Where Does the ACNA Really Stand on GAFCON?

By Robin G. Jordan

In the provisional constitution of the Anglican Church in North America that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted on 5 December 2008 the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were listed with the seven points from the Common Cause Theological Statement as one of the eight "elements" of the "Anglican Way," or the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy. In the revised ACNA constitution that the Provincial Council adopted on 25 April 2009 and commends to the ACNA dioceses for ratification in June the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration have been removed from Article I and placed in the Preface. While the revised constitution "affirms" the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, it no longer classifies them as an "element" of the "Anglican Way," a component part of the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy.

When the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations in Article I are compared with the points of the Jerusalem Declaration, the first thing one notices is that the Fundamental Declarations uses markedly different language on a number of key issues that the Jerusalem Declaration addresses. The difference in language points to a difference of position on these issues. Point 3 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ." Point 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders." Point 5 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures." Point 3 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Point 6 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship." Point 6 of the Jerusalem Declaration state, "We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture." Point 7 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571 (originally 1562), taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." Point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."

What then does the revised constitution means when it states, "we affirm…the Jerusalem Declaration"? According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "affirm" means to "state as fact, aver (thing, thing to be so, that). "Aver" means to "assert, affirm." "Assert" means to "declare, state (that thing is, thing to be)." According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "affirm" means to "validate, confirm; state positively; to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed; to express dedication to." It also means to "to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath; to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court." "Confirm" means to "to give approval to: ratify; to give new assurance of the validity of: remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact."

If the revised constitution is indeed stating the Jerusalem Declaration to be fact, asserting it to be valid, ratifying it, why then does it retain the Fundamental Declarations that differ on a number of key issues with the Jerusalem Declaration? Is the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration included in the revised constitution as a matter of political expediency? The ACNA leadership needs the recognition of the GAFCON Primates for their own reasons but they do not subscribe to all the points of the Jerusalem Declaration. For the ACNA leadership the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations are more authoritative than the Jerusalem Declaration. The removal of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I and the retention of the seven points of the Common Cause Theological Statement are open to this interpretation. It certainly raises questions regarding the commitment of the ACNA to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.

The Fundamental Declarations in Article I are silent on a number of key issues addressed in the Jerusalem Declaration—salvation by grace through faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, "the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the atonement, the sanctity of marriage, the Great Commission, the stewardship of creation, recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us;" and Christ’s second coming. The Jerusalem Declaration solemnly declares the tenets of orthodoxy that are articulated in its fourteen points underpin Anglican identity. Article III of the revised constitution does identify the mission of the ACNA with the Great Commission and the revised code of canons does contain a statement on the sanctity of marriage. The revised canons, however, take a different position than the Jerusalem Declaration on several issues. These issues include recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," and working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us." They require adherence to the doctrinal positions stated in the Fundamental Declarations and developed in the revised canons. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part I," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/04/anglican-church-in-north-america.html )

From the perspective of conservative evangelical Anglicans in and outside of North America who support GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the establishment of a new province in North America, the emerging Anglican Church in North America is starting to resemble a cuckoo chick. The cuckoo is a migratory bird that deposits its eggs in hedge-sparrow’s and other nests. The cuckoo chick, when it hatches, aggressively demands the attention of the mother bird in whose nest its egg was deposited. The hedge-sparrow or other bird is unable to distinguish the cuckoo chick from one of its own hatchlings and tends to its needs. While the mother bird is away from the nest, the cuckoo chick pushes the other hatchlings and any unhatched eggs out of the nest. There is an element in the ACNA that is assiduously courting the recognition and support of GAFCON. At the same time there is also an element in the ACNA that is moving the ACNA in a direction that, if it is not counter to the direction of GAFCON, is not entirely harmonious with that direction. This element does not recognize the orthodoxy of conservative evangelical Anglicans and classical evangelical Anglicanism and has strongly influenced the doctrinal content of the revised constitution and code of canons.

The ACNA is limited in its orientation not only in the sphere of doctrine but also in the sphere of governance and modes of episcopal and archiepiscopal election. It has nothing to offer orthodox North American Anglicans who value their heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels and the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. It shows a determination to abandon centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part II," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/anglican-church-in-north-america.html ) Due to its lack of sufficient breadth in these areas as well as the evident disharmony between the provisions of its revised constitution and code of canons and the Jerusalem Declaration, the ACNA is at the present time a poor candidate for recognition as a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. This state of affairs, however, can be easily rectified by the well thought out modification of the ACNA constitution and canons. In my next article I examine how the ACNA can broaden its orientation in the spheres of doctrine, governance and mode of episcopal and archiepiscopal election and close the gap between the provisions of its revised constitution and canons and the Jerusalem Declaration.