The Need for a New Rallying Point

By Robin G. Jordan

In his opening address to the inaugural Provincial Assembly Archbishop-designate, now Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America made the claim that it was essential for members of the ACNA to rally around the Fundamental Declarations in the then yet unratified ACNA constitution. He went on to claim that the Fundamental Declarations were word for word the Common Cause Theological Statement and that the latter was a miracle that God had used to bring together conservative Anglicans in North America. He further claimed that the Common Cause Theological Statement is “evangelical and catholic and charismatic.” It allows conservative Anglicans with opposing views of women’s ordination to engage in mission together. He also asserted that while it is “not perfect,” it is “enough.”

Is it essential that members of the ACNA come together around the Common Cause Theological Statement for a united effort for mission? Archbishop Duncan as the Moderator of the now defunct Anglican Communion Network chaired the Common Cause Roundtable that developed the statement. He naturally would have an investment in the document as it is presently written. The Roundtable consisted of two leaders from each of the eight Anglican entities-- the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Essentials Canada, Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Network in Canada, the Anglican Province of America, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church, which at that time formed the Common Cause Partnership. The Annual Council of the Anglican Communion Network adopted the final document that the Round Table came up with.

The Anglican Church in North America is no longer an eight-member coalition of Anglican entities. One of the members of that coalition, the Anglican Province of America, withdrew from the Common Cause Partnership. The founding entities of the Anglican Church in North America, while they included members of the original coalition, also numbered in their ranks entities that had not been a part of that group—the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the Missionary Convocation of Kenya, the Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone, and the Missionary Convocation of Uganda. Anglican Essentials Canada did not participate in founding the ACNA.

As can be seen, circumstances have changed. A statement articulating where members of the original coalition were in agreement or willing to compromise cannot be expected to do the same thing for a much larger and more theologically diverse group. Members of the ACNA cannot be expected to rally around a statement about which they have mental reservations, and which does not regard as orthodox Anglicans those who do not adhere to its views of the sacraments, the first seven councils of the undivided Church, the historic episcopate, and the Anglican formularies. This includes traditionalist Anglo-Catholics as well as conservative evangelicals.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement really “embedded verbatim” in Article I of the ACNA constitution? Only a part of that statement was incorporated into the Fundamental Declarations. The following important part of the statement was omitted:

“The Anglican Communion”, Archbp. Geoffrey Fisher wrote, “has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.” It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith once delivered to the saints”.

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a “Mere Christian”, at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.

The seven declarations that were incorporated into the Fundamental Declarations are not quite word for word those that were adopted in the Common Cause Theological Statement. A number of people have drawn to my attention that the seventh declaration differs from that of an earlier version of the Common Cause Theological Statement in its omission of an article. In the earlier version of this declaration, “expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief,” read, “expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” The version of the same declaration ratified at the inaugural Provincial Assembly substitutes “1571” for “1562.”

Did the Common Cause Theological Statement really miraculously bring together the Common Cause Partners? Archbishop Duncan may be investing the Common Cause Theological Statement with a significance that it does not deserve. This may be irresponsible on his part since the Provincial Council needs to revisit the Fundamental Declarations in the very near future and to modify their language or even to replace them altogether.

There is not only the danger of Archbishop Duncan investing too much significance in the Common Cause Theological Statement but also the danger of bishops, clergy and other ACNA members investing too greater significance in the statement. Its provisions might quickly become sacrosanct and therefore untouchable in the minds of these groups. Even Archbishop Duncan admitted that the statement was not without its deficiencies and faults.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement really “evangelical and catholic and charismatic”? The statement contains no reference to salvation by grace by faith, the atonement, the need for personal faith and conversion, and the priesthood of all believers. Also noticeably absent is any reference to the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. One would expect to find such references in a theological statement that was evangelical and charismatic. The Common Cause Theological Statement dodges all these issues. On the other hand, a number of the declarations do reflect an Anglo-Catholic bias. In the Internet debate over the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement Stephen Noll himself acknowledged the possibility of a strong Anglo-Catholic influence upon that statement.

In what way do the Fundamental Declarations allow conservative Anglicans with opposing views of women’s ordination to engage in mission together? In his address Archbishop Duncan does not really say. We are simply invited to trust him that they do.

Is the Common Cause Theological Statement “enough”? It depends upon what Archbishop Duncan had in mind by “enough.” Did he mean that is “enough” for a reasonable definition or description of Anglican orthodoxy that is agreeable to conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalist Anglo-Catholics? If he meant the statement is “enough” for such a definition or description, the Common Cause Theological Statement fails to meet that requirement. The wording of a number of the declarations is too partisan for conservative evangelicals and not partisan enough for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics.

The reality is that the Common Cause Theological Statement has outlived its usefulness. What is needed is a new doctrinal statement, one which is not only more comprehensive in its recognition of divergent opinions among orthodox Anglicans but also displays greater solidarity with the Anglican entities that have supported the establishment of a new orthodox province in North America and extend their recognition to the ACNA as that province in formation. Such a statement need not be complicated—just a few well-chosen words—around which all orthodox Anglicans can in good conscience come together in the cause of the gospel.