By Robin G. Jordan
A careful examination of the Anglican Church in North
America’s formularies—its constitution, canons, rites and services, and
catechism—reveals the systematic exclusion of the Anglican Reformed beliefs and
liturgical practices from these formularies.
The Anglican Church in North America in its formularies does
not extend to the Anglican Reformed clergy and congregations the freedom to
practice and propagate their faith that it extends to Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox
clergy and congregations.
The constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North
America do not offer Anglican Reformed clergy, ordination candidates, dioceses,
networks, and congregations any protection from theological discrimination.
The canons contain provisions that would enable Anglo-Catholic
and philo-Orthodox bishops to deny licenses to Anglican Reformed clergy and
ordination to Anglican Reformed ordination candidates. They also contain
provisions that would enable these bishops to inhibit, prosecute, try, and
depose Anglican Reformed clergy who, while faithful to the teaching of the Bible
and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies, do not conform to the
doctrine of the jurisdiction’s formularies.
Under the provisions of the canons the Provincial Council is
free to deny recognition to Anglican Reformed dioceses and networks on the
basis of their theological outlook and Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox
dioceses and networks are free to deny recognition to Anglican Reformed congregations
for the same reason.
Add to this picture the College of Bishops ’ low regard for
constitutionalism and the rule of law, its repeated violation of the
constitution and canons, its arrogation of powers that the constitution and canons
do not give the College or recognize as being inherent in that body, its
usurpation of the role of the Provincial Council in a number of key areas, the
control that the College exercises over who may become a bishop, the limited
role given to the laity in the governance of the jurisdiction, a set of
disciplinary canons lacking basic safeguards, and a host of other problems, and
one is led to the inescapable conclusion that if the Anglican Church in North
America does not reform itself, North
America will need a second alternative Anglican province to the Episcopal Church and the
Anglican Church of Canada, an alternative jurisdiction to the Anglican Church
in North America!!
Since the Anglican Church in North America has little
incentive to reform itself, having received the recognition that it covets from
the GAFCON Primates, the time has come to make plans for the formation of such
a province—a jurisdiction that in practice fully accepts the Scriptures as its
canon or functioning rule of faith and life and the Anglican confessional
formularies as its doctrinal and worship standard and in which bishops are
chosen by the judicatory that they are to serve, are “like everyone else…
subject to constitutional definition of authority and limitation of power,”
share authority with synods at the provincial and judicatorial levels and are
accountable to these synods.
The establishment of the new province would be a test of the
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’ resolve to stand with Anglicans excluded by
their province or diocese. The leaders of the Fellowship of Confessing
Anglicans’ have so far ignored the plight of Anglican Reformed clergy and
congregations in North America. This is surprising since Anglican Reformed
clergy and congregations are on the basis of their faithfulness to the teaching
of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies the
real confessing Anglicans in North America.
One is prompted to ask why FCA leaders support an organization
like the Anglican Church in North America that has adopted a policy of not
making room in its formularies for the beliefs and liturgical practices of
genuine confessing Anglicans. Their motives are unclear.
To those who might object to the establishment of a second
alternative Anglican province on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary hostility
between the different groups forming the ACNA and needless fragmentation, it
must pointed out that the Anglo-Catholic – philo-Orthodox element in the
Anglican Church in North America has already set the ACNA on that path. It is
quite evident by now that this element is seeking to impose a single identity
upon the Anglican Church in North America, an identity that is unreformed
Catholic, not reformed Anglican. This element dominates the Provincial Council,
the Executive Committee, the various task forces, and the College of Bishops.
The formularies that the Anglican Church in North America has produced to date
make no room for Anglican Reformed beliefs, much less liturgical practices. Reflected
in the actions of the ACNA’s first Archbishop and its College of Bishops and
the Provincial Council and dioceses’ acquiescence to these actions is a Roman
Catholic-Eastern Orthodox view of the Church, an authoritarian view in which
bishops have broad discretionary powers and negligible accountability.
To date this element has seen no organized opposition, has
received encouragement from the GAFCON Primates’ recognition of the Anglican
Church in North America, and has exploited and benefited from a willingness to
accommodate it for the sake maintaining peace in the ACNA and a united front
against the Episcopal Church. Those who are accommodating this element are
paying a very high price for the illusion of harmony and unity in the
ACNA—their own theological identity and ultimately the teaching of the
Scriptures—the faith once delivered to the saints. They are tolerating if not
accepting a form of church governance that has no basis in the Scriptures.
Christ is the only real authority in his Church. He has not delegated his
authority to a select few. Rather Christ works his will through all believers—clergy
and laity alike.
Anglo-Catholic-philo-Orthodox element in the Anglican Church
in North America has no cause to complain if clergy and congregations in the
ACNA committed to the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the
Anglican confessional formularies decide to go their separate way. It has not
made room for them in the ACNA. It has put its ideas and itself first. It has
demanded that this segment of the ACNA accommodate its views but has displayed
extreme reluctance to accommodate the views of other groups. It should not be
surprised if other groups tire of its self-aggrandizement. Not everyone shares
Bishop Jack Iker’s vision of a province in which Anglo-Catholicism is promoted,
privileged, and pandered to.
As for clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North
America committed to the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the
Anglican confessional formularies, each new formulary that the ACNA has
produced has diminished their capacity to maintain a Protestant identity, much
less a Reformed identity in the ACNA. The provisions of the constitution and
canons permitting dioceses, networks, and congregations to leave have not
proven an effective deterrent against Anglo-Catholic – philo-Orthodox efforts
to impose a single identity upon the ACNA. As a school of Anglican thought these clergy and congregations enjoy no official recognition or standing in the ACNA. They remain a part of
the ACNA only on sufferance. If they wish to flourish, their best option is to
launch a second alternative province.
They have no real future in the ACNA.
In your article, you said:
ReplyDelete"The canons contain provisions that would enable Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox bishops to deny licenses to Anglican Reformed clergy and ordination to Anglican Reformed ordination candidates. They also contain provisions that would enable these bishops to inhibit, prosecute, try, and depose Anglican Reformed clergy who, while faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies, do not conform to the doctrine of the jurisdiction’s formularies."
I have experienced this myself. For a long time I've read what you've written, and looked forward to your articles every week with eagerness, hoping to see what folks such as myself can do, and where we can go.
What does a minister who's run afoul of the spiritually abusive Anglo-Catholics do? Where does he go? Once having run afoul of them, they seek to 'blackball' a Reformed minister, preventing him from serving even in a more like-minded jurisdiction.
With the Sydney Anglicans recognizing the ACNA as "orthodox" it is hard to avoid the conclusion that compromise goes only toward Rome. Reformation theology is suppressed by everyone. I am wondering if the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is not also high church Anglicanism? They wear the same vestments and the whole nine yards.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own conversations with key conservative evangelicals in Sydney I gather that there is a belief that Sydney should not break ranks with the Africans on the issue of the Anglican Church in North America as it would in some way give advantage to the Episcopal Church and the liberals in the Anglican Communion.
ReplyDeleteThe wording of Sydney’s Diocesan Synod’s latest motion related to the ACNA was interesting, especially when you compare it with that Synod’s 2009 resolution calling for the admission of the ACNA to the Anglican Communion. It extends congratulations to Bishop Foley Beech in relation to his election as new ACNA Archbishop and acknowledges the Synod’s desire to recognize the ACNA but largely focuses upon supporting the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’ work with Anglicans excluded by their province or diocese.
Mark Thompson, Principle of Moore College in his recent article, "Who or what defines the Anglican Communion?" stated:
“Anglican identity is fundamentally a matter of certain theological commitments, anchored ultimately in the authority of Scripture as God’s word written (Article 20), together with an agreement to operate with a common pattern of church government (the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons). The Anglican Church has always been confessional in nature, as witnessed by the history of subscription to the Articles, which began in the time of Cranmer and continues around the world today. Ordination for Sydney Anglicans, for instance, still includes wholehearted assent to the 39 Articles of Religion.”
He went on to write:
“This does not mean that every genuinely Anglican province must express itself in both form and content in an identical way to every other province. There is room for cultural diversity and appropriate modification of the way we do things in order to communicate the gospel more effectively in our own particular context.”
He further writes:
“In 2009 the Primates who represent by far the majority of Anglicans worldwide accepted ACNA as genuinely Anglican. They did not all necessarily agree with everything ACNA was doing and there has been increasing occasion for comment in the years since [emphasis added]. However, along with that other long-excluded but genuinely Anglican province, the Church of England in South Africa (or REACH South Africa, as it is now known), its acceptance is based most of all on a common confession and a common determination to live faithfully according to the Scriptures as disciples of Christ taking his message of life and hope to a lost world [emphasis added].”
The two passages I have put in italics are worth noting. The first passage suggests that some conservative evangelicals in Sydney are aware of what is happening in the ACNA. This is supported by own conversations with key conservative evangelicals in Sydney. Note also what Mark Thompson identifies as the basis of acceptance of the ACNA and CESA/REACH South Arica—“a common confession” and “ a common determination to live faithfully according to the Scriptures as disciples of Christ taking his message of life and hope to a lost world.”
What is evident to observers like myself is the ACNA and Sydney and the FCA do not have a common confession. The ACNA treats the 39 Articles and the other Anglican confessional formularies as historical documents with which it can do what it pleases. It looks to “Catholic tradition” as its standard of doctrine and worship, not the Anglican confessional formularies.
As far as the second basis of acceptance is concerned, the Scriptures according to which the ACNA is determined to live faithful are the Scriptures interpreted by Catholic tradition. This ultimately means that the ACNA is not determined to live faithfully to the Scriptures but to Catholic tradition.
If these two criteria were central to the Primates’ acceptance of the ACNA as genuinely Anglican in 2009, it should be quite evident by now that the ACNA does not meet them if it ever did. I suspect that Mark Thompson may himself realize that.
It's premature and sensationalist to say "ACNA is not determined to live faithfully to the Scriptures but to Catholic tradition." ACNA is NOT uniform, and notwithstanding that what you have said is true of the vast majority, the leadership is in no position to enforce uniformity. What I'm saying is that this is not over by a long shot and there is a sizable contingent determined to enforce obedience to Scripture and to the Formularies. There is another shoe to drop, and it won't be long now. As for your insistence that we need another American jurisdiction or some other form of relief for Reformed Anglicans, don't discount the possibility that it could actually happen. In the meantime, I should hope that everyone would read Article 26.
ReplyDeleteThe ACNA’s official doctrine is found in the denomination’s formularies. It is to these formularies that we must turn in any analysis of its official doctrine. This doctrine shows the strong influence of Catholic tradition. It is the doctrine that its clergy are by its canons bound to uphold and teach. Clergy members sign a declaration agreeing to conform to the denomination’s doctrine, discipline, and worship. The teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies have no official standing in the ACNA except where they are agreeable to Catholic tradition. Where Reformed and Catholics differ in their interpretation of the Scriptures, the ACNA in its formularies takes the position of Catholic tradition. The ACNA in its formularies either ignores the Anglican confessional formularies or reinterprets them in a Catholic sense, in a Rome-ward direction, which is what Newman did to the 39 Articles in Tract 90 and what the Anglo-Catholic movement, when it pays any attention to the Anglican confessional formularies, has done since.
ReplyDeleteI don’t dispute that the ACNA has a contingent committed to the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies and Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical in its theological outlook but it has NO official standing in the ACNA, none whatsoever. The ACNA formularies do not officially make room for what it believes or extend to it the liberty to propagate its beliefs. It does NOT enjoy any official recognition at all. That contingent is a part of the ACNA, as I say in my article, purely on sufferance. Since it has no official standing, the beliefs of that contingent cannot be considered in any summation and characterization of the official doctrine of the denomination. Its existence, its conformity to the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Anglican confessional formularies, and its marginality –its divergence from the denomination’s officially-sanctioned or mandated beliefs—may be noted in an analysis of the denomination’s official doctrine but that’s it.
Article 26 was directed at “the Anabaptist view that ministry was not effective because of the bad lives of the priests. As W. H. Griffith Thomas in The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles points out, “there has been sects in the Church from early times who maintained that efficacy of the Sacraments depended upon the priest or minister.” The controversies surrounding this issue would prompt Augustine to address the issue. He wrote that “the grace associated with ministerial functions is independent of the character of those who administer” no matter “how much worse the man who administers.”
ReplyDeleteThis issue would be raised again in the Middle Ages due to the gross immorality of many of the Roman Catholic priests. The leading theologians of the Roman Catholic Church took the position that the validity of the Sacraments was not tied to the character of the priest.
The issue would also be revived at the Reformation with radical Protestants like the Anabaptists arguing that the Sacraments should not be ministered by unworthy men.
Article 26 maintains that we may avail ourselves of the ministry of evil persons both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the sacraments. Their wickedness does not take away the effect of Christ’s ordinance and in the case of those who receive the sacraments rightly and by faith their ministration by evil men does not diminish the grace of God’s gifts. At the same time Article 26 takes the position that evil ministers should be investigated, prosecuted, tried, and deposed.
Article 26 is also a protest against the Roman Catholic doctrine of intention.
When it comes to the issue of false teaching and false teachers, it is to the Scriptures that we should turn for guidance. I find nothing in the Scriptures that even remotely suggests that we should tolerate or accept false teaching or welcome and heed false teachers. This is one of the main reasons that the English Reformers broke with the Roman Catholic Church.
The contingent to which you refer may be faithful to the teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Anglican confessional formularies but the ACNA as a denomination, based upon its official doctrine in its formularies, is not. From the perspective of the Scriptures and the Anglican confessional formularies much of what the ACNA teaches is false. The ACNA also maintains that this false teaching is the truth. This accounts for its unwillingness to give any kind of official recognition to Anglican Reformed doctrine and practice. To do so would be to admit what it teaches is open to dispute.
My complaint Robin is not that you are wrong concerning the official position of ACNA leadership, but rather that in the end it won't matter. I'm glad for your admitting that the Reformed contingent within ACNA are there only by way of sufferance, but I absolutely do not agree that this is reason to belittle their strength or to predict their demise.
ReplyDeleteYes, regarding Article 26, the validity of the Sacraments is not tied to the character of the priest. But neither is it tied to any sacerdotal claim. Article 26 asks the Christian 1. to receive the ministry of the Church's ministers as (if) it is the ministry of Christ himself, and also to hold those ministers accountable to the gospel and to their oath, as ones that owe their earthly calling and election to office through the congregation.
As you have successfully pointed out, ACNA's constitution fails to provide a means for Article 26 to have a practical function. Their Bishops are not called by congregations in any way and they have given themselves full tenure with immunity from both prosecution and from removal. This is simply a disrespect for Article 26.
I don’t see how you can claim that in the end it won’t matter. The ACNA leadership has put in place canons that permit the barring of Anglican Reformed clergy from ministerial positions in the ACNA, including episcopal positions, and the Anglican Reformed candidates from ordination on the basis of their doctrinal stance and the removal of Anglican Reformed clergy from ministerial positions on the same basis. It has put in place a catechism that excludes Anglican Reformed positions on key issues while mandating and sanctioning unreformed Catholic ones. It is putting in place rites and services that do the same thing. Anglican Reformed clergy and congregations have absolutely NO OFFICIAL STANDING in the ACNA! Let me emphasize that again - they have absolutely NO OFFICIAL STANDING in the ACNA!! They are viewed in much the same way as liberals in TEC and the AC of C are.
ReplyDeleteThe ACNA leadership has also taken steps toward the consolidation of the ACNA into a smaller number of geographically-based dioceses. With the latest round of constitutional and canonical changes “clusters” were eliminated as a subdivision of the ACNA. The next on the hit list is networks.
The ACNA leadership is creating very solid grounds on which it can purge undesirables from the ACNA. If you look at the history of the Continuing Anglican Churches, this is exactly what happened in the Continuum.
I believe that it is a dangerous attitude to dismiss these developments too lightly. If this attitude is shared by others in the ACNA, it may explain why Anglican clergy and congregations faithful to the Scriptures and the Anglican confessional formularies have failed to organize to maintain the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church and push back against Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox aggrandizement. If that is indeed the case, it is not unreasonable to conclude on the basis of the failure of such clergy and congregations to take meaningful action to safeguard their theological identity that they may be suffering from the “boiling frog syndrome.”