A Bitter Pill to Swallow: Looking Beyond Conclave 2014

By Robin G. Jordan

When will Anglicans who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their theological orientation wake up to the realization that those who are unreformed Catholic in their beliefs do not extend to orthodox Anglicans the acceptance or tolerance that they demand for themselves? This is clearly the case in the Anglican Church in North America, which has gone to great lengths to accommodate Anglo-Catholics of various stripes, even going as far as permitting the teaching of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine, while doing very little or nothing to similarly accommodate orthodox Anglicans.

In the sixteenth century the Church of England underwent a reformation of its own, rejected the error and superstition of unreformed Catholicism, and became a Protestant Church. While the English Church retained some Catholic practices, it became Protestant and Reformed in doctrine. The continental Reformed Churches would recognize the Church of England as a Reformed Church.

The reformers in England and on the continent did not create a new church as some Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics have claimed. Rather they reformed the Church in their particular locality. The reformers on the continent would also retain some Catholic practices—those that were agreeable with the teaching of the Scriptures or which could be brought into conformity with scriptural teaching.

The nineteenth century would see a revival of unreformed Catholicism in the Church of England. This revival was prompted by a number of factors, including the Victorian fascination with antiquity and the Romantic Movement’s elevation of ancient custom, revival of medievalism, and embrace of the exotic and unfamiliar. It would quickly spread to the Protestant Episcopal Church.

One of the myths associated with this revival is that it was primarily intended to attract the poor and the working classes back to the Church of England. Some nineteenth century clergymen would use this rationale to justify their introduction of then illegal ornaments and ceremonies in their parishes. By and large, however, the population segment whose imaginations were captured by this revival was the wealthy and the upper classes. They would become its chief supporters.

Among the principle reasons for the revival of unreformed Catholic doctrine and practice in the Church of England was the desire in certain quarters of the English Church to reunite the Church with the Church of Rome. It was believed that if the Church of England could be made to resemble the Church of Rome in doctrine and practice, the Pope would recognize the Church of England as a genuine part of the Church. Reintroducing and spreading unreformed Catholic doctrine and practice in the English Church was seen as a crucial step in achieving this goal. Needless to say orthodox Churchmen did not share this goal, having no desire to bring the English Church back into the orbit of the Roman Church. Both conservative evangelicals and Protestant High Churchmen would vigorously oppose the revival of unreformed Catholicism in the Church of England.

The origin of one Anglo-Catholic element in the Anglican Church in North America can be traced to the proponents of this revival. Anglo-Catholics of this stripe would enjoy considerable influence in the Protestant Episcopal Church until the liberals gained the ascendancy. As a testament to their influence even the liberals share their proclivity for ritualism and retain many unreformed Catholic practices in their church services. Many liberals view themselves as belonging to the same school of thought but progressive in their response to a changing world. John Henry Newman’s notions of development in doctrine have come in handy in explaining how their doctrinal views have changed on a number of issues. While conservative Anglo-Catholics of this stripe are loath to acknowledge their liberal brothers and sisters, they share a common ancestry.

The origin of another Anglo-Catholic element in the Anglican Church in North America is more complex. It is traceable to the charismatic renewal movement of the 1970s and 1980s. The charismatic renewal movement would produce the convergence movement, which would become increasingly unreformed Catholic in its theological orientation over time.  One of the results of the convergence movement was the formation of the so-called convergence churches and communions.  A related movement within existing denominations was the Ancient-Future or worship renewal movement. While initially promoting the revival of unreformed Catholic practices in Protestant churches, this movement would demonstrate that practice and doctrine are tied together. Unreformed Catholic practice cannot be introduced without introducing unreformed Catholic doctrine. The two go hand in hand.

The origin of a third Anglo-Catholic element in the Anglican Church in North America can be traced to the introduction of unreformed Catholic doctrine and practice into the Reformed Episcopal Church in the late twentieth century. An influx of disaffected Episcopalians into the REC would contribute to the movement away from the authentic historic principles of the REC as would the emergence of a number of revisionist leaders in that denomination. Revisionism is not an exclusively liberal phenomenon.  These revisionist leaders have introduced beliefs and practices that differ significantly from those of the REC founding fathers while misrepresenting these beliefs and practices as those of the denomination’s founders. On the REC website, for example, Bishop George David Cummins is described as a disciple of nineteenth century liberal Episcopalian William Augustus Muhlenberg. The two men had quite different views on key issues. Among their differences was that Cummins was a strong critic of the ritualism that Muhlenberg championed. Muhlenberg in turn was a strong critic of Cummin’s decision to secede from the Protestant Episcopal Church and to form a new denomination. To describe Cummins as a follower of Muhlenberg goes well beyond stretching the truth.

These three elements are the main Anglo-Catholic elements in the Anglican Church in North America. They have played a leading role in shaping the form of governance, liturgies, and doctrine of the ACNA. They have shown no inclination to pursue a policy of comprehension that would make ample room in the ACNA for Anglicans who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their theological orientation and who do not share their particular notions of church governance.

What has emerged in North America in the past five years is not an alternative province to the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church but another Anglo-Catholic Continuing Anglican Church. While the ACNA differs in certain respects from the Continuing Anglican Churches that trace their origins to the exodus from the Episcopal Church in the 1970s over women’s ordination and prayer book revision, the ACNA shares similarities with these churches. The “extreme form of Anglo-Catholicism,” to use Douglas Bess’s words that has thrived in the Continuing Anglican Churches is flourishing in the Anglican Church in North America. This form of Anglo-Catholicism rejects the Protestant character of classic Anglicanism and seeks to reconstruct Anglicanism upon the model of the Church in the early part of the High Middles Ages before Constantinople and Rome excommunicated each other. It is not accepting or tolerant of orthodox Anglicans, their beliefs, and practices.

This rejection and intolerance of orthodox Anglicans, their beliefs, and practices is clearly evident in the ordinal, trial eucharistic rites, catechism, and proposed rites for the admission of catechumens, baptism, and confirmation that the Anglican Church in North America has produced to date. It is also evident in the constitution and canons that the ACNA adopted.

This may be a bitter pill for orthodox Anglicans in the Anglican Church in North America to swallow. They have made an investment in the ACNA and view themselves as stakeholders in that denomination. But it is quite clear that the present ACNA leaders do not value their investment in the denomination nor do these leaders give any consideration to how the direction in which they are taking the ACNA affects orthodox Anglicans. I do not see the election of Bishop Foley Beach as the new Archbishop making any difference to the predicament of orthodox Anglicans in the ACNA.  

The movement of the ACNA in the direction that the present ACNA leaders are taking it has gathered enough momentum that it would require a major shakeup in the ACNA to turn that denomination in a new direction, a direction that involves a serious effort to accommodate Anglicans who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their theological orientation and who do not share the Anglo-Catholic wing’s notions of church governance. I suspect that the College of Bishops chose Bishop Beach for the post of Archbishop because the bishops saw him as someone who would maintain the status quo, would not seek to make what would be, from their point of view, radical changes; and would not interfere with their pet projects. I also suspect that they saw him as someone who would help them take the ACNA further in the direction that they are taking the denomination. He would not prove a hindrance or obstacle.

Orthodox Anglicans are faced with a choice. They can abandon their convictions and embrace the form of governance, liturgies, and doctrine of the Anglican Church in North America. They can leave the ACNA and join a more congenial denomination. Or they can leave the ACNA and form a denomination of their own. These three options are the only ones that are realistically open to them. What decision they make is between God, themselves, and their conscience. They need to decide soon. If they wait another five years, they are likely to discover that they are unable to extricate themselves from the ACNA even if they wished to do so.

See also

The Anglican Church in North America Unveils Proposed New Rites and Governing Document Changes