By Robin G. Jordan
Then from his presence
the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed.And this is the writing that
was inscribed: Mene, Mene,Tekel, and Parsin.This is the interpretation of the
matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an
end. Tekel,you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your
kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:24-27, ESV)
It is not surprising that the tone of ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan's 2014 Address on the State of the Church is positive and upbeat
and the address itself focuses upon what Archbishop Duncan believes were major
accomplishments during his tenure in office. This is the kind of address that
Archbishop Duncan has consistently given during the past five years in his role
as head cheerleader of the Anglican Church in North America. It is also the
kind of address that is expected from an outgoing Archbishop shortly before he
passes on the baton, in this case, pastoral staff to his successor,
Archbishop-Elect Foley Beach. In the excitement of the occasion we should not
neglect to take a look at what he actually said and did not say in the address.
The address does leave several questions unanswered. What
exactly is saying in this statement?
"Overlapping jurisdictions are the heritage of this history, so “geographical density” is an ongoing challenge. But here is the thing. Any Province can have several forms of “ecclesiastical density:” among them relational, missional, and geographical density. Five years down the road, we score higher than most Provinces on two out of three."
Archbishop Duncan is a member of the Governance Task Force
and the Executive Committee. As can be seen from the reports on Constitutions
and Canons and Governance in the Provincial Meetings Journal the Governance
Task Force has produced and the Executive Committee approved a number of
proposals that would make significant changes in the constitution and canons of
the Anglican Church in North America.
These changes include the elimination of “clusters” as a
form of judicatory in the ACNA, leaving only dioceses and networks. They would tighten the requirements for the
recognition of new ACNA judicatories and would require the recommendation of
the Executive Committee for the exemption of would-be judicatories from these
requirements.
They would empower the Executive Committee to review the
annual reports of ACNA judicatories and to “open conversations” with struggling
judicatories. This proposal leaves the criteria by which the Executive
Committee is to determine the “sustainability” of a judicatory to the Executive
Committee, effectively giving the Executive Committee free hand to “open
conversations” with judicatories that do not meet its standards—for example,
level of financial support to the denomination. One can anticipate that this
provision, if it is ratified, will be used to force the merger of judicatories
as well as to dissolve judicatories that do not meet Executive Committee
standards and reassign their congregations to judicatories that do meet these
standards. It can also be used as leverage against judicatories withholding
financial support from the denomination over a disagreement with the
denomination.
The proposed changes to the canons would add a canon that
delineates the process by which mission districts may be created. The proposed
new canon would require the recommendation of the Executive Committee and the
College of Bishops for the creation of the mission district. It would also
require that care should be taken “not to intrude or conflict with the
ministries of existing dioceses, congregations or other missions.”
As I have written elsewhere, this last provision would
restrict the further creation of non-geographic affinity networks for the
purpose of planting new congregations or maintaining particular theological
stances (e.g. Reformed) or forms of church governance (e.g. synodical) and
could be used to prevent their creation altogether. It also reflects outmoded
views of how to extend the mission of congregations and to make their
ministries more effective, particularly in the area of planting new
congregations.
The proposed changes to the canons would also add a new section
to the guidelines for recognition as an ACNA judicatory. This section basically
discourages the formation of new judicatories in geographic areas where an ACNA
judicatory or judicatory-in-formation already exists. It is designed to
encourage groups of churches to join an existing judicatory or
judicatory-in-formation rather than form their own diocese or network. It
raises a substantial barrier to the continued formation of non-geographic
affinity networks within the denomination and, like the other proposals, represents
a major step toward the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic
contiguous dioceses and the abolition of non-geographic affinity networks.
Having not been given sufficient time to examine these
proposed changes and to consider their ramifications, the delegates to the
Provincial Assembly can be expected to ratify them without much debate.
Archbishop Duncan will be presiding over the Provincial Assembly and he has
shown himself adept at hurrying it through the ratification process, interrupting
the Assembly’s deliberations when he is not in the chair and urging its swift
action on the proposals before it.
Consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic contiguous
dioceses and the dissolution of non-geographic affinity networks will not help
the Anglican Church in North America make headway in the area of geographic
density. More importantly, it will not help the ACNA to bring the gospel to the
unreached, unengaged segments of the population of North America.
A given area may have a high ratio of churches of a
particular denomination in proportion to the unchurched population segments of
that area and yet be making very little or no impact upon the area’s
unchurched. This is observable here in western Kentucky, in the Mid-Western
Bible Belt, where a number of denominations (i.e. Baptist, Church of Christ,
Methodist) enjoy high geographic density. Most communities have a church
affiliated with these denominations. At the same time western Kentucky has a
sizable unchurched population. In my particular community it is well over half
of the population. Geographic density is no guarantee that the churches of a
particular denomination will be effective in reaching and engaging the unchurched population of particular locality.
If the Anglican Church in North America is serious about
carrying out the Great Commission, the ACNA needs to give up traditional ideas
on how congregations should be aligned within a denomination. What is going to
be most effective in spreading the gospel to every people group in North
America is networks of congregations that share a common vision and goals. Only
outward-looking churches are going to reach and engage the lost and only the
fellowship of like-minded churches is going help these congregations to remain
outward-looking.
Archbishop Duncan did not need to mention the Anglican
Mission in his address. His remarks about the Anglican Mission were a veiled
jab at the Anglican Mission and were uncalled for. Two lessons can be learned
from what happened to the Anglican Mission. The first is not to place too much
authority in the hands of one person and not to adopt a model of ecclesiastic
governance which does not recognize that the governance of the Church is the
responsibility of the whole Body of Christ, clergy and laity together. The
second is not to listen to the ideas of Anglo-Catholics who have an agenda of
their own—the “Catholicization” of the doctrine, order, and practice of the
Church. The ACNA has yet to learn these two important lessons.
Duncan offers no clues to how large the start-ups that he
mentions in his address are in size, which can be used as a measure of
viability and can be used to project how effective a new congregation will be in
impacting its ministry target group, presuming that it is targeted at a particular
group and has not adopted a shot-gun approach. Nor does he report whether these
start-ups are they themselves planting new congregations. What he could be
describing is small fellowships that meet in homes and other venues and his
audience would not be the wiser. (I am not discounting the value of such
fellowships but drawing attention to the need for more detail in reporting.)
Duncan also offers no clues as to in which areas of North
America and with what segments of the North American population the ACNA is
experiencing the most success in its start-ups. He highlighted the formation of
a number of Hispanic congregations but he also highlighted these congregations
in his last address on the state of the ACNA. Where the ACNA is experiencing
its most success in its start-ups and with whom the ACNA is experiencing this success
give a better picture of how the ACNA is really doing in planting new
congregations. It also gives a better picture of ACNA mission strategies and their effectiveness. This
information, coupled with information concerning the size of ACNA
start-ups, would provide ACNA
stakeholders with a more accurate picture of how the denomination in which they
have invested is doing and where it needs to improve its performance.
Among the unanswered questions in Duncan’s address on the
state of the ACNA is what percentage of ACNA congregations is reporting
conversions, what type of congregation is reporting conversions (e.g.
congregations that previously existed in some form in the Episcopal Church;
entirely new congregations), in what areas of North America these congregations
are located, and what population groups they are targeting. This information is
also information that should be shared with ACNA stakeholders. Either the ACNA
has not gathered this crucial information or Duncan is withholding it from the
ACNA membership.
Duncan drew attention to Texts
for Common Prayer and To Be A
Christian: An Anglican Catechism as major accomplishments during his tenure
as Archbishop. However, I question whether they should be seen in that light.
The ordinal in Texts
for Common Prayer suffers from a number of defects. It changes the Preface
of the classical Anglican Ordinal, restricting the interpretation of the
Preface to an Anglo-Catholic interpretation and precluding the English
Reformers’ intended meaning of the Preface. This meaning is how conservative
evangelicals and other Anglicans understand the Preface to this day. It changes
the ceremonies associated with the ordination of presbyters and the
consecration of bishops and in doing so changes the doctrine of these rites. It
also permits unreformed Catholic practices that the English Reformers discarded
in the sixteenth century due to their long association with unreformed Catholic
doctrines.
The daily offices in Texts
for Common Prayer are modeled on those in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer,
which are largely designed for private devotional use and are ill-suited for
use as public services of worship. The Suffrages are also awkward and lack the
elegance of the versicles and responses in the classic Anglican Book of Common
Prayer. The Prayer for the Clergy and People has been altered into a Prayer for
Mission and no longer forms a part of the daily prayers.
The two services of Holy Communion in Texts for Common Prayer are lengthy. They require the use of
liturgical elements that other Anglican service books have made optional for
the sake of brevity and flexibility. They clearly designed to accommodate
Anglo-Catholic and even Roman Catholic views of the Lord’s Supper. They include
texts and ceremonies that infer views of the Lord’s Supper not consistent with
the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies. While a
number of these texts and ceremonies are optional, their inclusion in the
service affects the theology of the rite so that the rite not only gives
expression to unreformed Catholic views of the Lord’s Supper but also may be
used to teach these views. Texts for
Common Worship, unlike a number of contemporary Anglican service books, does
not contain any alternative services of Holy Communion that are free from these
elements and which Anglicans who do not subscribe to unreformed Catholic views
of the Lord’s Supper would be comfortable in using. As in the case of the daily offices in Texts for Common Prayer, the realities
of the North American mission field do not appear to have been a consideration
in the design of the services of Holy Communion. They are not outward-looking
but reflect the preferences of special interest groups in the ACNA—a characteristic
of the worship of dying churches.
Texts for Common Prayer
contains no alternative forms of morning and evening worship for
congregations that find that the daily offices and services of Holy Communion
do not meet their needs.
Duncan also makes passing reference to the proposed rites for Admission of Catechumens, Baptism, and Confirmation. The proposed rite for the Admission of Catechumens teaches
that the sacrament of Baptism saves, not a vital faith in Jesus Christ. It also
teaches the unscriptural view that the Holy Spirit is given solely at baptism.
It excludes the orthodox Anglican and Reformed view that regeneration and the
gift of the Holy Spirit precede faith. The proposed rite of Baptism is
thoroughly Anglo-Catholic in its view of baptism, tying regeneration to
baptism. In this regard it conflicts with To
Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism, which ties regeneration to faith. It
also excludes the orthodox Anglican and Reformed view of the relationship of
regeneration, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and faith. The rite of Confirmation
takes the Anglo-Catholic position that Confirmation is a part of scriptural
initiation and a biblical ordinance. It adopts a view of Confirmation over
which Anglicans have been historically divided. J. I. Packer in a number of his
works is highly critical of this view, dismissing it as “a medieval mistake.”
.
In claiming that the ACNA rites are evolutionary, Duncan
sounds like liberal promoting the idea of the evolutionary nature of
Anglicanism. The ACNA rites are not evolutionary except perhaps in the sense of
Tractarian John Henry Newman’s notion of doctrinal development, which he used
to justify certain elements in Roman Catholic teaching against the criticism of
orthodox Anglicans and other Protestants that they were corruptions or
innovations. In asserting that these rites “bear the Anglican Patrimony into
the 21st century” Duncan was not just grossly exaggerating the truth, he
was telling a bald-faced lie! This should prompt us to wonder how much else in
his address was fabricated.
Duncan also touts To
Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism as a major accomplishment during his
archepiscopate. The ACNA catechism is a curious blend of Arminian and unreformed Catholic doctrine. While permitting the
teaching of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine in the Anglican Church
in North America, the catechism does not extend the same license to the
teaching of orthodox Anglican and Reformed doctrine in the ACNA. As I noted in
my previous article, I
have posted a 14-article series examining the contents of the ACNA catechism
and its doctrinal positions on Heritage Anglicans.
At the same time Duncan’s remarks are not particularly
surprising. He has in the past criticized the Elizabethan Settlement and by
implication the English Reformation and the classic Anglican formularies and
called for a new settlement. He has advocated what he calls “regression,”
turning back the clock in the Anglican Church to a time before the English
Reformation, to the era of the medieval “lordly prelate.” This is the vision of
the Church that appears to have guided his actions during his tenure as
Archbishop.
From a different perspective Texts for Common Prayer, the proposed rites for Admission of
Catechumens, Baptism, and Catechism, and To
Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism represent serious attempts to replace
authentic historic Anglicanism with unreformed Catholicism. Those championing
these documents are not content with the Protestant nature of Anglicanism and
are intent on reconstructing Anglicanism along the lines of the Church in the
early period of the High Middle Ages.
I am frankly amazed at the number of GAFCON dignitaries that
are attending Assembly 2014. Their attendance casts doubt upon the genuineness
of their affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration and their call for Anglicans
to return to the Bible and the historic Anglican formularies. The Anglican Church in North America in its
official theological statements does not stand for what they themselves claim
to stand.
These GAFCON dignitaries need to take note of three
particular developments in the ACNA. The first is that the ACNA is not inclusive of Anglicans who are
Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their beliefs.
Even the ACNA’s tolerance of Arminianism goes only so far.
Arminians who fully accept the Bible as a working rule of faith and life,
uphold the New Testament and Reformation doctrine of justification by grace
alone through faith alone in Christ alone, recognize only two
sacraments—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and are otherwise Protestant in their
convictions are not welcome either.
The second is that the ACNA is promoting the use of To Be A Christian: An Anglican Catechism outside
of North America.
The third is that the proposed new canon establishing the
procedure for creating missionary districts of the Anglican Church in North
America permits the creation of these districts outside of the United States
and Canada. It states, “Missionary Districts are intended to advance the
ministry of the Province in extending the Kingdom of God into new areas of the
Province or beyond.”
See also
A Look at Archbishop-Elect Foley Beach
A Bitter Pill to Swallow: Looking Beyond Conclave 2014
The Anglican Church in North America Unveils Proposed New Rites and Governing Document Changes
Issues Dividing the Anglican Church in North America
Assembly 2014: What's to Celebrate?
No comments:
Post a Comment