By Robin G. Jordan
The events to which I referred in my last article are a part of the history of
the Anglican Church in North America. When these events and other events in the
jurisdiction’s history are examined along with the doctrinal contents of the
ACNA’s own formularies and the doctrinal associations of the practices that
they mandate or sanction, they show that a serious conflict of interest exists
between the ACNA and the GAFCON Primates and the Global Fellowship of
Confessing Anglicans.
The revival of unreformed Catholicism in the North American
Anglican Church is not the renewal of biblical Anglicanism. The two are antithetical to each other.
Biblical Anglicanism is "the true Profession of the
Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law" of the
Coronation Oath Act of 1688. Its principles are based upon the Holy Scriptures
and are set forth in the historic Anglican formularies, including the two Books
of Homilies.
The continuing
support of the GAFCON Primates and the Global Fellowship of Confessing
Anglicans for the ACNA is not in the best interest of confessing Anglicans who
desire to see a renewal of biblical Anglicanism in the North American Anglican
Church. They are supporting leaders whose aspirations are at cross-purpose with
the aspirations of such Anglicans.
If their commitment to the restoration of the Bible and the
historic Anglican formularies to the heart of the Anglican Church is genuine, the GAFCON Primates and the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans need to reserve their support for the elements in the North American
Anglican Church that share their commitment. It makes no sense to support
leaders who have a contradictory and incompatible commitment—a commitment to
the revival of unreformed Catholicism.
It also does not make sense for confessing Anglicans in the
ACNA to support leaders who are not committed to the restoration of the Bible
and the historic Anglican formularies to a central place in the Anglican Church,
particularly those who are involved in reviving unreformed Catholic teaching
and practices in the ACNA.
In failing to take any steps, much less adequate ones, to
comprehend in the jurisdiction’s formularies the beliefs and convictions of
Anglicans who subscribe to the biblical and reformed principles of historic Anglicanism,
these leaders are signaling that their present toleration of confessing
Anglicans is conditional. It is contingent on the expectation that these Anglicans
will either compromise their beliefs and convictions or leave the ACNA. If they
intended to make room for the beliefs and convictions of these Anglicans, they
would have already extended official standing to those beliefs and convictions. This should
be quite evident by now.
5 comments:
Robin,
Ok, we get it. You don't like the ACNA. But to claim there is no other alternative is not only just wrong, it is a deliberate falsehood on your part. You have in your links on the right side on this page The Anglo-Reformed Movement - Anglicans in the Wilderness. This link takes you to the Reformed Anglican Fellowship and the Reformation Anglican Church in Grey, ME. This group is very evangelical in their orientation and their goal is the planting and establishing of a biblical, evangelical, Reformed Anglican jurisdiction in North American. I would suggest you go check them out and if you like what you find, you can spend your time in the more productive pursuit of building up a good denomination.
John,
If you investigate further, you will discover that that the church in question is affiliated with CANA and the fellowship in question is under the oversight of the church’s pastor. As a sub-province of the Anglican Church in North America, CANA is bound by the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons. This means conformity to ACNA doctrine, discipline, and worship and use of its unreformed Catholic catechism and its unreformed Catholic proposed prayer book.
I found nothing on the website of the fellowship in question to support your claim that its goal “is the planting and establishing of a biblical, evangelical, Reformed Anglican jurisdiction in North American.”
I am acquainted with the individual who manages the website and his theological views. I have known him for a number of years. We collaborated on the drafting of the Solemn Declaration of Principles of the Heritage Anglican Network.
According to recent statements that he made in the comment section of one of the articles on this blog, he believes that his theological views can flourish in the ACNA even though the ACNA extends no official standing to to the theological views of Anglicans who subscribes to the biblical and reformed principles of historic Anglicanism, much less to his particular views. Those who occupy the place of power in the ACNA are assiduously at work creating a theological climate in the ACNA, which is not conducive to the growth and spread of biblical Anglicanism in the jurisdiction. As I point out in my article, the tolerance of these leaders is conditional.
The accusation of deliberate falsehood is a serious charge, one that should not be made lightly. If you have read my articles, I have consistently acknowledged the existences of different groups in and outside the ACNA, which fully accept the authority of the Bible and the historic Anglican formularies. I have also explained why I do not view such groups as a viable alternative to the ACNA. I have also encouraged the formation of single organization from these elements, an organization that is separate from and independent of the ACNA. The church and the fellowship in question have ties to CANA and therefore to the ACNA. Consequently they cannot be viewed as a viable alternative to the ACNA whatever their aspirations may be.
As I see it, if the church and the fellowship in question had a strong commitment to biblical Anglicanism, they would not be a part of the ACNA. The ACNA is not the Church of England or the Anglican Church of Australia where Catholic Revivalists and Biblically-faithful Anglicans can maintain an uneasy co-existence. Those who occupy the place of power in the ACNA are ideologues, intent on the Catholicization of the jurisdiction. This is the main reason that they have not made room in the ACNA formularies for the theological views of Anglicans faithful to the Bible and the historic Anglican formularies. They are not going to let biblical Anglicanism flourish in the ACNA. They have already taken steps to ensure that it does not.
I believe that an organization seeking to present itself as a viable alternative to the ACNA would devote more effort to raising public awareness of the problems and shortcomings of the ACNA. If a group in the ACNA cannot bring itself to draw public attention to these problems and shortcomings, it has already compromised itself. When I look at the history of the Continuing Anglican Movement, the similarities between Biblically-faithful Anglicans in the ACNA and Anglican Loyalists in the Continuing Anglican Movement, and how the Catholic Revivalists eventually squeezed out the Anglican Loyalists, I do not share the confidence of those who believe that their group can maintain its Protestant, Reformed theological identity in the ACNA. I do not believe they and their theological views have any future in that jurisdiction. Those who believe that they and their theological views do have a future in the ACNA are fooling themselves.
I also believe that it is not a good idea to refer to Anglicans as “Reformed Anglicans” or Anglicanism as “Reformed Anglicanism” or “Reformation Anglicanism” as if there were other kind of Anglicans and other forms of Anglicanism. If one takes a confessional view of Anglicans and Anglicanism, there is only one kind of Anglican and only one form of Anglicanism.
Robin, you are correct that the charge of deliberate falsehood is serious and is therefore withdrawn. As for the group, comments made on their Facebook page gives the impression that they are anti-ACNA and not a part of it. And I have read postings that seem to encourage the planting of Anglican churches. This may be the way in which they are presenting themselves.
John, for the record my view of the ACNA is much more nuanced than is immediately evident from my articles. I am inclined to view the ACNA as a missed opportunity.
Conservative Christians who identified themselves as Anglican were presented with an opportunity to form a province that comprehended the full range of conservative opinion and would serve as a model of that kind of comprehensiveness but failed to make the best use of that opportunity. As they did in the Continuing Anglican Movement, those who are variously described as Catholic Revivalists, ultra-Anglo-Catholics, etc., have gained the ascendancy in the ACNA.
A group does not have to represent a large number of conservative Christians of a particular stripe in the ACNA to occupy the place of power in the jurisdiction. (I am using the term “Christian” in a broad sense.) It just needs to occupy various strategic positions in the early stages of development of a jurisdiction and become the center of influence in the jurisdiction. Once it has ensconced itself in the place of power in the jurisdiction, it can to a large measure control the direction of the jurisdiction, entrenching its own views and taking steps to exclude the views of other groups represented in the ACNA.
The constitution and canons of the ACNA are designed to prevent the removal of such a group from power as well as to keep sweeping changes from being made in the jurisdiction’s doctrine, practices, and form of governance. This is why I have concluded that the different elements in the ACNA that subscribe to the biblical and reformed principles of historic Anglicanism, if they want to see a renewal of biblical Anglicanism in the North American Anglican Church and to establish a future for themselves need to band together into a single organization, an organization that is not a part of the ACNA.
I do not see any existing group in the ACNA (or outside the ACNA, as far as that goes) serving this purpose. Some are tied too closely to the ACNA; others take doctrinal positions that eliminate them as a potential candidate for an umbrella organization for these elements. A number of them lack the kind of development that would make them viable candidates for that role.
An entirely new organization formed by these elements (and elements outside theACNA), I believe, would be the best option. Such an organization, while fully committed to the biblical and reformed principles of historic Anglicanism, needs to be sufficiently broad enough to encompass the diversity of opinion on secondary matters discernible in these elements.
The group to which you refer if it is perceived as a serious threat to the group in power in the ACNA and as a major disruptive influence in the jurisdiction, will be eventually forced out of the ACNA if it cannot be co-opted. On the other hand, it may be just another group whose aspirations are far greater than its ability to fulfill them. Such groups pop up from time to time.
Post a Comment