Guarding the Faith from Its Guardians

By Robin G. Jordan

Who will guard the faith from its supposed guardians? Who will protect the church from those who are primarily responsible for propagating error and superstition in the church—its bishops? This is the challenge that faces the North American Anglican Church in the twenty-first century, not just in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada but also in the Anglican Church in North America.

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have set off down one path that leads away from Biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism. The Anglican Church in North America has set off down another path that also leads away from Biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism. Each is following its own willow-the-wisp that lures it away from the safe path of the Anglican Way into the morass. .

At the front of each church, their eyes blind to the marshy ground beneath their feet, are the bishops of the church. They have strayed from the safety of the Anglican Way and they are taking their churches with them. They are heedless of the fate that awaits them--the horrors of the bog with its insatiable hunger, which will suck them and all who go with them down into its dark watery depths never to see the light of day again.

The English Reformers knew what lay beyond the safe path of the Anglican Way and they erected guard rails to keep travelers on that path from straying into the bog. They are what we have come to call the classical formularies of historic Anglicanism—the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and the Ordinal of 1661. They may be moss-covered and weathered but they still serve their purpose. They prevent travelers from wandering off the path and drowning in the bog.

Sadly these guard rails are viewed as outdated, old-fashioned, and unnecessary in certain quarters of the Anglican Church. “We do not need guard rails,” their critics explain. Look closely in the eyes of these critics and you will see the reflection of the flickering lights that hover above the bog and beckon them like the lights of a distant cottage. The old fairy tales have a name for it. It is “glamour.” It is the power to bewitch, to enchant, to mislead, to make things appear to be other than what they are. Those who are invited to a fairy feast, if they are fortunate, are able to see through the glamour and discover that the fragrant wine in a bejeweled chalice and the rich viands on a golden platter their hosts are offering them is muddy water in an acorn cup and poisonous toadstools on a leaf.

Some of us may prefer glamour to reality. We may cling to the mistaken belief that we are not disobeying God when we conduct a wedding ceremony for two men or two women. We may prefer the delusion that the early high Middle Ages was a golden age of Christianity, a time when the Church was everything that it should be. These beliefs, however, are the willow-the-wisps, the ignus fatius, that are luring us away from the safe path onto the wet muddy ground of the bog.

How do we meet the challenge that faces the North American Anglican Church in the twenty-first century? First, we must recognize that this challenge is not particular to the twenty-first century. It is a challenge that the Reformed Anglican Church has faced since the sixteenth century. One of the ways that it has met this challenge is to erect the guard rails that I mentioned earlier in this article—the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal. Another way that the Reformed Anglican Church has met this challenge is to insist that its bishops and other clergy stay within these guard rails, that they do not ignore them, move them, or tear them down, that they do not encourage others to ignore them, move them, or tear them down.

At one time English parishes had an unpleasant but effective way of teaching the young people the boundaries of the parish. At each boundary marker they were beaten with a switch, thrown into the water if the marker was a brook or a pond, or had their heads beaten against the marker if was a stone or a wall. The object was that the young people should never forget the particular boundary marker. While I am not advocating the treatment of Anglican clergy and would-be Anglican clergy in this fashion, we do need to develop ways of firmly fixing in their minds the boundaries of Anglicanism. We need to help them understand why the English Reformers erected guard rails along the Anglican Way and the dangers that lie beyond these barriers. We also need to warn them against those who dismiss the need for such guard rails.

We need to do the same for congregations. They should be able to discern when the shepherd himself is straying. This entails helping them to have more than a passing acquaintance with the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal and the dangers from which these guard rails protect them. We also need to teach them how to read, study, and interpret the Bible for themselves and to distinguish a questionable or inaccurate interpretation of the Bible from a sound one.

A fifth way that we can meet this challenge is to insist upon a clear definition of the authority of the office of bishop as well as to limit the power of that office. This may not prevent the supposed guardians of the faith from propagating error and superstition but it will reduce and weaken their influence. On one hand it is desirable to protect the occupants of that office from frivolous charges, to give them a degree of latitude in secondary matters, and to permit their authorization of minor alterations to the rites and services of the church. On the other hand it is also desirable to make provision for their prompt removal from the episcopal office when they no longer conform to the Bible in their teaching, go beyond the guard rails of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal, or encourage others to do so. Occupying a place on the episcopal bench should not free them from reproof, censure, or other disciplinary action. Not only should individual occupants of the episcopal office be subject to disciplinary action when and if warranted, but so should the whole episcopal college.

A sixth way that we can meet this challenge is to extend the process of making changes in the canons affecting the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church over a period of several years, to require the thorough public scrutiny of each proposal by a commission of clergy and laity, particularly in regards to its conformity to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal; to give the general synod or its equivalent of the province the power to debate and amend such proposals; and to further require as a condition of their final approval a favorable vote of a specific number of clerical and lay representatives forming the province’s general synod or its equivalent at two or more sessions of that body. In the case of the Anglican Church in North America that body would be the Provincial Assembly.

At the time that the Anglican Church in North America was organized, it was argued that the deliberative process caused needless delays in decision-making. But the deliberative process gives a larger number of people an opportunity to examine a proposal, to expose its weaknesses to the light of day, and to draw attention to the possible repercussions if the proposal is adopted. The real motive behind this objection to the deliberative process was the desire to limit decision-making to a select few, enabling them to determine the direction of the new province. The deliberative process, however, gives all who have a stake in the ACNA a voice in determining its direction. It also affirms that Christ is the real authority in his Church, working his will not just through a small group of high-ranking clergy but all the members of the Church.

If they are unsuccessful in their efforts to reform the Anglican Church in North America, those clergy and congregations who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and longstanding Anglican doctrine and principles have one final option. They can do what the English Reformers did. They can break with a church hierarchy that is propagating error and superstition in the church. The English Reformers were following a clear precedence. Those who held the orthodox Christian belief that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity withdrew from fellowship with those who, like Arius, believed that Jesus was a created being. They refused to submit to their bishops. This was no disagreement over secondary matters. It was a disagreement over the very nature of the gospel.

What is happening in the Anglican Church in North America is also not a disagreement over secondary matters. At stake is how Anglicans have historically understood the message of the gospel, the order of salvation, and the nature of the sacraments. With the ordinal, the catechism, and now the rites and services of the church, one wing of the ACNA is endeavoring to make what the Reformed Anglican Church has historically understood to be false teaching the official teaching of the province. This is not a disagreement over ceremonial and church and clergy ornaments. It is a disagreement over the essentials of the Christian faith.

ACNA’ers who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and longstanding Anglican doctrine and principles are not duty-bound to follow the province’s bishops into the mire. They can stay on the solid ground of the Anglican Way. They can offer a hand to those foolish enough to follow the bishops into the muck and rescue them before they sink too deeply into the bog. They have something entrusted to them that is far more precious any ecclesiastical organization. It is the gospel of grace. Their first loyalty is not to an institution called the Anglican Church in North America. It is to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Related Article:
When Did the ACNA Adopt a Canon Authorizing a Prayer Book for the Province?