Evangelicalism Is a Seedbed of Anglo-Catholicism?!

By Robin G. Jordan

David Virtue has posted an account of Archbishop Foley Beach’s address to the recent International Congress of Catholic Anglicans on Virtueonline. Archbishop Beach’s description of evangelicalism as a seedbed of Anglo-Catholicism was particularly troubling. It presumes a movement from evangelicalism to Anglo-Catholicism, which the Congress organizers are seeking to encourage, and which from all appearances Texts for Common Prayer and To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, the Anglican Church in North America’s collection of rites and services and its catechism, are designed to facilitate.

Archbishop Beach’s description of evangelicalism as a seedbed of Anglo-Catholicism in his address does not suggest that he has a strong commitment to authentic historic Anglicanism.  He has in a previous address equated Anglican confessionalism with adherence to the catholic creeds and not the Articles of Religion. While Beach attended an evangelical seminary, Gordon-Conwell, he also attended the School of Theology of the University of the South. The prevailing ethos at Sewanee, while it is not traditionalist Anglo-Catholic like Nashotah House, is High Church. Beach was originally ordained in the Episcopal Church, which is not known for its overarching commitment to the Anglican formularies even in conservative circles.

What concerns me are the implications of Archbishop Beach’s statement. From all appearances the College of Bishops selected Beach as Archbishop because he is not a strong proponent of authentic historical Anglicanism despite his evangelical background. At the same time his evangelical background increased the likelihood that he would enjoy the support of evangelicals

What Beach may have in part been alluding to in his statement was a shift in his own doctrinal views from evangelical views to views closer to Anglo-Catholicism. To my knowledge Beach has not abstained from voting or voted against endorsement when the College of Bishops voted on the various additions to Texts for Common Prayer and on To Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism. He voted in favor their endorsement. Both documents embody unreformed Catholic doctrine; Texts for Common Prayer mandates or countenances unreformed Catholic practices. Texts for Common Prayer and To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism reflect the influence that traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and the new Anglo-Catholics, those who have come to similar views through the influence of the ecumenical, liturgical, and convergence movements, assert in the Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force and in the College of Bishops. The two documents conflict with the teaching of the Scriptures in a number of places and show very little evidence of the influence of the principles of doctrine and worship laid out in the Anglican formularies.

Among the apparent purposes of these documents is to transform the Anglican Church in North America into a hotbed for forcing the growth of new Anglo-Catholics. Through the medium of the catechism newcomers will be indoctrinated in unreformed Catholic doctrine; through medium of the rites and services they will be further shaped as unreformed Catholics. Archbishop Beach’s statement suggests that he goes along with the use of these documents for this purpose.

Archbishop Beach’s predecessor, while describing himself as a “High Church evangelical,” has shown decided unreformed Catholic leanings. He has criticized the Elizabethan Settlement, which has shaped Anglicanism since the sixteenth century, and has advocated a “new settlement,” which would turn back the clock to a period before the English Reformation. Both he and Beach give all appearances of sharing a common vision of the Anglican Church in North America—that of creating an environment that favors the rapid transformation of charismatics and evangelicals with a penchant for liturgy into full-blown Anglo-Catholics.

Such a vision of the Anglican Church in North America is consistent with a “Catholic Revivalist” agenda that seeks to reshape the Anglican Church along the lines of the purportedly undivided Church of the early High Middle Ages before the East-West Schism in the eleventh century. Those pushing this agenda claim that this was the real intention of the English Reformers, and not to bring the doctrine and practices of the Church of England into conformity with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures as the Reformers themselves claimed in defense of the reforms that they instituted.

“Catholic Revivalists” in the Anglican Church in North America fall into two groups. The first group is composed of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics—those who have acquired unreformed Catholic views through the influence of the Anglo-Catholic movement. The second group is composed of charismatics, evangelicals, and others who have come to similar views through the influence of the ecumenical, liturgical, and convergence movements.

When “Catholic Revivalists” talk about the renewal of the Anglican Church, what they are referring to is the renewal of unreformed Catholicism in the Anglican Church and the transformation of the Anglican Church into a Catholic Church. They are not talking about the renewal of historic Anglicanism, which would involve the continuation and strengthening and in some cases restoration of the Biblical and Reformation doctrines and convictions of the English Reformers, the reaffirmation of the Elizabethan Settlement and the reinvigoration of the Protestant, reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church. What they seek is an entirely different outcome from what the renewal of historic Anglicanism would bring with it.

Those who desire the renewal of unreformed Catholicism in the Anglican Church and those who desire the renewal of authentic historic Anglicanism are at cross-purposes. This explains why the “Catholic Revivalists” are taking advantage of the positions of influence that they occupy in the Anglican Church in North America to entrench their views in the denomination. They are ideologues and their agenda is ideological. While they are to some degree a diverse group, this diversity should not be permitted to obscure the fact that they are committed to moving the Anglican Church in North America and its clergy and congregations closer to the unreformed Catholic teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They desire to create their own version of a Catholic Church while retaining the Anglican brand name.  

In seeking to impose a particular set of beliefs and practices on the clergy and congregations of the Anglican Church in North America through what may eventually become its Prayer Book, this group of ideologues is not any different from the group of liberal ideologues in the Episcopal Church. They may be to a certain extent more orthodox in that they ostensibly accept the teaching of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds but believing in the uniqueness of Christ and the other core doctrines articulated in the creeds does not justify their imposition of their convictions on Anglicans and other Christians who do not share these convictions, especially when their convictions conflict with the Anglican Church’s “primary formulary”—the Bible—and its “secondary formularies”—the two Books of Homilies, the Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal annexed to the 1662 Prayer Book. They may be convinced of the soundness of their views but this conviction does not justify what they are doing either.

Having left the Episcopal Church whose liberal agenda kept their aspirations in check, this particular group of ideologues now feels free to pursue their own vision of the Anglican Church. They, however, are not the only group that left the Episcopal Church and they are not the only group that forms the Anglican Church in North America. They are presently able to do what they are doing because there is a lot of confusion in the Anglican Church in North America about the Prayer Book that is in preparation for use in the denomination. This may be attributed to a number of factors.

First, a rumor to the effect that the Prayer Book in preparation is based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has been circulating in the Anglican Church in North America. A comparison of the rites and services in Texts for Common Prayer, including its latest additions, with the rites and services in the 1662 Prayer Book show that this rumor is unfounded.  The rites and services in Texts for Common Prayer are based on the 1549 Prayer Book, the 1928 Prayer Book, the various Anglican missals, and the 1979 Prayer Book. They incorporate some textual material from the 1662 Prayer Book but often use this material differently from the way it is used in the 1662 Prayer Book. Their doctrine and liturgical usages are decidedly NOT those of the rites and services in the 1662 Prayer Book. Any resemblance Texts for Common Prayer bears to the 1662 Prayer Book is superficial at best.

Second, a surprising number of people in the ACNA want to believe this rumor. They do not want to hear that the Prayer Book in preparation is not based upon the 1662 Prayer Book and that it diverges significantly in its doctrine and liturgical usages from that of the 1662 Prayer Book.

Third, a sizable number of people in the ACNA are not familiar with the rites and services of the 1662 Prayer Book or acquainted with its doctrine and liturgical usages. They are former Episcopalians, come from other denominations, or have not attended a church since their early childhood if at all. The three Prayer Books with which they may be familiar are the 1928 Prayer Book, the Reformed Episcopal Church’s versions of the 1928 Prayer Book, or the 1979 Prayer Book. The 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books introduced radical changes into the American Prayer Book and one of their characteristics is their significant divergence from the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662 Prayer Book. The REC versions of the 1928 Prayer Book share this characteristic. Consequently, these people are not able to judge for themselves how the doctrine and liturgical usages of Texts for Common Prayer diverge from that of the 1662 Prayer Book.

Fourth, an equally sizeable number of people in the ACNA are not familiar with the history of doctrine and worship in the Anglican Church and the different doctrinal and worship traditions in the Anglican Church. They often have the mistaken belief that what their church believes and the way their church worships is what Anglicans have always believed and the way Anglicans have always worshiped and is what Anglicans believe and the way Anglicans worship everywhere. They often accept doctrines and practices because their church accepts them, not realizing that the church belongs to a particular school of thought in the Anglican Church and does not represent the entire Anglican Church. The doctrines and practices their church accepts may conflict with the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Anglican formularies. While their clergy may claim that these beliefs and practices are Scriptural and Anglican, clergy who belong to a different school of thought in the Anglican Church would not agree. Consequently they are not able to discern whether a particular doctrine or practice that their clergy claim is Scriptural and Anglican is what their clergy claim that it is.

Fifth, a number of people cannot bring themselves to believe that one group in the Anglican Church in North America, which has strong convictions, is seeking to impose their convictions upon the other groups in the ACNA even though leaders of this group have openly declared that it is the aim of the group to Catholicize the Anglican Church and the group has a long history of working to achieve this aim. Their reaction to the observation that this is what is happening in the Anglican Church in North America and it has happened in other jurisdictions is one of disbelief. They do not want to believe that it is happening.

Sixth, a number of people, while they admit what is happening, do not believe that the group of ideologues in question will be successful in accomplishing what they are endeavoring to do. They believe that the risk of causing clergy and congregations to secede from the denomination and to affiliate with another body serves as a deterrent. They believe that the Anglican Church in North America will not be able to enforce the use of the Prayer Book in preparation and clergy and congregations will continue to use whatever service book that they are presently using. They dismiss the provisions in the canons requiring the use of the Prayer Book upon its formal adoption and withdrawing with its formal adoption authorization for use of any other service books that are presently used in the ACNA. They also dismiss the canonical requirement that all clergy in the ACNA conform to its doctrine, discipline, and worship.

As a consequence of these factors the Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force and the College of Bishops have not received any serious push back. If they have received such pushback, they are not publicizing it. The advantage of keeping everyone in the dark is that they only have to deal with the objections of individuals rather than those of a sizable, organized group that is gathering support.

What the Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force and the College of Bishops need to receive is serious pushback that is public and organized. They need to be presented with a thorough critique of the rites and services that are going into the Prayer Book in preparation and specific proposals for the revision of these rites and services and for alternative rites and services. The Catechism Task Force and the College of Bishops needs to be presented with the same thing in relation to the catechism.

At the same time the group that presents these critiques and proposals also needs to draft a canon that--

(1) recognizes the plenary authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice and accepts the Anglican formularies as the established standard of doctrine and worship for the Anglican Church;

(2) acknowledges the existence of longstanding differences of opinion related to the essential nature of the office of bishop in the Anglican Church and exempts those who hold to the plene esse view of the episcopate from the requirement that they accept the fundamental declaration on the episcopate in order to become members of the Anglican Church in North America;

(3) authorizes the formation of groupings of congregations within the  Anglican Church in North America for the purposes of developing and using their own collection of rites and services consistent with the teaching of the Bible and conforming to the principles of doctrine and worship laid out in the Anglican formularies and developing and using their own catechism consistent with the teaching of the Bible and conforming to the doctrinal principles set out in the Anglican formularies; and such other purposes as are delineated in their instruments of governance;

(4) authorizes such groupings to adopt, amend, and revise their own instruments of governance; to nominate and to elect their own bishops; to impose term limits on their bishops, and to implement such other episcopal accountability measures as delineated in their instruments of governance.

In addition the same group needs to draft an amendment to the constitution of the Anglican Church in North permitting this change to the canon.

The development and presentation of these  critique and proposals and the drafting and submission of the canon and constitutional amendment should be done in the open. The interchange with the various task forces, the College of Bishops, and the Provincial Council should be made public. What this will accomplish is that it will focus attention on the issue of the College of Bishop’s lack of commitment to a policy of comprehending all schools of thought represented in the Anglican Church in North America.

If it fails to achieve the desired results, the next step is to proceed to establish such a grouping of congregations any way and put the College of Bishops on notice that it will be developing and using its own service book and catechism and taking other necessary steps to secure a future in North America for Anglicans who recognizes the plenary authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice and accepts the Anglican formularies as the established standard of doctrine and worship for the Anglican Church and who hold to the plene esse view of the episcopate.

Only by playing hardball with the College of Bishops, by taking the initiative and acting in a forceful and determined way, will orthodox Anglicans in the Anglican Church in North America faithful to the Bible and loyal to the Anglican formularies be able to accomplish anything. Any refusal on the part of the ACNA’s bishops to budge on the issue of orthodox Anglicans wanting to be orthodox Anglicans, not unreformed Catholics, will reflect poorly upon them and will diminish their credibility with evangelicals and others who have supported the Anglican Church in North America. Any retaliatory measures that they may take will hurt them further. It will reveal the true intentions of the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America.