the consciences of congregations and clergy in the ACNA. It certainly
does not subscribe to the “confessional formularies.” Individual congregations
and clergy may but not the denomination as a whole. This is quite evident from
the doctrinal statements that the ACNA has produced to date—its fundamental
declarations, its canons, To Be A
Christian: An Anglican Catechism, Texts
for Common Prayer, and its proposed rites for admission o catechumens,
baptism, and confirmation. It is also evident from the ritual anointing of
Archbishop Beech at his investiture.
Anglicans in North America who are faithful to historic
Anglicanism’s “confessional formularies” and to Biblical Reformed evangelical
doctrine and practice cannot look to GAFCON or the Global South primates to champion
their cause. This is the message that the participation of GAFCON’s chairman in
Archbishop Beech’s investiture and the presence of Global South primates and
bishops at the investiture conveyed. They are not prepared to distance
themselves from an ecclesial body that does not stand for what they ostensibly
stand and to support those who do. It suggests that their commitment to the
Jerusalem Declaration and historic Anglicanism’s “confessional formularies” is
superficial at best. Whatever they say in support of these doctrinal statements
must be taken with a grain of salt.
See also
GAFCON primates help celebrate ACNA investiture
Papal greetings for newest Anglican archbishop
Photo: Kevin Kallsen
2 comments:
Robin,
You mentioned the anointing of Foley as being "an unreformed Catholic practice". Yet a simple survey of the Pentateuch reveals that Aaron and his descendants were anointed with oil. So maybe instead of being a so-called Catholic practice", Archbishop Wabukala was simply being Biblical. I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am just interested in your thoughts.
John,
The simple fact that a practice may occur in the Old Testament does not mean that we are at liberty to follow that practice. In the Pentateuch God is recorded as prescribing that practice specifically for the Aaronic priesthood, which was hereditary. The Medieval Catholic Church would adopt the practice because it fit with Medieval Catholic notions of priesthood and the Eucharist, seeing the Medieval Catholic priesthood as successors to the Aaronic priesthood, reiterating or representing Christ's sacrifice to God where the Aaronic priesthood had offered animal sacrifices.
The Anglican Reformers rejected the practice due to its strong associations with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood, eucharistic sacrifice and transubstantiation. They found no support for these doctrines in the Scripture. What they did find was that these doctrines were inconsistent with what the Scriptures taught. They also found no Scriptural warrant for the continuation of the practice under the New Covenant. With Christ's sacrifice once for all sins had obviated the need for a sacrificing priesthood and the shedding of blood in atonement for sin, among other things. Since the doctrines that were closely tied to the practice were in conflict with the teaching of the Scriptures, they rejected the practice as contrary to the Word of God.
This is just one of the reasons that the Anglican Reformers did away with the practice. Another reason is found in Article VII. "Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral." Under the New Covenant Christians are not bound by the ceremonies and rites of the Old Covenant.
Article XXXIV states, "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. This last caveat is an important one. Whatever practices we adopt must not be contrary to God's Word. For this reason the ACNA was wrong to include the anointing in the investiture and Archbishop Wabukala was wrong to have performed it. This is how the Anglican Reformers would have seen what happened and how conservative evangelicals see it to this day.
What would have been consistent with the Form for the Ordaining or Consecrating of an Archbishop from the Prayer Book Ordinal would have been for Archbishop Wabukala to have presented Archbishop Beech with a Bible--a reminder that his ministry is first and foremost a ministry of God's Word and his primary duty is the upbuilding of Christ's Church.
Post a Comment