Pages

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Down the Rabbit Hole: ACNA Adventures in Ecumenism



By Robin G. Jordan

“The Caterpillar was the first to speak.

`What size do you want to be?' it asked.

`Oh, I'm not particular as to size,' Alice hastily replied; `only one doesn't like changing so often, you know.'

`I DON'T know,' said the Caterpillar.

Alice said nothing: she had never been so much contradicted in her life before, and she felt that she was losing her temper.

`Are you content now?' said the Caterpillar.

`Well, I should like to be a LITTLE larger, sir, if you wouldn't mind,' said Alice: `three inches is such a wretched height to be.'

`It is a very good height indeed!' said the Caterpillar angrily, rearing itself upright as it spoke (it was exactly three inches high).

`But I'm not used to it!' pleaded poor Alice in a piteous tone. And she thought of herself, `I wish the creatures wouldn't be so easily offended!'

`You'll get used to it in time,' said the Caterpillar; and it put the hookah into its mouth and began smoking again.

This time Alice waited patiently until it chose to speak again. In a minute or two the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth and yawned once or twice, and shook itself. Then it got down off the mushroom, and crawled away in the grass, merely remarking as it went, `One side will make you grow taller, and the other side will make you grow shorter.'

`One side of WHAT? The other side of WHAT?' thought Alice to herself.

`Of the mushroom,' said the Caterpillar, just as if she had asked it aloud; and in another moment it was out of sight.

Alice remained looking thoughtfully at the mushroom for a minute, trying to make out which were the two sides of it; and as it was perfectly round, she found this a very difficult question. However, at last she stretched her arms round it as far as they would go, and broke off a bit of the edge with each hand.

`And now which is which?' she said to herself, and nibbled a little of the right-hand bit to try the effect: the next moment she felt a violent blow underneath her chin: it had struck her foot!

She was a good deal frightened by this very sudden change, but she felt that there was no time to be lost, as she was shrinking rapidly; so she set to work at once to eat some of the other bit. Her chin was pressed so closely against her foot, that there was hardly room to open her mouth; but she did it at last, and managed to swallow a morsel of the lefthand bit.” (Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)


At the Amesbury meeting of the Anglican Church in North America’s Provincial Council earlier this month a number of announcements were made in regard to the relations of the ACNA with other Christian bodies. One was the ACNA had not agreed not to use the filoque clause in the Nicene Creed at joint-celebrations of the Eucharist with the Orthodox Church of America. Another was that the ACNA was involved in talks with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

“Why,” I am prompted to ask myself, “is the ACNA focusing on ecumenical relations only one year after its founding?” “And why are its leaders drawing attention what the ACNA is doing in this particular area?” In my experience denominations are apt to focus on ecumenical relations when they are not doing well in other areas such as reaching a growing unchurched population, and are experiencing a decline in numbers—members, congregations, baptisms, confirmations, that sort of thing. Ecumenical relations are substituted for evangelism, church planting, and church growth. If a denomination reports progress in ecumenical relations, my immediate reaction is to check how it is doing in these other more critical areas.

The ACNA’s choice of ecumenical partners is interesting. The Orthodox Church of America is an Orthodox group that conservative Orthodox groups do not regard as really Orthodox. It has accepted changes that these groups do not accept. Conservative Orthodox groups show very little interest, if any, in ecumenism. In their view Anglicans are heretic. If Anglicans want to enjoy better relations with the Orthodox, they must convert to Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy, however, is itself divided. Some Orthodox groups do not recognize others and may never recognize them. Even if Anglicans were to convert to Orthodoxy, it would not guarantee better relations with all Orthodox Churches. The ACNA leaders would also do well to read up on the history of Anglican-Orthodox relations, beginning with the Non-Jurors’ overtures to the Orthodox Churches in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and Orthodox Churches’ rebuff of the Non-Jurors.

I am also prompted to ask myself, “Does this flurry of ecumenical activity have anything to do with Convergence theology—the theory that the Anglican Church in North America is at the forefront of the bringing together of a number of disparate traditions?” ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan has, as I have pointed out elsewhere, used the language of the Ancient-Future, or Convergence, movement in his sermons and speeches. This movement has a following in the ACNA. It is particularly strong in the Anglican Mission but it is not confined to that former sub-provincial jurisdiction, now ministry partner of the ACNA.

Developing and maintaining good relations between the ACNA and conservative Lutheran bodies does make sense. My observation is that new Anglican congregations are likely to do well in areas in which conservative Lutheran churches are doing well. They are affected by the same demographics. A key factor is the attitude of the local church-going population toward liturgical churches and the extent that their attitude has influenced the unchurched population. Good relations between the ACNA and these bodies especially at the local community level, would encouraged the local Lutheran churches to view new Anglican congregations as gospel partners and not as interlopers and competitors, and would be beneficial to the ACNA. Local Lutheran churches might permit new church plants to share their facilities until the new congregations leased or rented a meeting place of their own.

Good relations with conservative Lutheran bodies are desirable not just for these reasons. Conservative Lutheran bodies are evangelical Protestant bodies. They do share a number of common beliefs with historical Anglicanism—for example, apostolic succession as a succession of doctrine, not a succession of bishops; justification by grace by faith in Christ; and the Lord’s Supper as a feast on a sacrifice, not a sacrifice itself. Catholic Anglicans may wish to consider the doctrine of the Real Presence as one of those shared beliefs, but actually this particular doctrine is one of those points where historical Anglicanism and Lutheranism part company. Historical Anglicanism is Reformed in its view of Christ’s presence and does not link his presence to the elements, as does Lutheranism.

What particularly caught my interest was Reformed Episcopal Church Bishop Ray Sutton’s announcement that 135 Evangelical Lutheran congregations were considering affiliation with the ACNA. If these congregations are conservative Lutheran congregations, it is difficult to see why they would not wish to affiliate with one of the conservative Lutheran bodies. Conservative Lutheranism as it has manifested itself in the Evangelical Lutheran Church does not just reject the ordination of practicing homosexuals. It also rejects the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession as a succession of bishops, episcopacy, episcopal-ordination, and the ordination of women pastors, On the other hand, it affirms the long-standing Lutheran practices of lay preaching and lay administration of the sacraments. The ACNA in its fundamental declarations avers that bishops are essential to the life and unity of the Church. Its canons affirm the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of tactual succession and require episcopal-ordination for its clergy. They teach that marriage is a sacrament. Lutheranism recognizes only two sacraments—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (albeit it has sometimes taken a sacramental view of absolution.)

I could not fail to take note of ACNA leaders’ willingness to make room for conservative Evangelical Lutherans in the ACNA. They have not show that kind of willingness toward conservative evangelical Anglicans. Of course, there are 135 congregations of conservative Evangelical Lutherans—135 congregations that the ACNA would not be required to plant to meet its goals of 1000 new Anglican congregations in five years.

The willingness of ACNA leaders to even entertain the admission of Evangelical Lutheran congregations to the ACNA is very revealing. It confirms my observation that any affirmation of the historic Anglican formularies in the ACNA fundamental declarations is at its very best token. The language diluting and negating their authority represents the real ACNA position on these formularies. The consequences of ignoring the historic Anglican formularies in the Episcopal Church, however, have been catastrophic and costly. The ACNA has either not learned from the mistakes of the Episcopal Church or it has drawn the wrong conclusions. Rather than putting these formularies at the center of its teaching and life, the ACNA has followed in the footsteps of the Episcopal Church. It has shown itself to be the true heir of the Episcopal Church in its disregard of these centerpieces of Anglican identity and orthodoxy.



What would the Queen of Hearts say?

“Off with their heads!”

“Off with their heads!!”

12 comments:

  1. Robin,

    In your article, you wrote: "On the other hand, it affirms the long-standing Lutheran practices of lay preaching and lay administration of the sacraments."

    Lay preaching and lay administration of the Sacraments are specifically prohibited by the Book of Concord. This is a battle that is currently being waged by many in the LC-MS who feel this is being introduced into their own body, much to the detriment of the Lutheran Confessions.

    Sadly, while I think a conservative Anglican-Lutheran alliance would be a good thing, many of ACNA's current policies (as you have rightly pointed out) stand in the way. I do think there is a way around the issue of the Sacrament: a simple catechetical insistence on the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, with the mode left to individual conscience. So long as one does not deny that Christ is truly present in the Sacramental Celebration, their personal viewpoint would be exempt from suspicion. (Of course, this didn't work out that well for the Prussian Union churches in their early days... but, hey, why not try again, right?)

    Rob+

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rob,

    All the information that I posted was taken from a number of essays that were written by conservative Lutheran theologians against the proposed concordat between the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church. Lay preaching and lay administration of the sacraments have a long history in the ethnic Lutheran Churches. This is not to say that laypersons preached and administered the Lord's Supper in place of pastors when pastors were available. However, they did preach and administer the Lord's Supper when an ordained pastor was not available.

    Luther himself recommended the practice of small groups of mature Christians meeting in private houses to read and study the Scriptures and to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

    In Lutheran doctrine it is not the pastor who consecrates the sacrament but the verbum--God's Word. Instead of a prayer of consecration early Lutheran rites had just the Words of Institution.

    There are clearly two schools of thought on these practices in Lutheranism. Those who favor lay administration of the Lord's Supper claim Luther's support for the practice and point to a Lutheran tradition of lay administration of the Lord's Supper. They also point to the absence of any passages in the New Testament designating who should preside at the Lord's Supper.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robin, I find it interesting that your article points out the obvious. The AC-NA has more in common with Evangelical Lutherans than with the Missouri Synod Lutherans. You won't find any of the high church emphases in the Missouri synod. It's the theological liberals in the ELCA that are into the high church vestments and other such nonsense.

    As you pointed out the Word and Sacrament are essential to the Lutheran view, not the magic formulas of the papists. I don't think the AC-NA dialogue will go very far with the Missouri Synod for the simple reason that the AC-NA does not believe in the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. This is what the Lutherans in the Missouri Synod are all about. Even the conservative Lutherans in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are more liberal than the LC-MS. So this would explain why "conservative" Evangelical Lutherans or ELCA would even consider a merger of any kind with the AC-NA.

    The LC-MS won't even enter a concordat with the AC-NA much less a merger!

    The AC-NA is "morally" conservative on the issue of homosexuality but the AC-NA is semi-pelagian in its soteriolody and even pelagian if it follows the catechism of the 1979 book of revised services.

    I would not recommend anyone join a church in the AC-NA without a thorough examination of the doctrinal commitments of the local congregation and its pastor and vestry.

    Thanks for this article, Robin. It simply highlights for me what I have already been observing for myself.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robin,

    Unless something happened that I have missed, Leonard Riches is still Presiding Bishop of the REC, not Sutton (yet).

    Of major interest to me was Sutton's declaration that the ACNA would omit the "filioque" clause from the creed when worshiping with "Orthodox".

    Ray has regularly demonstrated "flexible" theology, changing positions when convenient for him.

    Joe B.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe,

    Thanks for pointing out to me that Leonard Riches, not Ray Sutton, is the REC Presiding Bishop. This is not first time I have confused the two. May be I am picking up something on a subconscious level about Ray Sutton.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would just note, Charlie, that I personally know many LCMS (and even a few WELS) pastors who use Eucharistic Vestments and full ceremony. They are considered matters indifferent in the Lutheran tradition.

    To respond to Robin's reply to me, my experience is that Lay celebration of the Communion has always been restricted to Pietist Churches with a Lutheran background, whom Confessional Lutherans point to as outright heretics. Most conservative Lutherans will also point out that, whatever Luther's personal feeings were, the Lutheran Church is bound to the Book of Concord, not to every word that came forth from Luther's mouth.

    As for omitting the Filioque, RC, well, I support that, mainly because the Filioque is not a part of the Ecumencial Creed (i.e., Nicene Creed). It is a part of a revised local usage that was foisted on the Western Church several hundred years after the text of Creed was set. If we accept the Filioque in its current state (i.e., imposed unilaterally), we have just accepted the jurisdiction of the Pope over matters of faith that affect the whole Church. Let the entire Church approve the Filioque, then use it liturgically.

    Rob+

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rob,
    Is filioque true or false?

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an aside, is there any good news that Leo Riches may retire?

    Relatedly, the replacement will probably be worse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Phil,
    Bp. Pikes's retirement didn't change the course of TEc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rob

    "'Logic!' said theProfessor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools?

    (C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,

    Because a church accepts the filoque, it does not follow that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Pope in matters of faith. That is false logic. If we used that kind of logic, when can make all kinds of claims.

    For the benefit of our readers, please point to where in the Book of Concord, which is itself comprised of a number of documents, lay preaching and administration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are specifically prohibited. The Book of Concord may be found on the Internet at: http://www.bookofconcord.org/boc-intro.php. From what I gather Lutherans themselves are divided in interpretation of the Book of Concord.

    Note to our readers: The Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper. The Epitome of Concord, in turn, rejects the Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper as set forth in the Articles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suspect that Cranmer/Calvin types and progeny on the issue of the Lord's Supper are called the surreptitious, crypto-Calvinists. That is, they have a Lutheran sound (as Calvin does at points), but are in fact Calvinists. A few other nasty names are applied to the Reformed in the Book of Concord, otherwise a fine document, except for some textual issues on predestination.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe-

    Is the filioque true? I have heard the arguments on both sides. I am persuaded that, in fact, the filioque is about as accurate as possible. The question here is not one of theology, it is one of Creedal Integrity.

    The Nicene Creed was originally somewhat shorter, ending with, "And I believe in the Holy Spirit.". Later, of course, the final second of the Creed was expanded at the Council of Constantinople. It was approved by representatives of the entire Church. It remains for a similar body (i.e., an Ecumenical Council) to revise it, just as it fell to an EC to revise the original version.

    It's no different than the denominations that choose to unilaterally modify the Apostles' Creed... removing the citation about descending to the dead, or adding material (for example, the Hungarian practice of enhancing the Apostles' Creed with the word "one" before God in the opening clause.

    To accept the revision of a local council (Orange) pushed by civil and ecclesial authorites on a portion of the Church represents a problem. One can accept and preach the truth of the Filioque without using the objectionable text.

    Robin -

    Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession states: "It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call."

    Ordination by the Church is held, in confessional (non-Pietist) circles to be the means by which the call is validated and the individual called entered into the ministerial office.

    As a point of order, I'm not offering any of this as an 'expert' on Lutheranism (I am far from it), but just based on my own reading of the BoC, Lutheran theologians, and conversations with my friends who are Lutheran pastors.

    As for logic, well, logic is, ultimately, flawed. Logic leads to all kinds of logical, but still wrong, choices. For example, logic on the matter in question can lead two ways: either (greatly simplified),

    1) I accept that the Bishop of Rome had the authority to alter the Nicene Creed, irregardless of who originally wrote it, and to command its usage in the Churches subject to him. I therefore acknowledge that Churches can be subject to the Church at Rome, and thus, if I accept their text, I must accept their authority.

    2) I accept that the truth wins out over fellowship considerations irregardless of who promotes the truth. Thus, because the Filioque is true, it should be included in the Creed because it is true, not because of who ordered its inclusion.

    Now, granted, both arguments are flawed... and there are other argument that could be made. But, let's go with #2 for a moment. Why not just amalgamate the Creeds together to form a single text? Or, why not add some other pretty important doctrines to the Nicene Creed? I mean, the whole "He descended among the dead" bit is pretty significant in the Apostles' Creed... why not move that over and have it inserted into the Nicene Creed.

    The Armenian Apostolic Church has done just that, mind you. Their text of the Nicene Creed is significantly longer than the version used in the West or the East. It's a fascinating text, if you ever get the chance to read it. It's full of material that helps to support the core text (think "The Living Creed")... but they are alone in using said text. Nobody else has adopted their text, even - at least in the English translations I have seen - I can find no additions that detract from the witness of the original text.

    Of course, we could go the "No Creed but Christ" route... but somehow, I don't think that would satisfy any of us all that much!

    Rob+

    Rob+

    ReplyDelete