Archbishop Beach’s description of evangelicalism as a seedbed
of Anglo-Catholicism in his address does not suggest that he has a strong
commitment to authentic historic Anglicanism. He has in a previous address equated Anglican
confessionalism with adherence to the catholic creeds and not the Articles of
Religion. While Beach attended an evangelical seminary, Gordon-Conwell, he also
attended the School of Theology of the University of the South. The prevailing
ethos at Sewanee, while it is not traditionalist Anglo-Catholic like Nashotah
House, is High Church. Beach was originally ordained in the Episcopal Church,
which is not known for its overarching commitment to the Anglican formularies
even in conservative circles.
What concerns me are the implications of Archbishop Beach’s statement.
From all appearances the College of Bishops selected Beach as Archbishop
because he is not a strong proponent of authentic historical Anglicanism
despite his evangelical background. At the same time his evangelical background
increased the likelihood that he would enjoy the support of evangelicals
What Beach may have in part been alluding to in his
statement was a shift in his own doctrinal views from evangelical views to
views closer to Anglo-Catholicism. To my knowledge Beach has not abstained from
voting or voted against endorsement when the College of Bishops voted on the
various additions to Texts for Common
Prayer and on To Be A Christian: An
Anglican Catechism. He voted in favor their endorsement. Both documents
embody unreformed Catholic doctrine; Texts
for Common Prayer mandates or countenances unreformed Catholic practices. Texts for Common Prayer and To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism reflect
the influence that traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and the new Anglo-Catholics,
those who have come to similar views through the influence of the ecumenical,
liturgical, and convergence movements, assert in the Prayer Book and Liturgy
Task Force and in the College of Bishops. The two documents conflict with the
teaching of the Scriptures in a number of places and show very little evidence
of the influence of the principles of doctrine and worship laid out in the
Anglican formularies.
Among the apparent purposes of these documents is to transform
the Anglican Church in North America into a hotbed for forcing the growth of new
Anglo-Catholics. Through the medium of the catechism newcomers will be
indoctrinated in unreformed Catholic doctrine; through medium of the rites and
services they will be further shaped as unreformed Catholics. Archbishop
Beach’s statement suggests that he goes along with the use of these documents
for this purpose.
Archbishop Beach’s predecessor, while describing himself as
a “High Church evangelical,” has shown decided unreformed Catholic leanings. He
has criticized the Elizabethan Settlement, which has shaped Anglicanism since
the sixteenth century, and has advocated a “new settlement,” which would turn
back the clock to a period before the English Reformation. Both he and Beach
give all appearances of sharing a common vision of the Anglican Church in North
America—that of creating an environment that favors the rapid transformation of
charismatics and evangelicals with a penchant for liturgy into full-blown
Anglo-Catholics.
Such a vision of the Anglican Church in North America is
consistent with a “Catholic Revivalist” agenda that seeks to reshape the
Anglican Church along the lines of the purportedly undivided Church of the
early High Middle Ages before the East-West Schism in the eleventh century.
Those pushing this agenda claim that this was the real intention of the English
Reformers, and not to bring the doctrine and practices of the Church of England
into conformity with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures as the Reformers
themselves claimed in defense of the reforms that they instituted.
“Catholic Revivalists” in the Anglican Church in North
America fall into two groups. The first group is composed of traditionalist
Anglo-Catholics—those who have acquired unreformed Catholic views through the
influence of the Anglo-Catholic movement. The second group is composed of
charismatics, evangelicals, and others who have come to similar views through
the influence of the ecumenical, liturgical, and convergence movements.
When “Catholic Revivalists” talk about the renewal of the
Anglican Church, what they are referring to is the renewal of unreformed
Catholicism in the Anglican Church and the transformation of the Anglican
Church into a Catholic Church. They are not talking about the renewal of
historic Anglicanism, which would involve the continuation and strengthening
and in some cases restoration of the Biblical and Reformation doctrines and
convictions of the English Reformers, the reaffirmation of the Elizabethan Settlement
and the reinvigoration of the Protestant, reformed, and evangelical character
of the Anglican Church. What they seek is an entirely different outcome from
what the renewal of historic Anglicanism would bring with it.
Those who desire the renewal of unreformed Catholicism in
the Anglican Church and those who desire the renewal of authentic historic
Anglicanism are at cross-purposes. This explains why the “Catholic Revivalists”
are taking advantage of the positions of influence that they occupy in the
Anglican Church in North America to entrench their views in the denomination.
They are ideologues and their agenda is ideological. While they are to some
degree a diverse group, this diversity should not be permitted to obscure the
fact that they are committed to moving the Anglican Church in North America and
its clergy and congregations closer to the unreformed Catholic teaching and
practices of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They desire to
create their own version of a Catholic Church while retaining the Anglican
brand name.
In seeking to impose a particular set of beliefs and
practices on the clergy and congregations of the Anglican Church in North
America through what may eventually become its Prayer Book, this group of
ideologues is not any different from the group of liberal ideologues in the
Episcopal Church. They may be to a certain extent more orthodox in that they
ostensibly accept the teaching of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds but believing
in the uniqueness of Christ and the other core doctrines articulated in the
creeds does not justify their imposition of their convictions on Anglicans and
other Christians who do not share these convictions, especially when their
convictions conflict with the Anglican Church’s “primary formulary”—the
Bible—and its “secondary formularies”—the two Books of Homilies, the Articles
of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer
of 1662 and the Ordinal annexed to the 1662 Prayer Book. They may be convinced
of the soundness of their views but this conviction does not justify what they
are doing either.
Having left the Episcopal Church whose liberal agenda kept
their aspirations in check, this particular group of ideologues now feels free
to pursue their own vision of the Anglican Church. They, however, are not the only
group that left the Episcopal Church and they are not the only group that forms
the Anglican Church in North America. They are presently able to do what they
are doing because there is a lot of confusion in the Anglican Church in North
America about the Prayer Book that is in preparation for use in the denomination.
This may be attributed to a number of factors.
First, a rumor to the effect that the Prayer Book in
preparation is based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has been circulating in
the Anglican Church in North America. A comparison of the rites and services in
Texts for Common Prayer, including
its latest additions, with the rites and services in the 1662 Prayer Book show
that this rumor is unfounded. The rites
and services in Texts for Common Prayer
are based on the 1549 Prayer Book, the 1928 Prayer Book, the various Anglican
missals, and the 1979 Prayer Book. They incorporate some textual material from
the 1662 Prayer Book but often use this material differently from the way it is
used in the 1662 Prayer Book. Their doctrine and liturgical usages are
decidedly NOT those of the rites and services in the 1662 Prayer Book. Any
resemblance Texts for Common Prayer
bears to the 1662 Prayer Book is superficial at best.
Second, a surprising number of people in the ACNA want to
believe this rumor. They do not want to hear that the Prayer Book in
preparation is not based upon the 1662 Prayer Book and that it diverges
significantly in its doctrine and liturgical usages from that of the 1662
Prayer Book.
Third, a sizable number of people in the ACNA are not
familiar with the rites and services of the 1662 Prayer Book or acquainted with
its doctrine and liturgical usages. They are former Episcopalians, come from
other denominations, or have not attended a church since their early childhood
if at all. The three Prayer Books with which they may be familiar are the 1928
Prayer Book, the Reformed Episcopal Church’s versions of the 1928 Prayer Book,
or the 1979 Prayer Book. The 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books introduced radical
changes into the American Prayer Book and one of their characteristics is their
significant divergence from the doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1662
Prayer Book. The REC versions of the 1928 Prayer Book share this
characteristic. Consequently, these people are not able to judge for themselves
how the doctrine and liturgical usages of Texts
for Common Prayer diverge from that of the 1662 Prayer Book.
Fourth, an equally sizeable number of people in the ACNA are
not familiar with the history of doctrine and worship in the Anglican Church
and the different doctrinal and worship traditions in the Anglican Church. They
often have the mistaken belief that what their church believes and the way
their church worships is what Anglicans have always believed and the way
Anglicans have always worshiped and is what Anglicans believe and the way
Anglicans worship everywhere. They often accept doctrines and practices because
their church accepts them, not realizing that the church belongs to a
particular school of thought in the Anglican Church and does not represent the
entire Anglican Church. The doctrines and practices their church accepts may
conflict with the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship
principles of the Anglican formularies. While their clergy may claim that these
beliefs and practices are Scriptural and Anglican, clergy who belong to a
different school of thought in the Anglican Church would not agree.
Consequently they are not able to discern whether a particular doctrine or
practice that their clergy claim is Scriptural and Anglican is what their
clergy claim that it is.
Fifth, a number of people cannot bring themselves to believe
that one group in the Anglican Church in North America, which has strong
convictions, is seeking to impose their convictions upon the other groups in
the ACNA even though leaders of this group have openly declared that it is the
aim of the group to Catholicize the Anglican Church and the group has a long
history of working to achieve this aim. Their reaction to the observation that this
is what is happening in the Anglican Church in North America and it has
happened in other jurisdictions is one of disbelief. They do not want to
believe that it is happening.
Sixth, a number of people, while they admit what is
happening, do not believe that the group of ideologues in question will be
successful in accomplishing what they are endeavoring to do. They believe that
the risk of causing clergy and congregations to secede from the denomination
and to affiliate with another body serves as a deterrent. They believe that the
Anglican Church in North America will not be able to enforce the use of the
Prayer Book in preparation and clergy and congregations will continue to use
whatever service book that they are presently using. They dismiss the
provisions in the canons requiring the use of the Prayer Book upon its formal
adoption and withdrawing with its formal adoption authorization for use of any other service books that are
presently used in the ACNA. They also dismiss the canonical requirement that
all clergy in the ACNA conform to its doctrine, discipline, and worship.
As a consequence of these factors the Prayer Book and
Liturgy Task Force and the College of Bishops have not received any serious
push back. If they have received such pushback, they are not publicizing it. The
advantage of keeping everyone in the dark is that they only have to deal with
the objections of individuals rather than those of a sizable, organized group
that is gathering support.
What the Prayer Book and Liturgy Task Force and the College
of Bishops need to receive is serious pushback that is public and organized.
They need to be presented with a thorough critique of the rites and services
that are going into the Prayer Book in preparation and specific proposals for
the revision of these rites and services and for alternative rites and
services. The Catechism Task Force and the College of Bishops needs to be
presented with the same thing in relation to the catechism.
At the same time the group that presents these critiques and
proposals also needs to draft a canon that--
(1) recognizes the plenary authority of the Bible in matters
of faith and practice and accepts the Anglican formularies as the established
standard of doctrine and worship for the Anglican Church;
(2) acknowledges the existence of longstanding differences
of opinion related to the essential nature of the office of bishop in the
Anglican Church and exempts those who hold to the plene esse view of the episcopate from the requirement that they
accept the fundamental declaration on the episcopate in order to become members
of the Anglican Church in North America;
(3) authorizes the formation of groupings of congregations
within the Anglican Church in North
America for the purposes of developing and using their own collection of rites
and services consistent with the teaching of the Bible and conforming to the
principles of doctrine and worship laid out in the Anglican formularies and
developing and using their own catechism consistent with the teaching of the
Bible and conforming to the doctrinal principles set out in the Anglican
formularies; and such other purposes as are delineated in their instruments of
governance;
(4) authorizes such groupings to adopt, amend, and revise
their own instruments of governance; to nominate and to elect their own bishops;
to impose term limits on their bishops, and to implement such other episcopal accountability
measures as delineated in their instruments of governance.
In addition the same group needs to draft an amendment to
the constitution of the Anglican Church in North permitting this change to the
canon.
The development and presentation of these critique and proposals and the drafting and
submission of the canon and constitutional amendment should be done in the
open. The interchange with the various task forces, the College of Bishops, and
the Provincial Council should be made public. What this will accomplish is that
it will focus attention on the issue of the College of Bishop’s lack of
commitment to a policy of comprehending all schools of thought represented in
the Anglican Church in North America.
If it fails to achieve the desired results, the next step is
to proceed to establish such a grouping of congregations any way and put the
College of Bishops on notice that it will be developing and using its own
service book and catechism and taking other necessary steps to secure a future in
North America for Anglicans who recognizes the plenary authority of the Bible
in matters of faith and practice and accepts the Anglican formularies as the established
standard of doctrine and worship for the Anglican Church and who hold to the plene esse view of the episcopate.
Only by playing hardball with the College of Bishops, by taking
the initiative and acting in a forceful and determined way, will orthodox
Anglicans in the Anglican Church in North America faithful to the Bible and
loyal to the Anglican formularies be able to accomplish anything. Any refusal
on the part of the ACNA’s bishops to budge on the issue of orthodox Anglicans
wanting to be orthodox Anglicans, not unreformed Catholics, will reflect poorly
upon them and will diminish their credibility with evangelicals and others who
have supported the Anglican Church in North America. Any retaliatory measures that
they may take will hurt them further. It will reveal the true intentions of the
leadership of the Anglican Church in North America.
