By Robin G. Jordan
On September 14, 2009 the Reverend Philip Ashey, Chief Operating Officer of the American Anglican Council, announced the formation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America. He went on to state that the FCANA has applied to become a “ministry partner” of the Anglican Church in North America.
Under the provisions of the ACNA Canons a “ministry partner” must subscribe without reservation to the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article I of the ACNA Constitution. The Common Cause Theological Statement differs in its position on a number of key issues from the Jerusalem Declaration.
For example 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.” On the other hand, the Common Cause Theological Statement declares, “We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, 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."
In other words, the ACNA accepts the Thirty-Nine Articles as “holding doctrine appropriate to the time of its composition” and still giving expression to some principles consistent with “authentic Anglicanism.” It also regards as normative the “the premature-post-modernism” of John Henry Newman’s Tract 90. Newman took the position that Charles I’s enjoining of the “literal and grammatical” sense relieved interpreters of the Thirty-Nine Articles from “the necessity of making the known opinions of their framers a comment upon their text.…” It does not, however, receive as true the position of the Jerusalem Declaration that the Thirty-Nine Articles contains the true doctrine of the Church agreeable to the Word of God and is as authoritative for Anglicans worldwide in the twenty-first century as it was for the Church of England in the sixteenth century.
As Ephraim Radner notes in his article, The ACNA Constitution: In Line with the Covenant, the ACNA’s affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration is “general and … loose in its meaning.” It has also been moved to the Preface to the Constitution and is no longer identified as being “characteristic of the Anglican Way and essential for membership” in the ACNA.
In an interview on July 11, 2008 Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker, a prominent Anglo-Catholic leader in the ACNA, stated that in regards to the differences between the Common Cause Theological Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, “we” would be looking primarily to the Common Cause Theological Statement. Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA would “continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman,” their fathers in faith. The Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would determine the direction of the ACNA.
The FCA and the ACNA are not moving in the same direction. Unreserved subscription to the Common Cause Theological Statement precludes full commitment to the Jerusalem Declaration. A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America that subscribed without reservation to the Common Cause Theological Statement would be the FCA in name only.
In his announcement the Reverend Ashey envisioned the yet unformed FCANA as operating as an auxiliary body to the ACNA and helping that ecclesial body in carrying out its mission. This is not the role envisioned for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the United Kingdom and South Africa. In the United Kingdom and South Africa the FCA is described as “a spiritual movement and fellowship for renewal, reformation and mission.” A FCANA committed to this vision might seek not only to bring about reform in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church but also the Anglican Church in North America. A large segment of the ACNA membership has drifted away from the Reformation roots of Anglicanism. A FCANA committed to the same vision might work to establish more confessing Anglican congregations and to train more confessing Anglican clergy and lay church leaders in the ACC and TEC to counter the influence of liberalism.
All confessing Anglicans in North America are not a part of the ACNA nor do they support the ACNA. They include congregations and clergy in the Continuum jurisdictions and Communion Partner dioceses. While a number of confessing Anglicans like myself recognize the need for a new province in North America, they have serious reservations about the Common Cause Theological Statement and other provisions of the ACNA Constitution and Canons. A FCANA tied so closely to the ACNA as the one Ashey envisions would be ineffectual in bringing together confessing Anglicans from across the conservative spectrum in North America.
If the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in North America is to be truly “a spiritual movement and fellowship for renewal, reformation and mission” in Canada and the United States, it must be independent of the Anglican Church in North America and the organizations affiliated with the ACNA. It must be a separate autonomous organization with its own leadership under no obligation to the ACNA or any of these organizations. Without this kind of independence it cannot hope to be a spiritual movement and fellowship for all confessing Anglicans in North America.
53 comments:
Robin, though I am not spending too much time trying to deconstruct the finer points of whether the ACNA and the FCA beliefs are mutually consistent, or even compatable, I do agree that the FCA errs in tying itself too closely to the ACNA.
As an orthodox, Anglo-catholic member of TEC that: 1) is not convinced that departing TEC at this time is the best course of action; 2) is not convinced that the ACNA, as it is presently constituted, will survive a number of internal struggles that loom just below the surface of their "image" of unity (a unity that is largely driven by their desire to supplant TEC as the "authentic" Anglican presence in North America); 3) does not see the value in jumping from one troubled church into another; 4) has serious doubts as to whether the ACNA will ever be recognized as a province of the existing Anglican Communion; 5) does not want to abandon TEC (and of course I refer to the TEC that I joined 28years ago and whose "beliefs" are still reflected in the official prayer book of the church even if not practiced by some of her clergy), but who is painfully aware just where TEC's current leadership is driving the train and that I may one day be forced out; and 6) that believes deeply that part of the mission of all orthodox Anglican Christians is to continue to serve as a reflection Christ's light either in, or to, TEC, even as she is falling deeper and deeper into darkness, I tend to agree that the role for the FCA should not to take up the cause of the ACNA or any other church structure, but rather to be an orthodox Anglican "safehouse" to which orthodox Anglicans can come for refreshment and support, and from which they can go back into the world, even the world of darkness into which TEC has fallen, to be the light of Christ in dark places.
God's peace, Robin.
Joe <><
Robin:
Thanks. Spot-on.
Wide reading keeps me from problems with the Manglicans, an embarrassing breed.
Philip
Virtue gets a little touchy. His game is open for those who've followed the enthusiasms for 12 years as this scribbler has.
See: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/09/virtue-gets-little-touchy.html
When Iker launched FCA in the UK, it was reported he was also at Walsingham and the Holy Shrine. No analysis, no inquiry, nothing.
He's a journalist, not a theologian, historian or exegete. Thank God for good books.
To separate FCA-NA from ACNA would be folly. The whole point of ACNA is to keep Anglicans who want nothing to do with TEC still affiliated with the Anglican Communion, to avoid the errors of the dis-continuum and "REC".
ACNA is the umbrella. An FCA tied to that would be ideal for American confessing Anglicans.
To Joe:
One hopes that FCA would find the 1979 TEC book abhorrent. I commend to you the 1662.
Anglo-Catholic can not be "orthodox" Anglican, as it denies key parts of the XXXIX Articles.
Dom,
An umbrella for whom? It is certainly not an umbrella for all confessing Anglicans from across the conservative spectrum. Now you are talking like our liberal friends who argue that there is room under the TEC big top for everybody but we all know that is not true. It is also not true in the case of the ACNA. The ACNA excludes confessing Anglicans who cannot unreservedly subscribe to its unnecessarily partisan Fundamental Declarations. The ACNA is also apparently excluding other groups. According to one story that is circulating, Archbishop Duncan turned down one group of churches seeking admission to the ACNA because it was opposed to women's ordination.
You claim that Anglo-Catholicism is not "orthodox" because it denies key parts of the Thirty-Nine Articles. But so does the seventh declaration (FD7) of the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article I of the ACNA Constitution. The majority of the declarations in that statement not only favor Anglo-Catholic positions on the first general councils of the undivided Church, the historic episcopate, and the Anglican formularies but also make them normative for the ACNA. By your own argument then the ACNA is not "orthodox."
I have heard similar views to Joe's around the Internet. The individuals expressing the views were not all Anglo-Catholics.
An independent FCA in North America can do things that the ACNA cannot. Among the things that it can do is bring together confessing Anglicans in North American who cannot or do not want to be a part of the ACNA with those who are a part of that ecclesial body.
Robin and others:
What is an "independent" FCA? A fellowship? Diocese, no.
"Confessing Anglicans," what's that? Confessing what?
Jack Iker is one of their supporters and helped to launch it in the UK?
ACNA, an umbrella for "what?" "What" are they? "Who" are they?
The story about Bob D. allegedly
turning down one group due to WO needs to be confirmed.
Philip
Robin:
Thanks for ferretting out and posting the Newmanian and Puseyite's statement from 2008, the statement of Mr. Jack Iker. Much appreciated. This begins to get at the Manglicanizers.
Veitch
Ok, Robin, I'm calling your bluff. Precisely what part of a *binding* ACNA document directly goes against the XXXIX Articles.
An unaffiliated FCA-NA is just more dis-continuumism. More people playing king or pope, more individuals asserting their specific agendas.
So, where's the beef? Let's see the line(s) from the *binding* ACNA document that are contrary to the XXXIX Articles.
Good to see you defending an A-C who calls himself "orthodox", however...
Dom:
Did you not read Robin's post from Mr. Iker, to wit, the Newmanian, Puseyite, and Keblemanism view of the XXXIX Articles?
You say:
"An unaffiliated FCA-NA is just more dis-continuumism. More people playing king or pope, more individuals asserting their specific agendas."
What specific agendas?
Do you have no unifying sense of the Reformation, even with some differences, yet substantial unities?
Does Iker preach justification by faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone by Scripture alone? Newman despised this stuff.
Here's my view of Iker and my personal prayer to be spared from men like him. See the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity at:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/09/fifteenth-sunday-after-trinity.html
And the ACNA debacle with the Metropolitan?
Philip
Dom,
Where does the ACNA constitution actually support anything in the Thirty-Nine Articles? Reread the seventh declaration in the amended version of the Common Cause Theological Statement embedded in Article I.
"7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, 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."
Key phrases in this declaration are "taken in their literal and grammatical sense," "controverted at the time" and "expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." Let's look each phrase in turn.
1. "taken in their literal and grammatical sense" - In his article, "Recovering Confessional Anglicanism," Gillis Harp draws to our attention:
"In summary, then, the argument of Tract 90 involved what Knox terms
three major ʻevasionsʼ. First, ʻthe comparison of the Articles with a standard of doctrine which was not in existence, but was an ideal that had to be discovered…ʼ. A second ʻevasionʼ was the ignoring of the great historical
fact that ʻthe Articles belonged to an age in which Western Christendom was divided into two great camps, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant,and that the Articles were a declaration that England took her place in the
Protestant camp.ʼ The final evasion was that Newman contended that the reference in the Declaration to only ʻthe literal and grammatical senseʼ of
the Articles ʻrelieves us from the necessity of making the known opinions of the framers a comment upon the textʼ. This last evasion is perhaps most significant for our purposes here for it effectively detaches the ʻtrainʼ of the Articles from its ʻengineʼ (i.e., its original historical context and the original
intent of its authors) and essentially allows one to pull Anglicanism anywhere one likes."
Harp goes on to explain how this is done:
"Bicknell provides an equally fanciful reading of Article XXXI. The latter states in disarmingly forthright terms: ʻ…the sacrifices of Masses in the which it was
commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead,to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.ʼ Bicknell stresses that the language here ʻis most carefully chosenʼ
and then proceeds essentially to gut the original meaning of the Articleʼs authors. He argues that
"There is no denial of the Eucharistic sacrifice, but [only] of popular perversions of it, as embodied in the practical system of worship during the Middle Ages….So it is not ʻthe sacrifice of the Massʼ but the ʻsacrifices
of massesʼ that is condemned: not any formal theological statement of
the doctrine—for such did not exist—but popular errors.
"It is easy to discern Bicknellʼs sleight of hand here. Again, employing what Newman called ʻthe literal and grammatical senseʼ, he effectively removes the historical context and draws a sophistical distinction without a difference."
(Continued below)
2. "controverted at the time" The Thirty-Nine Articles is the Anglican response to doctrinal issues that were disputed in the sixteenth century. The implication is that these doctrinal issues are no longer the subject of disputation. Other views beside those articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles are now acceptable, including views that stand in contradiction to the Articles.
3. "expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief" In his article The ACNA Constitution: In Line with the Covenant, Ephraim Radner notes:
"The identification of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, and the Thirty-Nine Articles as 'standards' and 'principles' has struck some as overly and perhaps impossibly precise. After all, have not Anglicans, through the Lambeth Conference now over 100 years ago, made formal the lack of explicitness with which these formularies are to be held as standards for all Anglicans. at least as it determines Communion-related 'Anglican' identity? Yet we note the care with which the Constitution has cloaked these standards with a certain indefiniteness: 'We receive the Book of Common Prayer…as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline' and as 'the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship'; 'we receive the Thirty-Nine Articles…, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles…'."
He further notes:
"The clear implication is that there may be other legitimate 'standards', and that the BCP of 1662 is rather one among many, although obviously an acceptable one. Clearly, that the early BCP’s represent the standard for “the tradition” of Anglican worship is incontestable as a historical claim. Furthermore, a 'tradition of worship' is itself a loose referent and already indicates an acceptance that the BCP’s of the Reformation and post-Reformation are no longer in explicit use among many Anglicans. Finally, it is hardly constrictive, let alone historically odd, that the Thirty-Nine Articles would be received as holding doctrine appropriate to its time of composition, that continues to express certain 'principles' that cohere with 'authentic Anglicanism'. For the Constitution does not claim that the Articles articulate necessarily all such principles, exhaustively, or straightforwardly (since 'principles' can only be gleaned from historical records aimed at local moments and controversies), nor that all 'authentic Anglicanism' is bound by them in any exhaustive way...."
Now the ACNA "receives" this view of the Thirty-Nine Articles, that is to say, it accepts this view as authoritative, true, and accurate, and makes it normative for the ACNA. This is far from a strong affirmation of the provisions of the Articles in their historical context and how their authors intended that they be understood. Indeed, the Common Cause Theological Statement as I written elsewhere draws the teeth of the Anglican formularies. It emasculates them.
Nowhere does the Thirty-Nine Articles affirm the view that the historic episcopate is of the essence of the church, a view that the Common Cause Theological Statement makes the doctrine of the ACNA. This was a major issue that divided the English Reformers and the Church of Rome. Nowhere do the Articles teach that only bishops and presbyters may preside at the Lord's Supper. While the Articles affirms infant baptism, it does not affirm the communion of infants and small children as does the ACNA canons. The Articles do not teach that baptized adults and children who have received no instruction and have not personally professed faith in Christ are suitable candidates for confirmation as do the ACNA canons. The Articles do not teach that matrimony is a sacrament as do the canons. They do not require "ordination in the historic succession" but only affirm the validity of the Ordinal of Edward VI and the regularity of those ordained with its rites. The Articles do not teach tactual succession as do the canons.
(Continued below)
The ACNA is not the "safe harbor" for Reformed Anglicans as you claim. Rather it is like what appears to be a sheltered cove into which sailors seek to take refuge from a storm only to be greeted by cannibals paddling from the shore armed with spears and war clubs and intent upon devouring them.
Philip:
Of course I have a sense of the Reformation. That's not what this is about, however. In fact, it's illustrative that folks seem to want to turn this into a purity test rather than seeing the good news that there.
I'll say it again, b*tching and moaning is a whole lot easier and self-justifying than actually building.
It doesn't matter what Iker thinks. Of course there are Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA. There are Charismatics, also. So what! It's a broad safe harbor, affiliated with the Anglican Communion, and that's what matters.
It seems that some people want to purge the ACNA until only those who hold to their view are left. That's infantile and self-destructive, and misses the entire point of ACNA.
If you really care about Reformed Prayer Book Anglicanism, how about working to network those in the ACNA to further the promotion of the 1662?
Or is this just an exercise in sorority girl I'm prettier than her cattiness for folks?
Remember that the Pharisee whose prayer was based on him being "better" (purer) than others was not justified in the end.
Robin:
Just as I thought, there is nothing in the binding ACNA document(s) that contravenes the XXXIX Articles.
Nothing.
All you've done is picked at an expression of the understanding of the Articles, and then launched off on a way too long tangent about various problems with loose affirmations.
No kidding, loose affirmations of the Articles have been a real problem. So, tell me something new.
Tell me where ACNA specifically goes against the XXXIX Articles.
Give me one paragraph verbatim, not some third party tangential analysis, and then the Article that is contravened by this.
Take your time.
While you're at it, fix the huge font size in your comments.
:-)
It seems to me that FCA in the UK is already compromised with Anglo-Catholicism. And here in the US, the only truly evangelical Episcopal province, the REC, has gone over to the Anglo-Catholics without a second look back.
If there is any hope for Anglicanism, it is not in new secular organizations like AAC, ACN, FCA or ACNA. Basically, Anglo-Catholics will do what they have always done: spin things so they get to disavow the plain meaning of the 39 Articles and reinterpret them to fit their "catholic" presuppositions.
I am coming more to the position of the late David Broughton Knox that the only way forward is in reforming local congregations. Any hope of reforming provinces or communions is long past.
Only as individual congregations are reformed will there be any real strength for Evangelical and reforming Anglicanism. As of now, that is an extremely small remnant or minority. But with God nothing is impossible.
In Christ,
Charlie
Anyway, God is still sovereign!
Good news is found only in the doctrines of grace. If there is more than one gospel or more than one way of salvation, then your view is essentially pelagianism. However, Paul makes it clear that good works can never be the basis of justification or salvation before God. (Galatians 1:6-8). Justification by faith alone is not just a secondary issue in the fine print of the Gospel. It IS the Gospel. When one reads the Bible as it stands there is no way one can say that Anglo-Catholics or Roman Catholics are teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What they are teaching is works as a means of attaining salvation/justification. Sadly, Evangelicalism is also on the downward slide into apostasy.
We ought to care more about grace and the doctrines of grace than about ecumenical unity or organizational union/amalgamation. The truth will make you free.
Charlie
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. It really is amusing that Robin has been attacked for being too radical here. I thought his writing has been moderate and mellow compared to my own.
Those lambasting this article ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The emphasis on organizational unity is misplaced in the first place. What we should be concerned about is doctrinal purity on the essentials. And what is essential? The 5 solas of the reformation are non-negotiable. The "fundamentals" are likewise non-negotiable. The virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Jesus is both God and human. The trinity. The substitutionary atonement... I could go on.
Anglo-Catholics have no commitment to most of these essentials!
Charlie
What I dislike is Bickel's attempt at likening the 39 Articles to a political document where "interests" are played off against one another. I don't believe that's what they attempt to be, nor what they actually accomplish. They are a confessional document, expressing truth that is squarely in the Reformed tradition. Bickel suggests for example that "perseverance of the Saints" is not taught by Article XVI. That is plainly untrue.
Still waiting for where the ACNA actually contradicts the Articles in a binding document...
>> Good news is found only in the doctrines of grace.
No, good news is found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The "doctrines of grace" are an admirable human attempt to summarize the Gospel, but they are not the Gospel.
>> The "fundamentals" are likewise non-negotiable.
Can't use that term; it's "too American". Just don't tell Ryle.
>> It really is amusing that Robin has been attacked
>> for being too radical here
I can't speak for others, but I'm questioning what I believe to be a very errant view of what ACNA should be, and error in claiming that ACNA is requiring disagreement with the Articles.
>> I am coming more to the position of the
>> late David Broughton Knox that the only way
>> forward is in reforming local congregations.
>> Any hope of reforming provinces or communions is long past.
Reformation starts at the individual level. Unless we are converted and living the Gospel, attempts to tell others what to do or believe will not be very effective.
>> Those lambasting this article ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, good, the moral arbiter has spoken...
Dom,
My grandmother used to say, "There are none so blind who refuse to see." You are a member of the ACNA and therefore I would presume well-acquainted with its constitution and canons. There is no need for me to point out specific instances because the subject matter to which I referred - sacraments, etc. - indicate what sections of the constitution and canons to which I am referring. I see not point of going into further detail for someone who has convinced himself that the ACNA has not emasculated the Thirty-Nine Articles and has shown no openness to any view other than his own and must resort to sarcasm and ridicule when others differ with his position.
The ACNA is not how you see it and the only person that you are deceiving is yourself. I understand that you must cling to your particular view of the ACNA because if you admit its wrong, it also means that you have made the wrong decision about the ACNA and that you are encouraging others to make the wrong decision too.
Whether or not you want to admit it, the ACNA not only sits very lightly to the Thirty-Nine Articles but also establishes this attitude toward the Articles as its norm. For example, its canons refer to matrimony as a "sacrament" while the Articles view matrimony as a "holy state." This is not the only example of how the ACNA constitution and canons go against the Articles.
Nowhere in these two documents will you find an unqualified affirmation of the Articles as the authoritative doctrinal standard for Anglicans and Anglicanism. Nowhere in these two documents are the Articles treated as such.
From my article, "The Doctrine of the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America":
Title II, Canon 4 – Of the Administration of the Dominical Sacraments
The canon places the rite of Confirmation in the same category as the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion since the only norm that the canons establish in respect to this rite is included in this canon, suggesting an Anglo-Catholic view of the rite. This norm is that baptized children and adults are to be presented to the bishop for Confirmation. The canon does not require that they should have reached the age of discretion in the case of the children or that they should have received adequate instruction in the Christian faith and life in the case of both children and adults. More importantly it does not require that they show evidence of regeneration in the form of repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives. In the brief statement setting presentation for Confirmation to the bishop as the norm for baptized children and adults are the seeds of the theology that have been the cause of so much controversy in The Episcopal Church and forms the basis of the claim of gay theologians that gays and lesbians, having been baptized, are entitled to all the other sacraments of the church, including matrimony and ordination.
The only requirement that an individual must meet to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion is to have undergone baptism with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Title II, Canon 2, Section 1 reiterates Article 1, Section 6 of the constitution, “The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, are received as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.” Article I, Section 7 of the constitution states, “We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, 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.” This section of the canon suggests that these Anglican formularies carry no weight in the ACNA in respect to the sacrament of the Holy Communion. The 1662 Prayer Book is just one of a number of doctrinal standards. The Prayer Book rubrics that prohibit notorious offenders from being admitted to the Holy Communion and prescribe that none should be admitted to the Holy Communion until they are confirmed or ready and desirous to be confirmed mean nothing. Neither do the Prayer Book Exhortations and Invitation to Communion. The emphasis that the Thirty-Nine Articles place upon receiving the Bread and the Wine “with faith” (Article XXVIII; Article XXIX) is, as Article I, Section 7 suggests, a thing of the past.
The canon permits the admission of “baptized young children” to the Holy Communion, further supporting this interpretation of the canon. Why does the canon allow the admission of these children to the Holy Communion if they are incapable of trying and examining themselves and are “void of a lively faith” unless it teaches that they have been made regenerate and are in some way capable of obtaining some benefit from receiving the Bread and Wine, that the sacrament of Holy Communion conveys grace even to those without faith? Anglicans have historically been divided over whether grace is automatically conveyed by the sacrament of Baptism and that the newly baptized is regenerate. The Prayer Book teaches that those who receive the sacrament of Holy Communion with “a true penitent heart and lively faith” “spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood….” The Thirty-Nine Articles teaches that those who lack “a lively faith” are not “partakers of Christ” but eat and drink “the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing” to their condemnation.
(Continued)
The foregoing provisions of the canon do not take a Reformed Anglican view of the Holy Communion. They reflect the influence of Anglo-Catholic and liberal theology. Here again we find seeds of a theology that has also been causing controversy in The Episcopal Church and lies at the heart of the “open communion debate.” It is argued that if a baptized young child who has no faith obtains a benefit from receiving the Bread and Wine, why cannot an unbaptized person who also has no faith likewise obtain a benefit. If Christ does not withhold a blessing from small child devoid of faith, why would he withhold a blessing from an adult devoid of faith. If Christ is present in the sacrament to the child, he would be present in the sacrament to the adult. If grace is automatically conveyed to the child, it would be automatically conveyed to the adult. And so the argument goes. This view may be a liberal distortion of Anglo-Catholic sacramental theology but it is present in incipient form in the canon.
The canon makes no mention of the importance of right and worthy reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion except in connection with the admission of the members of other denominations to the Lord’s Supper and even then it makes no mention of faith.
From my article. "The Doctrine of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America":
The Place of Bishops in the Church
The third point of the Fundamental Declarations has drawn the most criticism. It adopts the “esse” position in respect to the episcopate and episcopacy, that is, bishops are of the essence and being of the church, a position over which Anglicans have been historically divided, and continue to be divided to this day. It asserts that bishops are “an essential part of the apostolic faith and practice.” In other words, a church that does not have bishops does not preserve that faith and practice.
The English Reformers rejected this position, which was at the time of the Reformation and still is the position of the Church of Rome. They retained an episcopal form of church government in the Church of England because it was to what they were accustomed, taking the position that since episcopacy was ancient, it was allowable, choosing not to discard the old where it might be well used. They also kept the existing system of church courts.
At the same time the English Reformers recognized the right of the reformed churches on the European continent to order themselves as they saw fit, and did not question their apostolicity if they adopted a different form of church government. For the English Reformers apostolic succession came from faithfulness to the doctrine of the apostles rather than an unbroken line of bishops stretching back to the apostles.
Archbishop John Whitgift articulates the position of Bishop John Jewel and other bishops and divines of the Elizabethan Church when he wrote that “no one certain and perfect kind of government” is “prescribed and commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ,” and that “the essential notes of the Church” are “the true preaching of the word of God, and the right administration of the Sacraments…”. The Thirty-Nine Articles, which were revised and adopted during the reign of Elizabeth I, reflect this view. They do not identify bishops as a mark of “the visible Church of Christ.”
From my article, "Additional Doctrinal Problems in the ACNA Constitution - Part II:
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.
Robin, you're copying and pasting long ruminations on where you disagree with parts of ACNA documents, you're not showing where they disagree with the Articles.
You're not happy with ACNA, that's evident. But your disagreements are not based in the Articles, but in your own preferences, many of which are counter to how the Church of England has been set up.
I ask again, where specifically does ACNA bindingly disagree with an article?
Even just one? No opinion, please, just a verbatim quote from a binding ACNA document, and a similar quote from the Articles.
As for the "sarcasm and ridicule", I don't think there was any ridicule, and the only sarcasm was in response to someone who attends a TEC church and says that he would never be a member of ACNA saying that anyone who disagrees with the article should be "ashamed".
That's pretty worthy of an ironic response, no?
So, let's see chapter and verse where ACNA is a variance with the Articles, shall we?
Title III.6.4 .2 refers to “the gifts and spiritual authority … conferred in ordination” and takes a sacramental view of ordination that is inconsistent with the Thirty-Nine Articles. Title III.8.2refers to bishops being “successors of the apostles through the grace of the Holy Spirit given them.” It also takes a sacramental view of ordination inconsistent with the Articles. It is taken from the canons of the Province of Rwanda and teaches the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. The Rwandan canons are Anglo-Catholic in doctrine.
The Common Cause Theological Statement was so written to keep Common Cause's "reception" of the Thirty-Nine Articles from becoming a barrier to Anglo-Catholic doctrine and practices in Common Cause.It services the same purpose in the ACNA. In doing so, it also opens the way for liberal doctrine and practice. The ACNA foundational documents favor and mandate an Anglo-Catholic doctrinal position on a number of key issues and are suceptible to a liberal position on these and related issues.
Thanks, Robin, but you're still injecting editorial comment.
What is the full text of the offending ACNA item, and the text of the Article which is contradicted by this ACNA item?
>> The ACNA foundational documents favor and mandate an Anglo-Catholic
>> doctrinal position on a number of key issues and are suceptible to a
>> liberal position on these and related issues.
Where also is this "mandate" of an Anglo-Catholic position?
Dom,
My disagreements are well-grounded in the Articles even if you refuse to admit that they are. You would like to persuade folks that they are a matter of personal preference and therefore something that can be easily dismissed. The fact of the matter is, as I have repeatedly shown, the ACNA has a number of provisions in its constitution and canons that are inconsistant not only with the Articles but also the Holy Scriptures. The excerpts I have posted from previous articles do not ramble as you claim but point out where the ACNA in a number of places departs from the Articles, gives no heed to the Articles, treats the Articles as irrelevant and out-dated, and so on.
As I noted earlier, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see" to which I will add another favorite proverb of my granparents. "There is none so deaf as those who refuse to hear."
The bottom line, Dom, is that you do not want to admit you are wrong. You are an ACNA "true believer." The ACNA cannot be wrong in any way in your eyes. If the ACNA is wrong, you must be wrong, and that would never do--Dom being wrong.
You have not given the text of a binding ACNA item and the corresponding Article which it violates.
You're making therefore unsubstantiated arguments about ACNA and the Articles, which therefore can not be taken seriously, I'm afraid.
Yes, you disagree with the ACNA, fine. But you have not shown how it violates the Articles.
Can you not post just one specific, verbatim, ACNA item, and the corresponding Article that it undermines?
Or must you resort to broad sweeping impressions, assumptions about person, and ancestral "proverbs"?
Where's the beef, Robin?
Dom,
You may not be aware of it but you are "game-playing". I worked as a social worker for over 25 years and I well-acquainted with "the games people play" - the set patterns that individuals adopt in their interpersonal transactions with other people and which are tied to how they see life. You will keep on insisting on more and more evidence but nothing will satisfy you. You will dismiss everything that I present. You will find something wrong with it--some real or imagined flaw. You will insist that your interpretation of things is correct: it is the right interpretation and everyone else has gotten it wrong.
You have decided that the ACNA is the next best thing to Mum and apple pie and our Lord himself could not persuade you otherwise. You have adopted a position and nothing is going to dislodge you from that position. There is not necessarily anything wrong with that IF you have made the right decision about the right thing. I emphasize IF you have made the right decision about the right thing.
Robin, why resort to social work diagnoses from afar and wild assumptions about person?
Why not just provide a verbatim item from ACNA and the corresponding Article that it violates?
Because you are unable to do so?
Dom:
I have yet to engage your previous post to me, but, Lord willing, shall. It was flawed.
I'll help you with that when some things are cleared here.
Philip
Dom said:
Of course I have a sense of the Reformation. That's not what this is about, however. In fact, it's illustrative that folks seem to want to turn this into a purity test rather than seeing the good news that there.
PV: I would suggest you read a thoughtful post by Dr. Gillis Harp. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11234
I am *not* sure you do have a “sense of the Reformation.” Indeed, it is about the Reformation. I have begun in MP and EP to pray, specifically, that God would “cleanse” his people from the errors of Anglo-Romewardizing. If you think the ACNA Bedfest in Bedford, TX, with the Metropolitan Jonah and Rev. Warren reflect that ethos, spirit and doctrine, well, not so. I must nod affirmatively to self-consistent Anglo-Romewardizers who, in their blogs, “get it” and see the incompatibility.
Dom said:
I'll say it again, b*tching and moaning is a whole lot easier and self-justifying than actually building.
PV: “Bitching and moaning” is hardly what has appeared with Robin’s posts. Robust, thoughtful differences? Yes. I suspect this says more about you than the posts. Let these matters be fully discussed. I’m thankful for Robin’s work. No one else appears to be doing it.
Dom said:
It doesn't matter what Iker thinks. Of course there are Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA. There are Charismatics, also. So what! It's a broad safe harbor, affiliated with the Anglican Communion, and that's what matters.
PV: Indeed it *does* matter what Rev. Iker and the SSC-Churchmen think, like Paul Hewitt and others. You ask “so what” re: ACs and charismatics? Is that "it?" Yet, claim to have a sense of the Reformation?
Dom said:
It seems that some people want to purge the ACNA until only those who hold to their view are left. That's infantile and self-destructive, and misses the entire point of ACNA.
PV: Well, you seem to prefer ad hominems rather than arguing your point.
Dom said:
If you really care about Reformed Prayer Book Anglicanism, how about working to network those in the ACNA to further the promotion of the 1662?
PV: Again, the point? I, for one, am a 100% disabled Veteran. I can only read, write, and stay close to my doctors. I do my own meager attempt at blogging. This much, I’ve read enough to not hear the appreciations for the Reformation. Whoever put Metropolitan Jonah onstage surely "doesn't" have a sense of the Reformation...at all, period. And, am a disciplined user of the 1662, although, in my view, it needs reform.
Dom said:
Or is this just an exercise in sorority girl I'm prettier than her cattiness for folks?
PV: You spoke of “infantile” above. A boomerang argument and you need to duck.
Dom said:
Remember that the Pharisee whose prayer was based on him being "better" (purer) than others was not justified in the end.
PV: I’m done Dom with the argument. I don't have time to engage. Have better titans to read. Sorry. Not interested either in "catiness," a term of your choosing. This much is true: the ACNA leadership put on quite a show. As Virtue observed with the White Horse Inn, perhaps "doctrinal maturity" may come.
Charlie:
I am inclined to agree with your note that reform needs to be at the congregational level. A True Church can/does exist at that level where the Word and "pure," yes, "pure" Gospel doctrine is taught with the right administration of the sacraments.
Robin's earlier post, citing Iker's Newmanian, Puseyite, Keblesonian view of the XXXIX Articles was "enough" for this scribe.
Since the ACNA can't get this clear, as well as with a Pelagian catechism in the 1979 BCP, among other things, I have no problem simply staying independent.
Philip:
Again, this is not about whether one has a "sense of the Reformation" (Whatever that is. More purity tests?). It's about a safe harbor, and needs to be understood in those terms.
Why the obsession with what the Anglo-Catholic contingent is doing? Do folks need a bogey man and a persecution complex in order to validate their faith?
If your point is that you want nothing to do with Anglo-Catholics or other groups with which you disagree, fine, but then you're not even in the ACNA game, and you should stop the b*tching and just get on with promoting 1662 Prayer Book Anglicanism.
Speaking of Pharisees, nice reference to White Horse Inn, the king of the "Reformed" pretentious bitties.
I'm delighted to take on all comers when it comes to dedication to the tenets of the Reformation, but that's not what the ACNA is about.
Safe harbor. Think about it. If it's not good enough for you, build something better.
p.s. I don't know what Gillis' article is supposed to prove. That the "three streams" theory is flawed? Of course it is. But, again, if your point is that you want nothing to do with Anglo-Catholics or Charismatics, so be it, but then you have nothing to add to the ACNA conversation.
p.p.s. I'm *still* waiting for an actual, verbatim, item from ACNA that conflicts with the Articles, or where Anglo-Catholicism is "mandated" under ACNA.
Much hyperbole and kvetching. Not much critical thought.
(PV: Dom, I'll engage by using PV to interact with your comments.)
DomWalk said...
Philip:
Again, this is not about whether one has a "sense of the Reformation" (Whatever that is. More purity tests?). It's about a safe harbor, and needs to be understood in those terms.
PV: Dom, yes. Examine very, very closely the book of Galatians, e.g. Gal.6.11-close. If that doesn't matter to you, then I concede the point.)
Why the obsession with what the Anglo-Catholic contingent is doing? Do folks need a bogey man and a persecution complex in order to validate their faith?
PV: Obsession? Four major dioceses of ACNA are AC, that's why. How can Iker officially launch FCA-UK while also publicly visiting Walsingham, in fine Newmanian tradition? I, for one, don't need ACNA to validate my faith, using your own argument.
If your point is that you want nothing to do with Anglo-Catholics or other groups with which you disagree, fine, but then you're not even in the ACNA game, and you should stop the b*tching and just get on with promoting 1662 Prayer Book Anglicanism.
PV: (1) I attend an AMiA congregation routinely. (2) Charlie has me thinking. Perhaps a local option of independence, ecclesastically, yet as a True Church of Christ. I am a Presbyter. (3) I would hate to invest in a work, while telling Iker and the SSC's are wrong, only to be rebuffed and rebuked.
Speaking of Pharisees, nice reference to White Horse Inn, the king of the "Reformed" pretentious bitties.
PV: Then try Heidelbog.blogspite.com. White Horse Inn is more right than wrong. Your dismissal of them says as much about you as them.
I'm delighted to take on all comers when it comes to dedication to the tenets of the Reformation, but that's not what the ACNA is about.
Safe harbor. Think about it. If it's not good enough for you, build something better.
PV: That's rather easy, actually. You can start by tossing the 79 BCP, WO, AC's, and non-Confessionalists. Safe harbour?
p.s. I don't know what Gillis' article is supposed to prove. That the "three streams" theory is flawed? Of course it is. But, again, if your point is that you want nothing to do with Anglo-Catholics or Charismatics, so be it, but then you have nothing to add to the ACNA conversation.
PV: Flawed logic.
p.p.s. I'm *still* waiting for an actual, verbatim, item from ACNA that conflicts with the Articles, or where Anglo-Catholicism is "mandated" under ACNA.
Much hyperbole and kvetching. Not much critical thought.
PV: Ahem.
Dom:
I meant to bow out of the discussion, but was not iron-clad enough and posted anyways. Will not do so henceforth.
Philip:
You attend an AMIA church? And you complain about ACNA? That's really rich.
The concept of safe harbor seems to have escaped you. Based on your latest reply, my guess is that rather than Anglican, you're rather a cafeteria Reformation type. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not actually Anglicanism.
Again, if the aversion to the ACNA is based on a fear of Anglo-Catholics, then so be it, but it's not grounded in what the ACNA is actually trying to achieve, and really takes you out of the game.
Still waiting for where ACNA conflicts with the Articles...
Dom:
Not a supporter of the AMiA church, but quietly attend and once/twice per month. Not interested in fighting, there or here. Again, you insist on an ad hominem which is unproductive.
Not biting, but thanks.
Phil
Philip:
There has been no ad hominem on my part, just an attempt to get beyond the hyperbole into actual data.
So, are you not actually a communicant member of a local church?
Where does ACNA contradict the Articles?
Dom:
Church membership, no, not a communicant anymore by way of a church roster. Communion with Christ, yes.
I also attend an Anglo-Roman mission work for educational purposes with a 1928 BCP which I know...and some other reasons also. Quite informative and confirmational.
Your previous comment about "Cafeteria Reformation" type was, if anything, more hyperbole on your part.
I am expecting additional ad hominems. You've been making them if you haven't noticed.
The readers can decide.
I'll only defend myself, if forced.
Philip
Philip:
What do you call asking if someone has an idea of the Reformation? Why even descend to accusations of "ad hominem"? Why not just deal with data?
"Cafeteria Reformation" was not an insult, as I mentioned. It was a classification, one which I believe fits rather aptly, especially after reviewing your short bio on your blog.
You're not particularly committed to Anglicanism, but rather to the idea of Reformed Christianity, and part of that is the BCP Liturgy.
Nothing wrong with that.
In other areas, you seem to want to change Anglicanism to suit your preferences.
So, how does ACNA conflict with the Articles?
Dom,
I have been following the ACNA from the outset. The ACNA is not as you would like folks to see it. The ACNA gives a token place at best to the Thirty-Nine Articles. I have produced substantial evidence of that elsewhere and I see no need to cater to your demands, knowing full well that nothing is going to satisfy you. I don't play that game--trying to jump higher and higher as you keep raising the bar.
The Common Cause Theological Statement was written to accomodate Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Catholicism and takes an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues including the Anglican formularies--the 1662 Prayer Book, the 1661 Ordinal, and the 1571 Articles of Religion. In the case of the Articles the position that it takes is also a liberal one. A substantial number of the self-identified "evangelicals" in the ACNA evidence the influence of Anglo-Catholicism and liberalism in their thinking. I don't expect them to have any difficulties with the Common Cause Theological Statement. However, the real evangelicals in the ACNA, those who stand squarely in the evangelical and Reformed tradition of Anglicanism do. They remain in the ACNA for pragmatic reasons such as the desire to reform the ACNA.
The ACNA constitution and canons contain a number of provisions that are inconsistent with the Articles. I see no reason to produce these provisions word for word. Anyone who wishes to read them can go to the ACNA website. Indeed I see no point of wrangling with you because you have made up your mind and you are not going to change it. I am not going to waste my time trying to persuade someone like yourself. You are not really interested in the truth. And I have better things to do.
Dom:
A poor and cheap shot when you say:
"Speaking of Pharisees, nice reference to White Horse Inn, the king of the "Reformed" pretentious bitties."
A good word from our Catholic Confessional brethren in the Lutheran way about "Playing the Pharisee card.
A Preview of the New Issues, Etc.™ Journal
Playing the Pharisee Card
http://www.issuesetc.org/journal.html
By Todd Wilken
I have been called a Pharisee more times than I can remember. It goes with the territory. I host a conservative Christian radio talk show. I publicly defend the teachings and practices of the historic Church. I also publicly point out false teaching and practices in the Church today. For these reasons alone, some believe that I deserve to be called a Pharisee.
But I'm not alone. Today, the label "Pharisee" is applied to many Christians just like me - perhaps you're one of them. We are Christians who cherish God's Word, the Church's historic Creeds, confessions and practices. When we see the Church abandoning these things to follow the latest fads and entertainments, we
lament. When we see the Gospel itself being left behind in the Church's rush to mimic popular culture, we are grieved. And when we question the Church's infatuation with the spirit of the age, we are labeled Pharisees. Click Here to Read More."
Dom, give it up.
Philip
Robin:
I'm "not interested in the truth"? Talk about your ad hominems!
Ok, so disagreeing with Robin is being "not interested in the truth". Got it. Sure you're not Anglo-Papist? :-)
Again, you present opinion and generalization as fact, and make allusion that the data is there for anyone to see.
Sorry, that's not a valid argument. You have not presented one single binding ACNA item that conflicts with the Articles.
I must therefore conclude that you're pushing an agenda and aren't willing to substantiate your claims with actual data.
What's that about "truth" again?
Philip:
Who said anything about Wilken?
We're talking about Horton. He's a Pharisee who appeals to intellectual pride (a besetting sin of we Reformed types) criticizes all sorts of other worship styles in a very catty fashion, throws up straw men and glib soundbites like "Christless Christianity".
He's preaches a Gospel of intellectual correctness, of jumping through the right intellectual man-made hoops.
He's a Pharisee and a bitty.
Don't fall for his game. Read the classics.
Post a Comment