The Three Accountabilities

By Robin G. Jordan

Introduction.In his State of the Church Address on June 8, 2010 in Amesbury, Massachusetts, Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America referred to three accountabilities—Scripture, Tradition, and Social Transformation--which he said form the basis of the ACNA understanding of what it means to be “reliably Anglican.” What Archbishop Duncan was offering in his address was a new revisionist redefinition of Anglicanism. To be a reliable expression of Anglicanism, one that can be counted on to be the genuine article, a congregation, a diocese, and even a province no longer needs to demonstrate continuity in its doctrine and practice with the Protestant Reformed faith of the post-Reformation Church of England and its formularies—the Thirty Nine Articles of 1562, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the Ordinal of 1661, and the Homilies of Edward VI and Elizabeth I. This new revisionist redefinition of Anglicanism disconnects Anglicanism from its English Protestant and Reformed heritage. It establishes new ahistorical criteria for judging whether a purported expression of Anglicanism can be relied upon to be what its adherents say that it is. “Pseudo-historical” may be a better choice of words since this new revisionist redefinition of Anglicanism builds upon past misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the character of Anglicanism. It prompts a number of questions.

When did the ACNA come to the understanding that a congregation must have three accountabilities in order to be “reliably Anglican?” What specific body came to this conclusion and under what circumstances? How representative was this body of global Anglicanism? Were Conservative Evangelicals from Australia, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, South America, the United Kingdom, and the United States participants in this body? Did they take part in reaching this conclusion? Was this done in consultation with other Anglican bodies in and outside North America? Is this conclusion just a product of Archbishop Duncan’s own thinking that he is representing as the ACNA understanding of Anglicanism? Is it a new example of American unilateralism?

Since the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century there have been a number of attempts to disconnect Anglicanism from its English Protestant and Reformed heritage. Each new attempt seeks to build upon the foundation of the previous attempts, upon the misconceptions, misleading arguments, and deliberate falsehoods propagated by the latter to redefine the character of Anglicanism. Revisionism is not something new. It has taken a number of forms in the intellectual history of Anglicanism. These attempts to redefine Anglicanism’s character appear to be motivated by the desire to appropriate the name of Anglican and to apply it exclusively to the ideology of the particular school of thought seeking to impose its redefinition of Anglicanism upon the Church of England and its daughter churches. If that school of thought’s redefinition of Anglicanism gains currency in these bodies, it puts the particular school of thought in the position of not only enjoying enhanced prestige and credibility but also, and more importantly, of determining what is Anglican and what is not. The struggles of the past 175 odd years have been over who defines the “Anglican Way,” to use Peter Toon’s favorite description of the Anglican tradition, and what doctrines and practices are acceptable within that tradition. Even the conflicts of the past fifty years have been only one campaign in that almost two centuries long war.

Anglicans who seek to uphold the Protestant and Reformed character of the Anglican Church need to be aware of this latest assault upon the classical understanding of what it means to be Anglican. They need to be cognizant of its implications, not only for them but also for all Anglicans. They also need to take measures to counter such attacks and to expose those launching them for what they are—no true friend of historic Anglicanism. With the foregoing in mind, I propose to examine Archbishop Duncan’s three accountabilities.



The first accountability, according to Archbishop Duncan, is to “Scripture.” But what does it mean to be “accountable to the Holy Scriptures.” Archbishop Duncan did not elucidate. He gave no details but left his audience and us in the dark as to what he meant. Since Duncan did not explain his own understanding of accountability to Scripture, we cannot examine that understanding and determine its basis and validity. What we can do is look at what being “accountable to Scripture” is commonly understood to mean. If this understanding is not Archbishop Duncan’s understanding, the fault lies with the archbishop for not explaining what he means and ignoring an important principle of good practice—giving addresses and sermons that are edifying. As the apostle Paul wrote, let all things be done for edification (1 Corinthians14:26).

Another way of saying being accountable to Scripture is being answerable to Scripture. When something is answerable to something else, it is responsible to or corresponds to that to which it is answerable. When something is responsible to Scripture, it is liable to be called to account to Scripture. When something corresponds to Scripture, it has correspondence or points of correspondence with Scripture. It answers to Scripture, speaks for Scripture, or is even analogous with Scripture. Correspondence is definable as relation between things that answer to each other in some respect. It can also mean analogy. Analogy is definable as parallelism, similarity, and analogous as parallel, similar to. The term “accountable” is not quite as clear and to the point as terms like “read in,” “proved by,” “expressly declared in,” “contrary to,” “taken out of,” “grounded upon,” “repugnant to,” “ordained against,” (Thirty-Nine Articles), “contrary to,” “agreeable to” (Prayer Book), “concluded and proved by,” “contrary to” (Ordinal), and leaves a lot of wiggle room. The term “accountable” is not only lacking in precision but is also highly subjective. It is a term to which anyone using it can give his own emphasis or meaning.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” (Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass)

One of the problems that beset the Episcopal Church in the twentieth century and continues to plague that church is its lack of clear doctrine or any doctrine at all on matters of importance. Such imprecise language encourages the occurrence of the same sort of thing in the Anglican Church in North America. It also promotes the acceptance of doctrines and practices that past generations of churchmen would not with a good conscience have submitted to or used as such doctrines and practices were to their minds plainly in conflict with the Word of God.

I do not see in Archbishop Duncan’s use of the phrase, “accountable to Scripture,” a reference to the systematic submission of all thought to Scripture, which is a characteristic both of classical Anglicanism and historic Protestantism, which fully accept the inspiration and authority of Scripture and “take it with full seriousness as a functioning rule of faith and life.” Duncan’s own Anglo-Catholic background would preclude such use.



The second accountability is to “Tradition.” Archbishop Duncan used the term, “the Great Tradition.” The place of tradition in the Church has historically divided the Church of England and the Church of Rome. In the sixteenth century the Council of Trent adopted as Roman dogma the doctrine that the Holy Spirit inspired Church tradition as well as the Bible, that Church tradition is to be used to interpret Scripture and that the Church is the only valid interpreter of Church tradition. This doctrine made the teaching of the Church superior to the teaching of the Bible. In the Thirty-Nine Articles the Church of England rejects the doctrines of the Council of Trent, including this particular doctrine.

The place of tradition in the Church has historically also divided the Church of England and her daughter churches While Archbishop Cranmer and the sixteenth century English Reformers were well acquainted with Church tradition, in the form of the Patristic writers, they gave a much larger place to Scripture in the teaching of the Church. They consulted the early Church Fathers as we might consult commentaries and reference books. However, they did not treat the Patristic writers as the final word in doctrine or practice. For the English Reformers the ultimate authority in such matters was the Scriptures. Even the thoughts of the early Church Fathers were submitted to Scripture.

The seventeenth century Caroline High Churchmen had a high regard for the Patristic writers. They were not as critical in their approach to the early Church Fathers as were the sixteenth century English Reformers. The Patristic writers occupied a large place in their own thinking. At the same time they rejected the dogmas of the Council of Trent, as had the sixteenth century English Reformers. For them the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and practice was the Scriptures.

The nineteenth century Oxford movement and the Ritualist and Anglo-Catholic movements that sprang from the Oxford Movement, however, embraced the dogmas of the Council of Trent As Peter B. Nockles has shown in The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760-1857, the Oxford divines’ claims to be the successors of the Caroline High Churchmen are pretentious, deceptive, and false. In the twentieth century we come across Anglo-Catholic writers who deliberately misrepresented classical Anglican thinking on the authority and interpretation of Scripture. They claimed that Anglicans in matters of doctrine and practice recognize three levels of authority with Scripture at the top, Church tradition beneath it, and reason at the very bottom. They emphasized the particular distinctives of their own school of thought, claiming that they were the distinctives of classical Anglicanism. They denied the Reformation idea of a perspicuous, self-interpreting Scripture, stressed tradition as the principle of interpretation, and the church as the guardian of tradition and therefore its interpreter. Their appropriation of the label of classical Anglicanism for Anglo-Catholicism was, however, not new. It began in the nineteenth century with the Oxford Movement.

In the twenty-first century we have an Anglo-Catholic archbishop of a body that claims that it is Anglican asserting that accountability to Church tradition is one of the marks of being “reliably Anglican.” We are told that if a congregation holds itself accountable to Church tradition, we can depend with confidence on that congregation’s being Anglican. But what does Archbishop Duncan mean by “accountable to Tradition”? As in the case of “accountable to Scripture,” he does not elucidate.

Classical Anglicanism acknowledges a subsidiary role for Church tradition subordinate to and corrected by the Word of God. However, it is not Scripture inspired by God but tradition devised by men. It is not unalterable. It is not binding upon men’s consciences, as is Scripture. The weight that we give it varies with circumstances. It does not always merit our deference. It is certainly not something to which we are answerable. To make such a claim is to give Church tradition the same weight as Scripture. This is something that the reformed Church of England refused to do and the unreformed Church of Rome willingly did. This is one of the many things that separate classical Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism.



The third accountability is for “the transformation of society.” Archbishop Duncan also used the phrase, “Social Transformation.” As in the case of the previous accountabilities, he did not elucidate upon the meaning of this accountability.

Transforming a society requires changing its economic, political, and social structures, its economic, political and social organization, its economic, political, and social values, its means of dealing out power and distributing wealth, and the like so that is altered beyond recognition. It essentially means seeking to affect radical economic, political, and social change.

Archbishop Duncan is ranking Social Transformation with Scripture and Tradition as an authority for Anglicans to which they owe their obedience. But where in the Scripture and in historic Anglicanism do we find support for this ideology?

In the Old Testament and the New Testament we find a number of passages that enjoin us to make provision for those less fortunate than ourselves, not to abuse and exploit them, and to show kindness and compassion even to our enemies, to those who hate and despise us. The prophet Micah reminds us of what God requires of us:

“Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6-8 KJV)

Jesus himself points to our attention:

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12 ESV)

But these passages and passages like them are not a Scriptural warrant to transform our society. By no stretch of the imagination do they embody a divine injunction to affect social change. This is not say that if we live by these precepts, the end-result may be a transformed society. It is not to say that we are not to actively challenge evil when we encounter it and that we are not to seek to ameliorate the living conditions of others and to better their lives. But God does not give us his commission to work to transform our society as he does to “go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15 ESV). The proclamation of the gospel and the making of disciples is the central task of the Church. Any social transformation that may accompany this process is an incidental by-product and not its chief purpose. Any faith without works is a dead faith. Good works that follow after our justification are the fruits of faith. “In as much as they done in Christ and for his sake, they are pleasing and acceptable to God; for they spring from a true and vital faith, and are indeed the evidence of a vital faith, just as a tree is recognized by its fruit.” (Article XII) God did not call us out of darkness into his marvelous light to do good works or to transform our society. He called us to “show forth his praises,”—to “declare his excellencies.” This includes his wondrous works. The latter includes ourselves. We are not only the messengers but we are a part of the message. In performing acts of love we make known God’s love. But the message is not limited to such acts.

In his essay “Of Ceremonies, Why Some Be Abolished, and Some Retained” Archbishop Cranmer describes the purpose of the Christian religion to be “the setting forth of God’s honour and glory” and “the reducing of the people to the most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition.”

In the Elizabethan Ordinal in the charge to those about to receive “the order of Priesthode” the Bishop speaks these words:

“Wherfore, consider with yourselves the end of your ministery, towardes the chyldren of God, towarde the spouse and body of Christ, and see that ye never cease your laboure, your care and dilygence, untill you have doen all that lieth in you, accordynge to your bounden dutie, to bryng all suche as are, or shalbe commytted to youre charge, unto that agremente in faith, and knowledge of God, and to that ripenes, and perfectnesse of age in Christe, that there be no place left emong them, either for errour in Religion, or for viciousnesse in lyfe.”
In these words we see allusion to Eph 4:11-16:
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.”

In A Priest to the Temple, or The Country Parson, His Character, and His Rule of Life, seventeenth century poet-priest George Herbert describes the role of the pastor as that of a deputy of Christ for the reducing of Man to the Obedience of God [my emphasis]. Both Cranmer and Herbert use the term “reduce” in the sense of bringing back to obedience. By “most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition” Cranmer means conducting oneself in obedience to God’s Word and therefore to God Himself.

What Cranmer, the Elizabethan Ordinal, Paul, and Herbert are emphasizing is not the transformation of society but the transformation of the individual. We see the same concern in the Edwardian and Elizabethan Homilies.

“The Queens most Excellent Majesty, tendering the soul health of her loving Subjects, and the quieting of their consciences, in the chief and principle points of Christian Religion, and willing also by the true setting forth, and pure declaring of Gods word, which is the principle guide and leader unto all godliness and virtue, to expel and drive away as well all corrupt, vicious, and ungodly living, as also erroneous and poisoned doctrines, tending to superstition and idolatry: hath by the advice of her most Honorable Counselors, for her discharge in this behalf, caused a Book of Homilies, which heretofore was set forth by her most loving brother, a Prince of most worthy memory, EDWARD the sixth, to be Printed anew, wherein are contained certain wholesome and godly exhortations, to move the people to honor and worship Almighty God, and diligently to serve him, every one according to their degree, state and vocation.”

A godly and virtuous people meant a godly and virtuous kingdom and benefited both prince and populace. However, we do not read in the writings of the Tudor period, the reign of Edward VI and Elizabeth I a preoccupation with social transformation in the modern-day sense of the phrase. Edward and his older sister were interested in political stability not political reform. They wished to consolidate their own power and not empower the people. We need to take care not to read back into the sixteenth century twentieth and twenty-first century desires and ambitions.

In 1550 the Strasbourg Reformer Martin Bucer wrote a treatise for young King Edward titled De Regno Christ, or Of the Kingdom of Christ. In that treatise he cited the following passage from the Book of Isaiah:

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9 KJV)

After making reference to the eschatological vision in that passage Bucer wrote:

“These words teach us three things: first, that we are in desperate condition when we are born into the world, uncultured and uncivilized, so that we deserve to be compared with lions, bears, leopards, wolves, and the most harmful serpents; secondly, if we are reborn in Christ and have become true citizens of his kingdom, we ought to burn with such charity and eagerness to deserve well of others that no one would tolerate the discomfort of anyone else but every individual would try, each according to all his capacity, to contribute as much as possible to the salvation and well-being of his neighbour; finally, that this humanity and the love of the citizens of the Kingdom of God spring from faith and only from the knowledge of God (Gal. 5:5-6). For faith shows power through love, which always manages to benefit men, and to be injurious to no one (1 Cor. 13:5).”

The “three things” to which Bucer refers in the preceding passage are affirmed in the Thirty-Nine Articles. “We have departed very far from original righteousness in which we were created, and are naturally inclined to evil…” (Article IX). “We have no power of our own to do good works that are pleasing and acceptable to God, unless the grace of God is first given through Christ, so that we may have a good will, and that same grace continues at work within us to maintain that good will” (Article X). “In as much as they done in Christ and for his sake, they [i.e., good works] are pleasing and acceptable to God; for they spring from a true and vital faith, and are indeed the evidence of a vital faith, just as a tree is recognized by its fruit.” (Article XII) They are also affirmed in the second Edwardian homily—“A sermon of the misery of all mankinde, and of his condemnation to death euerlasting, by his owne sinne,” the third Edwardian homily—“A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only Christ our Savior from sin and death everlasting,” the fourth Edwardian homily—“A short declaration of a true and lively and Christian faith,” and the fifth Edwardian homily—“A sermon of good works annexed unto faith.”

In the same passage Bucer alludes to two passages of Scripture. The first is Galatians 5:5-6:

“For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:5-6 ESV)

The second is 1 Corinthians 13:5:

“…Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil…” (1 Corinthians 13:5 KJV)

The themes in these passages are expanded in the sixth Edwardian homily—“a sermon of Christian love and charity.”

The foregoing passage from Bucer’s treatise is useful in that it summarizes the classical Anglican view that begins with the transformation of the individual. From a classical Anglican perspective it makes no sense to make unregenerate men responsible for the reform of society much less its transformation. Classical Anglicanism does not assume a man is automatically regenerate simply because he has been baptized. Baptism must be rightly received (Article XXVII). The good works done before receiving the grace of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have the nature of sin (Article XIII).

Scripture and historical Anglicanism do not support the ideological view that without being “accountable for the transformation of society” a congregation falls short of being “reliably Anglican.” In modern parlance another term for social transformation is social action. It is the emphasis upon social action, which was initially in support of good causes such as racial equality, that has gotten out of hand in The Episcopal Church. Equality of gender and sexual orientation has come to trump the teaching of Scripture. The three accountabilities are very similar to the emphases of the Episcopal Church in the 1960s and call to mind the old Anglo-Catholic-Broad Church Liberal consensus of the first part of the twentieth century. Arguably the last accountability, “accountable for the transformation of society” embodies the teaching of twentieth century ideology rather than that of Scripture and historic Anglicanism.



Boundless vision. All things new.In the closing remarks of his State of the Church Address, after reiterating the three accountabilities, Archbishop Duncan made the following statement

“Boundless vision. All things new. This is the Anglican Church in North America.”

I think that this statement is worth our scrutiny as Archbishop Duncan made it in connection with the three accountabilities as a part of his description of the Anglican Church in North America. I am going to pass over “boundless vision” for the moment and go to “all things new.”

In Scripture we find two references to “all things new.” The first is 2 Corinthians 5:17 in the King James Version: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” The second is Revelation 21:5: “And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” Neither is applicable to the Anglican Church in North America. 2 Corinthians 5:17 refers to those who in Christ are reborn: They are a new creation. The old has passed away, and the new has come. Revelation 21:5 refers to the creation of a new heaven and the new earth, and to the descent of the new Jerusalem from heaven. It is referring to a future time and not to the present. To take either passage and to try to apply it to the ACNA would be to rack and torture Scripture to make it fit something that it did not fit, and reflects poorly upon Archbishop Duncan’s use of Scripture.

Archbishop Duncan may have had the following passage in mind. He has in the past claimed that God is doing a “new thing” in the Anglican Church in North America.

“Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert. The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches, for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people, the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.” (Isaiah 43:19-21 ESV)

This passage has also been misused by Presiding Katherine Jefferts Schori and other Episcopal Church leaders. Are we to conclude that God is doing “a new thing” in both churches?

Both Archbishop Duncan and Presiding Bishop Schori, when they alluded to this passage, in their speeches and sermons, ignore the passage that follows, in which God reproaches the people of Israel for their disobedience and rebellion.

In any event taking a phrase from Scripture like “all things new,” which is not applicable to the Anglican Church in the North America by any stretch of the imagination, is an improper use of Scripture and is far from edifying. A more accurate description of the ACNA might be Ecclesiastes 1:9-11:

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things (or former people), nor will there be any remembrance of later things (or later people) yet to be among those who come after.”

“Boundless vision” is not an accurate description of the Anglican Church in North America” any more than “all things new.” It may have flattered the vanity of the ACNA leaders gathered for the Amesbury meeting but the assertion that the imagination of the ACNA is limitless and its vision has no bounds is pure unadulterated hyperbole—rhetorical exaggeration. Man is finite; his vision is finite. Only God’s vision is unlimited and without bounds.



Conclusion.Are the three accountabilities themselves reliable indicators of a congregation being Anglican? Do they enable us to distinguish Anglican congregations from non-Anglican ones? A Roman Catholic congregation may in its own thinking be accountable to Scripture, to Tradition, and for Social Transformation. So may an independent Catholic congregation. Are we to conclude that such congregations meet the criteria of being “reliably Anglican”?

If I visit an Episcopal church here in western Kentucky, I am likely to hear a sermon that is in some way related to affecting economic, political, or social change. I receive occasional email newsletters from one of these churches. It usually contains a progress report on a project that the church’s congregation has undertaken. This project may be to improve the quality of living of some group in the community and to help this particular group to maintain any gains that it has made with the assistance of the congregation such as teaching illiterate adults to read and tutoring economically deprived children. It may be less ambitious—collecting food for a local food bank, visiting a nursing home or planting a community garden and donating the produce to the needy. The Diocese of Kentucky is liberal and the pastors of these churches are also liberals. For a large part the congregations themselves are liberal or have accepted the ascendancy of liberalism in The Episcopal Church.

Archbishop Duncan is telling us that accountability for the transformation of society, for the bringing about of economic, political, and social change, is one of the marks of being “reliably Anglican.” If a congregation holds itself accountable for social transformation, we can put our trust in that congregation’s being Anglican. Are we then to assume that the Episcopal churches of western Kentucky are in regards to accountability for social transformation “reliably Anglican”? In their own understanding they regard themselves as accountable to Scripture and Church tradition as they understand Scripture and Church tradition.

A critical ingredient is absent from Archbishop Duncan’s new revisionist redefinition of what it means to be Anglican. The missing component is the link to the Church of England, not the link to the See of Canterbury but to the Protestant Reformed faith of the post-Reformation English Church and its formularies. Once this link is severed, a congregation is no longer Anglican irrespective of what it calls itself and whether it has Archbishop Duncan’s three accountabilities.

As the chief bishop of the Anglican Church in North America, Archbishop Duncan can be expected to accent the positive and to draw attention to what he sees as the achievements of the ACNA. He can be expected to indulge occasionally in hyperbole. The three accountabilities, however, are new doctrine or a rewording of old doctrine. They are “the teachings of a person, school, or Church.” He should have taken time to explain these “understandings” of the ACNA as he called them, their basis, and how the ACNA arrived at them. Archbishop Duncan needs to exercise more care in his selection of scriptural allusions in his speeches and sermons and their applicability to what he is saying. He shows a tendency toward eisegesis that does not inspire confidence in his ability to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), to accurately interpret and apply Scripture.

Contrary to what Archbishop Duncan says, the three accountabilities are not an accurate or dependable way of determining whether a congregation is Anglican. They create confusion as to what is a genuine Anglican identity. They can lead congregations into believing that they are Anglican when their link to Protestant Reformed faith of the post-Reformation Church of England and its formularies is very tenuous if non-existent. They point to the need for truth in labeling of churches and other religious groups. In the realm of denominational branding they are analogous to calling chocolate drink chocolate milk! You can feed a baby chocolate milk and he will starve. You can feed her chocolate milk, or whole milk flavored with chocolate, and she will flourish (albeit she may never like plain milk.) The correct labeling of a product can make a difference between life and death.

Since there is no truth in labeling law for churches, those looking for an Anglican church must do what shoppers must do in the grocery store. They must look at the list of ingredients and not the label. In the case of an Anglican church they have come across the genuine product properly so-called if it has these ingredients. The church is faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the Reformation. Its pastors diligently teach the gospel and with like diligence preach the pure word of God. They encourage the people to read and study the Holy Scriptures. The time they themselves have spent studying the Scriptures is evident in the pulpit and the classroom. The reformed Church of England formularies especially the Thirty-Nine Articles are given a central place in their teaching. The practices of the church in and outside of worship are consistent with what is taught and preached. The people going to the church are a mix of seekers and believers. The seekers are coming to faith in Christ and the believers are growing to maturity in Christ. The pastors are equipping and releasing the people for the work of ministry both in the church and in the community. The people see themselves as missionaries to their community, establishing and building relationships with non-believers, and showing non-believers the love God has shown them. The church is having a discernible impact upon the lives of not only its members and attendees but also the lives of folks in the community.
In a future article I plan to examine a proposal for the establishment of an organization to authenticate the Anglican credentials of congregations in Canada and the United States. Private schools have accrediting organizations. In the United Kingdom vegetarian and vegan food products bear special identifying symbols to help vegetarians and vegans distinguish them from non-vegetarian and non-vegan food products. The affiliation of a congregation with a para-church organization that identifies itself as Anglican is no assurance that the congregation is following Jesus in a Biblically-faithful and authentically Anglican way. A need exists for an organization that rates the authenticity of congregations that brand themselves as Anglican. The time has come to test congregations for Anglican DNA.