By Robin G. Jordan
While some Anglicans in the United Kingdom may be
celebrating the upcoming consecration of Canon Andy Lines as a Missionary
Bishop to disaffected Anglicans in Scotland and England (see Q&A on new
ACNA bishop in Europe), I believe that celebration of this event is
premature. Here’s why:
1. The ACNA in its own official formularies does not stand
with the longstanding historical positions of Anglican evangelicals on a number
of key issues. This is evident from a careful examination of these formularies –
its constitution, its canons, its catechism, and the rites and services of its
proposed Prayer Book. In its constitution and canons the ACNA equivocates in
its acceptance of the doctrinal and worship principles laid out in the historical
Anglican formularies. Its disregard of these principles is quite evident in its
catechism and the rites and services of its proposed Prayer Book. This
disregard is also quite evident in both past and more recent actions of its
College of Bishops.
2. The Anglican Church in North America demands full acceptance
of its particular interpretation of the “Anglican Way” from clergy,
congregations, and networks of churches desiring to affiliate with that
ecclesiastical body or partner with it. In its interpretation of the “Anglican
Way” the ACNA represents a ecclesiastical tradition that diverges from the
Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of authentic historical
Anglicanism. It has far greater affinity with the unreformed and unbiblical beliefs
and practices of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy than it does with
those of authentic historic Anglicanism.
3. Since its formal organization in 2009 the Anglican Church
in North America has sought to export its brand, its revisionist
reinterpretation of Anglicanism, to other parts of the Anglican Communion, and
to expand its influence in these provinces. The ACNA has promoted the
translation of its catechism, “To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism,” into
other languages and its use in more biblically-orthodox Anglican provinces. The
ACNA disregards biblical teaching and ignores or misinterprets and
misrepresents historic Anglican formulary principle. Its views on salvation
have more in common with the views of Arminianism and Roman Catholicism than
they do with the biblical, Reformed views of authentic historic Anglicanism.
Its views on the sacraments are identical to the views of Roman Catholicism.
4. The ACNA Bishop in Europe will be supervised by and accountable
to the Anglican Church in North America’s College of Bishops, a body that is
dominated by bishops who are strongly Anglo-Catholic and philo-Orthodox in
their leanings. His Oversight Committee is chaired by former ACNA Archbishop
Robert Duncan who has been instrumental in leading the ACNA in its present
direction away from authentic historic Anglicanism. (The other members of the
committee are not identified in the aforementioned article. ) Archbishop Duncan
has in the past criticized the Elizabethan Settlement which has shaped
authentic historic Anglicanism and called for the establishment of a “new
settlement,” one that would turn back the clock to a time before the English
Reformation. He has enthusiastically endorsed the ACNA catechism and its departures from Biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism. Archbishop Duncan is presently the chairman of the Liturgical Task
Force that is drafting the rites and services of the proposed ACNA Prayer Book.
The ACNA Bishop in Europe would not be accountable to the clergy and the
congregations under his episcopal pastoral care in the United Kingdom. Under
the present ACNA system of church governance they are likely to have little if
any say in the choice of his successor.
5. The constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in
North America make negligible provision for the clergy and congregations of the
province to have any significant input into major policy decisions affecting
them. Over the past six years ACNA College of Bishops has repeatedly usurped
the authority of the ACNA Provincial Council, the official governing body of
the province. It has arrogated to itself powers and responsibilities not
delegated to it by the ACNA constitution and canons or recognized as inherent
in it by those governing documents. This includes vetting all proposed
legislation to be acted upon by the Provincial Council. The ACNA Provincial
Assembly, by far the most representative of three provincial bodies, has no
power at all. It cannot initiate legislation or amend legislation submitted to
it. It only can rubber stamp canons and constitutional amendments adopted by
the Provincial Council.
On the other hand, the recent consecration of the Reverend
Jonathan Pryke, senior minister of Jesmond Parish Church, by Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa
does not suffer from these drawbacks. The beliefs and practices of REACH South
Africa are much more in line with the teachings of the Bible and the doctrinal
and worship principles of historic Anglican formularies than are those of the
ACNA. Its views on bishops are also in line with those held by the English
Reformers and their Anglican evangelical successors. REACH South Africa is genuinely
synodical in its form of church governance with the clergy and laity sharing in
the government of the church. Its bishops are elected by its General Synod from
nominees submitted by the clergy and congregations to which they will be
providing episcopal pastoral care.
While it is regrettable that GAFCON and Anglican Mission in
England were not consulted in advance of this consecration, the consecration
was an important step toward providing episcopal pastoral care to clergy and
congregations who are committed to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal
and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies and who have become
disaffected from the Church of England over its abandonment of Biblical
Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism.
Robin:
ReplyDelete1. Please cite for me the evidence you have in #3 that "Archbishop Duncan has in the past criticized the Elizabethan Settlement which has shaped authentic historic Anglicanism and called for the establishment of a “new settlement,” one that would turn back the clock to a time before the English Reformation."
2. In #5 you write, "The ACNA Provincial Assembly, by far the most representative of three provincial bodies, has no power at all. It cannot initiate legislation or amend legislation submitted to it. It only can rubber stamp canons and constitutional amendments adopted by the Provincial Council" Not so. The ACNA Assembly can either approve (your phrase: rubber stamp) or reject constitutional amendments and return them to the Provincial Council for refinement and re-submission.
Rev'd David Wilson (ACNA) Diocese of Pittsburgh
David,
ReplyDelete1. When Archbishop Duncan was on a speaking tour in the United Kingdom around the time of the last Lambeth Conference, he made a speech in which he criticized the Elizabethan Settlement and called for a "new settlement." He also gave an address at the time the ACNA was formally organized in which he asserted that regression was an appropriate response to the crisis that was facing the Episcopal Church. These remarks were posted on the Internet at the time. Add to these statements the fact that he has enthusiastically endorsed the ACNA Ordinal which embodies a view of apostolic succession more in line with that of the Roman Catholic Church than with that of the English Reformers and which revives practices that English Reformers rejected, including the presentation of a new priest with a chalice and anointing of a new priest's hand, two practices associated with the Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, and the anointing of a new bishop's forehead, practice associated with the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. He also enthusiastically endorsed the ACNA catechism which is Arminian if not Roman Catholic in its view of the ordo salutis and incontrovertibly Roman Catholic in its view of the sacraments, even going as far as misrepresenting the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion on that key issue.
2. The Provincial Assembly has little de jure or de facto power and to date, to my knowledge, has not disagreed with the more powerful College of Bishops and Provincial Council. Its business sessions are very short and provide little opportunity for in-depth discussion of the proposals submitted to the delegates for ratification. The proposals that it ratifies are formalities which Provincial Assembly is expected to legitimize and to create the superficial appearance of legislative harmony rather than because the Assembly has actual power. It is toothless as an accountability mechanism. It cannot form committees and taskforcea and conduct inquiries and investigations.It cannot propose changes to the canons and constitution, much less make refinements in the proposals that are submitted to it. Even in the British Parliament in which the Cabinet formed by the party with a parliamentary majority submits bills to the members of Parliament for debate and adoption, members of Parliament may also submit private bills for debate and approval. When ACNA's provincial legislative process is compared with that of other ecclesiastical and political organizations, the legislative process of two such organizations immediately come to mind. The first is the Roman Catholic Church; the second is the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union. Both of these legislative processes permit one faction in the organization to control the legislative process at all levels and to determine its outcome. While my description of the Provincial Assembly as a "rubber stamp" may rankle you, that is pretty much what it is.
Hi Robin, you make some interesting points.
ReplyDeleteI recently discovered that a new Anglican congregation is being planted on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The congregation, called Good Shepherd, is under the oversight of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa.
Do you think that this may have something to do with the theological and liturgical issues that you have raised in regards to the Anglican Church in North America and the ACNA being problematic in providing an ecclesiastical home for Christians who are classical Reformed Anglicans?
Also do you think it might herald the beginning of more congregations being panted in North America under REACH-SA oversight?
The consecration of a bishop for Jesmond Parish Church and its congregations,(those in existence and those being planted in the future), and the oversight of a Manhattan based church might signal that the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa is seeking to fill some international gaps?
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI would need more information about the church plant and its exact relationship to REACH South Africa to offer an opinion on the subject and even then I would be speculating. Based upon my conversations with a representative of what then was CESA a number of years ago, it comes as surprise.
CESA was at the time reluctant to engage in any kind of intervention outside of Africa, having been the object of harsh criticism for its ordination of clergy in England. A CESA delegation had gone to the United States at the invitation of several parties who had expressed an interest in establishing a branch of CESA in North America only to have no one attend the meetings that they held for that purpose.
I was part of a small group of individuals seeking to establish a network of biblically faithful, authentically Anglican churches in North America independent of the ACNA. CESA referred the group to another North American with similar objectives. This individual had a different vision from that of my group and the two different visions could not be reconciled. I reported this difficulty to CESA and CESA broke off its conversations with the group I was representing without explanation. I assumed at the time that it did not want to be drawn into this disagreement.
Another group with which I am acquainted would approach CESA around this time and received a non-committal response.
As the CESA representative also pointed out to me CESA had limited resources. It had no mechanism for supporting a mission in the United States. I would have to appeal to individual churches in CESA. CESA also wanted representatives of my group to fly to South Africa and meet with the CESA leadership. The disagreement over vision put an end to plans for such a meeting.
The Jesmond consecration represents a shift in policy from that time. However, REACH South Africa and Jesmond Parish Church already had an existing relationship. It was not an unknown factor like the various North American groups and individuals that had sought CESA’s help in the past.
In regards to the direction of the ACNA conservative evangelicals in REACH South Africa share the concerns of other conservative evangelicals in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and the United States with whom I have had conversations.