The Anglican Church in North America: An Alternative Episcopal Church

By Robin G. Jordan

The fundamental declarations of the Anglican Church in North America, the doctrinal provisions of its canons, its Ordinal, and the two reports of its Prayerbook and Common Liturgy Taskforce clearly show that the Anglican Church in North America is following in the footsteps of the Episcopal Church. As I noted in my last article in the series on the ACNA theological lens and the guiding principles behind its proposed Prayer Book, the Anglican Church in North America may be described as an alternative Episcopal Church in which two groups are putting their ideas of ecclesiastical governance, church order, worship, and the like into practice.

These two groups represent two movements that influenced Episcopalianism in the twentieth century. The first movement is the Anglo-Catholic movement. Its origin may be traced to the Tractarian and Ritualist movements of the nineteenth century. The second movement is the Ancient-Future, or Convergence, movement. Its beginning is traceable to the charismatic movement of the twentieth century. It exhibits similarities to the Broad Church movement of the nineteenth century. In its openness toward pre-Reformation medieval Catholic doctrine and practice and its animosity toward the sixteenth century Reformation the Ancient-Future/Convergence movement resembles the Anglo-Catholic movement—so much so that the Anglo-Catholic movement might be characterized as the “old” Anglo-Catholic movement and the Ancient-Future/Convergence movement as the “new” Anglo-Catholic movement.

A curious blend of “old” and “new” Anglo-Catholicism even dominates the Reformed Episcopal Church—to such an extent that the name “Reformed Episcopal Church” no longer accurately describes what it stands for.

The resemblance between the Anglican Church in North America and the Episcopal Church go further back than the twentieth century. It goes as far back as the closing decade of the eighteenth century—the decade in which the then Protestant Episcopal Church was formed. In 1789 the Episcopal Church’s General Convention would adopt a Prayer of Consecration for the Communion Office in its Prayer Book, which was an adaptation of the Prayer of Consecration from the 1764 Scottish Usager Non-Juror Communion Office. The Usager Non-Jurors were known for their odd unbiblical view of Christ’s sacrifice. They maintained that Christ had not offered himself on the cross at Golgotha but at the Last Supper in the Upper Room. Twelve years later in 1801 the General Convention would adopt a revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. This was done at the insistence of the House of Bishops, which took the position that the fledgling church needed a statement of doctrine beside its Book of Common Prayer. The House of Deputies of the preceding General Convention had adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the articles of our faith and religion as founded on the Holy Scriptures are sufficiently declared in our Creeds and our Liturgy as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, established for the use of this Church, and that further articles do not appear necessary.

The House of Bishops had vetoed the resolution.

When the General Convention adopted the revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion in 1801, it did not required the subscription of the clergy of the Episcopal Church to these Articles, as the Canons of 1604 required the subscription of the clergy of the Church of England to the original Articles. The revised Articles had no binding force upon the consciences of the Episcopal Church’s clergy. This is not too different from the present situation in the Anglican Church in North America. Its fundamental declarations infer that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which form alongside the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and 1661 Ordinal the longstanding doctrinal standard of Anglicanism, are a relic of the past and not a living formulary. Its “theological lens”, developed by its Prayerbook and Common Liturgy Taskforce and approved by its College of Bishops ignores the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Rather it echoes the sentiment of the 1799 resolution of the Episcopal Church’s House of Deputies.

Bishop Samuel Seabury who promoted the adoption of the 1764 Scottish Usager Non-Juror Communion Office also was a strong champion of the divine right of bishops and prelatical episcopacy. He argued that the Episcopal Church should be governed solely by its bishops. Seabury was responsible for the House of Bishops at one time having veto power over the acts of the General Convention. Both Houses might initiate legislation but if legislation initiated by the House of Deputies did not pass the House of Bishops, it would not be binding upon the Episcopal Church even if it had the unanimous support of the House of Deputies.

In the nineteenth century the Episcopal Church would move even further in the direction of the divine right of bishops and prelatical episcopacy. A number of American Anglo-Catholic bishops would claim that any limitations the canons of a diocese placed upon their powers were purely voluntary. The diocesan standing committee and the diocesan convention had no powers of their own but derived their authority from the bishop of the diocese. The parishes were creatures of the diocese and the parochial clergy assistants to the bishop of the diocese.

These bishops’ view of the episcopate reflected the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and was in conflict with that of the English Reformers. The latter found no warrant for any particular form of church order or polity in the Scriptures. They retained bishops because they were, to use the words of Bishop John Jewel, “ancient and allowable.”

In nineteenth century England a number of court cases determined that English Anglo-Catholic bishops were not “a law unto themselves” or “above the law.” They, like other ministers, were expected to conform to the rubrics of the Prayer Book, the canons of the church, and the laws of the land. They had only as much discretion as the law gave them.

What we find in the Anglican Church in North America is a view of the episcopate similar to that of the nineteenth century American Anglo-Catholic bishops. The model diocesan constitution and canons developed by its Governance Task Force put the bishop of a diocese and a small group of advisors squarely in charge of the diocese and give largely token authority to the diocesan synod. The Archbishop’s Cabinet, a group of bishops and other clergy that the Archbishop has gathered around him is a major policy making body in the province. Yet it is not an official part of the governing structure of the province. In creating this body the Archbishop has arrogated powers to himself that the governing documents of the Anglican Church in North America do not give to him or recognize as inherent in the office of Archbishop.

While the Anglican Church in North America may contain more political and social conservatives than the Episcopal Church, it is certainly not free from theological liberalism. This is not only reflected in its positions on the ordination of women, divorce, and remarriage but also in a number of statements in its “theological lens.” This includes the view that we are innately drawn to God and only sin holds us back. With the help of God’s grace we can overcome sin. It is a view associated with Pelagianism.

The Ordinal that the Anglican Church in North America’s Prayerbook and Common Liturgy Taskforce put together and its College of Bishops approves countenances a number of doctrines and practices that the sixteenth century Reformers rejected on solid biblical grounds. They include the medieval doctrines of transubstantiation and eucharistic sacrifice. The Prayer Book upon which the taskforce is working will consist of elements from the semi-reformed 1549 Prayer Book and the retrograde 1928 American Prayer Book. In his critique of the 1549 Prayer Book Bishop Stephen Gardiner maintained that the book upheld the afore-mentioned doctrines. The 1928 American Prayer Book incorporates elements from the pre-Reformation medieval service books as well as the 1549 Prayer Book. Among these elements are prayers for the departed, the major and minor oblations—the offering up of bread and wine at the Offertory and again during the Canon, associated with the afore-mentioned doctrines, and extreme unction. Both the Ordinal and the proposed Prayer Book show that for the Anglican Church in North America the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion do not contain “the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”

When I draw these and other problem areas to people’s attention, I usually elicit one of two reactions. Some people see nothing wrong with these developments in the Anglican Church in North America. This is the kind of church they want—Anglo-Catholic in doctrine, order, and practice, and run by bishops. The second reaction is one of disbelief—“It can’t be that bad!” The fact is, however, that the Anglican Church in North America is “that bad” and worse.

To Anglicans committed to the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church, the upholding of the classic Anglican formularies, and the propagation of authentic historic Anglicanism, these developments should be a major cause for concern. They show that the church to which they have given their recognition and support is on the wrong track—just like the Episcopal Church from which it broke away. They suggest that something is inherently wrong with what passes for Anglicanism in America.

American Episcopalianism is like a house built upon a bad foundation. You can shore up the walls and even tear them down and rebuild them but unless you dig up the foundation and relay it, you will continue to have problems. If you look at the Anglican bodies in the United States—the Anglican Church in North America, the Anglican Mission in the Americas—the Mission as it now calls itself, the Continuing Anglican Churches, and The Episcopal Church, they are all built on the same foundation. It is the bad foundation upon which the Episcopal Church was originally built.

There can be no revival of genuine Anglicanism in North America if it is not built on a good foundation. Such a foundation must be laid upon the bedrock of Scripture, and must itself be hewn from that bedrock. The English Reformers recognized the truth of these words. They gave us a confession of faith that embodies the teaching of the Bible. They gave us a liturgy that where it is not the Holy Scriptures, the pure word of God, is agreeable to the same. They retained bishops not as of divine right but as a time-tested way of shepherding and extending the church. They recognized and held that if bishops abused their authority, it could be taken from them. Others might be appointed to shepherd the sheep in their place.

Anglicans committed to the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church, the upholding of the classic Anglican formularies, and the propagation of authentic historic Anglicanism need to weigh whether becoming or remaining a part of the Anglican Church in North America serves the best interests of genuine Anglicanism in North America. Are they truly leaven in that body? Yeast grows in the sponge of an unrisen loaf of bread because it finds there the necessary sugars to nourish and sustain its growth. Kneading also works the yeast throughout the sponge.

Or are they more like a cup of pure water added to a bucket of water drawn from a polluted stream? It quickly becomes polluted like the rest of the water in the bucket. Diluting a bucket of polluted water to the point where it may be considered “safe” requires more than a cup of pure water. Even then the pollutants in the water are not rendered totally harmless. The only way to make the water truly safe is to filter out the pollutants and then as an added precaution distill it.

Might it be the wiser course for such Anglicans, a course that truly serves the best interests of genuine Anglicanism and with them the cause of the gospel, not to remain or become a part of the Anglican Church in North America but to erect a new Anglican body, one that is built on the foundation of the Scriptures and the classic Anglican formularies, that keeps alive the Protestant, Reformed and evangelical character of the Anglican Church, and that will pass on authentic historic Anglicanism to posterity?