Canterbury Conundrum: Instrument of Unity or Disunity?

Commentary by Robin G. Jordan

In his article "Canterbury-the See of, and Anglican Unity" Dr. Peter Toon joined the ranks of those who assert that only a church that is in communion with the See of Canterbury can be regarded as authentically Anglican. Among his new bedfellows are liberal Episcopalians who claim that it does not matter what they believe or do, they are Anglicans since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not withdrawn his recognition of the Episcopal Church. They are entitled to hang a shingle in front of their churches proclaiming "Member of the Anglican Communion." Biblically faithful Christians who trace their church’s origins to the reformed Church of England, hold to the apostolic faith as set forth in the Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal; use the reformed liturgy of the 1662 Prayer Book, translated into the vernacular of their nation or people group; ordain their ministers according to the 1662 Ordinal; and practice their faith as generations of Anglicans have practiced it, they assert, cannot view themselves as Anglicans and represent their church as Anglican if the occupant of the episcopal throne of Canterbury does not recognize them as such. This view of Anglican identity enables liberals in the Episcopal Church who have turned their backs upon the Reformed Catholicism that is their church’s heritage, who deny the particularity of Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, and who teach and maintain opinions that are contrary to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the apostolic Church to assert that they represent the true Anglican Way since England’s senior bishop did not strike their bishops off the invitation list to the next Lambeth Conference.

Does Dr. Toon see the absurdity of the position that he has embraced – to deny Anglican credentials to those who are Biblically faithful Christians in the historic and orthodox Anglican tradition but who are not in communion with Canterbury and to restrict these credentials solely upon the basis of communion with Canterbury to those whose purported Anglicanism is at best a thin veneer concealing a heretical and apostate heart that would transform the Anglican Way into the broad way that leads to perdition? Would he rush to embrace this position if a woman Archbishop sat on Canterbury’s throne, who was involved in a domestic partnership with another woman and who, like the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, openly denied the apostolic faith? This is not beyond the realm of possibility considering political and social developments in the United Kingdom.

Canterbury’s pre-eminence in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion is an accident of history. It has become increasingly questionable whether the metropolitan of a declining church, whose appointment is subject to the vagaries of English politics, can provide the kind of leadership required by an international fellowship of churches that encompasses a multitude of different people groups. It is also highly doubtful that the Archbishop of Canterbury can truly serve as an Instrument of Unity when his own leadership or lack of leadership has become a cause of division.

Certain functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury have been turned over to a commission of bishops several times in the post-Reformation history of the Church of England. Transferring the Communion-wide leadership functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the elected president or moderator of the college of primates as a new Instrument of Unity would not be without precedence.

Dr. Toon argues that what he calls "the old Continuing Churches" and "the new Continuing Churches" should be true to their convictions and adopt new names for themselves. Considering how far liberals in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England have departed from not only classical Anglicanism but also the apostolic faith should they not be the ones changing their name? Since Canterbury looms so large in the faith of Dr. Toon and his new friends, perhaps it should be named "Canterburyism."

The argument that communion with the See of Canterbury is absolutely essential to an Anglican identity is exactly the kind of argument that the Romanists made when Queen Elizabeth I ascended the English throne upon the death of her sister Mary and reestablished Royal Supremacy. The Romanists asserted that the English Church was no longer catholic and apostolic because it was no longer in communion with the See of Rome and the Pope no longer recognized the English Church as catholic and apostolic. Bishop John Jewel articulated the position of the Church of England in his Apology of the Church of England and Defense of the Apology, maintaining that communion with Rome was not essential to the English Church’s being catholic or apostolic. If Romanists’ argument was invalid, then it stands that the Canterburyists’ argument is also invalid. Being in communion with Canterbury is not absolutely essential to being Anglican.

The events of the past ten years have exposed a number of weaknesses in the way that the Anglican Communion operates. The role of the Archbishop of Canterbury is one of them. Instead of seeking to deny an Anglican identity to those who are committed to a biblically faithful, authentically Anglican way of following Jesus and being part of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," Dr. Toon might put his energies to better use in calling for needed reforms in the Communion.