The State of Historic Anglicanism in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

North America has no Anglican body that truly represents authentic historic Anglicanism. It has no Anglican entity that upholds the historic Anglican formularies and stands in continuity with the English Reformers and the Protestant Reformed Church of England in doctrine and practice. Some had hoped that the Anglican Church in North America would emerge as such a body. But it is increasingly evident that this is not case. Those outside of North America who maintain that the ACNA is GAFCON in North America are indulging in wishful thinking. A growing body of evidence shows that those whose beliefs and practices are in conflict with Scripture and historic Anglicanism are shaping what Archbishop Duncan describes as “American Anglicanism.”

Before his election as Archbishop, then Bishop Duncan during a trip to the United Kingdom spoke of the need for what he described as “a new settlement.” What he apparently had in mind was a retrograde movement back to the doctrine, order, and practice of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church. In a subsequent address he spoke of regression as an appropriate response to a crisis. What we see happening in the ACNA is not the recovery of historic Anglicanism but rather a continuation of the independent unreformed Catholicism that ousted historic Anglicanism from the Protestant Episcopal Church in nineteenth century and which has masqueraded as Anglicanism in the United States ever since. While liberalism and modernism may have distorted it in the Episcopal Church, it remains a major influence in that church. In the ACNA we see a backward movement to an earlier, more conservative form.

Its continuation is not the only trend observable in the ACNA but it is the trend that is most impacting the doctrine and form and structure of governance of the self-described Anglican province. The new ACNA ordinal, authorized by the ACNA College of Bishops, is undeniable proof that it is also impacting the official liturgies to be used in the ACNA.

In their commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today,the GAFCON Theological Resource Group identify acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles as “constitutive of Anglican identity.” As I have written elsewhere, the Episcopal Church has never fully accepted the authority of the Articles. In the 1786 Proposed Prayer Book the Thirty-Nine Articles were cut down to twenty. In the 1789 Prayer Book, the first American Prayer Book, they were left out altogether. The question of their reinstatement would prove a thorn of contention. Bishop Samuel Seabury, leader of the High Church party in the fledgling denomination, doubted the advisability of any Articles at all, strongly believing that the doctrines of the new denomination “should be comprehended in the Liturgy.” At the 1799 General Convention a House of Deputies’ Committee would report:

That the articles of our faith and religion, as founded on the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are sufficiently declared in our creeds and liturgy, as set forth in the book of common prayer established for the use of this church; and that further articles do not appear to be necessary.

We hear the sentiments of Bishop Seabury and the committee’s report expressed in the Episcopal Church to this day. We also hear them in the Anglican Church in North America.

While the General Convention would eventually adopt a revision of the Articles in 1801, it did not require clerical subscription to the Articles “as agreeable to the Word of God.” The Articles had no real authority in the Episcopal Church. Episcopal clergy were their own judge of orthodoxy and their judgment was affected by their particular prejudices.

If acceptance of the Articles’ authority is indeed “constitutive of Anglican identity,” then the Episcopal Church has never been fully Anglican. The Anglican Church in North America is an offshoot of the Episcopal Church. Its attitude toward the Articles does not differ greatly from that of the Episcopal Church. The ACNA is at best nominally Anglican like its rival—the Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Church of Canada, like the Episcopal Church, has fallen away from historic Anglicanism and become mired in liberalism and modernism.

The Anglican Mission in the Americas, which outsiders unfamiliar with developments in that Anglican entity erroneously describe as evangelical and Low-Church, while declaring the Holy Scriptures to be the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice and affirming the historic Anglican formularies as its doctrinal standard, has a provision in its Official Theological Elucidation of the Solemn Declaration that claims that Article 25 “does not expressly forbid extra-eucharistic practices that some Anglicans treasure.” It ignores Article 28 and the Church of England’s received opinions of the meaning of these two articles.

AMiA Solemn Declaration of Principles requires that alternative liturgical texts and forms used in the AMiA must conform to the theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. In 2008 the AMiA produced a service book that did not meet this requirement, and the AMiA’s senior most bishops endorsed the service book.

The AMiA is responsible in large part for the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s adoption of a set of canons that are heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. This includes doctrine, principles, and norms as well as language. The Rwandan bishop is the sole legislator in his diocese as the Roman Catholic bishop is in his. The diocesan synod is a purely consultative body. The AMiA is an extra-territorial missionary jurisdiction of the Rwandan church. The relationship of the Primatial Vicar in charge of the AMiA to the Rwandan primate is the same as that of a Roman Catholic archbishop to the Pope. The Primatial Vicar is the Rwandan primate’s deputy in North America and all authority exercised in the AMiA comes from the Rwandan primate through him. He is the sole legislator in the AMiA. While affirming the Thirty-Nine Articles “as adapted through the ages” in its constitution, Rwandan church repudiates the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the Articles in its canons, substituting for that teaching the dogmas of the Council of Trent. They include the doctrines of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood, which historic Anglicanism rejects.

Even AMiA Bishop John Rodgers’ new commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles shows the influence of the independent unreformed Catholicism that has usurped the place of historic Anglicanism in North America Anglican Church.

The Reformed Episcopal Church, the oldest surviving Anglican body to succeed from the Episcopal Church, and now a part of the Anglican Church in North America, has under its present leadership, abandoned the Protestant and evangelical principles of its founders. While adopting the Thirty-Nine Articles, its General Council has also authorized for use in its parishes a Prayer Book that incorporates substantial material from Anglo-Catholic-Broad Church 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The Ritualistic practices and the accompanying Catholic doctrines that caused the departure of its founders from the Protestant Episcopal Church have made serious inroads into its life and teaching.

There is no strong witness for authentic historic Anglicanism among the Continuing Anglican Churches. In a handful of jurisdictions the Articles have formal authority. They are, however, neglected as a living formulary. In the same jurisdictions the 1928 Prayer Book is the actual standard of worship and faith.

The Thirty-Nine Articles are meant to be doctrinal standards for interpreting the Prayer Book. If they had been given a central place in life and teaching of these jurisdictions, the 1928 Prayer Book would have been revised years ago. Their application to the doctrines and practices of the 1928 Prayer Book would have preclude its use as its doctrines and practices conflicts with the Holy Scriptures and the Articles. However, sentimental attachment to the 1928 Prayer Book and to the nineteenth-century Ritualist ceremonies and ornaments that have become associated with its services even in parishes that identify themselves as Low-Church and Protestant have prevented these jurisdictions from objectively appraising the appropriateness of the continued use of the 1928 Prayer Book and the associated ceremonies and ornaments. They have made no attempt to revise the 1928 Prayer Book when judicious revision would have made the 1928 Prayer Book more agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and the Articles and would have strengthened their witness to historic Anglicanism.

Only a few congregations and their clergy scattered among the aforementioned Anglican bodies uphold the historic Anglican formularies and maintain a credible witness to historic Anglicanism. In the Anglican Church in North America it is difficult to see how they hope to preserve their identity considering the direction in which that entity is moving. The ACNA makes no special provision for those who truly represent historic Anglicanism and who upholds the historic Anglican formularies and stands in continuity with the English Reformers and the Protestant Reformed Church of England in doctrine and practice, as it does for those whose beliefs and practices conflict with Scripture and historic Anglicanism. They are expected to compromise their beliefs and modify their practices to accommodate the latter. Their situation and that of biblically faithful orthodox Anglican Christians in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are similar. After the ACNA coalesces into geographic dioceses, the ACNA Prayer Book is authorized, and the ACNA becomes even more unreformed Catholic in its ethos, this similarity will become more evident to them.

Right now they are not experiencing the full impact of their predicament. When they reach that stage, there may be very little that they can do. The time to make plans for that eventuality, to network with others like themselves, and to organize to promote their interests is now. A stick of wood by itself is easy to break. Bundle a stick with other sticks and bind a rope tightly around them and they are together much more difficult to break. The evangelicals were able to preserve their identity and carve out a niche for themselves in the Church of England by banding together. They need to do the same thing. It is a no-brainer.

Their seeming reluctance to do so is difficult to explain. It suggests that they have not awakened to the precariousness of their situation. Like the frogs in a pot of water that is being heated slowly, they do not notice the rising temperature of the water and will succumb one by one.

It also takes a crisis to motivate people to do something. Someone must suddenly turn the heat up under the pot. They have not so far experienced a crisis. Their bishop has not told them that they cannot use the forms of service that they have been using and must use the authorized ACNA Prayer Book. The bishop has not established diocesan standards for ceremonies and ornaments that are objectionable to them on scriptural and doctrinal grounds. He has not meddled in their calling of a new pastor. These developments may be just around the corner but they have not yet happened.

On the periphery of the North American Anglican Church are Anglican Christians like myself. They are not involved in a fellowship or congregation that is affiliated with an existing Anglican body. They may be sojourning in a non-Anglican church or they may no longer be involved in any church. They have a strong affinity with authentic historic Anglicanism. They are convinced that the English Reformation was God’s doing. God freed the Church of England from a corrupt false religion and its superstitious beliefs and practices and restored the Bible and the gospel to the English Church. They find nothing attractive about the existing Anglican entities comprising the North American Anglican Church and the prevailing ethos in these bodies. What they see in these entities is a travesty of the Anglican Way. While numerically weak and spread across North America, the members of this group nonetheless yearn to see a renewal of historic Anglicanism in North America and to play a part in that renewal.

In upcoming articles I plan to look at what steps that they might take to secure a future for authentic historic Anglicanism in North America.