Additional Doctrinal Problems in the ACNA Constitution – Part II

By Robin G. Jordan

Like the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article I of the ACNA Constitution, Article X.1 evidences doctrine that is partisan in character and over which Anglicans are divided.

According to Article X.1, “the chief work of the College of Bishops shall be the propagation and defense of the Faith and Order of the Church, and in service as the visible sign and expression of the Unity of the Church.” But to what “Faith and Order of the Church” is it referring--Catholic faith and order? It is certainly open to that interpretation.

In his charges to Timothy and Titus Paul’s concern is the preservation and perpetuation of sound doctrine, not church order. The Articles of Religion do not mandate a particular form of church order. It makes no mention “of the necessity or otherwise of episcopacy or indeed any other form of church order.” [1]

The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop identifies as the tasks of an archbishop or bishop instructing the people out of the Holy Scriptures, teaching and exhorting them by the Holy Scriptures with wholesome Doctrine, withstanding and convincing gainsayers, and banishing and driving away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word. We find nothing in the Holy Scriptures, the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the Ordinal about spreading or protecting a particular form of church order.

How then does the Anglican tradition address the question of order? In Better Bishops Mark Burkill provides this answer.

The way the Anglican tradition addresses the question of order may be seen in the Preface to the Ordinal of the Church of England which famously states ‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons’. It is not often appreciated what this careful statement is and is not saying. It is not arguing or insisting that bishops are essential to the existence of the Christian community. It is simply acknowledging that ‘bishop’ is a scriptural word, and that a distinctive episcopal ministry arose in the time of the apostles (hence the reference to ‘ancient authors’). This is the characteristic position of the early generation of Reformers in the Church of England. It is also to be noted that the statement speaks of ‘these Orders of Ministers’ and not of ‘three Orders of Ministers’. The latter is often assumed, but in fact the Church of England Reformers viewed bishops and priests as being of the same order, which is why bishops are consecrated rather than ordained. [2]

Doctor Burkill further draws to our attention:

“It is important to appreciate that the English Reformers, in line with the history outlined above, did not claim that a binding pattern of church order is to be found in Scripture. They would therefore take issue with those who insisted that presbyterianism was the church order to be followed, just as they would take issue with any who insisted that bishops were essential to the life of the Christian community. The point is that the Reformers understood very clearly that it is the gospel that creates and establishes the church, rather than a particular form of Church government. To think otherwise would be to align oneself with the error of the Roman Catholic Church. Apostolic succession comes from fidelity to the doctrine of the apostles rather than an unbroken episcopal succession.” [3]

A similar view to the one evidenced in Article X.1 is that of Forward in Faith North America. FiFNA is a Catholic organization committed to the promotion of Catholicism in and outside the ACNA. The mission of FIFNA, its Statement of Purpose declares, is “to uphold the historic Faith, Practice and Order of the Church Biblical, Apostolic and Catholic, and to resist all efforts to deviate from it.” “To this end,” its purpose statement further declares, “ Forward in Faith, North America, seeks to minister pastorally and sacramentally to all who are faithful to the Anglican Way, both within the Episcopal Church and outside it, while working internationally and cooperatively for the creation of an orthodox Province of the Anglican Communion in North America.” [4]

Former FIFNA Vice-President and Secretary Warren Tanghe has gone on record as characterizing “evangelicals” as not quite orthodox, and equating Catholicism with orthodoxy. Tanghe served on the Common Cause/Anglican Communion Network Round Table that drew up the Common Cause Theological Statement. [5]

The FIFNA Declaration of Common Faith and Purpose emphasizes the continuation of “Catholic order within Churches of Anglican heritage.” It states:

“I believe our Lord Jesus Christ has given His Church an Order which claims the loyalty of faithful Christians above and beyond any deviation sanctioned by any humanly-invented institution, whether secular or ecclesiastical.”

It goes on to state:

“I will do what God grants me the strength to accomplish to uphold the Church’s Order, both materially and spiritually.”

It further states:

“I will resist all present and future attempts to compromise the integrity of this Order, without regard to the temporal consequences that may be inflicted by any agency.” [6]

Among the “Catholic Essentials” that the FIFNA Assembly, “as Christians embracing the fullness of the Catholic Faith,” affirmed at its most recent meeting was the following:

“The Apostolic Orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon as received from the undivided Church, according to the intention and example of Christ in choosing twelve Apostles, and following the universal practice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; and consensus that only males may be validly ordained to the priesthood and episcopate, for the assurance of apostolic authority for sacramental acts.” [7]

Article X.1 presents bishops as the foci of unity in the Church instead of the apostolic teaching that they are charged to uphold. This view came to the fore in the nineteenth century and reflects the influence of the Oxford movement. The later held and taught that secondary features of church life such as episcopacy were essentials. They were the defining factors in Anglican identity. Maintenance of these secondary features of church rather than biblical doctrine and the gospel secured the unity of the Church.

Bishops are limited in their ability to maintain and strengthen the unity of the Church.

“A bishop, and indeed any other church leader, can only be a focus of unity insofar as he teaches Christ’s word faithfully, sets a godly example, and exercises discipline in accordance with the Word of God. When bishops do not do this then they will do immense damage to the Christian community and far from being a focus of unity, the Bible encourages us to view such leaders as wolves (Acts 20:29-30).” [8]

The notion that the function of a bishop is to be a “visible sign and expression of the unity of the Church” does not take into consideration the faithfulness of the bishop. What may come as a surprise to ACNA members, it is also just one of a number of views of episcopacy in Anglicanism.

Article X.1 adopts doctrinal positions that all Anglicans do not share. Like the Common Cause Theological Statement they raise theological barriers to the participation of conservative evangelicals in the ACNA. They belie any claim that the ACNA umbrella is big enough to cover all conservative or orthodox Anglican theological groupings in North America. The ACNA has only room for Catholics and non-Catholics willing to acquiesce to Catholic theology. Catholics in the ACNA are intent on keep the ACNA that way and making the ACNA even more Catholic. This is certainly a primary long-term objective of FIFNA which numbers among its short-term objectives expanding its teaching program directed at non-Catholics, building a coalition with other ACNA groups that have a Catholic understanding of the province, and intensifying its efforts to train more Catholic clergy and plant more Catholic congregations.

Even though Catholics by their own estimates at most form 40% of the ACNA membership, the ACNA Constitution and Canons treats this constituency with partiality. This is not justifiable. The time has come to level the playing field. In a church that is genuine and principled in its comprehensiveness, the constitution and canons should not be biased in favor of any particular theological grouping. Conservative evangelicals should be free to participate in the ACNA without compromising their theological views as much as traditionalist Catholics. They should have as much liberty to advance the cause of classical evangelical Anglicanism as traditionalist Catholics do to promote their cause.

Endnotes:

[1] Mark Burkill, Better Bishops, Reform, booklet on the Internet at: http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/betterbishops.php
[2] Burkill, Better Bishops
[3] Ibid.
[4] Forward in Faith North America Statement of Purpose, Forward in Faith North America statement on the Internet at: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/na_statement.html
[5] Warren Tanghe, “So to the next stage,” New Directions, article on the Internet at: http://www.trushare.com/0171%20August%202009/04%20so_to_the_next_stage.htm
[6]Forward in Faith North America Declaration of Common Faith and Purpose, Forward in Faith North America, declaration on the Internet at: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/about/nadocs/Declaration.pdf
[7] Keith Acker, “FIFNA Affirms Catholic Essentials,” Forward in Faith North America, June 19, 2009, article on the Internet at: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_485.shtml
[8]Burkill, Better Bishops