A Wake-Up Call to Confessional Anglicans

By Robin G. Jordan

Historic Anglicanism does not recognize “Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction” as sacraments. It only recognizes them as having “grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles and being partly “states of life allowed in the Scripture” (Article XXV). The 1979 Book of Common Prayer in its reference to them as “sacramentals,” the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda in its reference to them as “the sacraments of the Church,” and some AMiA church websites in their reference to them as “rites of grace” with the implication that they confer grace depart from historic Anglicanism and align themselves with Roman Catholicism.

Like the Continental Reformers, the English Reformers rejected the Roman Catholic sacramental system with its seven sacraments. They recognized only two sacraments—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. While some have argued from the use of such phrases as “sacraments of the Gospel” and “commonly called sacraments” that they recognized “Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction” as sacraments but not of the same order as the gospel sacraments, the writings of the English Reformers do not support such contentions. Those who make them are simply trying to reintroduce the Roman Catholic sacramental system back into the Anglican Church.

First the Tractarians and the Ritualists in the nineteenth century, the liberals in the twentieth century, and more recently the Ancient-Future, or Convergence, movement have sought to subvert historic Anglicanism in the area of the sacraments and in other critical areas. However, English Reformers and genuine Anglicanism recognizes only two sacraments—no sacramentals, no sacraments of the Church, and no rites of grace.

Those who profess to be Anglicans and teach that there are seven sacraments or take one of these positions are using their profession of being Anglican as a blind behind which they are teaching un-Anglican beliefs. They are either mistaken in their understanding of the historic Anglican position on these pseudo-sacraments or they know full well the position of historic Anglicanism on the matter and they are deliberately promoting the Roman Catholic sacramental system or a modified form of that system. In any event they are misleading their congregations with their teaching and anyone else exposed to their teaching. This applies to bishops as well as presbyters and deacons.

It is particularly reprehensible upon the part of bishops as they are given a charge in the 1661 Ordinal to be diligent in doctrine and to drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine contrary to the Word of God. The 1661 Ordinal form with the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the recognized doctrinal standard for Anglicans. Yet it is quite evident that in Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission in the Americas as well as in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church, they are failing to protect the North American Anglican Church from false doctrine.

The ACNA and the AMiA may be championing what they maintain is Anglican orthodoxy; the AMiA may be planting new churches every day. But if the two bodies are not upholding the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies and passing on authentic historic Anglicanism, what good are they accomplishing? Are they really preaching the gospel or something else? What they are promoting as Anglicanism may be winsome but is it the genuine article?

I can live with what Stephen Hampton calls “the Restoration curlicues” in Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. But I have a real problem with such departures from the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies. They do not fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary matters. The Roman Catholic sacramental system is based upon a different understanding of salvation, of justification, and of sanctification than that of historic Anglicanism.

I find totally unconvincing the arguments that are advanced to support sitting loose to the recognized doctrinal standard for Anglicans. They are particularly unconvincing when they come from AMiA pastors who annually take an oath to uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies. How many have their fingers crossed when they take this oath? Does not our Lord say let your “yes,” be “yes,” and your “no”, “no”? They should uphold the historic Anglican formularies wholeheartedly or they should make no pretense of upholding them at all.

While the AMiA may be commended for its zeal in church planting, the Anglican Mission is in as bad shape doctrinally as the ACNA. I am not a doctrinal rigorist. I support liberty of opinion on unessential matters. However, the problems of the last 50 odd years stem from a failure to maintain faithfulness to the Bible and the Reformation on essential matters. As the old adage reminds us, “those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

What really disturbs me is that AC of C, the ACNA, the AMiA, and TEC are misleading a generation of young churchgoers into believing what they are offering to these young people is genuine Anglicanism—the real thing! All the literature that I read tells me that the younger generations value authenticity. However, if they are buying the ersatz Anglicanism that these denominations offer them, they lack the ability to recognize the authentic from the inauthentic, to discern the one from the other.

What is even more disturbing is that these young churchgoers think of their pastors, their congregations, and themselves as Anglican. Yet they have had little, if any exposure, to authentic historic Anglicanism, which is also the case of their pastors and their fellow congregants. Many of them are being encouraged to reject the historic Anglican position on a number of key issues and to embrace positions that historic Anglicanism rejects.

This has happened in the past in North America, which explains in part why it is happening again today. It is another phase in the ongoing deviation of the North American Anglican Church from authentic historic Anglicanism. One might argue that it is a legitimate development in North American Anglicanism, appealing to John Henry Newman’s theory of development and Frederick Maurice’s dynamic theory of the Anglican via media. One might also argue that North American Anglicanism has moved so far from the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of authentic historic Anglicanism, it should be renamed. Paul Zahl suggested contemporary Episcopalianism for the TEC variety.

I do recognize that the ACNA and the AMiA and even the AC of C and TEC have some pastors and congregations that faithfully uphold the historic Anglican formularies and maintain the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of authentic historic Anglicanism. But they are not playing a leading role in shaping what passes as Anglicanism in North America. The Ancient-Future, Broad Church, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, ecumenical, liberal, and liturgical movements have left their mark. Confessional Anglicans need to be stepping up to the plate and taking a turn at bat. They do not need to be sitting in the bleachers. They need to get back into the game.

If North American Anglicanism turns into a three-headed monster, it will be our fault as much as anyone else’s. We need to shake off our lethargy. We need to devote less time to the examination of the finer points of Reformed theology and give more time to the teaching of the ABCs of historic Anglicanism, to the explanation of the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies in simple, easy-to-understand terms. Babies must be given milk, creamed cereals, and pureed fruit and vegetables before they are fed solid food. They do not have the teeth to chew up the solid food. They will spit it out or choke on it.

In Why Anglican? Dean Philip Jensen makes an important distinction between confessional Anglicanism and sociological Anglicanism. Confessional Anglicanism professes the faith of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. This includes the faith of the three Catholic Creeds—the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Confessional Anglicanism is grounded in the Bible and the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. Sociological Anglicanism, Dean Jensen points to our attention, does not even have to be Christian. It is whatever the English people and their descendants and those who have joined themselves to them do and believe at the present moment. Sociological Anglicans in North America have become divided into several groups. Each group has adopted different beliefs and practices. Each group describes itself as Anglican. Each group traces its origins directly or indirectly to the Church of England.

While conservative evangelicals are apt to be confessional Anglicans and confessional Anglicans conservative evangelicals, being a conservative evangelical is not synonymous with being a confessional Anglican. Some conservative evangelicals espouse a doctrinal standard that goes beyond that of confessional Anglicanism. They champion a more Continental Reformed system. This is an old problem. Conservative evangelicals have always numbered those in their ranks who identify more with the Continental Reformers than the English ones and the Continental Reformed confessions than the Thirty-Nine Articles. They have their antecedents in the Westminster divines.

Confessional Anglicanism needs more champions in North America. It needs more conservative evangelicals and others sympathetic to its tenets to maintain its cause. Otherwise its voice will be drowned in the hubbub of voices that claim to represent Anglicanism. We cannot expect the younger generations to embrace the beliefs and practices of authentic historic Anglicanism if they have no one to guide and mentor them. The disappearance of confessional Anglicanism will be no small loss. At its heart is the gospel.