Committed to building up Christ's Church in North America and beyond
Pages
▼
Monday, September 26, 2011
A Vision of a Biblically Faithful, Mission-Oriented Anglican Province in North America
By Robin G. Jordan
I first came to the realization that North America needed a new Anglican province back in 1990s. The unchurched population in Canada and the United States was growing. New churches were needed. The response to the call for a Decade of Evangelism in the Episcopal Church was far from enthusiastic. The Diocese of Louisiana had a new bishop and he had announced a new church planting initiative in the diocese. The reaction of one church in my deanery was to beg the bishop not to start any new works in its area. Its leaders feared not only losing newcomers to a new church but also its existing members.
I had read an article by a Canadian church planter who advocated planting new churches in the shadow of existing ones. New churches were more successful in reaching unchurched population segments in the community than existing ones. A new work started in the shadow of an existing church could have a positive effect upon the existing church, prompting it to become more evangelistic.
I thought to myself if this could be done on a local scale, why not across the entire United States? A number of the African provinces were experiencing explosive growth. A new biblically faithful, mission-oriented Anglican province might experience similar growth in North America. What stood out about these African provinces from my reading was that they were not only more evangelistic than the Episcopal Church, but they were more evangelical. They also made use of lay people—readers and catechists—in starting and pastoring new works.
Over the past ten years I have formed a vision of how I would like to see a new province take shape in North America.
1. The new province would be authentically Anglican. It would return to the faith and practice of the classical Anglican formularies—the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Homilies. It would reverse the movement away from the formularies that has characterized the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States particularly in the past 50 odd years. Whatever their position on secondary matters, all clergy and congregations would be expected to subscribe ex animo to the position that the essence of gospel teaching is salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.
2. The Book of Common Prayer in use would combine the traditional language services of the classical Anglican Prayer Book with contemporary language versions of the same services. The State Prayers, the Litany, and the General Intercession would reflect the political situation in North America.
3. The new province and the judicatories and churches forming the new province would be wholeheartedly committed to spreading the gospel, reaching and evangelizing the unchurched, enfolding new believers into churches, and equipping them for a life of discipleship and ministry. Their principal goal would be the fulfillment of Christ’s Great Commission—making disciples of all people groups—in North America and the world.
Few churches would be content to sit on the sidelines while other churches engaged in gospel ministry. Rare would be the church that had not planted a new church or sponsored a new church plant. Evangelism and church planting would be a part of the DNA of most churches of the new province.
4. The new province would be constituted as a voluntary association of Anglican churches banded together for mission, deriving its authority from the churches comprising it. Churches uniting with the new province would own their own property and would be free to withdraw from the new province. Churches planted by the new province would be recognized as autonomous entities in union with the new province, deriving their authority directly from Christ as the head of His Church, capable of owning their own property, and at liberty to disaffiliate themselves from the new province should they choose to do so.
5. The structure of the new province would be based upon the synod model. A provincial synod would be the highest authority in the province. A provincial executive council would carry on the work of the provincial synod between its sessions.
6. Episcopal authority would be clearly defined and limited. Constitutionalism and the rule of law would be valued and respected.
7. Certain characteristics would distinguish the new province’s churches. Churches would be centered on the gospel. They would be organized around a simple and understandable process for moving seekers to new believers to committed functional disciples of Jesus Christ. Bivocational pastors, lay ministry teams and lay pastors would minister alongside of full-time, fully credentialed resident pastors.
8. The new province would be organized into affinity networks as well as regional judicatories. The aim would be to eliminate or reduce the barriers that keep clergy and congregations whose beliefs and practices differ in non-essentials from cooperating and working with each other to advance the cause of the gospel. Throughout the new province there would be recognition that no church or group of churches has a monopoly upon a particular section of God’s vineyard.
The shape that the Anglican Church in North America and its ministry partner, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, have taken has been very disappointing. They have not shown a strong commitment to the values embodied in the foregoing vision of a new biblically faithful, mission-oriented Anglican province in Canada and the United States. There has been no genuine recovery of the classical Anglican formularies in the ACNA and the AMiA.
Despite its doctrinal and theological defects 1979 Book of Common Prayer is widely used in the ACNA and the AMiA, as is The Hymnal 1982. An Anglican Prayer Book, produced by the AMiA and the Prayer Book Society, went further than the 1928 American Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book in its departure from the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662 Prayer Book. The new ACNA ordinal also departs significantly from the Prayer Book Ordinal, sanctioning beliefs and practices that historic Anglicanism rejects.
The jury is still out on the extent to which the ACNA and the AMiA are oriented to mission. Some ACNA and AMiA churches are quite active in the areas of evangelism and church planting. Others have been in existence for a number of years but have not started or supported a new work.
Under the leadership of Archbishop Robert Duncan the ACNA has been moving toward a more prelatical model of provincial structure in practice if not on paper. Except for ratifying canons and constitutional amendments the ACNA Provincial Assembly has no role in the government of the ACNA. It resembles one of the consultative bodies that the Pope may convene in the Roman Catholic Church. The ACNA canons incorporate doctrine, language, principles, and norms from the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Rwandan canons are the work of an American, an Episcopal turned AMiA priest, and a former Roman Catholic, and are heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law.
The Archbishop’s Cabinet has increasingly been usurping the role of the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee. The Archbishop’s Cabinet was created by Archbishop Duncan. Its creation is not authorized by canon and is unconstitutional, as was Duncan’s creation of the office of Dean of the Province and his appointment of his close friend, Bishop Don Harvey, to that office.
The structure of the AMiA is based upon the prelatical model both on paper and in practice. The AMiA is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, which with its new canons adopted a Roman prelatical model for the structure of the entire province. It also adopted the dogmas of the Council of Trent as the official doctrine of the province.
The majority of the churches in the ACNA and the AMiA appear to be fairly conventional, organized around a weekly celebration of the Eucharist and the ministry of a priest. They are barely distinguishable from their counterparts in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church.
There is a discernable movement in the ACNA toward organizing that body into geographic dioceses. The AMiA’s church planting networks are largely regionally based.
Well, you might say, you cannot have everything your way. You should be happy that North America has in the ACNA and the AMiA the beginnings of an orthodox province.
But does it?
How are the ACNA and the AMiA “orthodox”? Is “orthodox” an accurate description of two bodies in which disparate theologies of salvation and justification are tolerated and more than one gospel is proclaimed.
Look at what comes with this kind of “orthodoxy.” Unfettered prelacy. The revival of Medieval Catholic beliefs and practices that historic Anglicanism rejects. Sacerdotalism.
Some of us were looking for a renewal of authentic Anglicanism in North America. Instead we are invited to trade one evil for another. Having not fully thrown off the shackles of liberalism, the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission in the Americas are binding themselves with the chains of unreformed Catholicism.
I am prompted to wonder aloud, “Who is getting the best of this bargain?” “If people are not hearing the true gospel, if they are not trusting in Christ for their salvation, if they are not growing to maturity as followers of Jesus Christ, who gains the most from it?” Think about it.
As for 4 and 6, the New Testament recognizes only the local church, not provinces and dioceses, which had their origins in the civil administrative structure of the Roman Empire.
The monarchial bishop, the post-Constantine prelate, and the feudal lord bishop with his castle and dungeon were all at one time "new-fangled innovations," human inventions. The New Testament speaks of elders and overseers and does not make a distinction between them.
The idea of apostolic authority being passed from bishop to bishop all the way back to the apostles is a fantasy. There is nothing in the Scriptures to support such an idea.
For the English Reformers apostolic succession was not a succession of bishops but a succession of doctrine.
In the Protestant Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century a number of Anglo-Catholic bishops would claim to have unlimited authority. All authority in the diocese, they asserted, was derived from them even the authority of the standing committee and the diocesan convention and was exercised at their sufferance. They might withdraw this authority at any time.
The founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church rejected such claims. They were one of the reasons why they chose to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church.
In the Church of England in the nineteenth century a number of judicial decisions in response to similar claims from Anglo-Catholic bishops in that Church would determine that bishops do not inherently have unlimited authority. They are bound by Scripture, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Prayer Book rubrics, the canons, and the laws of the land as are other ministers.
Divine rights of bishops has no place in the reformed Anglican Church. If you want unfettered prelacy, there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. But they are unreformed churches. They are also not Anglican.
Anglo-Catholics need to make up their minds. Do they want to be Anglicans? Or do they want to be Catholics? If they want to be the latter, they have a number of choices. They can join one of the so-called "apostolic" churches--Rome, Moscow, Constantinople; join an independent Catholic jurisdiction; or form such a jurisdiction.
Whatever they do, it is wrong for them to continue to maintain that they are Anglican. To be Anglican, one must be willing to accept the reformed Anglican faith.
You do not support the ordination of women do you? How would you feel if these prelates of yours decided to make women's ordination a churchwide practice and even admitted a woman to the College of Bishops. By supporting the unlimited authority of bishops, you are supporting their right to do just that.
Bishops are not princes of the church. They are supposed to be shepherds, pastors.
Are you familiar with the life of a shepherd? While other farmer workers sleep in warm cottages, the shepherd sleeps out on the cold hillside with his sheep. He might at best have a crude lean-to to shelter him from the elements.
The shepherd's job is to protect the sheep from predators, to tend their injuries, to keep them from overgrazing, and to move them to new pasturage. His only companion is his sheepdog.
The Anglican Church in North America does not need princes to lord over Christ's people. The ACNA needs real shepherds, men who spend their lives with their flocks, men who see themselves as servants, not lordlings and rulers.
To my mind, dressing bishops in sumptuous robes, giving them amethyst rings, bejeweled pectoral crosses, silver croziers, and beribboned miters, and allowing them to wear purple shirts and vestments--the Imperial color of ancient Rome--is a gross mistake. It is gives them wrong ideas about their office in the church. Cranmer had the right idea when he did away with the Medieval Catholic ceremonies and ornaments and replaced them with the giving of a Bible. For the true bishop--the shepherd-servant, the Bible is his shepherd's crook. This is how he will pull the struggling sheep from the mire and guide his flock to greener pastures.
"The State Prayers, the Litany, and the General Intercession would reflect the political situation in North America." Which is?? Why should the Prayer Book reflect the political situation anywhere? The Church of Christ is not Erastus, it is not a state church and should not reflect it. The state could and in many cases if not the overwhelming majority of cases actually atheistic and hostile to Christianity. Why not just leave out the state prayers altogether? I use the 1662 BCP and do just that. It works perfectly well.
In 1 Timothy 2:1-4 Paul writes,"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Cranmer understood from this passage that we have a duty to pray for kings, rulers, and governing authorities.
Praying for a politician is not an expression of support for his decisions, moral conduct, or policies. In Luke 6:27-36 we read: "'But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you,pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
'If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."
This suggests that we should pray for politicians not because they deserve or merit prayer in our estimation but as an act of discipleship.
Robin, In the communion service, we pray for all Christian rulers. I does not mention anything about non-Christian rulers. But the Prayer Book should not be a statist document as it is in England. In the American Prayer Book a problem was caused in the 1860 by the prayer for the president of the united States in New Orleans, it was omitted by the minister during the period New Orleans occupation by northern forces. The occupying general was bent on forcing the minister to pray for a president of the united States when the minister felt that the real president was of the confederate States. Why should the Prayer Book reflect nationality? or statism? Why not just pray for all governors? Instead of specific governors? Anglicanism is no longer confined to the British Isles. Again the 1662 BCP may well be used everywhere by simply omitting the statist prayers.
By the way, politicians do indeed need our prayers. In Latin America the word is a synonym for corrupt, and in the united States it is a synonym for liar. But not all politicians are rulers or governors. But most of them are politicians. Statism and the erastian nature of much of Anglicanism needs to be done away with. In the 16th century the secular and the religious were looked upon as two parts of Christiandom. Our state and federal governments may not be Christian. Prayer for the leaders to become Christian and to serve God humbly and faithfully, for they will surely serve Him anyway. These prayers would probably best be done in a more extemporaneous manner.
My inclination is to retain the State Prayers. Praying for the prince of the realm and others in high positions has a long history. It is not unscriptural. Paul urges us to do so. None of the kings and rulers of his day were Christians.
On the other hand, if you are heart is not in praying for the President of the United States and those in authority, I see no point of praying for them when praying privately. Our prayers, even when we use set forms, should come from the heart.
It is a different matter when we are reading public prayers. We may not always pray from the heart but the congregation, when making the prayer theirs with their amen, may be saying the amen from their heart.
Interestingly the first REC Prayer Book, the 1874 BCP, amended the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church Militant and replaced the petition for Christian rulers with a petition for those in authority.
You are referring to the infamous General Benjamin "Beast" Butler's occupation of the Crescent City. He outraged and scandalized the city with his treatment of the flower of Southern womanhood. He treated them like common prostitutes. I studied Louisiana history in the eighth grade and more in depth in university. My major was History. It was the sixties and my professors were Southerners who were not wed to politically-correct views.
During the American Revolution Patriot ministers refused to pray for the King. Tory ministers like Samual Seabury made a point of praying for him. The first Prayer for the President of the United States was modeled upon the Prayer for the King's Majesty. George Washington is said to have attended church just to hear the Prayer read in the service.
Authentic Anglicanism can only exist when we have a King to head the church in all temporal matters. Ditch 4 & 6 as new-fangled innovations!
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteI think you know what I am driving at.
As for 4 and 6, the New Testament recognizes only the local church, not provinces and dioceses, which had their origins in the civil administrative structure of the Roman Empire.
The monarchial bishop, the post-Constantine prelate, and the feudal lord bishop with his castle and dungeon were all at one time "new-fangled innovations," human inventions. The New Testament speaks of elders and overseers and does not make a distinction between them.
The idea of apostolic authority being passed from bishop to bishop all the way back to the apostles is a fantasy. There is nothing in the Scriptures to support such an idea.
For the English Reformers apostolic succession was not a succession of bishops but a succession of doctrine.
In the Protestant Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century a number of Anglo-Catholic bishops would claim to have unlimited authority. All authority in the diocese, they asserted, was derived from them even the authority of the standing committee and the diocesan convention and was exercised at their sufferance. They might withdraw this authority at any time.
The founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church rejected such claims. They were one of the reasons why they chose to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church.
In the Church of England in the nineteenth century a number of judicial decisions in response to similar claims from Anglo-Catholic bishops in that Church would determine that bishops do not inherently have unlimited authority. They are bound by Scripture, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Prayer Book rubrics, the canons, and the laws of the land as are other ministers.
Divine rights of bishops has no place in the reformed Anglican Church. If you want unfettered prelacy, there is the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. But they are unreformed churches. They are also not Anglican.
Anglo-Catholics need to make up their minds. Do they want to be Anglicans? Or do they want to be Catholics? If they want to be the latter, they have a number of choices. They can join one of the so-called "apostolic" churches--Rome, Moscow, Constantinople; join an independent Catholic jurisdiction; or form such a jurisdiction.
Whatever they do, it is wrong for them to continue to maintain that they are Anglican. To be Anglican, one must be willing to accept the reformed Anglican faith.
You do not support the ordination of women do you? How would you feel if these prelates of yours decided to make women's ordination a churchwide practice and even admitted a woman to the College of Bishops. By supporting the unlimited authority of bishops, you are supporting their right to do just that.
Bishops are not princes of the church. They are supposed to be shepherds, pastors.
Are you familiar with the life of a shepherd? While other farmer workers sleep in warm cottages, the shepherd sleeps out on the cold hillside with his sheep. He might at best have a crude lean-to to shelter him from the elements.
The shepherd's job is to protect the sheep from predators, to tend their injuries, to keep them from overgrazing, and to move them to new pasturage. His only companion is his sheepdog.
The Anglican Church in North America does not need princes to lord over Christ's people. The ACNA needs real shepherds, men who spend their lives with their flocks, men who see themselves as servants, not lordlings and rulers.
To my mind, dressing bishops in sumptuous robes, giving them amethyst rings, bejeweled pectoral crosses, silver croziers, and beribboned miters, and allowing them to wear purple shirts and vestments--the Imperial color of ancient Rome--is a gross mistake. It is gives them wrong ideas about their office in the church. Cranmer had the right idea when he did away with the Medieval Catholic ceremonies and ornaments and replaced them with the giving of a Bible. For the true bishop--the shepherd-servant, the Bible is his shepherd's crook. This is how he will pull the struggling sheep from the mire and guide his flock to greener pastures.
ReplyDeleteWell said Robin!
ReplyDelete"The State Prayers, the Litany, and the General Intercession would reflect the political situation in North America." Which is?? Why should the Prayer Book reflect the political situation anywhere? The Church of Christ is not Erastus, it is not a state church and should not reflect it. The state could and in many cases if not the overwhelming majority of cases actually atheistic and hostile to Christianity. Why not just leave out the state prayers altogether? I use the 1662 BCP and do just that. It works perfectly well.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteIn 1 Timothy 2:1-4 Paul writes,"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Cranmer understood from this passage that we have a duty to pray for kings, rulers, and governing authorities.
Praying for a politician is not an expression of support for his decisions, moral conduct, or policies. In Luke 6:27-36 we read: "'But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you,pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
'If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."
This suggests that we should pray for politicians not because they deserve or merit prayer in our estimation but as an act of discipleship.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteIn the communion service, we pray for all Christian rulers. I does not mention anything about non-Christian rulers. But the Prayer Book should not be a statist document as it is in England. In the American Prayer Book a problem was caused in the 1860 by the prayer for the president of the united States in New Orleans, it was omitted by the minister during the period New Orleans occupation by northern forces. The occupying general was bent on forcing the minister to pray for a president of the united States when the minister felt that the real president was of the confederate States. Why should the Prayer Book reflect nationality? or statism? Why not just pray for all governors? Instead of specific governors? Anglicanism is no longer confined to the British Isles. Again the 1662 BCP may well be used everywhere by simply omitting the statist prayers.
By the way, politicians do indeed need our prayers. In Latin America the word is a synonym for corrupt, and in the united States it is a synonym for liar. But not all politicians are rulers or governors. But most of them are politicians. Statism and the erastian nature of much of Anglicanism needs to be done away with. In the 16th century the secular and the religious were looked upon as two parts of Christiandom. Our state and federal governments may not be Christian. Prayer for the leaders to become Christian and to serve God humbly and faithfully, for they will surely serve Him anyway. These prayers would probably best be done in a more extemporaneous manner.
ReplyDeleteMy inclination is to retain the State Prayers. Praying for the prince of the realm and others in high positions has a long history. It is not unscriptural. Paul urges us to do so. None of the kings and rulers of his day were Christians.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you are heart is not in praying for the President of the United States and those in authority, I see no point of praying for them when praying privately. Our prayers, even when we use set forms, should come from the heart.
It is a different matter when we are reading public prayers. We may not always pray from the heart but the congregation, when making the prayer theirs with their amen, may be saying the amen from their heart.
Interestingly the first REC Prayer Book, the 1874 BCP, amended the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church Militant and replaced the petition for Christian rulers with a petition for those in authority.
You are referring to the infamous General Benjamin "Beast" Butler's occupation of the Crescent City. He outraged and scandalized the city with his treatment of the flower of Southern womanhood. He treated them like common prostitutes. I studied Louisiana history in the eighth grade and more in depth in university. My major was History. It was the sixties and my professors were Southerners who were not wed to politically-correct views.
During the American Revolution Patriot ministers refused to pray for the King. Tory ministers like Samual Seabury made a point of praying for him. The first Prayer for the President of the United States was modeled upon the Prayer for the King's Majesty. George Washington is said to have attended church just to hear the Prayer read in the service.