By Robin G. Jordan
On the first day of the meeting of the College of Bishops, the Anglican Church in North America published the Provincial Meeting Journal
for the June meetings of the College of Bishops, the Archbishop’s Cabinet and Executive Committee, the Provincial Council, and the Provincial Assembly. This is to large extent typical of the ACNA despite a
commitment to greater openness and transparency by the College of Bishops. Important
documents are published at the last minute so there is no opportunity for the
unhurried examination of their contents, much less the open discussion of the
contents and the ramifications for the ACNA and North American Anglicanism and
the mobilization of opposition to any of the proposals contained in them. The
Anglican Church in North America in this regard is a far worse offender than
the Episcopal Church. One is prompted to suspect top ACNA leaders of seeking to
control the outcome of its public gatherings in this manner.
Included in the Provincial Meeting Journal are a number of reports. The following reports particularly
caught my attention.
This report contains the revised rite for the admission of
catechumens. Note the questions and answers at the very beginning of the rite:
The Priest shall then
greet them at the door, and ask the following,
Officiant Do you
desire to be baptized?
Answer. I do.
Officiant What do
you hope to gain?
Answer. I hope to
gain eternal life in Christ.
These questions and answers convey the idea that we are
saved by baptism—not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—but by
baptism!
Note also the words with which the prayer of exorcism, “O
Lord God of hosts…” concludes: “… and make them ready to receive the fullness
of the Holy Spirit; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” While this clause is
consistent with the teaching of the new ACNA catechism that the Holy Spirit is
given at baptism and only at baptism, it is not consistent with what the
Scriptures teach, that is, the Holy Spirit may be given before, at, or after
baptism or not at all. It excludes the
Reformed view that the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration precede faith.
As we shall see, there is a noticeable lack of consistency
not only between the proposed rites of Baptism and Confirmation and this rite
but also between those two rites, the teaching of the new ACNA catechism, and
the teaching of the Scriptures.
As I have written elsewhere, the Oil of Catechumens is used
in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to anoint the
baptismal candidate before he is baptized. In the Roman Catholic Church it is
classified as a sacramental. The use
of the Oil of Catechumens in the revised rite of admission of catechumens
points not only to the influence of unreformed Catholicism in the Anglican
Church in North America but also to the tendency toward ritualism in that
denomination.
Compare the revised ACNA rite for the Admission of
Catechumens with the Church of South India’s Office for Making a Catechumen. It
is quite evident from such a comparison that the ACNA team that prepared
the rite could have developed a more comprehensive rite that is acceptable to
most if not all recognized schools of Anglican thought.
Note that all the proposed changes to the constitutions,
canons, and guidelines for the recognition of new ACNA judicatories contained
in this report are highlighted in yellow.
The first thing that caught my attention was the words “with
changes approved by the Executive Committee.” Nowhere in the ACNA constitution
and canons is a provision requiring the Executive Committee’s approval of
proposed changes to the ACNA governing documents. For the Executive Committee
to vet proposed changes to these governing documents means that this body has
taken upon itself a role that is both unconstitutional and uncanonical and points to
the increasingly authoritarian governing structure of the Anglican Church in
North America. It is a structure highly reminiscent of the structure of the
Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. It is bad enough that only the
Governance Task Force can initiate proposals for changes in these governing
documents and not individual members of the Provincial Council or the
Provincial Assembly. Such a structure greatly reduces the possibility of
meaningful reform in the ACNA where it is needed.
The first proposed changes to the constitution appear to be
designed to limit the options of groups of churches seeking recognition as a
judicatory of the Anglican Church in North America. It would drop the term
“cluster” from whether it appears in the ACNA constitution. It represents a major
step toward the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic contiguous
dioceses and the abolition of non-geographic affinity networks.
The second proposed amendment to the ACNA constitution
changes when a new archbishop begins his term of office from the conclusion of
the meeting of the College of Bishops at which he is elected to the conclusion
of the meeting of the Provincial Assembly following that meeting. This enables
the outgoing archbishop to preside over the Provincial Assembly and transfer
“spiritual authority” to his successor with all the pomp and ceremony that the
ACNA can muster for the occasion. It is quite evident from the related changes
to the canons that this proposed amendment and those changes are designed to
further elevate the office of the archbishop in the minds of ACNA clergy and
laity. Considering the College of Bishops’ decision to elect a new archbishop in a
solemn conclave modeled upon the meeting of the College of Cardinals that convenes
to elect a new pope, one is prompted to wonder where the College of Bishops is
going with these proposals.
A number of proposed changes to the canons are contained in
the report. I will be touching upon only a few of them. I strongly recommend
that readers closely examine all the proposed changes and thoughtfully consider
their implications.
Among the proposed changes is a tightening of the standards
for for recognition of a group of churches as an ACNA judicatory. Under these
proposed changes only in exceptional cases may the Provincial Council modify
these requirements and then on a case by case basis and upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee will be actually deciding whether or not the requirements should be
modified and the Provincial Council approving or rejecting its decision. This
is the kind of decision-making process that characterizes the Anglican Church
in North America—small non-representative bodies making the real decisions and
larger more representative bodies rubber stamping those decisions. In the
parlance of the Soviet era Communist Party this was euphemistically known as
“democratic centralism.” It is also the
way that the Roman Catholic Church’s governing structure operates.
A number of additions to the canons have been proposed. They include an addition to Canon I.5:
Section 7 –
Concerning Diocesan Sustainability
The Executive Committee shall review the annual Diocesan
Reports with the objective of determining the sustainability of the several
dioceses. The Executive Committee may open a dialogue with any diocese it feels
is in need of assistance with the objective of strengthening its
sustainability.
Note the additional role that this new section gives to the
Executive Committee.
This section opens the way to the Anglican Church in North
America dissolving dioceses and networks that ACNA top leaders no longer
regards as sustainable and reassigning their congregations to judicatories that
top ACNA leaders view as capable of maintaining themselves at a desirable level
(e.g. financially supporting the denomination). The provisions of this new
section might also be used as leverage against judicatories withholding
financial support from the denomination over a disagreement with the
denomination.
Several additions are proposed to Canon I.6.2. The proposed additions are shown in italics.
Section 2 -
Concerning Congregations
A congregation in this
Church is a gathered group of Christians who have organized and function in
accordance with the canons of this Church, attached to a diocese and under the oversight
of a bishop. Every congregation of the Church belongs to the Church by
union with a diocese of the Church or through a diocese-in-formation. A congregation of this Church is a gathering
where the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly administered
according to Christ’s ordinance (Article XIX).
The first addition establishes the main ACNA requirements
for a congregation. It is organized and functions in accordance with the ACNA
canons, is attached to an ACNA diocese, and is under the oversight of an ACNA
bishop. It lays the ground work for making the structure, organization, and
governance of ACNA congregations more uniform. The second addition appears to
be largely cosmetic and to have been included as an afterthought.
The use of the term diocese for all judicatories in the canons rather than diocese and network is noteworthy. The exclusive use of this term makes it easier to abolish affinity networks at a future
date.
The wording of Canon I.6.7 is replaced with new language.
Note that the new language no longer emphasizes the responsibility of
individual congregations to replicate themselves and to plant new
congregations. It shifts the responsibility for the planting of new churches to
the diocese. It ties the provision of spiritual covering and practical
assistance to new plants to the diocese’s missional strategies. It no longer
includes criteria for determining the sustainability of new plants and assigns
the development of such criteria to the bishop and the diocese.
The proposed changes to Canon I.6.8 make the congregation
not its rector and church wardens responsible for submitting the annual report.
Under these proposed changes the annual report would be submitted to
denominational headquarters as well as to the bishop of the diocese in a form
determined by the Executive Committee, not the Provincial Council. These
proposed changes essentially create duplicate systems for reporting data. The
provision requiring the Executive Committee to submit a report on the status
and growth of the denomination to the archbishop rather than the Provincial
Council, its official governing body, has been retained. It should be noted
that the archbishop chairs the Executive Committee and has access to all the
data that it receives. He himself is in a position to determine what goes into
that report and what is withheld.
A new canon would be added to Title I.
Canon 12 Of
Missionary Districts
On the recommendation of the College of Bishops and the
Executive Committee, the Provincial Council may establish one or more
Missionary Districts. 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. A Missionary District may be the initiative of one or more dioceses
or may be the initiative of the Provincial Council on behalf of the Province.
Where the initiative is of one or more dioceses, they shall provide episcopal
oversight and financial support. Where the initiative is of the Provincial
Council, the College of Bishops may elect a Bishop for Special Mission and the
Province shall provide financial support. In establishing Missionary Districts
care shall be taken not to intrude or conflict with the ministries of existing
dioceses, congregations or other missions.
Note the lead role the College of Bishops and the Executive
Committee play in the creation of Missionary Districts. Their recommendation is
required before the Provincial Council can act to create such districts.
Note the insistence in the last sentence of the proposed new
canon that care should be taken to ensure that Missionary Districts do not
“intrude or conflict with the ministries of existing dioceses, congregations or
other missions.” This provision can be expected to hamper the further creation
of non-geographic affinity networks for the purpose of planting new
congregations or maintaining particular theological stances and may 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.
Those who drew up this
proposed new canon do not appear to realize that the North American mission
field in the twenty-first century is not the North American mission field in
the twentieth century. Approaches that worked in the nineteenth and twentieth
century are not going to work in the twenty-first century. The realities of the
twenty-first century North American mission field demand greater flexibility
and openness to new ideas and new approaches.
The addition of proposed new initial paragraph to Canon
III.8.4 would require ACNA judicatories to obtain permission of the College of
Bishops before proceeding with the election of any bishop. This provision would
be applicable to the ordinary of the diocese or network as well as to
coadjustor, suffregan, and assistant bishops. The paragraph establishing as the
norm for new ACNA judicatories and as the preferred option for all ACNA judicatories the selection of a bishop for a new judicatory
by the College of Bishops from a list of nominees submitted by the new
judicatory is retained.
To the declaration in Canon III.8.5 this wording would be
added:
“And I do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and
canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the Archbishop of this
Church, and to his successors: So help me God.”
Under the provisions of the ACNA constitution the archbishop
has very little authority and is essentially a presiding bishop with a fancy
title. Nowhere in the constitution is the archbishop recognized to be the
metropolitan of the province or to have metropolitical authority over the
province.
The Governance Task Force has consistently used a provision
of Article IX.3 of the constitution under which the archbishop may be assigned
additional duties and responsibilities by canon to expand the role of
archbishop well beyond the role for that office envisioned in the constitution.
The current archbishop has during his term of office arrogated to himself
powers that the constitution and canons do not give him or recognize as
inherent in the office. The Governance Task Force has then regularized his
unconstitutional and uncanonical actions with a series of changes in the
canons. This wording treats the archbishop as if he is metropolitan of the
province and has metropolitical authority over the province.
In its report the Governance Task Force argues that this
oath of obedience to the archbishop is common to a number of Anglican
provinces. It must be pointed out, however, that in these provinces the
archbishop is recognized in the constitution of the province to be the
metropolitan of the province and to have metropolitan authority over the
province. (The exception is the Church of England in which recognition of the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York as the metropolitan of their respective provinces
and having metropolitan authority over their respective provinces is found in
its canons.) It must be reiterated that the ACNA constitution contains no such
provision.
A new section would be added to the guidelines for
recognition as an ACNA judicatory in the appendix to the canons:
2. Rational for
Becoming a Diocese/Network or Diocese/Network “In Formation”.
Answers to the following five questions must be submitted
along with the completed application.
(1) Is there a compelling missional reason for not becoming
a part of an existing ACNA diocese in your geographic area?
(2) How will your application support the development of
ACNA as one, united Biblical and missionary church reaching North America with
the transforming love of Jesus Christ?
(3) What other reasons do you have for forming a new diocese
or diocese-in-formation?
(4) Are all of the diocesan bishops and vicar-generals of
existing dioceses or diocese-in-formation which have churches in the geographic
area where you are forming in agreement with your application?
(5) If not, what efforts have you made to address their
concerns?
This new section represents a highly significant change to
the guidelines. It 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 represents a major
step toward the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic contiguous
dioceses and the abolition of non-geographic affinity networks.
What is also noteworthy is that the section directing groups
of churches applying for recognition as an ACNA judicatory to submit two or
three nominees from which the College of Bishops would select a bishop for the
new judicatory is left untouched. The guidelines do not advise such groups of
churches that they have the option of electing a bishop and then submitting the name
of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation of his election.
This suggests that the movement within the ACNA to replace election of bishops by the diocese
with selection of bishops by the College of Bishops is strongly influencing the
Governance Task Force.
If selection of bishops by the College of Bishops became
the primary if not sole method of choosing bishops, it would give the College
of Bishops greater control over who became a member of that body and would
greatly reduce the autonomy of the dioceses and networks in the Anglican Church
in North America. It would also reduce the likelihood of meaningful reform in
the ACNA. The College of Bishops would become a self-perpetuating body,
admitting to the episcopal bench only those that met its particular
requirements, not the needs of the diocese or network that they are to serve.
It would enable a single faction or party to dominate the episcopate in the
ACNA.
In this report the rationales for the proposed changes to
the ACNA governing documents are offered. They warrant attention as they are
likely to be used as talking points by ACNA leaders promoting these changes.
It is noteworthy that the present archbishop is a member of
the Governance Task Force
In the Preface in the proposed Order for Confirmation no
mention is made of the need for those coming to the age of discretion and
having learned what their sponsors promised for them in baptism, with their own
mouth, and with their own consent, openly before the church to confirm and
ratify these promises, and to promise by the grace of God to endeavor
themselves faithfully observe and keep what they have assented to. This is
essential to a proper Anglican understanding of the rite of Confirmation. The
rite of Confirmation provides an opportunity for those baptized in infancy to
make a profession of faith before the assembled church and to receive its
prayers. This is how the English Reformers understood the rite and why they
retained it. They rejected any notion that it was a sacrament.
The Preface claims that “Confirmation is evident in
Scripture” and that the apostles practiced the rite. It further asserts that
Confirmation is a sacrament—“this outward sign, the laying on of hands with
prayer, has an inward grace, the strengthening of the gifts of the Holy
Spirit.”
This same view is one of the reasons why the English
Parliament rejected the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book: It was
Anglo-Catholic in its theology of Confirmation. None of the historic Anglican
formularies—the Articles of Religion of 1571, The
Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, The
Homily Concerning the Coming Down of the Holy Ghost and the Manifold Gifts of
the Same for Whitsunday, and the Book of Common
Prayer of 1662 support the notion that Confirmation is a sacrament.
In Concise
Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs J. I. Packer points
out that it is a medieval mistake” to classify Confirmation as a sacrament. In Growing
in Christ Packer further points out that Confirmation is not a part
of scriptural initiation, noting that it “is not a biblical ordinance at all.”
The proposed Order for Confirmation clearly takes a partisan
view of the rite of Confirmation, a view that is objectionable to Anglicans in
the Reformed tradition.
For a brief examination of the origin of the rite of
Confirmation, see my article, What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 4).
The proposed Order for the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is
problematic in a number of ways. The Exhortation infers that regeneration
occurs at baptism, not upon coming to faith, as the new ACNA catechism teaches.
Both views conflict with the Reformed view that the gift of the Holy Spirit and
regeneration precede faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration are
not tied to baptism. The new ACNA catechism ties the gift of the Holy Spirit to
baptism, ignoring the scriptural teaching that the gift of Holy Spirit may be
received apart from baptism.
The language of the Flood Prayer has been criticized by
conservative evangelicals as suggesting that the water itself washes away sin.
In the 1959 Free Church of England Prayer Book the Flood Prayer is omitted
altogether. In Church Society’s An English Prayer Book (1994) the
words of the 1662 baptismal rite, “…didst sanctify water to the mystical
washing away of sin” are replaced by these words: “…sanctified water to
represent the washing away of sin….”
The proposed ACNA baptismal rite’s version
of the Flood Prayer omits the word “mystical,” strengthening the notion that
the water itself washes away sin. This is consistent with the Anglo-Catholic
notion that the Holy Spirit infuses the water in the font with the power to
regenerate those baptized in it.
Compare this view with the historic Anglican view
articulated in the 1552, 1559, and 1604 baptismal rites: “…grant that all thy
servants which shall be baptized in this water, may receive the fullness of thy
grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children….” It parallels the view articulated in the
Prayer of Consecration in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 communion services.
Neither view ties the grace of the sacrament to the matter of the sacrament,
water in the case of Baptism and the bread and wine in the case of the Holy Communion.
They are consistent with a Reformed understanding of the sacraments.
The Prayer over the Water in the Font, like that prayer in
the 1979 baptismal rite, is modeled upon a Eucharistic Prayer, or Prayer of Consecration.
This prayer implies that the water undergoes a change when the prayer is said
over it. It also infers that the consecrated water regenerates those baptized
in it.
The post-baptismal prayer, “Heavenly Father, we thank you…” also infers
that the newly baptized are regenerate by virtue of their baptism. This view,
while consistent with the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, is
not consistent with the teaching of the new ACNA catechism. It ties
regeneration to faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit to baptism. Both views
exclude the Reformed view that regeneration precedes faith and the gift of the
Holy Spirit may be received apart from baptism.
It deserves special mention that the new ACNA baptismal rite
incorporates elements that Bishop George David Cummins and the founders of the
Reformed Episcopal Church viewed as evidence of incipient Roman Catholic
doctrine in the 1789 baptismal rite. This was one of the reasons that they
seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and formed the Reformed
Episcopal Church.
Like the proposed Order for Confirmation, the Order for the
Sacrament of Holy Baptism takes a partisan view of the rite of Baptism. This view is also objectionable to Anglicans
in the Reformed tradition.
For a baptismal rite developed by Anglicans in the Reformed
tradition, see A Service of Baptism for Infants and Children in the Diocese of
Sydney’s Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Centered Gatherings (2012).
The service begins on page 59.
In its report the Prayer Book and Liturgy Taskforce
acknowledge the need for further work on the proposed rites. Even a cursory
examination of these rites like the one in this article points to the need for
extensive revision of these rites if they are to be acceptable to Anglicans who
subscribe to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican
formularies and stand in the Reformed tradition.
With these documents enough pieces of the puzzle have been
put in place to have a clear picture of the present direction of the Anglican
Church in North America. Those who believe that they can maintain an enclave for
Anglicans in the Reformed tradition in the ACNA need to think again. The
proposals contained in the reports in the Provincial Meeting Journal would make
the maintenance of such an enclave an impossibility. Anglicans in the Reformed
tradition clearly need to be taking concrete steps to establish a Reformed
Anglican Church in the United States and Canada. The Anglican Church in North
America displays no willingness to make room for them in that denomination.
See also
Issues Dividing the Anglican Church in North America
Assembly 2014: What’s to Celebrate?
See also
Issues Dividing the Anglican Church in North America
Assembly 2014: What’s to Celebrate?
2 comments:
Robin,
It took them twenty-four comments on SF to invoke the requisite "Godly Bishop" reference. They are beginning to slip!
The phrase "godly bishop" has been so over-used to describe bishops of the Anglican Church in North America that it has become cliche. At the same time those using the phrase do not explain what they mean or why they consider a particular bishop or group of bishops worthy of this appellation. We are left to guess.
Post a Comment