No Place to Call Home

By Robin G. Jordan

A practical dilemma facing any traditional Anglican evangelical congregation forming in North America is affiliation. What North American Anglican body is there that upholds the historic Anglican formularies; maintains the Protestant and Reformed character of historic Anglicanism; affirms the teaching of the English Reformers on Holy Scripture, justification, sanctification, preaching, worship, the sacraments, and ministry; and uses a Prayer Book that is consonant in doctrine and liturgical usage with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and its Reformed predecessor, the 1552 Prayer Book? The simple fact is that no such body exists in North America.

Any traditional Anglican evangelical congregation that forms in Canada or the United States must either become independent or it must compromise its convictions and affiliate with an Anglican body that does not fully share its beliefs and values. In either case it is faced with the challenge of finding a minister who share its convictions and who will not, once he is installed in office, attempt to led it in another direction.

The Anglican Mission, originally known as the Anglican Mission in America, is one of two leading Anglican bodies in North America, which provides an alternative to the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. The AMiA in its original foundational documents strongly affirms the historic Anglican formularies, establishing them as its authoritative standard of faith and worship. These documents stipulate that all alternative services and rites developed in the AMiA must conform to the doctrine of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. However, due to the influence of Anglo-Catholics like Canon Kevin Donlan and the laxity of its bishops the Anglican Mission has drifted away from its original commitment to historic Anglicanism.

Its senior most bishops, Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers, endorsed the two service books, The Services of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 in Contemporary English, and An Anglican Prayer Book. Neither service book conforms to the requirements that were set in the AMiA foundational documents. The two service books were the joint project of the AMiA and the Prayer Book Society of the USA. The chief editor was the late Peter Toon, who was the President of the Prayer Book Society. Peter had, at that point in his life, come to an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues in part due to the influence of the Carolinian High Churchmen and in part due to his years as Prayer Book Society President and champion for the 1928 Prayer Book. The two service books reflect Peter’s own personal theology and even go beyond the doctrine of the 1928 Prayer Book at a number of points. The Services of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 in Contemporary English were certainly not contemporary English versions of the services of the 1662 Prayer Book as they were advertised. The 1662 Communion Office in An Anglican Prayer Book contains a number of optional variables and rubrical changes that affect the doctrine of the office.

At the time the AMiA was originally launched, it was sponsored by the Primates of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Church of Southeast Asia and enjoyed the support of a number of other global South Anglican Primates. The Anglican Church of Southeast Asia, while permitting Archbishop Chu to personally sponsor the AMiA, declined to fully support the breakaway church. The Anglican Church of Rwanda, on the other hand, gave full backing to Archbishop Kolini. The AMiA became a missionary outreach of the Anglican Church of Rwanda to North America and eventually a part of a larger organization dubbed the Anglican Mission in the Americas, which included the Anglican Coalition in Canada as well as the AMiA. While the AMiA did not support the ordination of women, the Anglican Mission in the Americas and the Anglican Coalition in Canada did. So did the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

The Anglican Church of Rwanda would subsequently adopt a new constitution and set of canons, in the drafting of which Canon Donlan had a large hand. Donlan is a former Roman Catholic priest who studied canon law at Cardiff University. He left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Church. He joined the Anglican Mission after he became involved in a serious theological dispute with his bishop and led a portion of his congregation out of the Episcopal Church. The new church they established affiliated with the Anglican Mission.

The new constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda incorporate the language, doctrine, principles, and norms of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The constitution affirms the Thirty-Nine Articles “as adapted through the ages.” The canons affirm the dogmas of the Council of Trent, including the doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

Canon Donlan also had a hand in the drafting of the Anglican Mission’s organizational charter, which shows the same influences as the Rwandan constitution and canons. This charter establishes a prelatical form of ecclesiastical governance for the Anglican Mission similar to the form of church government found in the Roman Catholic with all authority derived from the Rwandan Primate through his Primatial Vicar, Chuck Murphy. The provisions of the Rwandan canons governing the relationship of the Rwandan Primate to his surrogate in North America are taken almost word for word from the provisions of the Roman Catholic Canons governing the relationship of the Pope to his subordinate archbishops and bishops. This form of ecclesiastical governance represents a major departure from the most common form of church government found in the global Anglican Church and even the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The latter is the synodical form of ecclesiastical governance in which the provincial bishops shares governance of a province with a general synod or provincial assembly of clerical and lay representatives and the diocesan bishop shares the governance of a diocese with a diocesan conference, council, or synod of clergy and lay representatives. It also represents a significant departure from the form of church government envisioned for the AMiA envisioned in the original foundational documents.

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 the office of bishop or to any other particular office. The Anglican Mission’s form of ecclesiastical government excludes not only the laity but also the clergy from full participation in discussion and in decision related to major issues affecting the life of the church. Americans are inclined to confuse episcopacy with post-Constantine prelacy. The latter invariably leads to the abuse of power, arbitrariness in decision-making, and the tyranny of bishops. As Mark Burkill stresses in his Reform discussion paper, “Better Bishops,” “synodical and chapter meetings of godly clergy and lay people” are needed to check “the sinfulness and folly of bishops.”

Although synods (and bishops) must not be allowed to contradict biblical teaching, they can provide godly wisdom when the Christian community and its leaders are faced with major issues. Bishops must not be allowed to be tyrants and there must be effective means of holding them accountable to Scripture.

Anglican Mission Chairman Chuck Murphy and Canon Donlan were on the Common Cause Partnership’s Governance Task force that drafted the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America. As well as containing provisions clearly intended to accommodate the AMiA, which was at the time of the largest of the Common Cause Partners, the ACNA constitution and canons show the influence of the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s constitution and canons and the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon law. This influence points to Canon Donlan.

As a Canon in the Anglican Mission Donlan is under the direct oversight of Chairman Murphy. To be a Canon he must enjoy Murphy’s confidence. He is in a position not only to influence developments in the Anglican Mission but also the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the GAFCON alliance. He surfaced as a key player in 2010 with his proposal for revamping the ecclesiology of the Anglican Church, which had the backing of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Canon Donlan has served on a number of GAFCON working groups including the Theological Resource Group in which he worked to move the group’s interpretation of the Jerusalem Declaration and historic Anglicanism in a more Anglo-Catholic direction.

In Keep in Step with the Spirit, J. I. Packer, author of Knowing God, identifies the differences and similarities between the evangelical movement and the charismatic movement. He identifies the following characteristics of the evangelical movement that distinguish it from the charismatic movement.

The evangelical movement, which plays a minority role in most Protestant denominations today, centers upon God’s revealed truth and a longing to see that truth reform and renew those denominations, and with them the whole Christian world…. The evangelical movement calls for conversion to Jesus Christ and seek to ground believers in a rational, disciplined piety…. Evangelical theology is sharply honed as a result of centuries of controversy reflecting the conviction that where the truth fails, life will fail, too.

Packer identifies the following characteristics of the charismatic movement that distinguish it from the evangelical movement.

The charismatic movement celebrates the ministry of the Holy Spirit in Christian experience—an authentic evangelical theme, as we have seen—but fights no battle for purity of doctrine, trusting instead in the unitive power of shared feelings and expression….The charismatic movement summons them [i.e., believers] to open their lives to the Holy Spirit and to expect nonrational and suprarational elements to appear in their subsequent communion with God…. Charismatic theology by comparison [i., to evangelical theology] looks loose, erratic, and naïve, and the movement’s tolerance of variations, particularly when these are backed by “prophecies” received through prayer, suggests a commitment to given truth in Scripture that is altogether too fragile.

Packer goes on to note that the two movements are, in reality, overlapping circles.

…Evangelicals and charismatics are plainly at one in relation to such supposedly evangelical distinctives as faith and repentance; love to Jesus Christ, who forgives and saves; lives changed by the Spirit’s power; learning about God from God through Scripture; bold, expectant, intimate free-form prayer; small-group ministry; and a delight in swinging singing.

Packer acknowledges that genuine theological differences exist. There have also been bad experiences.

The two movements have grown further apart since 1984 when Packer wrote Keep In Step with the Spirit. This may be attributed to the influence of the Ancient-Future or convergence movement, which has true to its charismatic roots placed great emphasis upon piety and practice to the neglect of doctrine. The Ancient-Future/convergence movement has also shown itself open to the doctrine as well as the practice of unreformed Catholicism. The Ancient-Future/convergence movement is not characterized by its theological consistency or depth. Rather in its “three streams, one river” thinking it entertains the idea that a balance can be struck between disparate theologies. To achieve such a balance, significant differences between these theologies are glozed over or played down. How a number of adherents of that movement interpret Scripture is also highly questionable.

Popular American evangelicalism in contrast to the traditional Anglican variety shows a tendency toward theological shallowness. A number of the congregations and clergy in the Anglican Mission have been influenced by the charismatic movement, the Ancient-Future/convergence movement, and popular American evangelicalism. Consequently, they evidence the weaknesses of all three movements. On its web site and in its quarterly magazine, Wave, the Anglican Mission frequently uses terminology and concepts equated with all three movements. While I do not subscribe to the generalization that this is how the entire Anglican Mission is, it is from a traditional Anglican evangelical perspective a cause for concern. At one point the Anglican Mission appeared to be on a track to bring about the recovery of confessional Anglicanism in North America. But that no longer appears to be the case.

The Anglican Church in North America, the second leading alternative Anglican body to the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church, evidences similar problems to the Anglican Mission. I have drawn attention to these problems in a number of previous articles.

Among the seven elements that the ACNA constitution identifies as characteristic of “the Anglican Way” and “essential to membership” is the affirmation that “the godly historic Episcopate” is “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice,” and therefore is “integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.” The view that bishops are of the essence of the church inferred in this affirmation is the position of the Tractarians and their Anglo-Catholic successors. It is not the position of the English Reformers and historic Anglicanism. The English Reformers found no Scriptural basis for episcopacy, presbyterianism, or any other form of ecclesiastical polity in the Bible. The Caroline High Churchmen, while believing that God had blessed the Church of England with the “grace” of episcopacy, nonetheless recognized the orders and sacraments of the continental Reformed Churches that had no bishops. This affirmation closes the door to traditional Anglican evangelical congregations and clergy that have not abandoned the doctrinal position of the English Reformers and historic Anglicanism.

An examination of the provisions of the ACNA canons show that they take the Roman Catholic position on apostolic succession, not the historic Anglican position. They also infer that the confirmation and matrimony are sacraments, as well as the sacraments work ex opera operato and invariably convey the grace that they signify—additional departures from the historic Anglican position. The ACNA constitution infers the existence of other authoritative doctrinal standards for Anglicans beside the historic Anglican formularies. Rather than being “a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer” for Anglicans, the 1662 Prayer Book is reduced to being one of a number of service books, including the pre-Reformation Mass-books, as well as the 1549 semi-reformed Prayer Book and the 1637 High Church Scottish Prayer Book, which form together “the standard of the Anglican tradition of worship.”

The ACNA constitution creates a “provincial assembly” but vests it with no power beyond ratifying amendments to the constitution and the canons. The constitution and canons authorizes two modes of episcopal election but the directions that accompanied applications for recognition as a diocese of the ACNA made reference only to the second mode of episcopal election in which the college of bishops elected the bishop of a new diocese from a slate of candidates submitted by the new diocese. The canons made no provisions for a new diocese to submit a second slate of candidates if the college of bishops rejected the first and did not prohibit the college of bishops from nominating and electing their own candidate.

The canons treat the archbishop as if he is a metropolitan of the province but the constitution and canons do not formally recognize him as the provincial metropolitan nor do they vest him with metropolitical authority. The canons vest the archbishop with powers in matters of church discipline that the recognized provinces of the Anglican Communion do not even vest in their metropolitans. These powers infringe upon the long-recognized prerogatives of diocesan bishops in such matters.

Once the constitution and canons were adopted and ratified, the leaders of the ACNA have treated them as mandate to do what they please. The provincial council authorized the archbishop’s appointment of a dean of the province. The constitution does not give the archbishop power to make such appointment nor the provincial council the power to authorize it.

While the constitution and canons permit the formation of non-geographic dioceses as well as geographic dioceses in the ACNA, the former Episcopalians in the ACNA are promoting the organization of the province solely into geographic dioceses. Among the implications of this development is that the group of congregations and clergy that form a geographic diocese in a region are going to dominate that diocese. Their theological outlook will become the dominant theological outlook in the diocese. Congregations and clergy with a different theological outlook may not be welcome. Or if a congregation is admitted into union with the diocese, it will have no assurance that it will be able call clergy of the same theological outlook as its present clergy or to send ministerial candidates to seminaries that share this theological outlook. The ACNA offers no such guarantees in its constitution. The leaders of the congregation may be required to sign a document placing its property in trust with diocese. The ACNA only prohibits the province from holding property in trust, not dioceses.

The theological makeup of the congregations and clergy in the ACNA is similar to that of the Anglican Mission with proportionally more Anglo-Catholics. At the inaugural provincial assembly of the ACNA at the installation of Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan as its first archbishop a number of bishops and other clergy can be seen on the video of the event dipping their fingers into what they took to be a holy water stoup and then crossing themselves—a Roman Catholic practice that English Reformers rejected as superstitious and unscriptural. Archbishop Duncan on the video of the consecration of Bishop Foley Beach is seen to anoint the head and hands of Beach. This is a Roman Catholic practice that is not found even in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It is certainly not found in the 1661 Ordinal. The English Reformers rejected it as superstitious and unscriptural. It is evident from these videos that practice in the ACNA deviates from the historic Anglican standard as well as doctrine.

It is difficult to see how any traditional Anglican evangelical congregation that is presently affiliated with the Anglican Mission or the Anglican Church in North America can hope to preserve its theological identity in the kind of environment found in these two Anglican bodies. Their current pastor may provide that congregation with a solid theological foundation but there is a very real prospect that his successor will not build upon that foundation and may even tear it down. Congregations invariably lose their original theological identity over a period of time due to a succession of ministers with different theological outlooks from each other. Only when they have a succession of ministers with the same theological outlook do they retain that identity.

What are at stake are not just the theological identity of existing congregation but also the theological identity of any daughter congregations that they may start. Where do they find the ministers of the right theological outlook to lead these congregations and what obstacles will these ministers face to becoming the pastors of the daughter congregations? Training at a particular seminary or theological college is no guarantee of a particular theological outlook. The successor to their present bishop may not be so willing tolerate the existence of a traditional Anglican evangelical congregation in his regional network or diocese and even their present bishop may not be open to the establishment of more traditional Anglican evangelical congregations in his jurisdiction.

Traditional Anglican evangelical congregations really do not have any hope of preserving their theological identity and producing more congregations that share their theological outlook if they are not a part of a judicatory with the same theological outlook in which ministers seeking positions in the judicatory are carefully vetted before they are licensed. This is the same predicament facing any forming traditional Anglican evangelical congregation considering affiliation with these two Anglican bodies.