Will the real Anglican stand up?

By Robin G. Jordan

In the nineteen sixties my family gathered around our black and white TV and watched the popular game show “To Tell the Truth”. The panelists had to guess from the contestants’ answers to their questions which contestant was the real butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. When the panelists had made their guesses, the host said, “Will the real … stand up?” Only one of the contestants was “the real …”. The other contestants had been telling lies and trying to stump the panel. The more panelists they stumped, the larger the prize they took home. My family would join in the fun of attempting to guess which contestant was “the real …”. This game show was one of the ways my family whiled away the evening before retiring to bed.

In order to identify the right contestant, the panelists had to ask the right questions. They had to know something about his occupation or skill or whatever to make an educated guess. Otherwise they had no chance of distinguishing him from the other contestants. They had to have a clear idea in their heads what was normally involved in a particular occupation and so on. If the same game show was held in 2010 and the object was to guess who was the real Anglican, the panelists would struggle for the right questions to ask and the show would end with all the contestants standing up.

The definition of Anglican has become so broad that those who accept such a loose definition have no clear idea of who is the real Anglican. They do not want to tighten the definition, to make it narrower, because they fear that they and their group will fall outside the definition. Since the nineteenth century the definition of Anglican has become increasingly broader as each new group comes along and claims a place in the Anglican Church. The result is that it has gotten so loose that almost everybody meets the definition—Buddhists, Druids, Muslims, Unitarians, and Wiccans, as well as assorted Christians. The growing pluralism and synecreticism of certain segments of the Episcopal Church and the open communion movement in that church body have highlighted the problem in recent years. The boundary between North American Anglicanism and other religious faiths is becoming too permeable. It is admitting the passage of beliefs and practices that can make no claim to being Christian.

Defining Anglican was not a problem until the nineteenth century Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologists set about the self-appointed task of changing the identity of the Church of England. It meant “of the reformed Church of England.” Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571, the Church of England’s confession of faith; subscription to The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, her official liturgy; subscription to the Act of Supremacy; the Canons of 1604, and the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 guarded the boundary of the reformed Church of England.

The nineteenth century Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic ideologists illegally introduced into the Church of England Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. They made the preposterous claim that they alone were the only real High Churchmen and the only true Churchmen. They slandered the Protestant High Churchmen, called for the abolition of the Thirty-Nine Articles and tried to drive the Evangelicals from the Church. This is not fabrication or myth. It is recorded history. Since that time other groups have demanded a place in the Anglican Church. The latest has been the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals.

In meantime the definition of Anglican has become even broader. The boundary that separates Anglican from non-Anglican has in the process has grown dangerously thin. Sociologists have studied this phenomenon in other groups. Eventually it will cost the Anglican Church its cohesion and identity altogether, and the Church will disintegrate, The various elements of the Anglican Church will be absorbed by other churches or strike out on their own.

The Anglican Covenant is an attempt to strengthen the boundary of the Anglican Church. However, it has been so diluted and weakened, it will not serve that purpose. The Jerusalem Declaration is another attempt to reinforce the Anglican Church’s boundary. The effectiveness of the Jerusalem Declaration will depend upon its signatories and the commitment of their respective churches to its provisions.

The newly formed Anglican Church in North America has established its boundary by the incorporation of a number of elements into its constitution and canons. These boundary elements fall into two categories—controverted and non-controverted:

Controverted elements:
1. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the episcopate as essential to the being of the Church.
2. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on apostolic succession (stated).
3. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the sacramental nature of confirmation (implicit) and matrimony (stated).
4. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the inadequacy of non-episcopal ordination (stated).
5. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on the ex opera operato operation of the sacraments and baptismal regeneration (implicit).
6. Acceptance of the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic position on prayers for the dead, the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, the eucharist as a sacrifice, and the presbyterate as a sacrificing priesthood (implicit).

Non-Controverted elements:
1. Acceptance of the ultimate authority of the Bible.
2. Acceptance of the three catholic creeds.
3. Acceptance of the doctrine of the first four councils of the undivided church and the christiological definitions of the fifth, sixth, and seventh council.
4. Acceptance of the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Although the ACNA constitution and canons contains references to the historic Anglican formularies, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571 and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the accompanying ordinal, they have not been listed as boundary elements since the provisions of the constitution and canons referring to the Articles, the Prayer Book and the ordinal are so worded that the formularies do not function as boundary elements. The ACNA definition of being Anglican is substantially that of being Anglo-Catholic or open to Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that historically have divided Anglo-Catholic and classical Anglican evangelicals.

As can be seen from the foregoing list, the number of controverted boundary elements exceeds the number of non-controverted elements, and create a significant barrier to classical Anglican evangelicals and other groups that do not share these doctrinal positions. They do not, however, impede the movement of independent Catholics (and other groups that have no difficulty with them) across the boundary into the ACNA. They form a boundary that is permeable to a variety of Catholics but impermeable to classical Anglican evangelicals. The only way a classical Anglican evangelical can cross this boundary is by abandoning or compromising his beliefs. This particular barrier filters out Reformed Protestant and historic Anglican beliefs on key issues—the episcopate, apostolic succession, the sacraments, non-episcopal ordination, purgatory, eucharistic presence and sacrifice, and the nature of Christian ministry. Ultimately it excludes Reformed Protestant-historic Anglican beliefs on salvation and grace and arguably with them the New Testament gospel.

At the same time the boundary of the ACNA is permeable to all kinds of liberalism. While the ACNA may take a conservative position on homosexuality and homosexual practice, its position on this issue does not mean it is free from the less radical forms of liberalism. Openness to Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that historically have divided Anglicans is a form of liberalism. The tolerance of women in ordained ministry is also a form of liberalism, as is the tolerance of divorce and remarriage in the clergy. The willingness to permit charismatic practices without authoritative interference is a form of liberalism too.

While the nineteenth century Tractarian movement was opposed to liberalism, it was nineteenth century liberalism that enabled the Tractarians to establish a foothold in the Church of England. Anglo-Catholic beliefs and practices helped liberalism to flourish in the former Protestant Episcopal Church. Liberalism and modernism spread through the church, wearing Anglo-Catholic trappings, and taking full advantage of the lay docility and the passive deference to the clergy generations of Anglo-Catholic priests had cultivated in their parishes. A laity that had been taught that the church was the final authority in interpreting the Bible and the clergy spoke for the church was in no position to question the reinterpretation of Scripture by a new generation of priests. Anglo-Catholic questioning of the sufficiency of Scripture opened the way to liberal questioning of its divine origin.

The boundary of the ACNA is similar to the boundary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the heyday of Anglo-Catholicism in that church. During that period the Episcopal Church adopted a revised Prayer Book that showed the influence of liberalism as well as Anglo-Catholicism. It was a mild form of liberalism compared with liberalism in the twenty-first century but it was liberalism.

A major difference between the ACNA in the early twenty-first century and the PECUSA in the post-World War I era is that the ACNA has a substantial number of members who describe themselves as “charismatic” or “evangelical.” Only a few of the latter appear to be classical Anglican evangelicals. The rest sit loosely to the historical distinctives of classical Anglican evangelicalism. They do not appear to be the product of the classical Anglican evangelical revival in the PECUSA in the 1950s-1970s. This may be one possible explanation why they find the ACNA boundary to be endurable when classical Anglican evangelicals on the account of their theological convictions regard a number of its elements as highly objectionable, narrowly partisan and completely unwarranted. Their tolerance and even acceptance of Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic doctrines and practices may also be attributable to the influence of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement which glozes over fundamentally conflicting doctrinal positions between historic Anglicanism and classical Anglican evangelicalism on one side and Anglo-Catholicism on the other on primary matters as well as secondary ones. It further points to the influence of the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement that does the same thing. Their seeming indifference to the lack of a strong commitment in the ACNA constitution and canons to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the accompanying ordinal, which have long been recognized as the doctrinal standard of Anglicanism, stands in sharp contrast to classical Anglican evangelicals’ strongly marked concern over this lack.

The Episcopal Church has changed its boundary with a number of General Convention resolutions and is considering the adoption of more such resolutions. These resolutions are primarily intended to close the boundary to conservatism and traditionalism. The litigation against departed dioceses and congregations is itself a form of boundary enforcement. While the primary focus of the litigation is who is the rightful owner of the property in question, the dispute is also over ideology and identity. In one way TEC is expanding its boundary and making it more permeable to achieve its particular vision of a Christian church; in another way it is contracting its boundary and making it less permeable to the same end. With its high tolerance of sexual behaviors and lifestyles that the Christians have historically rejected as inconsistent with the Bible, it has shown low tolerance for those who retain a Biblical view of these sexual behaviors and lifestyles and want to do more than keep it to themselves. Basically TEC takes the position that individual members are free to think what they want to think but they are not free to express what they think or to act upon it. The boundary is being inexorably closed to those who want to do the latter. Tolerance and even acceptance of such behaviors and life styles can be characterized as a controverted boundary element since there is still division within TEC over this issue and there is certainly division between TEC and other member churches of the Anglican Communion. Belief in the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ and belief in the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is no longer a part of the boundary of TEC. TEC pluralism is also classifiable as a controverted boundary element as its acceptance of the Bible solely as human writings reflecting upon the divine.

Both the ACNA and TEC do not support the restoration of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Prayer Book, and the accompanying ordinal as a major part of the boundary of the Anglican Church and as the chief markers of that boundary. Both do not want to return to the old boundary of historic Anglicanism, dominated as they are by groups that have pushed beyond that boundary. Both have developed their own definitions of Anglicanism that make allowances for their own collective peculiarities.

From a historic Anglican perspective the formularies’ authority is the Bible’s authority since they are agreeable to Scripture. The formularies for this reason are critical boundary markers that should not be ignored or replaced. In The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today J. I. Packer notes that one of the primary functions of the Thirty-Nine Articles is to serve as the reformed Church of England’s identity card. They state where the reformed Church of England and historic Anglicanism stand on a number of essential issues. Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today emphasizes that adherence to the authority of the Articles is constitutive of Anglican identity.

For Anglicans the formularies provide what may also be described as guideposts. Pilgrims to the holy isle of Lindisfarne may at low tide cross on foot the straight that separates the island from the mainland. A series of wooden poles serve as guideposts to mark the safest route across the mudflats. For Anglicans the formularies mark “the pilgrims’ way.” Any group that sticks to the formularies, interpreted in accordance with the received interpretation, can be assured that it is walking in what the late Peter Toon called “the Anglican Way.”

What occurred in the nineteenth century and has been happening since is that each new group seeking to make a place for itself in the Anglican Church has introduced its own set of boundary markers and guideposts with its own redefinition of Anglican. With this constant shifting of boundary markers and guideposts and redefining of Anglican the Anglican Way has become obscured and Anglican identity blurred. If the boundary markers were landmarks, moving them would be a cause of endless disputes, violence, and litigation. If they were guideposts, pilgrims would never be sure that the route they were following across the mudflats was safe and that they would not drown in a deep pool or be sucked down by quicksand.

The idea that Anglicanism is ephemeral and in a state of constant flux and consequently the boundary markers and guideposts and definition of Anglicanism must be changed with every change in the Anglican Church irrespective of whether the change is consonant with Scripture is frankly dangerous. It puts the church and therefore whatever is at the moment influencing the church’s leaders in the position of determining what for the moment is Anglican Christian. To the English Reformers who accepted what the Bible itself teaches that the Word of God is immutable, this sort of thing was unthinkable. They held that on primary matters whatever the church taught and practiced must be in agreement with the Scriptures. If the church’s doctrine and practices were not in agreement with the Scriptures, then it was no longer truly apostolic, that is, faithful to apostolic teaching.

The English Reformers also recognized that things in the continuance of time are corrupted and, if they had occurred before their time, they would have regarded as evidence of the process of corruption a lion’s share of the changes that have happened in the Church to this date. They would have considered as false teaching the controversial positions that TEC has taken in recent years. They would have rejected as serious error the Tractarian-Anglo-Catholic positions on key issues that the ACNA has adopted as a part of its boundary.

From the perspective of historic Anglicanism, any group that accepts the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, adheres to the biblical doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies, and gives a prominent place to the teaching of the English Reformers and those who stand in continuity with them has a much stronger claim to being authentically Anglican than those groups that do not fully meet these criteria. The Anglican Church in the twenty-first century is facing these challenges: Does the Anglican Church give countenance to the redefinition of Anglican and the alteration of the boundary of the Anglican Church by each group seeking a place in the Anglican Church? Or does the Anglican Church establish a standard which existing and new groups must meet in order to identify themselves as Anglican? If so, should that standard incorporate the historic Anglican formularies and to what extent should they be treated as authoritative? Or should the Anglican Church bind itself to the formularies as the standard?

Classical Anglican evangelicals naturally favor the restoration of the formularies to a place of prominence in the teaching and life of the Anglican Church. They believe that groups wishing to be recognized as authentically Anglican need to bring themselves into line with the formularies’ biblical doctrine. This view is, of course, unpopular with groups that do not adhere to the formularies’ biblical teaching, and is labeled “exclusionary.” Where Anglo-Catholics and those open to Anglo-Catholicism predominate, there is a tendency to promote a standard that excludes or nullifies the formularies and is Anglo-Catholic in its emphases. The doctrinal provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons are an example of such a standard. In the case of the ACNA it may be described as a partially hidden standard since it is spread throughout the constitution and canons and is implicit as well as stated. This standard is not only at odds with historic Anglicanism but also is at several points at variance with the Jerusalem Declaration.

Whether the world Anglican community can resolve the conflict over identity and boundary to satisfaction of all parties is doubtful. It will dog that community for the foreseeable future. When the game show moderator asks, “Will the real Anglican stand up?” after a moment’s hesitancy three chairs will be pushed back as their occupants stand to claim that honor.