By Robin G. Jordan
After the recent votes of the 2009 General Convention it is clear even to the Bishop of Durham Tom Wright and open evangelicals in the Church of England that North America needs a new province. At the present time the Anglican Church in North America is the only candidate in the running to be that new province. This fact, however, should not prevent Biblically faithful Anglicans in and outside of North America from closely scrutinizing the ACNA. Rather it should prompt them to subject the ACNA, its form of governance, and its constitution and canons to rigorous examination. Such an examination will reveal six major problem areas.
1. Existence of a Theological Bias in its Foundational Documents
Doctrinally the ACNA constitution and canons favor the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues that have historically divided Anglicans. The Fundamental Declarations take an Anglo-Catholic view of the General Councils of the undivided Church, the historic episcopate, and the Anglican Formularies. They equate these views with Anglican orthodoxy and make holding such views a condition of membership in the ACNA The canons require subscription to these views for recognition as an ACNA diocese, ordination and licensing for ministry in the ACNA, and election and consecration to the ACNA episcopate. Title I.7.2 makes subscription without reservation to the same views a condition of ministry partnership with the ACNA. The canons take an Anglo-Catholic view on apostolic succession, the number and operation of the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, and ordination. Where such views are not explicitly stated, they are implied in the language of the canons.
The problem is not the doctrine itself but the alignment of the constitution and canons with the doctrine of a particular theological grouping in a church that is supposed to enfold not just the Anglo-Catholic theological stream but also the charismatic and evangelical theological streams. If the theological bias of the constitution and canons were charismatic or evangelical, it would as equally as problematic. The result is a situation not unlike that of The Episcopal Church with the doctrinal views of one theological grouping being given preeminence over the doctrinal views of other theological groupings. A survey of the constitutions and canons of a number of Anglican provinces shows that this situation is avoidable. The constitution and the canons can be so worded as not to reflect the doctrinal views of one particular theological grouping. For example, see the proposed amendment to Title III.8.2 – The Office of Bishop – in “Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America.” It is on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-canons-of.html .
2. Lack of Genuine Diocesan Autonomy
Article IV.7 is often used to back the claim that the ACNA constitution and canons affirm the autonomy of the judicatory, or diocese. However, the ACNA constitution and canons infringe upon the autonomy of the judicatory, or diocese, in a number of ways. Article IV.7 is largely intended to permit jurisdictions like the AMiA to retain their existing structure and form of governance. The AMiA has no internal dioceses. It is divided into “clusters” solely for the purpose of the appointment of delegates to the Provincial Assembly. The AMiA is governed by a primatial vicar with the assistance of a council of missionary bishops. The primatial vicar and the members of the council of missionary bishops are appointed by the Primate and House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. See Article 9--Hierarchical Vacancies--of the Canonical Charter of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, which is on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/AMiA%20Charter%20Dec%202008-Final%20Draft.pdf . See also Title I, Canon 6—Of Missionary Districts--of the Canons of the Province of Rwanda, which are on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/Final%20Edition%20of%20the%20Canons%20of%20the%20Province%20of%20Rwanda.pdf .
The ratification of constitutional changes and canons by an otherwise authority-less Provincial Assembly is itself an infringement upon diocesan autonomy. It takes the ratification of important legislation away from the governing bodies of the dioceses and jurisdictions and puts it into the hands of an assembly that is highly susceptible to political maneuvering and manipulation. The members of the Assembly can be easily swayed to vote against the best interests of the dioceses and jurisdictions that they represent.
Titles I.6.3 and I.6.5 contain provisions that relate to the organization, administration, incorporation and indemnification of local congregations, matters that are rightfully within the purview of the diocese. Title 1.6.7 establishes criterion for a “self-sustaining congregation.” All of these provisions represent an infringement upon the autonomy of the diocese.
Title I.5.4 permits dioceses and jurisdictions to continue to operate under the constitutions and canons of another Province. This provision allows the AMiA to remain a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda with the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops choosing the members of its episcopal hierarchy. It is therefore possible for a diocese or jurisdiction to have even less autonomy than it has under the ACNA constitution and canons.
Title III.8.4 in establishing as the norm for new dioceses the College of Bishop’s election of the bishop of the diocese and commending this particular mode of episcopal election to existing judicatories that elect their own bishops weakens the autonomy of the diocese in this critical area—its election of its own bishop or bishops. The canons contain no provision that in clear language juridically binds the College of Bishops to elect one of the two three candidates that a diocese is permitted to nominate. They say nothing about what happens if the College of Bishops rejects the diocese’s slate of candidates. They do not prohibit the College of Bishops from nominating and electing its own candidate. The canons are also silent on whether a new diocese will ever be able to elect its own bishop once the bishop that the College of Bishops elected retires or the see otherwise falls vacant. Under the provisions of the canons the outgoing bishop can nominate his successor, the clergy and laity of the diocese having no guaranteed input into the nomination of candidates for consideration of the College of Bishops.
3. Centralization of Authority
Authority in the ACNA is highly centralized. The real center of power in the ACNA is not the Provincial Council, the official governing body of the ACNA, or the College of Bishops but the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council. The Executive Committee consists of the Archbishop Bob Duncan and twelve members, six clerical and six lay. With the exception of the Archbishop, the Council elects the Executive Committee but the Executive Committee sets the Council’s agenda. The Executive Committee also functions as the Board of Directors of the ACNA.
The ACNA constitution and canons also have all the elements for the establishment of a self-perpetuating centralized episcopal hierarchy not unlike that of the Roman Catholic Church.
4. Expansion of Archiepiscopal Authority
One of the constitutional amendments adopted and ratified at the inaugural Provincial Assembly permits the Provincial Council to give more responsibilities to the Archbishop of the ACNA beyond those specified in the constitution. It had been pointed to the attention of the Governance Task Force that they were giving additional responsibilities to the Archbishop in the canons, for which the constitution made no provision. They were doing what Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori has been doing in The Episcopal Church, arrogating powers and prerogatives to the office of Archbishop that the constitution did not give to that office and setting a bad precedent.
Despite the foregoing amendment the canons continue to arrogate to the Archbishop powers and prerogatives that the constitution does not give him. For example, Title III.2 requires canonical obedience from the bishops of the province to the Archbishop as if he were a metropolitan. However, the ACNA constitution does not recognize the Archbishop as having metropolitan authority or grant metropolitan authority to him. The title of Archbishop itself does not carry with it metropolitan authority.
5. Abandonment of the North American Anglican Heritage
The ACNA has discarded a substantial portion of the legacy that previous generations of orthodox North American Anglicans left to their posterity. This includes centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church at the diocesan and provincial levels and the nomination and election of the bishop or bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. Rather than seeking to reform this legacy where it needed reforming, the ACNA has thrown it away. The ACNA has chosen to return to the “bad old days” of unfettered episcopal authority and the accompanying abuses of episcopal power such as episcopal patronage.
In the recent debate in the Church of England’s General Synod over giving more powers to the Archbishop of Canterbury and York at the expense of General Synod opponents of the proposed changes warned that they would turn the Church of England into a medieval style of government more akin to a “Muslim-style theocracy”. The Rev. Christ Sugden, secretary of the evangelical group Anglican Mainstream, who attended the inaugural Provincial Assembly, said: “This takes us back to a medieval church run by the clerics. The whole point of the Reformation was to make Parliament part of the government of the Church of England. “He went on to say, “It is much like the style of governance of the Orthodox churches, like the Muslims. It cuts out lay people.” Other concerns voiced were that there would far less accountability and far fewer people involved. Those who would be involved would be unelected. The same observations are applicable to the style of ecclesiastical governance that the ACNA has adopted.
In their response to criticism of the proposed ACNA constitution and canons the Governance Task Force drew attention to the large lay representation in the Provincial Assembly. However, the Provincial Assembly has no power except to ratify the constitutional amendments and canons that the Provincial Council adopts. It is clear from how the business of the inaugural Provincial Assembly was conducted that the Assembly would not be permitted to make changes in the legislation that the Council submitted to it or to return such legislation to the Council with recommended changes. The Assembly either could approve the legislative acts of the Council or return them to the Council without any recommendations.
The Government Task Force also claimed that the composition of the Council was evidence of substantial lay involvement in the governance of the ACNA since one-half of the members of the Council were lay persons. The Governance Task Force, however, failed to mention that the laity forms ninety percent or more of the total membership of the ACNA. On the other hand, the bishops and clergy who form the other half of the Council members represent less than ten percent of the total ACNA membership. The number of bishops, clergy, and lay persons on the Council is disproportionate to their actual numbers in the ACNA.
The ACNA constitution and canons do not require the election of the representatives to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council. The manner of their election or appointment is left to the diocese or jurisdiction. There is nothing in the two documents to prevent the primatial vicar of the AMiA from appointing all the representatives to the Assembly and the Council from the AMiA.
The 2009 General Convention of The Episcopal Church shows that the problem is not the synodical exercise of episcopal authority but the inroads that liberalism has made in that denomination among the bishops as well as among the clergy and the laity. The House of Bishops might have blocked D025. They only amended it slightly and then approved it. The House of Deputies did not force the House of Bishops to amend and adopt C056. They also did that on their own.
6. Absence of Genuine Checks and Balances and Safeguards
The ACNA constitution and canons make no provision for a synod or council of clergy and laity to counterbalance the authority of the bishop at the diocesan or jurisdictional level. Among the provisions of the constitution and canons that have a high potential for abuse are the following:
• While Article XII does not permit local church property to be “subject to any trust interest in favor of the Province or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province, it allow a diocese or other grouping to hold local church property in trust. Title 1.6.6 permits a diocese to assert a claim over the property of a congregation with the written consent of the congregation.
• Title III.8.6 authorizes the College of Bishops to create the office of bishop for special missions in consultation with the Executive Committee and to nominate and elect these bishops. Bishops for special missions are solely accountable to the College of Bishops which determines the “specific missionary purpose” for which the office of each bishop for special missions is created. The canons set no limits on the number of such bishops.
• Under the provisions of Title IV.4.2 the Archbishop may, at the request of a bishop, appoint a board of inquiry to investigate suspected rumors circulating about the bishop. Evidence of the circulation of rumors is not required, only suspicion of their circulation.
Lacking from the constitution and canons are the kinds of details that provide important safeguards. For example, one missing detail is what happens after the College of Bishops rejects the slate of candidates for bishop that a diocese submitted for the consideration of the College of Bishops.
The ACNA had an opportunity at its inaugural Provincial Assembly to address these problem areas but failed to take advantage of this opportunity. The delegates to the Provincial Assembly were not encouraged to carefully examine the provisions of the constitution and canons, weigh their merits, and to consider much needed changes. Indeed Archbishop Designate Duncan in his opening address stated
“We are also here to prove that a Christian Assembly - at least one that wants to reach the cultures and the peoples of its increasingly lapsed and unconverted continent - does not have to focus on resolutions and legislation, nor does it have to be overwhelmingly gray-headed…Even in organizing this emerging Anglican Province - a Province in the mainstream of both global Anglicanism and biblical Christianity - we are here to illustrate that a system of ratifying or sending-back is an alternative to spending disproportionate amounts of time on things that are, in fact, not the ‘main thing.’”
Earlier in his address the Archbishop Designate had warned, “In the flow of things in this Provincial Assembly, it will principally be in our afternoon ratification sessions that temptations to return again to the yoke of slavery will come, but watch out for them everywhere, for ‘we fight here not just against flesh and blood…’”
The work of a deliberative assembly was denigrated as unspiritual and was associated with “captivity in Egypt,” the way that The Episcopal Church did things. The Archbishop Designate presided over a large part of the ratification sessions and took pains to ensure that they did not run beyond the time allocated to them.
As one observer noted, a number of the delegates appeared to be weary and battle-worn and to be willing to adopt anything that was put in front of them. The canons would had have been adopted by acclamation except that there were a number of amendments for the consideration of the Provincial Assembly.
God has now provided the ACNA with another opportunity to address these problem areas. A private member’s motion was made at the recent meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, calling for the recognition of the ACNA. This motion has received the backing of 25% of the members of the General Synod, including fourteen bishops. The Theological Committee of the Church of England’s House of Bishops will be examining the ACNA constitution and canons at its meeting in September. The motion will come up at the February meeting of the General Synod. Between these two meetings the Provincial Assembly of the ACNA will be meeting in December. Hopefully the ACNA will make better use of this opportunity.
A number of previous articles on the ACNA Constitution and Canons along with a series of proposed amendments to the two documents and accompanying explanatory notes are on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/
35 comments:
TEC officially and finally and vocally votes itself down Apostasy Road, and you're still over here riding your contemptible little hobby horse.
I thought to expect more. But I'm not sure why. Your...um...theological bias against Anglo-Catholics obviously won't permit it, it seems. (To say nothing of your sour grapes over your constitutional and canonical proposals being rejected.)
Time to man up, Robin. Satan has completely brought down the walls of a once-great church. So, how's about you stop pointing your spiritual weaponry at people who are actually on your side against our dark foe!
Michael,
Your comments are over the line. Robin is not ridding a "contemptible little hobby house." He is contending for the Evangelical cause in the ACNA. If you had been reading his other postings, you would realize that he wants to see the three streams on Anglicanism come together. If this is to happen, all three groups will have to make some sort of compromise that will all them to funtion together and yet maintain their thological integrity.
He is not like other Evangelicals that I have read that have pronounced anathema on the ACNA and have called for the formation of a separate Evangelical denomination.
And for the record, I am an Evangelical Catholic, meaning I draw from both groups for my theology and churchmanship. So while I disagree with some of the things that Robin is contending for, I respect his willingness to defend what he believes in and to try and find a space for Evangelicals in the new provience.
For those who may not be familiar with the changes that I am proposing in the ACNA Constitution and Canons, I recommend that they read the following articles on the Heritage Anglican Network website:
A Proposed New Rallying Point for the Anglican Church in North America
http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/07/proposed-new-rallying-point-for.html
Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America
http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-canons-of.html
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church of North America
http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-constitution-of.html
A number of proposed changes reflect the thinking of a consortium of AMiA and CANA members, clergy and laity, with whom I have been consulting. They are based upon the observations and recommendations of the members of this working group.
The changes which I propose would replace the partisan language of some parts of the ACNA Constitution and Canons with wording that is not aligned with a particular theological grouping in the ACNA. They would strengthen the autonomy of the judicatory, or diocese, in the ACNA. They would devolve more authority to the member dioceses of the ACNA and limit the powers and responsibilities of the College of Bishops and the Archbishop. They would increase lay involvement in the governance of the ACNA and the nomination and election of its bishops and primate. They would put in place much needed checks and balances and safeguards.
My aim is not weaken the ACNA but to provide it with a stronger foundation and framework. As it is presently constituted, the ACNA has many weak points which a determined enemy can exploit against it, if not causing its downfall, greatly reducing its effectiveness in carrying out the task of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and extending Christ’s Church.
Indeed the ACNA espouse the (first) seven Ecumenical Councils.
But how can that be a divisive issue? Are there monophyistes, monothelite and iconoclastic evangelical Anglicans these days? If so, they are heretics, despite the fact that, like Arius before them, they can 'prove' their case from 'Scripture alone'.
Funny. I thought the whole point of orthodoxy whatever one's affiliation was to avoid heresy. Unless Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the only truly orthodox bodies remaining, apart form a few Anglo-Catholic enclaves. Like ACNA (and Forward in Faith).
Daryl,
If you are correct in your assertion that the ACNA, like Forward in Faith, is an Anglo-Catholic enclave, then its leadership needs to stop portraying the ACNA as a comprehensive Anglican church that enfolds the charismatic and evangelical theological streams of Anglicanism as well as the Anglo-Catholic. They are misleading charismatic and evangelical Anglicans in and outside the ACNA, in and outside of North America.
They should also decline the recognition of the GAFCON primates, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and other signatories to the Jerusalem Declaration, which makes no reference to the “seven Ecumenical Councils.” Article 3 of the Jerusalem Declaration states:
“3. 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.”
In my article, “Fundamental Declarations Compared,” on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/07/fundamental-declarations-compared.html , I offer the fundamental declarations or equivalent of a number of Anglican entities for comparison with the Fundamental Declarations of the ACNA. These entities publicly support and recognize the ACNA or contain dioceses or evangelical organizations that publicly support and recognize the ACNA, all of which are affiliated with GAFCON and signatories of the Jerusalem Declaration. The fundamental declarations or the equivalent of four of the entities make no reference to any Ecumenical Councils. Two contain reference to “the undisputed Ecumenical Councils.” One contains reference to “the first Four General Councils of the Holy Catholic Church”; one, to “the undisputed General Councils of the Holy Catholic Church. One refers to “such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.” None make reference to teachings of the “seven Ecumenical Councils.”
If we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, most if not all of these entities are “heretical” and the ACNA should not be seeking much less accepting the public support and recognition of such entities or any diocese or evangelical organization in such entities. Indeed the larger part of global Anglicanism is "heretical" since Anglo-Catholics and liberals are minority groups in the Anglican Communion. Among these “heretical” entities are the Provinces of Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, and Uganda. The ACNA should drop the affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration from its ACNA Constitution. Leaders and members of the ACNA should not be welcoming the news that a private member’s motion calling for the recognition of the ACNA by the Church of England has the support of at least 25 % of the members of the General Synod, including 14 bishops. By your standards, the Church of England is “heretical.” Rather the ACNA leadership should be seeking the support and recognition of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Robin,
Therein lies the rub, I think.
The ACNA's commitment to the seven councils is a very astute and ecumenically necessary correction to the rather tendentious 'first four' Anglican 'consensus' that monophysitism (condemned at Constantinople II in 553), monothelitism (Constantinople III in 680-181) and iconoclasm (Nicea II in 787) are permissible permutations of theology.
As such, the ACNA are now in decidedly better position for rapprochement with Constantinople, and three councils forward towards Rome.
What possible theological rationale do evangelicals have in claiming that the decrees of the last three Ecumenical Councils, accepted as Holy Tradition by both Constantinople and as infallible by Rome, are not binding for Anglicans? Rome also considers their decrees to be infallible and to define essential Christological dogma.
Again the question remains: are there evangelical and charismatic Anglicans who seriously dispute the Christological dogmas defined in 553 and 681? Surely few have even heard the terms monophysite or monthelite but would recoil at their explication.
I think it's safe to say the seventh council (Nicea II) is unpalatable to those of a more Calvinist mien since it condemns prohibiting icons and statues for veneration. Rather like certain Calvinist and Dispensationalist sects, which condemn speaking in tongues, a biblical charism always to be honoured, overtly charismatic or no.
FrDarRyl
t may be my post Anaheim depression speaking, but to a certain extent, what does it matter? As long as heresy is not espoused, the words matter little. If the reins of power are seized by persons of ill will, then they may twist distort or flout whatever clauses they choose.
The main thing is to keep a watchful eye on the leadership. The Episcopal Church trusted too long in men with good manners and bothered itself too little with what sort of men they really were.
Just my discouraged $.02
Daryl,
The ACNA Fundamental Declarations are based upon the Common Cause Theological Statement with one or two changes. The fifth declaration is actually a compromise. The proposed Common Cause Theological Statement declared, “3) We believe the teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and have been held by all, everywhere, at all times.”
The evangelicals in the working group with whom I have been consulting have no objections to the current wording of the fifth declaration. The declarations of the Fundamental Declarations that are the most problematic for evangelicals are the third, sixth, and seventh declaration. I am planning an article on why these three declarations are especially troublesome to evangelicals and Anglicans committed to the vision of "a Church that is truly evangelical, truly catholic, and truly pentecostal,” a vision that The Episcopal Church has abandoned.
I dropped any reference to “Ecumenical Councils” in the new set of Fundamental Declarations I proposed in my article, “A Proposed New Rallying Point for the Anglican Church in North America,” following the example of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). My thinking is that any statement that the ACNA makes in relation to the “Ecumenical Councils” should not be included in the constitution or canons but should be carefully worked out to the satisfaction of all three theological streams in the ACNA and then issued as a doctrinal statement of the ACNA separate from its foundational documents. I would not expect it to go beyond the compromise in the Common Cause Theological Statement.
Matthew,
The lack of something on paper was why Richter was not convicted of heresy. Words do matter.
Constitutions and canons are like contracts. They spell out for everybody what is expected of them--the rules of the game.In my mind it is better to have some mutually-agreed-upon rules from the outset than have a situation in which whoever is the "powers that be" makes up the rules as they go along.
The momentum for what happened in Anaheim had been building since the 2006 General Convention. Disappointment, anger, and a sense of powerlessness are natural reactions. However, conservatives in The Episcopal Church really had no chance of stopping the liberal juggernaut. Rowan Williams signaled from the beginning that he was not going to take any decisive action--not invite TEC bishops to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, recommend the expulsion of TEC from the Anglican Consultative Council. Liberal TEC leaders had sized up Williams and concluded he was no threat to their aspirations.
Hi Robin,
The name is Darryl, please:two 'r's.
Fair enough. I'd love to know what it is specifically that evangelicals and charismatics find unacceptable about the last three Councils deemed authoritative by the undivided Church before the East/West Schism. But I suppose that's a point for debate in future if ACNA, FCA, Forward in Faith, Reform, et. al., can come together in common cause, sadly define by what we're against.
Darryl,
I had wondered why you had accented the R.
Charismatics are not a homogeneous group. A friend of mine, a bishop in one of the Continuing Churches is a charismatic traditionalist Anglo-Catholic. He does not care for contemporary praise and worship music and uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Charismatic Anglo-Catholics to my knowledge do not have any problem with the teaching of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
Confessional Anglicans who subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles would have difficulty with images and relics (Article XXII). They would point to Article XX, "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
And to Canon A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England.
"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal."
They do not find any support for images and relics in Scripture.
I agree that the ACNA is unworkable, but for the opposite reasons. The problem is not that ACNA is `too Anglo-Catholic', but that it is not sufficiently so.
The constitution only affirms the first 4 councils in their entirety, does not explicitly affirm the real presence, and (insanely - after all of what has happened) allows WO to the priesthood as a local option.
This nicely illustrates the incoherence of Anglican theological tradition as a whole. How can a single church encompass contridictory "streams" of theology? Only by denying that truth is important, or by denying it entirely or ignoring it, as the liberals do.
Now that the liberals are gone, ACNA still has the same problems it always had - you think it too Anglo-Catholic, while all the Anglo-Catholics I know are horrified that after all these years of suffering and making a witness for the Catholic faith, our leaders go and create this protestant monster.
It will take a little more time to corporately realize that the only lasting solution for Anglo-Catholics is with Rome or Orthodoxy.
Hear! Hear! Andrew.
Here's an interesting article about the absurdity of trying to comprehend the contradictory theologies of the Evangelical/Calvinist, Latitudinarian/Liberal, and Catholic/Laudian 'integrities'.
http://www.daily-peep.com/?p=3021
As Newman concluded, you also cannot reconcile monophysitism (etc.) and catholicity, which is exactly what Anglicans do when they demur on the infallible authority of the anathemas in the Fifth (and subsequent) Ecumenical Council(s).
"I have described in a former work, how the history affected me. My stronghold was Antiquity; now here, in the middle of the fifth century, I found, as it seemed to me, {211} Christendom of the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries reflected. I saw my face in that mirror, and I was a Monophysite. The Church of the Via Media was in the position of the Oriental communion, Rome was, where she now is; and the Protestants were the Eutychians."
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/part5.html
Also, Iconoclasm is Nestorian.
Darryl,
Why then are you ministering in the Church of England? Why have you not become a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, which would be the logical step for you to take in the light of your views? I am not suggesting that someone with your views should leave but simply asking why you personally stay.
I have on a number of occasions had a similar question posed to me--"why if you are Reformed in your views don't you join a Presbyterian church, etc?" It usually is a veiled suggestion that the Anglican Church is not the right church for a person with Reformed views. My reason for asking this kind of question is to gain some insight into why you stay a part of the Anglican Church.
Could a group form of ex-REC-ers, TPEC-ers, AOC-ers, and over the pond, the FCE gang?
God give us an Anglican-Calvinist witness! www.trecus.net/
Could an acceptable BCP be gleaned from UK's 1662, PECUSA's 1789 & 1928, and the REC's 1874 & 1963?
Just thinkin',
Hugh McCann
hughmc5@hotmail
Hi Robin,
In a nutshell, I remain an Anglican Papalist because Lambeth 1998 recommended a more generous appraisal of the Apostolic See of Rome in Anglican relations, 'welcomes warmly the invitation of Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995) to consider the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome in the service of the unity of the Universal Church, strongly encourages the provinces to respond and asks the proposed Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations to collate the provincial responses.'
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-4-23.cfm
Members of the Catholic integrity who participate in ARCIC have also published some salient points on Petrine primacy in the series 'Authority in the Church', including
[T]he need for a universal primacy exercised by the Bishop of Rome as a sign and safeguard of unity within a re-united Church':
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/Arcicgf3.htm
I'm afraid the alternative to Petrine oversight is an increasingly congregationalist mentality, which of course doesn't bother the Reformed integrity nearly so much as us 'Catholics'.
Dum spiro, spero - pro ecclesiasticae unitatis.
While I breathe, I hope - for ecclesiastical unity.
Pax,
FrDarryl
Fr. Daryl,
Further question for you: If the Holy Father makes a `further provision' for distressed Anglicans, say creating a new canonical structure (independent from the direct authority of the local Roman bishop) in full communion with the Holy See, but retaining aspects of Anglican tradition such as liturgy, devotional style, etc., would you see this as the way to go? (even if it meant `re-ordination', etc.?)
In my limited vision, I now see this as the only viable way to secure a future for Anglo-Catholics that has any longevity for more than a generation or two.
Just curious to understand where you think this is going...
Hmm. 'Daryl' again. Same blooper, different blogger. ;-) Maybe I need to change my name. Naw. It's been fine for over 40 years. It must be something about this blog...
An Anglican Uniate option would be wonderful and probably the only way forward for Anglo-Catholics, certainly for Anglican Papalists like myself.
I've fantasised about saying the Sarum Rite Mass, traditional language, in my exquisite Church of England parish, once it's re-aligned with a Personal Prelature under Cardinal Law, not militantly modernised 'Magic Circle' Latin Rite bishops under Winchester.
Fr. Darryl,
No conspiracy, we colonialists are just used to the other spelling - apologies!
Glad to hear the `Uniate' option is your top choice as well. Surely Archbishop Vincent Nicholas is a big improvement? Nevertheless, I agree that the Rolls-Royce option would be to have an independent governance, be it sui juris (wishful thinking), or something like an apostolic administration. I will keep praying for full reunion, and soon! Pax Christi.
Iconoclasm is Nestorian? Where does that come from?
Why haven't you joined Rome or the East?
There are some rude historical facts that simply will not disappear.
The Church of England was Protestant and Reformed. The coronation oath of 1701, still on the books I believe, has the Royals swearing to uphold the "Protestant and Reformed" faith.
Iconclasm is Nestorian?
Robin, in light of generational sins, vis a vis the second commandment, am rethinking 5-6 generations deep into Anglicanism. Newman's errors were that. At least he was consistent and left.
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/calvinistic-anglican-blogs-westminster.html
You've been asked why you remain Anglican, yet are Reformed? Why not join a Reformed or Presbyterian work, I suppose is the point. That's, frankly, an ill-informed perspective.
Am evaluating that also in view of the following.
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/that-great-calvinistic-anglican-rev.html
Wrong URL in last post.
This one from Rev. Augustus Montague Toplady.
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/calvins-influence-on-english.html
Iconoclasm is Nestorian. In a nutshell, to say it is wrong to use an image Christ's body is to separate his divine and human natures into separate hypostases. That is Nestorianism. In the parish I serve, there is 13th century Jesse screen. The Protestant Reformers destroyed the image of Christ on the Cross (rood) at the top of the iconostasis, but left Jesse, David and the other biblical, merely human figures below. Even heretics have a point. So what exactly was it?
Here is the undivided Catholic Church's infallible, conciliar Decree on the subject at the Second Council of Nicaea in AD787:
... Moreover, with these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent.
To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received.
Source for the above:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xii.html
And here is a good summary of the connexion between Iconoclasm and Nestorianism (apart from the mere circumstancial evidence that Protestant opponents of icons are also usually oath to honour our blessed Lady with the title 'theotokos' or 'Mother of God'):
The Decision of the Council
Restoration of the Icons
Concerning the teaching of icons
Venerating icons, having them in churches and homes, is what the Church teaches. They are "open books to remind us of God." Those who lack the time or learning to study theology need only to enter a church to see the mysteries of the Christian religion unfolded before them.
Concerning the doctrinal significance of icons
Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature ("...no man has seen God", John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh." Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.
I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation... —St. John of Damascus
The seventh and last Ecumenical Council upheld the iconodules' postion in AD 787. They proclaimed: Icons... are to be kept in churches and honored with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the 'precious and life-giving Cross' and the Book of the Gospels. The 'doctrine of icons' is tied to the Orthodox teaching that all of God's creation is to be redeemed and glorified, both spiritual and material.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council
Darryl,
TI kindly thank you for your explanation. It filled in one or two blind spots for me.
However, I know all this issues you raised, in general.
Saying the removal of an image from a 13th century rood screen, a "Nestorian" does not make. There were different issues at bar than Nestorianism.
Similarly, some Lutherans will say that a Calvinst is a "Nestorian" on the Table. That does not work.
Some for the Protestant and Reformed side will say that the Lutherans are Eutychian on the Table. Frankly, that does not work. Saying "so" does not make it "so."
It reminds me of Newman's statement that the Anglicanism he knew was monophysitic, if memory serves me here. When I saw that I did not understand his claim.
Saying "so," does not make it "so."
Thank you for the answer.
You really should be with Rome or Constantinople. I am not C o E, so there is no dog in this fight, as it were, from my perspective. It does not make sense for you to be in the C o E. What am I missing here?
Is it the building (it sounds beautiful), a C o E pension, a living or some other attraction or need that keeps you from one of those two communions? Is it some hope of influencing C o E back to the fold of Rome, a commonality I find amongst Anglo-Romanists? What drives your outlook?
Whether we agree or disagree on the theology of the English Reformers, they were men of principle and were willing to die for their views.
Christians on both sides died for their beliefs and I am pleased that in the C o E we pray for St Thomas More, St John Fisher and all the RC English Martyrs as well as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, et. al., amongst the Protestants.
As to my current affiliation and its appropriateness, I can only say with Luther, 'Here I stand' (for now). It is becoming increasing difficult to do so, I must say, considering that most Anglo-Catholics have sold their apostolic birthright for bowl of tepid inclusivism a la 'Affirming Catholicism' (aptly named) and the so-called 'Society of Catholic Priests'. The Forward in Faith and the Society of the Holy Cross are about the only remaining faithful organisation.
Only time will tell. But as an Anglo-Papalist I would cross the Tiber, not the Bosphorus, which, like TEC, has its own issues with autonomism.
Darryl:
Thank you for your good post. With you, I lament the deaths of Thomas More, John Fisher, and Roman martyrs. Thankfully, our systems of governance are beyond the Church-State relations, at least here in the U.S.
Second, I am helped to hear from your side, to wit, the Anglo-Roman perspective. It's helpful and informative.
Third, I can see where your frustration arises, to wit, Anglo-Catholics yielding their identities or fidelities to a Mish-mash inclusivity without consistency or--perhaps--even concern.
Fourth, your comments about FiF and the SSC are also informative--that has been my instinct about them, although I have not followed their developments as closely as I would like.
As a Calvinistic Anglican but from a different perspective, I share the same frustration re: Manglicanism, if you'll permit that term. I think Newman saw the same thing. I think it fair and kind to say a mish-mash of inconsistency.
Fifth, I blogged Ryle on the issue of Unity recently. With him, I just can't see the practicality of inter-mural cooperation between Anglo-Romanists and Reformed Anglicans. Bishop Ryle does a respectable job of speaking to those impracticalities. Most importantly, he speaks with charity and courtesy in handling the disparate groups. This is why I appreciate your frank response. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/unity-among-churchmen-by-bishop-john.html
Sixth, Robin has pointed to canonical concerns in the ACNA. I'm still mulling over his observations.
Seventh, as a practical matter on the ground, I worship twice in an Anglo-Roman congregation here in the eastern part of the US. Twice per month. The other two times, I attend a Confessional Lutheran Church, although I am a Calvinist. We have a Presbyterian Church (PCA) which is Confessionally acceptable, but I will not tolerate Contemporary Music--a recent decision.
Eighth, I don't think the ACNA is doctrinally concerned about the disparate faith clusters in their midst.
In closing of the unscientific set of meanderings, thank you for your response--it's been helpful.
Philip
Darryl:
A few more points.
AMiA, or the Anglican Mission in America, now a part of the ACNA, conjoins the charismatic, Anglo-Catholic and the so-called Evangelical clusters.
We have a sizeable congregation 60 miles north. They have a Contemporary Service (including the 1979 BCP) at 9 AM and the Traditional Service at 11 AM. All Saints Anglican Church is the name.
I attend there once every six to eight weeks, but the distance is a factor, otherwise, I would attend there routinely. The 60-year Rector is a lively fellow.
I called the church to get the service times a few years back. The secretary told me about the 11 AM service, but then added, "If you `really' want a worship service, you'll come at 9 AM." That is, a more charismatically driven service, including Praise Bands. There's a number of assumptions in the Secretary's comment that were telling.
The 11 AM service has the God-honouring hymns, befitting the Divine Majesty that a biblical theology warrants. Yet, tongues and prophetic moments in the 9 AM service are unworkable. This charismania may well inform non-Western Anglicans, e.g. Africa.
This will give you a sense of one AMiA church here.
I actually enjoy the Anglo-Roman service, minus several things. Far more reverent, serious, and with the 1928 BCP.
It will also give you a sense of the despoliation, from my perspective, of the local situtation on the ground.
We press on, however.
Philip
Hi Robin,
For some time I have been saying the great problem for those leaving TEC is that one cannot build unity on a negative. Saying "no Episcopal Church" is simply not enough.
ACNA is the product of several who put their own power ahead of little details like their congregants. It is not going to hold together or for that matter come together. Michael is sort of the tip of the hate is unity iceberg -- it wont work.
I thought AMiA had something going and it may yet emerge relatively undamaged if it realizes the error and pulls out of ACNA quickly. Otherwise it too is doomed to the curse of the continuim -- eternal schism.
FWIW
jimB
Hi Robin,
For some time I have been saying the great problem for those leaving TEC is that one cannot build unity on a negative. Saying "no Episcopal Church" is simply not enough.
ACNA is the product of several who put their own power ahead of little details like their congregants. It is not going to hold together or for that matter come together. Michael is sort of the tip of the hate is unity iceberg -- it wont work.
I thought AMiA had something going and it may yet emerge relatively undamaged if it realizes the error and pulls out of ACNA quickly. Otherwise it too is doomed to the curse of the continuim -- eternal schism.
FWIW
Jim, a question.
I can see where Darryl and Michael would have frustrations as Anglo-Romans. Perhaps even yourself as an FiF-Churchman. From the opposite side of the aisle, I share the same frustration.
Here's the question.
Do you think this frustration is related to our own levels of theological awareness? Deeper and wider than the beloved brother or sister in the pew?
As to the ACNA, our frustrations may not be shared as deeply by the laity.
The AMiA congregation--as noted earlier--appears to have, well, um, er less-than deeply informed congregants.
The ACC-work I attend--the same can be said. It's small. In coffee hour afterwards, I met four former Lutherans. Solid Christian people, but not theologians. They, like me, quietly and politely endure the Romewardizing aspects of the service.
There appears to be something else at work here.
I think your observation about "unity of truth" will not work.
Rome and Constantinople are not in that game and won't buy that.
Darryl:
I appreciated hearing your perspective from within C o E.
Here's one of my frustrations.
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-james-i-packer-at-oak-hill-college.html
Philip
Reformation:
I have to make a couple quick corrections. First I am not FIF! I am one of Robin's token progressive/liberal posters. :-)
Second, I do not recall writing on "unity in truth." Maybe you have me crossed with another "Jim?" To answer your questions is perhaps innapropriate if I am the wrong person.
I will however opine that what I think I see is that some folks become so attached to the idea that their interpretation of what God wants/requires is correct that they cannot abide difference. That combined with a single unifying theme -- anti TEC anger -- is simply not going to hold a fragile combination together.
AMiA has been successful to the extent it has precisely because while it began when some walked from TEC they did not wait for us bad, apostate, and evil folks to repent and come to them. They went out and started planting churches and filling them with whomever they could find. Sort of like inviting guests to a wedding banquet...
I am reminded by a comment Morris had a cardinal make in the "Shoes of the Fisherman, "Theologians! We are necessary but a lot less important than we think we are!"
When she was a teenager, my (hospitalized wife) Sue-z babysat for an area Presbyterian couple one night. Her charges, brothers were fighting a bit and she asked them with a catch phrase she used from time to time, "Is that Christian?" One brother replied, "I am not a Christian I am a Presbyterian!" Out of the mouths of children -- reality. Too often we are so busy being theologians we forget to be Christians.
FWIW
jimB
Jim:
Thanks for the two corrections. I misread FIF for FWIW. Secondly, a typo and the sense of it: "unity over truth."
I am getting reports from within the REC ranks, about 13K of the 100K ACNA membership, that that is the theme, "unity, unity, unity" from the Bishops. It's not un-noticed by those within.
Bishop Leonard Riches, the PB of the REC, appears to have been a major player, as a senior continuuing Bishop of the most senior continuuing denomination, in the consecrecation of Bob Duncan. From what I could gather from Anglican TV, he may have been one of the principle celebrants.
That's the sense of my typo. Not "unity in truth," but unity above truth.
Those things to the side.
Your point about differing views of God is spot-on. That a point well-worth exploring further.
Your point: "Too often we are so busy being theologians we forget to be Christians." While a pious sentiment, I cannot give place to this idea.
I am not sure how fragile the ACNA coalition is; it will hold as long as theology yields to unity.
Frankly, I have significant respect for the SSC and Anglo-Romanists, in terms of their frank rejection of Reformed Anglicanism, e.g. Darryl and Michael. They are consistent. They appear to read and think. They are right, on their premises, to reject what Reformed Churchmen advocate.
Also,what is a liberal/progressive?
Philip
Jim:
While I disagree with you, please keep posting. Your thoughts matter.
Scratching my head about "liberal/progressive."
Philip
Post a Comment