An individual can claim to own a piece of property but
unless he can produce proof of legal ownership, he has little ground to stand
on in a court of law. Orthodox Anglicans of the Protestant, low-church stripe*
in the Anglican Church in North America are like such an individual. They can
diligently search the governing documents and other doctrinal statements of the
Anglican Church in North America but they will find nothing giving them any
kind of formal recognition in the denomination or any kind of official standing
to their beliefs and values. They have no deed, or legal title, to the property that they claim
to own. They are in a position where they can be evicted at anytime as
squatters. While the law codes of some states recognize squatters’ rights, the
ACNA governing documents have no such provisions. Their continuance in the ACNA
is dependent the absence of any objection to their presence by those who do
have official standing in the denomination – Anglo-Catholics and others who
accept the unreformed Catholic teaching and practices endorsed by the
denomination’s governing documents and its College of Bishops.
If those who have official standing in the denomination
eventually object to their presence in the denomination, they have nothing to
which they can appeal. Understandings that are not put in writing and
incorporated into the constitution, canons, and other doctrinal statements of
the Anglican Church in North America are only binding as long as both parties
to such understandings are of the same mind. They have no force of law. If one
party decides that they no longer wish to be bound by a particular
understanding, the other party has no recourse.
On the other hand,
Anglo-Catholics and others who accept the unreformed Catholic teaching and
practices endorsed by the denomination’s governing documents and its College of
Bishops have a number of documents to which they can appeal. They do not have
to depend on the continuation of an unwritten understanding. They formally and
officially have standing in the denomination. They have a paper trail to show
their connection.
While one party may has so far not raised any objections to
the presence of the other party in the denomination, it is sheer foolishness to
depend upon such understandings. The mere fact that a party to an unwritten
understanding, is unwilling to enter into a written agreement that gives
official standing to the other party should set alarm bells ringing and red
lights blinking.
The argument that an unwritten understanding was the only
thing that orthodox Anglicans of the Protestant – low-church stripe could obtain
for themselves in the face of Anglo-Catholic intransigence is a weak one. The
refusal to compromise or abandon an extreme position itself should have raised red
flags. At that point the wisest choice would have been to withdraw from further
discussion. A genuine partnership requires compromise by both parties, not
acquiescence by one party in face of the other party’s refusal to make
concessions.
Taking the initiative and forming a second province within
the Anglican Church in North America, a province that in its doctrinal
foundation is closely aligned with the Holy Scriptures and the Anglican
formularies and which has its own governing documents, ordinal, service book,
catechism, bishops, and synodical government, is an important step toward the
formal recognition of the presence of a Protestant – low-church wing in the
denomination and the extension of official standing to their beliefs and
values. They will no longer be a part of the Anglican Church in North America
solely on the basis that no one has gotten around to seriously objecting to
their presence in the denomination.
From the comments from the Anglo-Catholic wing on the
Internet, it is clear that a segment of that wing does object to the presence of
a Protestant – low-church wing in the denomination. However, the leaders of the
Anglo-Catholic wing have adopted the more politically expedient policy of
making it difficult for a Protestant – low-church wing to flourish in the
denomination so eventually that wing will disappear due to attrition and assimilation.
One way to keep a group from growing and thriving is to deny formal recognition
to the group and withholding official status from its beliefs and values. This
is a form of marginalization in which a group is placed in a position of
marginal influence. Other forms of marginalization are to give such a group
only token representation, if any representation at all, on important
decision-making bodies, and then not to consider the group’s concerns and
recommendations in the decisions of such bodies.
Marginalization involves the relegation of a group to a
position of inferiority and unimportance. Those who deny the marginalization in
the Anglican Church in North America of orthodox Anglicans of the Protestant –
low-church stripe need to take a hard look at their position in the
denomination:
What provisions have been made for their beliefs and values in the denomination’s governing documents, in its ordinal, its rites and services, its catechism, and its organizational structure and form of government?
How extensive are these provisions?
How much weight is given to their opinions on key issues in such areas as doctrine and liturgical usages?
To what degree are the features historically favored by orthodox Anglicans of their stripe evident in the organizational structure and form of government of the denomination?
Such an examination of their position will show that they
have indeed been marginalized.
I see no indications of a serious effort in the Anglican Church in North America to comprehend the
beliefs and values of Anglicans who are Evangelical and low-church in tradition
and committed to the Protestant and Reformed doctrine and principles of the
Anglican formularies—none whatsoever. What I do see is the promotion of the
narrow interests of one school of thought in the denomination, a school of thought that is unreformed Catholic in its teaching and
practices and which has more in common with Roman Catholicism and in some
instances Eastern Orthodoxy than it does authentic historic Anglicanism. The
beliefs and values of this school of thought are affirmed exclusively over
those of the other schools of thought represented in the denomination.
I personally would not be comfortable as a judicatorial
official, pastor, or church member in a denomination in which Christians who
share my views on doctrine, worship, and governance do not enjoy any
recognition or their views any standing. To my mind a denomination that does
not affirm what I and Christians like myself believe and value is not the right
denomination for a Christian like me. For this reason I no longer worship and
minister in the Episcopal Church, a denomination in which I spent my teen years
and a good part of my adulthood. Most of congregations and clergy forming the
Anglican Church in North America left the Episcopal Church for the same reason:
it no longer affirmed what they believed and valued. In this regard the
Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America are alike when it comes to Reformed Evangelicals. They both
do not affirm the beliefs and values of Reformed Evangelicals.
The formation of a second province within the Anglican Church
in North America, a province that in its doctrinal foundation is closely
aligned with the Holy Scriptures and the Anglican formularies and which has its
own governing documents, ordinal, service book, catechism, bishops, and
synodical government, is a major step toward making the Anglican Church in
North America genuinely comprehensive. It would do away with unwritten
understandings that permit Reformed Evangelicals and other Anglicans who are low-church
in their tradition and Protestant in their theological leanings to be a part of
the denomination as long as no serious objection is raised to their presence.
It would eliminate their dependence upon the good will of the denomination’s Anglo-Catholic
wing whose goodwill that is tied to their accommodation of the beliefs and
values of that wing, the only wing to enjoy formal recognition and official
standing in the denomination.
For those who wonder how they got into this mess in the
first place, it must be pointed out that what comprises the ACNA’s Protestant –
low-church wing was not adequately represented in the Common Cause Partnership
bodies that drafted the ACNA constitution and canons. The same bodies ignored
that wing’s proposals for the revision of the two documents.
Before the Inaugural Provincial Assembly then AMiA Bishop John
Rodgers published an open letter on the Internet, urging Evangelicals to set
aside their misgivings about the draft constitution and canons and to support
their adoption and ratification. He maintained that any delay while their
concerns were addressed would prevent the formation of a new province
altogether. He claimed that their concerns would be addressed once the two
documents were approved and ratified. Having helped to achieve this result, the
letter was then taken off the Internet. To date none of their concerns have
been addressed. They were misled. Bishop Rodgers has never offered them an
apology for misleading them.
At the Inaugural Provincial Assembly the Anglo-Catholic wing
blocked any serious revision of the two documents in the Provincial
Council. Then Archbishop Elect Robert
Duncan hurried the delegates to the Assembly through the ratification of the
two documents, frequently interrupting the proceedings and telling the
delegates that speakers were waiting to address them. Many delegates were
caught up in the excitement of the moment and did not think through the
implications of the various provisions of the draft constitution and canons. A
number of delegates admitted later that they had serious misgivings when they
voted for the two documents’ ratification.
The ACNA constitution and canons create a system in which
changes to the constitution and canons must originate in one small group – the Governance
Task Force, be approved by the Provincial Council, and finally ratified by the
Provincial Assembly. It is a system similar to that which existed in the
Russian Communist Party in the Soviet days. It is also a system similar to that
which exists in the Roman Catholic Church. It permits one faction to control
the process from start to finish. The Provincial Council may amend proposed
legislation but it cannot initiate it. The Provincial Assembly cannot amend
legislation submitted to it, only ratify it or send it back to the Provincial
Council. The proceedings of the Assembly are orchestrated in such a way that
there is very little likelihood that delegates will reject legislation approved
by the Provincial Council.
The only way for the Protestant – low-church wing of the
Anglican Church in North America to gain affirmation of their beliefs and
values in the denomination is to take the initiative and form a second province
within the denomination over the objections of Anglo-Catholics and others who
have an investment in the status quo. In the kind of system created by the ACNA
constitution and canons, it is the only way that wing can gain formal
recognition of its presence and official standing for what it believes and
values. Those who oppose its formation will then be forced to deal with the
reality of its existence. They will be faced with two options. The first option
is to negotiate a working agreement under which the two provinces would
cooperate on matters of common interest. The second option is to go their separate
way. If they choose the second option, it will say a lot about where they
really stand in relation to historic Anglicanism and cooperation with
Evangelicals. It will be an eye-opener for the Global Fellowship of Confessing
Anglicans.
*I borrowed this descriptor from Canon David Wilson.
No comments:
Post a Comment