Why Heritage Anglican?

By Robin G. Jordan

Why heritage Anglican? Why that particular choice of name—of self-identity?

We have many good reasons to call ourselves “heritage Anglicans.” We are the Lord’s particular people, the people for his own possession (1 Peter 2:9). We are his portion—his allotted heritage (Deuteronomy 3:29), a reference to the God’s chosen people, the people of Israel, but also applicable to Christ’s Church. Once we were not a people, but now we are God's people; once we had not received mercy, but now we have received mercy (1 Peter 2:10). Like the Levites, the priesthood of the Lord is our heritage (Joshua 8:17). We are, like living stones, being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ (1 Peter 2:5). We are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people given completely up to God, that we may show forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). We share in the heritage of the Lord, serving Him and no other god (2 Samuel 26:19). We are God’s people (2 Corinthians 6:16; Revelation 21:3) and his heritage (1 Peter 5:3), which Christ has loved and washed from our sins with his blood, and make a kingdom and priests to God and his Father (Revelation 1:16). Like David, we have a goodly heritage. We have God as our portion and our cup (Psalm 16:5-6). He has given us the heritage of those who fear His name (Psalm 61:5). His word is a lamp to our feet and light to our path (Psalm 119:105). His testimonies are our heritage forever. They are joy of our heart (Psalm 119:111).

We are heirs to a faith that is Biblical and reformed. It is grounded in the teaching of the Scripture and the Reformation. We stand in a long line of churchmen that have upheld this faith, the faith of the reformed Church of England and its formularies. They number in their ranks the Oxford martyrs—Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley—who were burned at the stake for their Protestant and evangelical principles. They include the hard-working John Jewel who ably defended the reformed Church of England against its Roman Catholic detractors; the scholarly James Ussher who compiled the Irish Articles and wrote A Body of Divinity; the saintly Charles Simeon who prepared so many young men for ordained ministry and infused them with a zeal for the gospel; the self-deprecating George Whitefield who, despite an untimely death, left a permanent mark on North American Christianity as a part of the first Great Awakening; the energetic Charles McIlvaine who laboured in the Protestant Episcopal Church for fifty-three years, defending for forty-odd years the evangelical message against the Oxford Movement and ritualism that would have weakened it; the noble George David Cummins who was persecuted for his advocacy of improved relations between the Protestant Episcopal Church and the evangelical churches and of much needed Prayer Book reform, eventually resigning as Assistant Bishop of Kentucky and forming the Reformed Episcopal Church; and of course, the clear-thinking J. C. Ryle who influenced so many of us with his books and tracts. They are a part of the heritage that is ours.

It is a rich heritage that recognizes the supremacy of Scripture as our functioning rule for faith and life; the majesty of Jesus Christ as our glorified King who sits at the right hand of the Father and to whom all power and authority has been given, as well as our divine Saviour who bore our sins upon the cross and by faith in whom we are saved; the lordship of the Holy Spirit who quickens us to new life, gives us assurance of our salvation and the power we need for discipleship and ministry, and inspires, strengthens, and transforms us; the necessity of conversion, a complete spiritual change in us, evidenced by faith in Christ, repentance, and personal godliness; the priority of evangelism as the central task of the church; and the fellowship of believers—those full of faith—as the essential ingredient of the church’s life.

It is a heritage that favors simplicity in worship—simplicity in ceremony, gesture, and vestment. It is open to ex tempore prayer in the liturgy and even free flowing forms of worship. It gives central place to the preaching of the pure word of God, and prefers sermons that unpack the word of God for the people and help them to apply its principles and truths to their lives, using plain language and illustrations from daily life and encouraging them to be doers of God’s word. It takes to heart the words of our Lord, “God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). It aspires to worship that is heart-warming and heart-felt and eschews worship that is cold and formal. It treats music not as an embellishment of the service but as an integral part of the congregation’s worship. Consequently it shows a preference for hymns, metrical psalms, gospel songs, and other forms of church music that foster enthusiastic congregational singing and turn the hearts of the people to God.

A part of our heritage is the view that apostolic teaching is the focus of unity in the Church.

“A bishop, and indeed any other church leader, can only be a focus of unity insofar as he teaches Christ’s word faithfully, sets a godly example, and exercises discipline in accordance with the Word of God.”[1]

As we understand the term, a “local church” is the visible Church of Christ in a particular locality, ministering to an entire community or to a particular segment of the population or subculture within the culture. “The visible Church of Christ,” Article XIX of Thirty-Nine Articles tell us, “is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” Dioceses are voluntary associations of local churches, organized to support and aid the gospel ministry of these churches. Dioceses derive their authority from the local churches forming them, and the local church derives its authority from Christ.

We do not claim that a binding pattern of church order is found in the Scriptures. As did the English Reformers, we take issue with those who insist that presbyterianism is the church order to be followed, as we also take issue with any who insist that bishops are essential to the life of the Christian community. It is our understanding, as was the Reformers’ understanding, that the gospel that creates and establishes the church, rather than a particular form of Church government. Apostolic succession comes from faithfulness to the doctrine of the apostles rather than an unbroken succession of bishops.

Among the practical implications of this understanding is that “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.” [2] It also means that non-episcopal orders of other churches are not necessarily defective. They do not constitute a barrier to reunion. What matter is important is what the minister teaches and not so much how he was ordained. Like the Reformers, we view bishops and priests as belong to the same fundamental order of ministry. Both bishops and priests exercise a pastoral ministry through preaching and teaching.

As we understand the ministry of the bishop, it is not essentially different from that of the priest, but the sphere in which the bishop exercises his ministry differs. A bishop has an additional connectional role. A bishop is responsible for pastoring local church ministers. He offers support and encouragement to those facing difficulties. He is the primary means of exercising loving scriptural discipline when it is necessary. A bishop is, if his own ministry is respected for its godly example, in a good position to help in cases of pastoral breakdown between a minister and his congregation. A bishop has a supervisory role in the selection, training and ordination of new ministers. A bishop also has “a role as the spokesman (of the Word of God) for the Christian community in relation to the wider community.” [3]

To ensure that a bishop cannot avoid his basic preaching and teaching role, we believe that the bishop should exercise a part of his ministry from a base within a local church. This means that a bishop would normally be a rector of a parish, as is the case in the Church of England in South Africa. His term of office should not be for life. A bishop should be accountable within a plural leadership and to godly synods. If a bishop contradicts biblical teaching or becomes tyrannical, he should be removed from office.

There is also a practical reason for the choice of the phrase, “heritage Anglican.” A search on the Internet, using a phrase containing the phrase “Anglican” and “heritage” will produce results including “heritage Anglican.”

[1] Mark Burkill, “Better Bishops,” Reform discussion paper on the Internet at: http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/betterbishops.php
[2] Memorandum of Association of the Latimer Trust, on the Internet at: http://www.latimertrust.org/download/basis.pdf
[3] Burkill, “Better Bishops.”