"'5. To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified. We do this in order to reflect, in our relations with one another, God's own faithfulness and promises towards us in Christ (2 Cor 1.20-22)'.
This could not be more wrong. Now is precisely the opportunity and the time to change the character of this Anglican expression of the Christian faith in those areas that have proven incapable of maintaining the unity and conformity of the churches of the Anglican Communion in Apostolic Faith, order and practice. Here again we confront in the proposed Covenant an unbiblical emphasis on maintaining provincial autonomy and a reluctance to state clearly the common, binding essentials of the Apostolic Faith as this Church has received them and stated them.
We think of Canon A5 of the Church of England that so clearly, beautifully and simply states: "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 Catholic Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1662." Happily, this was adopted by the Jerusalem Declaration.
'(1.1.2) the catholic and apostolic faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation[2]. The historic formularies of the Church of England[3], forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.' (underlining mine)
This statement comes close to asserting the normative character of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God written ("Scriptura Suprema") and the abiding value of the historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer and ordinal 1662 and the 39 Articles of Religion) that set forth the Anglican understanding of the teaching of the Scripture and the ancient Church on the crucial matters that they cover.
However, there is a certain vagueness and hesitancy to give full expression to their authority in the Anglican Communion. Just what does 'uniquely revealed' mean, or 'authentic witness' imply? Canon A5 and the Jerusalem Declaration are far clearer and accord the historic formularies a stronger prominence in the Communion.
It is true that the Scriptures and the Creeds get a brief clarifying statement later, but the 39 Articles disappear from view, never to return. One senses a certain relief at their disappearance on the part of the writers of the Proposed Covenant."
John Rodgers makes a number of good points in this article. But what he says in some cases also applies to the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America. Why didn't he speak up about those documents? All he did was urge evangelicals to accept them as they were written.
To read the entire article, click here.
I certainly agree with you about the self-contradictions in this piece by Rodgers, but I suspect that he already knows of them. What I find most amusing is that while his AMIA occasionally shows signs of wanting to uphold the principles of the Reformation, it is now part of ACNA which rarely upholds them, and which now hopes to be part of the Anglican Communion, which in turn may well receive this silly "covenant". Perhaps Rodgers is just trying to warn us that the Anglican Communion is spinning out of control.
ReplyDelete