True Heirs of the Anglican Tradition on the North American Continent

By Robin G. Jordan

Article I of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America identifies seven “elements” as being “characteristic” of what it refers to as the “Anglican Way,” a term popularized by the late Peter Toon. It goes on to state that these seven elements are “essential for membership” in the ACNA. Article I takes the position that the seven elements are first principles and therefore rudimental to Anglicanism. They describe the character of Anglicanism, that is, its collective peculiarities, its unique nature, what distinguishes it as “the biblically faithful, authentically-Anglican way of following Jesus and being a part of the ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’.” Consequently they are indispensable for membership in the ACNA. To belong to the Anglican Church in North America, a person must fully embrace these seven rudiments of Anglicanism as the Common Cause Partnership Roundtable that drew up the Common Cause Theological Statement understood Anglicanism. They are the ACNA’s shibboleth (see Judges 12:6), by which a person’s “orthodoxy” is tested.

A number of provisions of the ACNA’s canons emphasize the necessity of unreserved subscription to the seven elements listed in Article I, also known as the “Fundamental Declarations.” At the beginning of the canons the “Definition of Certain Terms” identifies “The Faith” as - “The Faith” is the faith once for all delivered to the saints of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church, as set forth in Article I of the Constitution.” This appears to a reference to the second to last clauses of Article I, which equates the Fundamental Declarations with “the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ.” It states:

“In all these things, the Anglican Church in North America is determined by the help of God to hold and maintain, as the Anglican Way has received them, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to our posterity.

We seek to be and remain in full communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

The last clause “sets forth” nothing. It contains only a brief reference to “the Historic Faith.”

Canon I.7.2 states, “A Ministry Partner may belong to another denomination of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or be independent, so long as it subscribes without reservation to the Fundamental Declarations of the Church stated in Article I of the Constitution. [my emphasis]

“An entity such as a seminary, monastic order or ministry organization, or a Diocese, congregation or other entity that is not a member of the Church” cannot be a “Ministry Partner” with the ACNA unless it unreservedly expresses adhesion to the views stated in the Fundamental Declarations. It cannot qualify its concurrence with them.

Canon III.3.2 states, “No persons shall be ordained a Deacon in the Church until such person shall have subscribed without reservation the following declaration:

‘I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation, and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto, and I do solemnly engage
to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them.’”

Likewise Canon III.4.3 states, “No Deacon shall be ordained a Presbyter in the Church until the Deacon shall have subscribed the following declaration:

‘I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation, and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto, and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them.’”

Similarly Canon III.8.5 states, “No Presbyter shall be consecrated a Bishop in the Church until he shall have subscribed the following declaration:

‘I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation, and I consequently hold myself bound to conform my life and ministry thereto, and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them.’”

As we have seen, Article I appears to equate the Fundamental Declarations with “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ” The instructions to the application form for recognition as a new ACNA judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) support this conclusion. In addition to requiring that the vestries of the congregations in the group of congregations seeking recognition must subscribe to the constitution and canons of the ACNA, they require that all nominees for bishop of the judicatory must “fully embraced the Fundamental Declarations of this Province.”

The Fundamental Declarations in Article I, the foregoing requirements, and the doctrinal provisions of the canons effectively exclude from the ACNA conservative Anglicans who do not share the views expressed in the Fundamental Declarations or the doctrinal positions taken by the canons. They also help to create an environment in the ACNA that is not friendly to conservative evangelicals like myself. Most of the former Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians who form a large part of the ACNA clergy and church members did not compromise their beliefs and principles to remain in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. But they expect conservative evangelicals like myself to compromise our beliefs and principles to join the ACNA. One must ask why they ask others to do what they would not do themselves. Too often it boils down to the fact that while they have high regard for their own beliefs and principles, they do not have the same respect for the beliefs and principles of others. Their attitude is that the beliefs and principles of others are not as important as their own beliefs and principles, and therefore others should not have any difficulty in making concessions. Others have no reason to feel ashamed about making concessions or disgraced by making them. They have no right to feel that in making concessions they are damaging their reputation or lowering their self-esteem. They ought not to be troubled at all. This attitude completely discounts not only the beliefs and principles of others but also their feelings and sensibilities. It applies a double standard—one for themselves and another for others.

A number of the former Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians in the same group take the position that since they have no misgivings about the doctrine of the Fundamental Declarations and the canons, others should have no scruples or qualms about that doctrine. They should have no mental reservations or theological considerations or principles that restrain or check their acceptance of such doctrine. They ought not to have any feelings of unease that they are not following their conscience or better judgment.

Underlying this problem is the fact that the Common Cause Partnership Roundtable that drew up the Fundamental Declarations was not representative of all conservative Anglicans. The Anglican Province of America, one of the Common Cause Partners that was involved in compilation of the list, withdrew from the Common Cause Partnership. Later Common Cause Partners such as the Convocation of North American Anglicans and the Missionary Convocation of Kenya were not involved in the process. They were faced with the choice of accepting the Fundamental Declaration as is or not becoming a Common Cause Partnership. The Global South primates and bishops played a role in the choice the leaders of these bodies made, exerting pressure upon them to co-operate with other North American Anglican bodies with the formation of a new North American province as the goal.

To complicate matters the Anglo-Catholics on the ACNA Provincial Council have resisted any changes in the wording and emphases of the Fundamental Declarations. The particular understanding of Anglicanism embodied in the Fundamental Declarations, while hardly ideal from an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint, is to a large extent aligned with their own views. It does not give a central place to the historic Church of England formularies in the life and teaching of the ACNA and permits and even mandates an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. It stresses that bishops are essential to Church life, to Anglican identity, and to Church unity, three emphases that are traceable to the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, the precursor of the modern Anglo-Catholic movement.

This state of affairs has been further complicated by the attitude that since one group of self-identified “evangelicals” in the ACNA appears to have no problems with the doctrine of the Fundamental Declarations and the canons and a number of “evangelical” leaders outside of the ACNA have extended their recognition and support to the ACNA, other conservative Anglicans who identify themselves as “evangelicals” should likewise have no feelings of doubt and hesitancy about the ACNA or they should pay no attention to what is troubling their conscience or causing them difficulty in determining whether the ACNA is the right church for them. This attitude, however, fails to take into account the intensity of the hostility that any perceived criticism of the ACNA elicits. The result is that clergy and church members in the ACNA who do have reservations or concerns about the doctrine of the Fundamental Declarations and the canons are reluctant to voice anything that might be perceived as critical of the ACNA. They do not want to be viewed, much less treated as troublemakers. They express feelings of helplessness, powerlessness. If they make known their reservations or concerns, they believe that those holding the reins of power in the ACNA would summarily dismiss their reservations or concerns. The latter have a too greater investment in the status quo.

Two other factors contribute to the present lack of vocal dissent in the ACNA. One is the fear that any open disagreement with the direction that the ACNA has taken will undermine the fragile alliance of Anglo-Catholics, charismatics, and self-identified “evangelicals” upon which the ACNA is founded. At the Provincial Council that preceded the inaugural Provincial Assembly Anglo-Catholic members of the Council played upon this fear, suggesting that any modification of the language of the Fundamental Declarations would cause the alliance to unravel. The other is that many of the former Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians are combat-weary. There is little enthusiasm for further conflict. Having lost one church home, they do not want to lose another. Even though the ACNA may be far from what they had hoped a new North American province would be like, they are prepared to make the best of a bad thing.

Of course, for some clergy and church members in the ACNA the honeymoon is still going on. They have not yet discovered that the love of their life has irritating attitudes and annoying habits that make living with them not quite what they had expected. They may have become aware of their new spouses’ flaws and imperfections but they are not ready to face up to reality. For a number of ACNA clergy and church members the ACNA is exactly what they had hoped for and they cannot understand those who do not feel the way they do toward the ACNA. They tend to exculpate the ACNA and attribute the dissatisfaction of others with the ACNA to a negative attitude toward the ACNA. They are likely to accuse those expressing any dissatisfaction with the ACNA as harboring bitterness, resentment, or even deep-seated hostility toward the ACNA.

Those who argue that since one group of “evangelicals” leaders outside of North America appears to be satisfied with the ACNA as it is, all “evangelicals” should likewise be satisfied with the para-church organization do not consider what may be motivating this group of “evangelical” leaders. A number of these leaders have an investment in the ACNA’s recognition. They took the side of beleaguered conservative Anglicans in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. They provided temporary episcopal oversight to conservative clergy and congregations fleeing the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church and through this oversight a continuing tie with the Anglican Communion. They subsequently provided these clergy and congregations with bishops of their own around whose leadership they could gather. They encouraged the formation of a new North American province. When the Common Cause Partnership reconstituted itself as the Anglican Church in North America, they recognized the new body and released the clergy and congregations in their care to its care. Considering the extent of such investment they are not going to criticize the ACNA.

On the contrary they are likely to minimize or ignore its problem areas and weaknesses since any acknowledgment of these problem areas and weaknesses reflects poorly upon their judgment. They, after all, appointed and consecrated a number of the bishops and approved the latter’s design for a new province. Such an acknowledgment also points to problem areas and weaknesses in their own provinces and dioceses. The ACNA leaders borrowed doctrines and forms from them, which they in turn had borrowed from the Roman Catholic Church.

Moreover, any public admission or recognition of the ACNA’s problem areas and weaknesses, in their minds, weakens their position in their struggle against the forces of liberalism in the Anglican Communion. It provides the liberals with something that they can use to undermine the present alliance of conservative Anglican groups that has formed to contain and counter their influence in the Communion. Some members of this group of “evangelical” leaders, while they privately recognize that the ACNA is not what they had hoped to see established in North America, support the ACNA as an expression of solidarity with fellow conservative Anglicans.

The unqualified support of “evangelicals” outside of the North America of the ACNA and its leaders negatively affects conservative evangelicals in North America like myself in two ways. This support lends countenance to a number of negative developments in the ACNA. The ACNA leaders interpret this support as meaning that these “evangelicals” countenance the status quo in the ACNA and interpret it to ACNA clergy and church members in this way. ACNA clergy and church members interpret it in the same way themselves. It takes away any external incentive to make much needed changes. ACNA leaders do not need to change the ACNA constitution and canons or how they actually govern the ACNA in order to gain the recognition that they covet. The “evangelicals” giving their unqualified support to the ACNA and its leaders are sacrificing the truth to maintain a united front against liberalism, and turning their backs upon the plight of conservative evangelicals like myself. They are greatly injuring the cause of confessional Anglicanism in North America.

In his Churchman article, “ Recovering Confessional Anglicanism” Gillis Harp makes this cogent observation:

“If the story of North American Anglicanism in the last generation has demonstrated anything, it is the catastrophic consequences of ignoring our Reformation formularies. Forgetting the Thirty-Nine Articles has, of course, been part of a larger assault on traditional doctrine. Relegating the Articles to the ‘Historical Documents'’ section of the 1979 American BCP was a small part of this shift but a revealing one nonetheless. As the costly results of a non-confessional Anglicanism continue to work themselves out in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada, orthodox Anglicans have homework to do. We need to revisit the Reformation formularies, study them afresh and work to restore them to a central place in the teaching and life of whatever orthodox body emerges from the current mess.”

The body that has emerged from the current mess is the Anglican Church in North America. Whether the ACNA is “orthodox” is debatable and turns on one’s particular understanding of Anglicanism and Anglican comprehensiveness. From the perspective of the historic Church of England formularies and the received interpretation of these formularies only a part of the ACNA is “orthodox” in doctrine and Christian living. As for giving the Thirty-Nine Articles a central place in the life and teaching of the Church, the ACNA in Article I of its constitution treats the Articles as a relic of the past, not a living formulary. The ACNA continues on the same path of non-confessional Anglicanism as the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. If the ACNA is a true heir to any tradition in North America, it is to non-confessional Anglicanism which is highly vulnerable to every whim and fancy of contemporary culture and the latest in ecclesiastical fads—Oxfordism, Anglo-Catholicism, and Broad Church Liberalism in the 19th century, Affirming Catholicism and Pentecostalism in the 20th century, and Ancient-Future Church/Convergence Theology in the 21st century.

Instead of erecting a strong bulwark against liberalism, pluralism, and radicalism with the restoration of the Thirty-Nine Articles to a central place in its life and teaching, the ACNA is following in the footsteps of Bishop Samuel Seabury who opposed the fledgling Episcopal Church’s adoption of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Although the General Convention, at Bishop William White’s urging, adopted the Articles, Bishop Seabury won a victory in that the Articles were not made binding upon the consciences and minds of the clergy of the new church. We see the consequences of this victory today.

In its wording of the Fundamental Declarations the ACNA has also pulled the teeth of the Articles. The view expressed in the Fundamental Declarations is that the Articles deal with issues that were a cause of dispute in the 16th century and contains some basic principles of genuine Anglican belief. For the most part, however, it infers, the Articles are not relevant to the present day Church.

In contrast, the Jerusalem Declaration, in the words of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group, “calls the Anglican Church back to the Articles as being a faithful testimony to the teaching of the Scripture, excluding erroneous beliefs and practices and giving a distinct shape to Anglican Christianity.” In Being Faithful the same group also emphasizes, “…acceptance of their authority is constitutive of Anglican identity.” But as Ephraim Radner observed, the ACNA only affirms the Jerusalem Declaration “in a general way.” In other words, the ACNA constitution contains an affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration but the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council in moving the affirmation to the preamble provided the ACNA with ample wiggle room. The preamble is not binding upon the ACNA as is the body of the constitution. The seven “elements” of the “Anglican Way” listed in Article I is the ACNA’s position statement, not the fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration. The affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration is really window dressing for the Global South Primates and other would-be ACNA supporters, as is the ACNA’s supposed acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

How then does the ACNA differ from The Episcopal Church whose House of Bishops issued what they regarded as cleverly worded statements in which they appeared to conform with the demands of the Global South Primates but in actuality were a subterfuge behind which they continued to pursue their liberal agenda? The affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration in the preamble and the statement concerning the Thirty-Nine Articles in Article I do not represent a genuine commitment to these confessions. They were incorporated into the ACNA constitution as a matter of expedience.

Do “evangelicals” outside of North America who give unqualified support to the ACNA realize that the ACNA does not really stand for what is written in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Jerusalem Declaration? If ACNA really stood for what they stand, it would have clearly stated that it recognized the Articles as having an ongoing normative role for Anglicans as the Articles faithfully represented the teaching of Scripture. It would not have relegated its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to its constitution’s preamble.

Do those who regard the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal as classical standards of Anglicanism realize that in supporting the ACNA they are backing a para-church organization that has little use for the historic Church of England formularies? Do they realize that in not qualifying their support, they are condoning the anti-conservative evangelical policies of the ACNA, its exclusion of those who hold to the historic Biblical-Reformational doctrine of the Church of England?

As I see it, “evangelicals” outside of North America are so bedazzled by the ACNA that they do not see the para-church organization for what it is. It is not the defense against liberalism, pluralism, and radicalism that they think it. It is like the Maginot Line, the string of fortresses that the French built to protect themselves from German invasion after World War I. It proved to be no protection at all. The Germans simply bypassed it, sweeping into France through the Netherlands. “Evangelicals” outside of North America are giving up the future of confessional Anglicanism in North America for the sake of an illusion. Like the Maginot Line it may make them feel safe but the protection it offers is worthless.