By Robin G. Jordan
While some readers might conclude from my articles that I “have it in” for the Anglican Church in North America, that conclusion would be far from the truth. I am not opposed to the basic concept of an alternative Anglican province in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and adjoining territories. To that statement, however, I must add a caveat—provided that such province is genuinely Anglican; has a constitutional, synodical form of governance; and is fully committed to spreading the gospel, making disciples, and planting and revitalizing churches. It is in these three areas that I have major concerns about the Anglican Church in North America.
Both the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada have drifted away from biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism. While the two provinces contain pockets of orthodoxy, they have become increasingly heterodox if not heretical in their beliefs. This can largely attributed to the erosion of the authority of the Bible and the classical Anglican formularies in the two provinces. In The Way, the Truth and the Life - Theological Resources for a Global Anglican Future, which it issued in advance of the first Global Anglican Future conference, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group identifies two primary causes of this erosion—Catholic Revivalism and Progressive Christianity. Both have contributed to the erosion of the authority of the Bible and the classical Anglican formularies in the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The erosion of their authority may have been greater in the Episcopal Church because the province has never required clergy subscription to the Articles of Religion. From 1789 on its Prayer Book has incorporated elements that represent a departure from the standard of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The Catholic Revivalist movement established a foothold in the province very early in its history. In the nineteenth century the province would also lose its evangelical wing. Progressive Christianity which is now the dominant influence in the province has its antecedents not only in the nineteenth century Broad Church movement but also the nineteenth century Catholic Revivalist movement.
The establishment of an alternative North American province in which Catholic Revivalism is the dominant influence, however, is not a solution to the problem of the eroded authority of the Bible and the classical Anglican formularies in North American Anglicanism as Catholic Revivalism is a primary contributor to that problem. If anyone doubts that Catholic Revivalism is the dominant influence in the Anglican Church in North America, they need to take a good hard look at the ACNA’s constitution, canons, ordinal, catechism and proposed Book of Common Prayer. While Catholic Revivalists may not represent a large segment of the province, they have ensconced themselves in its principal decision making bodies and have been shaping the province to their liking. The other stakeholders in the ACNA, those who are adherents of biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism have been effectively side-lined. This includes those stakeholders who take the position that bishops, like the province’s clergy and laity, should be “subject to constitutional definition of authority and limitation of power.” Bishops should not be a law unto themselves and free to do whatever they please.
While Catholic Revivalists may not be the only group in the Anglican Church in North America that support what may be described as unfettered episcopacy as the form of governance for the province, they represent the largest group of its supporters. An authoritarian view of the episcopate is consistent with their other unreformed Catholic beliefs.
Those who support unfettered episcopacy generally blame the Episcopal Church’s General Convention for the present state of the Episcopal Church. However, the Episcopal Church’s bishops also bear a substantial portion of the blame for its present state. They decide who may attend seminary and what seminary they may attend. They decide who may be ordained in their diocese and who may minister in their jurisdiction. They decide who serves on diocesan boards and committees and who will represent the diocese at General Convention. Within their own diocese they are the man or woman working the levers behind the curtain.
The Episcopal Church’s bishops exercise considerable influence over the affairs of the denomination as well as the affairs of their respective dioceses. TEC’s bishops confirm the election of all new bishops. They also decide what is the doctrine of the church and whether one of their fellow bishops should be tried for teaching doctrine contrary to that doctrine. They conduct the trial of any bishop whom they have decided may have taught doctrine contrary to the church’s doctrine. They determine the verdict, decide the sentence, and pronounce it. They influence in numerous other ways the direction of the denomination. The very large role that the bishops play in the affairs of the Episcopal Church, the supporters of unfettered episcopacy gloze over, ignore, or minimize.
The Anglican Church also has a long history of episcopal abuse, in which bishops have overstepped or misused their power and authority, a history to which the supporters of unfettered episcopacy also turn a blind eye.
The supposedly “godly” bishops to whom the supporters of unfettered episcopacy would entrust the government of the province are not infallible. These bishops are human beings like themselves. They suffer from the same weaknesses from which we all suffer. They have no special gift that prevents them from using poor judgment and making critical mistakes. They are not free from partiality, partisanship, or petty rivalries.
It is noteworthy that the Articles of Religion of 1571 contain only one reference to bishops and none to episcopacy. Article XXXVI states: “The book of Consecration of Archbishops, and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering: neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious or ungodly.”
The Articles also take the position that the councils of the Church are not infallible. Article XXI states: “(forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, where of all be not governed with the spirit and word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred.” The implication is that those forming Church councils, including bishops, are not infallible.
If the supporters of unfettered episcopacy need an example of the dangers of an episcopal church government without adequate checks and balances, they have the Roman Catholic Church. The way that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has responded to the problem of clergy sexually abusing children should make them think twice. It has prompted many Roman Catholics to ask, “If the bishops are the guardians of the Church, who is going to protect the Church from its guardians.” A number of Roman Catholics have called for the establishment of bodies of lay representatives to oversee the Roman Catholic Church’s bishops at all levels. The supporters of unfettered episcopacy are very naïve if they believe that that sort of thing cannot happen in the Anglican Church in North America.
The third area in which I have major concerns is the Anglican Church in North America’s commitment to spreading the gospel, making disciples, and planting and revitalizing churches. I would be first to admit that a number of churches and church networks in the ACNA are doing just that. They are proclaiming the gospel as it is proclaimed in the New Testament. They are teaching what the Bible teaches and the classical Anglican formularies uphold. They are starting and growing new congregations. They are turning around churches that have become inward looking and tied to the past, "remissioning" them to fulfill the mission of the Church. They are making a real difference on the North American mission field.
What troubles me is that a number of churches and church networks in the ACNA are also doing next to nothing. Swathes of the North American mission field do not have a biblically orthodox Anglican presence and witness. Too often new churches are planted where the Episcopal Church has historically planted new churches in the past and are targeted at the same constituencies. Too often new congregations are formed from disaffected Episcopalians who have no evangelism in their DNA and who show negligible concern for North America’s growing population of unchurched non-believers.
What troubles me most is that new churches are being launched in which a different gospel is preached and in which newcomers are indoctrinated in a belief system that is at odds with biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism.
Even though the Anglican Church in North America is six months short of being ten years old, a pressing need for reform exists in the ACNA. When various people raised concerns at the outset about the shape that ACNA was taking, the direction in which it was going, they were told in so many words, “that can be fixed later.” Later has come and gone and nothing has been done. Old problems persist; new ones have arisen. Very little, if anything, has been done to remedy them. One might say that the ACNA is suffering its own crisis of leadership. I believe that the time has come for reform-minded leaders to take the helm of the ACNA and to steer it back to biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism; to provide it with a constitutional form of governance in which bishops share the authority with synods of clergy and laity in all matters, including spiritual matters; and to takes steps to ensure its commitment to the Great Commission is widely-spread, deeply-felt, and genuine.
Image: St. Paul's Church, Greenville, South Carolina
No comments:
Post a Comment