By Robin G. Jordan
The unreformed Catholic bias of the formularies of the Anglican
Church in North America is indisputable. Catholic Revivalist thinking exercises
substantial influence upon the College of Bishops, the Provincial Council, and the
key task forces of the ACNA. It is evident in every ACNA formulary from the
Fundamental Declarations to the so-called “ancient” form of the Holy Communion
and the Daily Office Lectionary. The ACNA formularies do not give the same
standing to any school of thought that they give to Catholic Revivalism and its
unreformed teaching and practices. Indeed historic Anglicanism, “the faith of
the Church expressed in the Holy Bible, the Anglican Formularies, and the
Jerusalem Declaration” and its liturgical usages have no official standing in
the ACNA.
What can be done to correct this inequitable situation in
the Anglican Church in North America? What can be done to make the province
more comprehensive of biblical Anglicanism?
One option is to completely overhaul the formularies of the
Anglican Church in North America. As they did in the Common Cause Partnership
days of the ACNA the Catholic Revivalist members of the College of Bishops, the
Provincial Council, and the key task forces are likely to oppose any changes
that make the ACNA genuinely comprehensive. This would require their loosening of
their grip upon the levers of power in the ACNA and their relinquishing of their
dream of a province that is unreformed Catholic in doctrine, order, and
practice. The way that the ACNA is structured proposals for changes in the ACNA
formularies can be initiated by only a small circle of ACNA leaders. The circle
has strong Catholic Revivalist leanings and is not likely to initiate such
proposals. What proposals that it might initiate are likely to be toothless and
cosmetic.
A second option is to bypass the legislative process and to
take independent steps to establish a second province within the Anglican
Church in North America that upholds and maintains in its formularies “the
faith of the Church expressed in the Holy Bible, the Anglican Formularies, and
the Jerusalem Declaration”. This second
province would enfold elements of the ACNA committed to the historic Anglican
faith and accepting the Anglican Formularies as their standard of doctrine and
worship.
The second province would essentially be a province within a
province. It would be fully autonomous, cooperating with original province of
the Anglican Church of North America on matters on which there was common
agreement but otherwise independent of that province. It would have its own
constitution with its own fundamental declarations and ruling principles. It
would also have its own set of canons.
The second province would not be geographically-based. It would have congregations and missional communities and networks of congregations and missional communities throughout North America (Alaska, Canada, Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the contiguous United States) as does the original province of the Anglican Church in North America.
The second province would not be geographically-based. It would have congregations and missional communities and networks of congregations and missional communities throughout North America (Alaska, Canada, Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the contiguous United States) as does the original province of the Anglican Church in North America.
The second province would have a general synod or its equivalent that would be
the supreme governing authority of the province and would speak and act on the
behalf of the whole province. The general synod would consist of a single
chamber composed of delegates from the dioceses and missionary dioceses forming
the province. The delegates of each judicatory would consist of representatives
of the bishops and other clergy of each judicatory and representatives of the
laity of each judicatory. They would be elected in accordance with the canons.
The number of delegates of each judicatory to the general synod would be
determined by the synod from time to time.
There would be an executive committee, designated as the
general synod standing committee, which would be appointed by the general synod
and which would act on its behalf between its meetings.
The second province would have a moderator who would be the
presiding bishop of the province. The moderator would be elected by the general
synod from among the bishops of the province. The duties and responsibilities of
the moderator would be delineated in the canons.
The bishops of the dioceses of the province would be elected
by their respective judicatories in the manner prescribed in the regulations of
the judicatory. The bishops of missionary dioceses would be elected by the
general synod. In the event a diocese was unable to elect a bishop after
repeated attempts or failed to elect a bishop within a specified time period
after the office became vacant, the office would be filled by the general synod,
or by the general synod standing committee, subject to the confirmation of the
general synod.
The second province would have its own procedure for the
recognition of dioceses and missionary dioceses.
The second province would have its own prayer book, ordinal,
and catechism.
The formation of such a province is the best way to secure a
future for biblical Anglicanism in North America short of establishing a second
alternative North American Anglican province.
No comments:
Post a Comment