The Marks of the Traditional Anglican Evangelical

By Robin G. Jordan

There is a noticeable willingness on the part of ACNA clergy to dismiss historic Evangelical objections to ritualism and to rationalize what is the current practice in the ACNA. For example, one of my readers argued that what is happening in the Reformed Episcopal Church is what its founders had intended had not they been subject to persecution. I was struck by the similarity between this argument and an argument that the Ritualists made in support of their introduction of nineteenth century Roman Catholic doctrine and practice into the Church of England. This is what would have been the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, they argued, if the English Reformation had not occurred. They were only undoing the damage that the Reformation caused. Both are trying to explain away by rationalism departures from original principles. Past generations of Reformed Episcopalians would see the present developments in the Reformed Episcopal Church as injurious to everything for which they stood, and far removed from the intentions of church’s founders. They would view with great alarm the spread of ritualism in the Reformed Episcopal Church in our day. Ritualism was the very reason that the Evangelical Episcopalians who founded the Reformed Episcopal Church withdrew from the then Protestant Episcopal Church. They shared the view of the Evangelical Bishop of Liverpool J. C. Ryle that ritualism was a perversion rather than genuine Anglicanism. [1]

On the part of Anglo-Catholics this willingness is not particularly surprising. They see no harm in ritualism and openly foster its spread. On the part of those who identify themselves as Evangelicals the same willingness is troublesome to say the least. It runs counter to what has historically been the Evangelical position on the matter and causes a great deal of confusion among those not well acquainted with that position. As I have pointed to the attention of my readers in previous articles the position that many self-identified Evangelicals take toward ritualism is historically associated with liberal Evangelicalism in the nineteenth century and Broad Church liberalism in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is not the position of conservative and moderate Evangelicals in either century. These two groups were in agreement upon the danger of ritualism to the faith of the reformed Church of England and its formularies but were not in agreement upon how it should be dealt with.

The acceptance of ritualism tends to go hand in hand with the rejection of the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Adherence to the Thirty-Nine Articles, in particular those intended to express central biblical teaching, held in common with other churches of the Reformation, is another mark of traditional Evangelicalism in the Anglican Church. However, a significant number of those who involved in Anglican Church in North America and describe themselves as Evangelicals have shown a tendency to speak of the Articles as a relic of the past and therefore not authoritative for modern Anglicans. One is apt to hear from them the argument that Anglo-Catholics once made in the nineteenth century and liberals in the twentieth century that Anglicanism and the Anglican Church has advanced in its theology beyond the sixteenth century doctrine of the Articles. This argument is used to support theological opinions that deviate from the Articles’ doctrine and conflict with it. In the words of J. I Packer, however, “to deny that the Articles speak to our time is tantamount to denying the gospel itself does.” [2]Yet in its Fundamental Declarations in Article I of its Constitution the Anglican Church in North America does just that.

A corollary of this rejection of the Articles’ doctrine is the rejection of the New Testament gospel of justification by faith and salvation by grace. The New Testament gospel may not be rejected entirely but humanity may be viewed to be not as depraved and as incapable of turning and disposing himself to believe and call upon God as the Articles maintain is the case. There may be a willingness to give a more prominent place to the sacraments and good works in justification and salvation and to entertain the possibility of an intermediate state in which the dead are purged of the effects of the sins they committed in this life.

Full acceptance of the gospel of divine grace is a third mark of traditional Evangelicalism in the Anglican Church. From the perspective of traditional Anglican Evangelicalism the lack of a single mark gives occasion for doubts about an individual’s Evangelical credentials. When a self-identified Evangelical lacks all three marks it raises serious question regarding whether that person is really an Evangelical even though he may think of himself as an Evangelical.

A fourth mark that has historically characterized traditional Anglican Evangelicalism is the belief that all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God written and “the sole Rule of Faith and Practice.” [3] They are given by the inspiration of God and contain all things necessary for salvation.

A fifth mark of traditional Anglican Evangelicalism is the belief that only the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are divinely instituted. Traditional Anglican Evangelicalism rejects the Church of Rome’s sacramental system with its seven sacraments, as does the Thirty-Nine Articles.

A sixth mark is the belief that the New Testament does not mandate any particular form of church government. The corollary of this belief is articulated in the Memorandum of Association of the Latimer Trust: “the government of the Christian community properly belongs under God to the Church as a whole, both clergy and laity together, and not exclusively to bishops or to any other particular order.” [4]

A seventh mark is the belief that Christian ministry in accordance with the New Testament is not a sacerdotal ministry. Rather it was instituted for the purpose of preaching, teaching, and pastoral oversight. This is the view of Christian ministry expressed in the Ordinal of 1661, which is annexed to The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. Consequently, traditional Anglican Evangelicalism “rejects all practices which imply a sacerdotal character of the Ministry, and further rejects all theories of the sacraments which imply that the ministerial action invariably conveys grace.” [5] Accordingly traditional Anglican Evangelicalism rejects the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

An eighth mark is the belief that Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper is not tied to the bread and wine. As a consequence traditional Anglican Evangelicalism rejects all theories of the eucharistic presence which imply that Christ is in way present, substantively or otherwise, in or under the form of bread and wine or with the bread and wine.

A ninth mark is the belief that “the true unity of Christ's Church is a unity in faith, doctrine, and love and not of ministerial orders or external uniformity.” Traditional Anglican Evangelicalism “holds that that the Lord's people should openly express this unity in particular at the Lord's Table as well as in other ways of witness and worship.” [6]

A tenth mark is the belief that episcopal ordination is not indispensable, and therefore the lack of episcopal ordination does not constitute a barrier to reunion. At the same time traditional Anglican Evangelicalism has no objections to the historic threefold ministry of deacon, presbyter, and bishop.

An eleventh mark is the belief that apostolic succession is a succession of doctrine, not a succession of bishops. Bishops are successors to the apostles in so far as they teach the doctrine of the apostles.

A twelfth mark is the belief that ordination by laying on of hands and prayer recognizes that God has set an individual apart for Christian ministry. It does not confer an indelible mark on the character of the ordinand or bestow upon him any special grace. Rather it publicly acknowledges the genuineness of God’s calling and gifting of the ordinand for the Ministry.

A thirteenth mark is that the belief that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for our sins. Christ offered the oblation of himself once for all time. No other sacrifice is required. Having risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, Christ sat down at God the Father’s right hand. His work upon the cross was finished. For this reason the Thirty-Nine Articles condemn as “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits” the medieval doctrine of sacrifice of Masses in which the priest was believed to re-offer the bloodless immolation of Christ under the forms of bread and wine for the living and the dead, to obtain remission of their punishment or guilt.

While Christ intercedes for us, the Scriptures say nothing about Christ always standing before God’s throne, presenting, offering, or pleading his earthly sacrifice, as the Caroline divines and the Wesleys claimed. [7] Consequently, it is erroneous to teach, “The sacrifice of Christ is more than his once-for-all death on Calvary, and in some sense continues in the presence.” It is also incorrect to teach, “The church’s union with Christ is such that Christians are incorporated, not merely into his death and resurrection, but into his present sacrificing activity as well.” [8] We do not show forth Christ’s death in the Lord’s Supper to remind God of what Christ has done for us. The displaying of Christ’s death in the Lord’s Supper is directed at our fellow humans, not at God.

The fourteenth mark is the seriousness with which traditional Anglican Evangelicalism regards Christ’s commission, “go ye into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15 KJV)“Every creature” in this passage is a reference to every human being, not every living thing. Francis of Assissi, however, interpreted this passage literally and preached the good news to every creature. What a transformation the world might undergo if more modern Christians had Francis’ zeal in the cause of the gospel.

A fifteenth mark is the stress that traditional Anglican Evangelicalism lays on personal faith and conversion. It is not sufficient that a Christian should have an intellectual knowledge of what the New Testament teaches in regards to Christ and to assent to the truth of that teaching. A Christian must believe in his heart Christ is a Real Person today as he was two millennia ago and to trust in him completely for his salvation. He must throw himself entirely upon Christ’s mercy. Having done so, he must turn away from sin and lead a life of obedience to God. His faith in Christ and his commitment to Christ must be evident in his life. It must be a living faith that makes itself known in acts of love, selflessness, and service. Just as we cannot have a personal relationship with a loved one without talking to him, we also cannot have a personal relationship with Christ without praying and communing with him. Traditional Anglican Evangelicalism is not satisfied with a profession of faith as important as it may be but looks for fruit in the life of the professed believer.

We go too far if we try to stretch the Evangelical label to include all and sundry who think of themselves as Evangelicals. We need to maintain some kind of objective criteria. The fifteen marks that I have identified are what have been used historically to distinguish Evangelicals from other Protestants and from Catholics in the Anglican Church. To be regarded as a traditional Anglican Evangelical an individual must display all fifteen marks.

A substantial number of ACNA’s self-identified Evangelicals do not meet these criteria. They might be considered non-traditional Evangelicals, which is as good as saying that they are not Evangelicals at all. A more charitable way of looking at them would be to describe them as individuals with Evangelical leanings, depending upon what marks they exhibit.

The lack of a strong traditional Evangelical wing in the Anglican Church in North America, the Anglo-Catholic theological alignment of its constitution and canons, the failure of its Fundamental Declarations to make room for traditional Evangelical beliefs, and its canonical requirement of unreserved subscription to its Fundamental Declarations, and the structures and forms of governance established for its international organization and permitted for its sub-provincial jurisdictions, dioceses and other groupings are not good signs for the future of traditional Anglican Evangelicalism in North America. They do not bode well for the North American Anglican Church. In future articles I will look at what needs to be done to prevent traditional Anglican Evangelicalism from sinking into oblivion and to preserve the heritage of the English Reformers for posterity. I will weight what steps might be taken to keep the faith of the reformed Church of England and its formularies from vanishing from the North American Anglican Church.

Endnotes:

[1]David Phipps, “Bishop Ryle and Me”, Cross+Way Issue Spring 2010, No. 116, article on the Internet at: http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_116_PhippsRyle.pdf
[2] J. I. Packer and R.T. Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today,(Vancouver BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007), 80.
[3]”Declaration of Principles,” The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies for Use in the Free Church of England Otherwise Called the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland together with The Psalter or Psalms of David Pointed as They Are to Be Sung or Said in Churches; and The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Ltd., 1956).
[4] Memorandum of Association of the Latimer Trust, document on the Internet at: http://www.latimertrust.org/download/basis.pdf
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Packer and Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today, 82.
[8] Ibid., 81.