A Parallel Anglican Church in England?

By Robin G. Jordan

The Internet is abuzz with speculation about whether the GAFCON/GFCA Primates meeting in London will support the formation of a parallel Anglican church in England. This possibility has elicited a typical reaction from liberals.

What concerns me the most is that if the GAFCON/GFCA Primates do support the formation of such a parallel jurisdiction, they do not repeat the mistake that they made in North America and support an ecclesial organization whose affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration is rhetorical and cosmetic and does not represent its actual commitment to this important doctrinal statement, an ecclesial organization which does not fully and unreservedly accept the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies, including the two Books of Homilies, as can be seen from the doctrinal statements that it has produced to date.

The first and second Books of Homilies are a major doctrinal statement of the reformed Church of England. They articulate the Biblical and Protestant stance of the reformed Anglican Church. Their adoption predates that of Thirty-Nine Articles, historic Anglicanism’s confession of faith.

Article 11 states that the doctrine of justification by faith, a key doctrine in historic Anglicanism, “more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification,” a reference to the homily on salvation. Article 35 states that the two Books of Homilies “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” It enjoins ministers to read them in churches “diligently and distinctly” so that the people might understand them.

It was not the intent of the English Reformers that the two Books of Homilies  should be ignored as they are in number of Anglican jurisdictions, particular those that broke away from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA, including the Anglican Church in North America.

The Anglican Church in North America not only ignores the two Books of Homilies but also equivocates in its acceptance of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The ACNA in practice treats the Articles as a historical document that is not relevant for Anglicans today, much less authoritative as the Bible for them.

As well as rejecting the position of the Jerusalem Declaration on the Thirty-Nine Articles, the ACNA dismisses the position of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group articulated in Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the official GAFCON/GFCA commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, that acceptance of the Articles forms a major component of Anglican identity, one so important that an ecclesial organization that does not accept the Articles cannot be regarded as genuinely Anglican. This is clearly evident from the doctrinal statements that the ACNA has produced to date, in particular its ordinal, its trial services of Holy Communion, its catechism, and its proposed rites of admission of catechumens, baptism, and confirmation.

In addition these doctrinal statements effectively exclude authentic historic Anglicanism and its adherents from the Anglican Church in North America. The ACNA governing documents, its constitution and canons, make no room for the Biblical and Protestant stance and Reformed and Evangelical doctrine of authentic historic Anglicanism in that ecclesial organization.

ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach is reported to be looking forward to working with the GAFCON/GFCA Primates for “the spiritual renewal ofAnglicanism throughout the Anglican Communion” and the “spread of the Biblical Faith which has been passed down to us from the Apostles and Fathers of the Church.” Archbishop Beech may lard his sermons and addresses with numerous Scripture references but he is no Evangelical. Archbishop Beach has in the recent past equated Anglican confessionalism not with the Anglican formularies but the Creeds. He has shown to date when he speaks about “spiritual renewal” of the Anglican Church, he is not speaking about a reinvigoration of authentic historic Anglican arising from a return to the Bible and the Anglican formularies in response to the call of the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement but the reconstruction of Anglicanism "on the model of the pre-Great Schism period of the eleventh-century, undivided Church."

The proponents of this reconstruction view the early High Middle Ages as a golden age of Christianity. Needless to say the Church during this period was not without its divisions nor was it free from superstition and error. This extreme form of Anglo-Catholicism has proven to be a theological black hole as the state of the Continuing Anglican Churches in North America shows. It is the prevalent ideology in almost all of these jurisdictions and all of these jurisdictions are in various stages of decline.

Hopefully the GAFCON/GFCA Primates have learned from their mistakes in North America and will refuse to extend their support to a network of churches in England that does not take the Bible seriously as functional rule of faith and practice and which does not wholeheartedly accept the Anglican formularies as historic Anglicanism’s standard of doctrine and worship.

While it is highly unlikely, the Primates should demand an accounting from Archbishop Beach as to why the Anglican Church in North America is moving in its present direction away from authentic historic Anglicanism and insist upon specific reforms in the ACNA as a condition of their continued recognition and support of that ecclesial organization. They should establish a time frame in which the ACNA is to implement such reforms and create an oversight body to monitor its progress.

The Primates should also establish a parallel structure to the Anglican Church in North America for congregations and clergy that uphold the Biblical and Protestant stance of historic Anglicanism and its Reformed and Evangelical doctrine, those that Anglo-Catholics have taken steps to exclude from the ACNA. 

Photo credit: Pixabay, public domain