By Robin G. Jordan
Anglicans in North America need to understand that doctrinal changes that Bishop Chuck Murphy and Canon Kevin Donlon introduced with what would become the 2008 Rwandan canons are not changes that Anglicans in Rwanda welcomed. It does not sit well with them when I suggest that the Anglican Mission might be renamed the “Rwandan Catholic Mission” (see my previous article, ”Anglican Mission Chairman Chuck Murphy Announces Retirement”). This is not how Rwandan Anglicans see themselves. My suggestion was to show how far the Anglican Mission has through Bishop Murphy and Canon Donlon’s machinations departed from authentic historic Anglicanism.
The sweeping doctrinal and structural changes that Bishop Murphy and Canon Donlon introduced with the 2008 canons completely changed the character of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. They also altered the official doctrine of the Anglican Mission, doing away with the doctrinal norms and formularies found in its Solemn Declaration. This was not drawn to the attention of Anglican Mission clergy, congregations, and mission partners any more than the alterations to the doctrine of the Church of Rwanda were drawn to the attention of the Rwandans. Anglican Mission clergy continued to gather annually to formally subscribe to the doctrinal norms and formularies in the Solemn Declaration.
One is prompted to wonder how long Murphy and Donlon expected their subterfuge to last. Did they really expect it to go undiscovered? Among the unanswered questions is why Murphy himself approved a document that made the kind of doctrinal changes that 2008 Rwandan canons would make. Did he fail to understand the implications of these doctrinal changes? Did the doctrinal content of the canons make no difference to him? We may never know the answers to these questions and questions like them.
As well as serving as proof of the ineffectualness of bishops in safeguarding the doctrine of the ecclesial bodies over which they have authority and oversight, this affair also demonstrates the weaknesses of the “three streams” theology, which has become prevalent in the Anglican Church in North America as well as the Anglican Mission. “Three streams” theology emphasizes piety and practice to the neglect of doctrine. Its tolerance of variations, to quote J. I. Packer, suggests a fragile commitment to revealed truth in Scripture. It treats as differences of emphasis what are in actuality differences arising from opposing readings of Scripture. It is naïve and overly romantic in its view of the early and medieval churches. It also displays an unacknowledged antipathy toward the Reformation and the Reformers. It provides fertile soil in which retrograde Anglo-Catholic beliefs and practices flourish.
These weaknesses point to the need for the reintroduction of confessional Anglicanism in these two subdivisions of the North American Anglican Church. As long as these two ecclesial bodies are unwilling to fully bind themselves by confessional formulae, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles, we can expect to see a repetition of what happened. There will be further attempts to subvert the biblical and Reformation teaching of authentic historic Anglicanism.
As the GAFCON Theological Resource Group calls to our attention, “the New Testament concept of fellowship is anchored in a common faith and a common mind (Philippians 2:1-2; 1 John 1:1-3) [Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 91]. Where there is no common faith and no common mind, there can be no fellowship. We cannot build fellowship on a common enemy any more than we can on common worship, common work, and common experience, the three focuses upon which liberals seek to build fellowship.
While those who have invested in the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission may not like hearing it, what is missing from these two ecclesial bodies are one or more of four critical foundation stones. They are a strong commitment to the authority of the Scriptures, a strong commitment to the authority of the Anglican formularies, a strong commitment to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, and a strong commitment to the implementation of responsible, synodical church government. Without these foundations stones there is no likelihood of these two ecclesial bodies, either together or separately, forming an alternative orthodox North American Anglican province to the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. Any such structure needs all four foundation stones, one at each corner, to support its weight. Without them it will eventually collapse.
I am convinced that God is at work in the midst of this whole business. The Bible tells us that God is the builder and we are only workers. As would any good builder, when his workers do poor work, God has them tear down what they have done and build again. If we neglect to lay the corner stones upon which he intends to erect the edifice, he will have us go back and do what we should have done in the first place. The edifice that he is building, after all, is his Church.
Related articles:
Anglican Mission Chairman Chuck Murphy Announces Retirement
A Call for a Thorough Reappraisal of the Direction of the Anglican Church in North America
Sharper than a Thorn Hedge: A New Phase in the Crisis in Doctrine, Leadership, and Morality in North American Anglicanism
No comments:
Post a Comment