By Robin G. Jordan
ACNA’ers who are firmly committed to remaining faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies need to consider how they are going to respond to a proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book that represents another step toward marginalizing them in the Anglican Church in North America. While they might challenge the legality of the College of Bishops’ authorization of a Prayer Book for the Anglican Church in North America in its constitutional court, I suspect that they will discover that body is stacked against them.
If they have the chutzpah, they may want to consider these options:
1. Organize floor demonstrations against the proposed book at the upcoming Provincial Assembly. At a minimum they should protest the sale of the proposed book at the gathering.
If they are barred from protesting, they can go to the media. There is nothing that the “powers that be” in the ACNA hate more than unfavorable media coverage, especially media coverage that draws attention to the exaggerated nature of the claims that they make or to the divisions in the province.
Now they can expect pushback from those who like the book but they should not let their fear of the accusation of being divisive and undermining the unity of the ACNA keep them from protesting the College of Bishops’ authorization of the book. This accusation has been used to leverage them into silence and acquiescence in the past and they should pay no attention to it. The real cause of division and disunity in the ACNA are those who are promoting the proposed book.
2. If they carry any weight in their respective dioceses they can organize a boycott of the use of the proposed book in the diocese. The College of Bishop may want to reconsider its approval of a book that a number of dioceses refuse to use.
3. If they carry any weight in their respective diocesan synod, they can pass and publicize resolutions drawing attention to the partisan character of the proposed book and its other shortcomings—insensitivity to the needs of clergy and congregations on the North American mission field, lack of flexibility and adaptability, and so on. They can adopt measures banning the use of the book in their respective dioceses.
Should the College of Bishops overact to any organized opposition to the proposed book, it will work in favor of those are opposed to the book. It will expose those members of the College of Bishops who are seeking to move the Anglican Church in North America further in an unreformed Catholic direction for what they are—or perhaps more accurately for what they are not—GAFCON in North America, presuming that GAFCON really stands for what it claims to stand—Biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism.
Can organized opposition to the proposed book backfire? Certainly. However, it will reveal how genuinely tolerant the ACNA’s Anglo-Catholic-pro-Orthodox element is of ACNA’ers who do not share its vision of the province. It will reveal how much of that tolerance is a performance intended to gain the cooperation of these ACNA’ers in implementing its agenda for the province. Historically this element has been quick to accuse others of intolerance but its aggressive promotion of its agenda shows that it is itself extremely intolerant of others. It may be better in the long term for both the ACNA’s Anglo-Catholic-pro-Orthodox element and the ACNA’ers who do not share its vision of the province to recognize that they do not have a real affinity with each other and to negotiate an amicable parting of the ways.
One possibility, which I admit may be a long shot, is for those who want to move in a more unreformed Catholic direction and those who want to remain faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the historic Anglican formularies is to abandon the existing constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America and to form two non-geographic autonomous provinces which are based upon theological affinity and which cooperate with each other in a number of areas—a common pension and health care plan for clergy, for example. Each province would have its own constitution and canons, bench of bishops, liturgy, catechism, and so forth. The umbrella organization for these two provinces would retain the name “the Anglican Church in North America” and would have very limited functions. It would be organized along the lines of the Porvoo Communion. It would have no central office or overseer. Each member church would have an agreed-upon number of contact persons and these individuals would form a contact group which would meet every year. Two bishops, one from each province, would be co-moderators of the contact group, and there would be two co-secretaries also drawn from each province. There would also various conferences and meetings organized to discuss issues of common concern to the two provinces.
Such an arrangement may not be ideal. But to my way thinking it is a better arrangement than what ACNA’ers who do not share the ACNA’s Anglo-Catholic-pro-Orthodox element’ vision of the Anglican Church in North America have now. It is better than being relegated to an unimportant position in the ACNA and pushed to the periphery of the province.
To observers like myself the lack of a commitment to a policy of genuine comprehensiveness in the Anglican Church in North America has been discernible from the outset. The statements of ACNA leaders, the actions of its task forces, its form of governance, its ordinal, its catechism, and its proposed Prayer Book have reinforced and strengthened this perception.
A policy of genuine comprehensiveness would have made ample room in the province for those who are firmly committed to remaining faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies. It would have given all stakeholders a real voice in the direction of the province. It would not have tampered with the language of the classical Anglican ordinal. It would have produced a catechism on which all theological schools of thought represented in the ACNA genuinely did agree. It would have compiled a Prayer Book that is an embodiment of that policy.
ACNA’ers who are firmly committed to remaining faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies have the option of doing nothing. But what has doing nothing accomplished for them so far? Has it resolved the predicament in which they find themselves? Or has that predicament grown worse?
From where I sit, their predicament does not appear to have gotten any better due to their inaction. Despite the change to the canons permitting the continued use of the Prayer Book of the original jurisdiction to which a diocese or congregation, they are more marginalized than ever. The continued use of such books is subject to the approval of the ordinary of the diocese. This means that the new ordinary of a diocese would not be bound by the decisions of his predecessor and could discontinue the practice of permitting the use of a Prayer Book other than the proposed book in the diocese. The change to the canons offers no protection from such vagaries.
None of the Prayer Books presently in use in the Anglican Church in North America, including the proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book, were compiled for the North American mission field in the twenty-first century. They were compiled for different places and/or times. The proposed book reflects the particular interests of the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force and the College of Bishops and is out of touch with the realities of the twenty-first century North American mission field. They suffer from other drawbacks.
The canons, even as amended, make no provision for a sub-province, diocese, or other network of clergy and congregations to put together a collection of supplemental texts, much less to compile a service book for their own use and to revise it from time to time. They do not even permit bishops to authorize minor alterations to the province’s Prayer Book. The canons do, however, state that the Prayer Book approved by the ACNA will be the Prayer Book for the province. This means that the doctrine of that Prayer Book will be the official doctrine of the province, not the doctrine of the Prayer Book that a congregation is using.
ACNA’ers who are firmly committed to remaining faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies really do need to open their eyes and take a good hard look at what is going on around them. Passively accepting the predicament in which they find themselves is not going to serve them well. Most importantly it is not going to serve the cause of Biblical Christianity and authentic historic Anglicanism in the North American Anglican Church.
5 comments:
The splintering of Anglicanism in North America, regrettable as it may be, has provided option other than those offered by Robin Jordan. For the parish of All Saints Anglican Church in Traverse City, Michigan, the option of remaining in the ACNA proved unacceptable.
We therefore sought oversight from the Diocese of the Great Lakes, part of the United Episcopal Church in North America (the evangelical branch of continuing Anglicanisms) to continue our practice of traditional Anglicanism without starting yet another new Anglican body. Continuing Anglican jurisdictions benefit from an infusion of new parishes, as do parishes that want no more than to continue traditional Anglicanism and Reformed Catholicity. We found our reception in the DGL so much more welcoming, filled with Christian Charity, than all prior experiences with AMiA, PERCUSA, and ACNA. I can hardily commend exploring such options.
I do not advocate the option of leaving the Anglican Church in North America in my article because it is a form of capitulation. To my mind it should be the option of last resort. The element in the ACNA who is seeking to marginalize ACNA’ers who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and historic Anglican beliefs and practices is only too glad to see those whom it is pushing to the margins of the ACNA leave. After all that is one of the reasons that it is pushing these ACNA’ers to the margins of the province. Then it will not have to deal with them anymore. They no longer present an obstacle to the fulfillment of its aspirations—an unreformed Catholic Church modeled along the lines of how it imagines the undivided Church was before the Great Schism in the eleventh century. It ignores the fact that the Church has had divisions since New Testament times and was divided well before the Eastern Church and the Western Church excommunicated each other. The early High Middle Ages was no golden age of the Church. Turning back the clock to that period in Church history is not an effective way of dealing with the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is a form of escapism.
I also do not advocate that option in my article because it weakens the ACNA’ers who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and historic Anglican beliefs and practices and who have chosen to maintain a genuine Anglican presence and witness in the Anglican Church in North America. They do not benefit from the slow hemorrhaging of like-minded clergy and congregations from the ACNA.
The element in the ACNA who is seeking to marginalize ACNA’ers who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and historic Anglican beliefs and practices is also likely to exploit the weaknesses of these ACNA’ers, including disagreements over strategy.
In addition the cause of authentic historic Anglicanism does not benefit from the scattering of clergy and congregations committed to its advance among a number of weak jurisdictions. It needs a central point from which its influence proceeds. Due to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’ involvement with the Anglican Church in North America and the lack of a viable alternative that central point is the ACNA by default. It also has the largest concentration of clergy and congregations that identify themselves as Anglicans and who are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Bible and historic Anglican beliefs and practices. Based on its formularies, the ACNA does not, as a province, appear committed to advancing the cause of authentic historic Anglicanism. However, these clergy and congregations do appear to be committed to advancing that cause.
I am acquainted with the Diocese of the Great Lakes. I have corresponded with one of its retired bishops. I also have a friend who is familiar with the history of that jurisdiction.
I am also acquainted with the United Episcopal Church of North America. I have done some research into its history, including the vacillation of its presiding bishop between the various schools of churchmanship and his flirtation with the Anglican Catholic Church, one of the more advanced Anglo-Catholic Continuing Anglican jurisdictions. The UECNA has a mission in western Kentucky and I am acquainted with its priest.
The UECNA requires its churches to use the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1662 Prayer Book, or the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book and the King James Bible. This limits their ability to reach a large segment of the unchurched population in the United States and Canada, which is unacquainted with Jacobean English and has difficulty in understanding it. This population segment also shows little inclination to learn Jacobean English. The same population segment includes most of the younger generations. It is more receptive toward modern English liturgies and Bible translations.
I had a loose affiliation with the original AMiA between 2001 and 2006. I have written a number of articles about the original AMiA, its drift away from historic Anglicanism, and the cause of its breakup.
However, I am not familiar with PERCUSA. Its chief bishop does not have his headquarters in Florida by chance? It is the kind of name that a certain fly-by-night bishop of my acquaintance who is a former bishop of the now-defunct Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church would give one of his bogus jurisdictions. He and one or two of his associates have a reputation of being con-artists and scammers.
This particular individual is an example of the kinds of problems that beset the Continuum and other breakaway churches from Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Some of these jurisdictions are legitimate networks of clergy and congregations identifying themselves as Anglican and ministering and worshiping in accordance with their interpretation of the Anglican tradition. Others are paper jurisdictions. They represent a failed dream or a persistent delusion, or a favorite pastime. A few are sham. They are scams for the unwary. Even the legitimate networks of clergy and congregations have bishops and other clergy who are untrustworthy.
All of these jurisdictions, legitimate, paper, and bogus, are glad to welcome new clergy and new congregations for their own reasons. Many of the legitimate jurisdictions welcome them because they are the only way these jurisdictions can keep their heads above water. Very few, if any, of the legitimate jurisdictions are known for their vigorous church planting. Some do plant new churches but not enough to make a real difference. Most of their churches are inward-looking, small, and struggling. They are not the kind of church that plants new churches.
If your church wants to create a real legacy for itself in its new jurisdiction, I heartily recommend that it become a church that plant new churches, indeed becomes a church planting dynamo. From what I know about the Diocese of the Great Lakes, it needs such a church, a church to take the lead in church planting in the diocese and to set an example for the other churches of the diocese. I also realize that spearheading a church planting movement is easier said than done. But a network of new churches that plant new churches would be a great legacy for a church to leave behind, a much greater legacy than a crumbling, empty building.
I know that you do not advocate parishes leaving the ACNA, although that has been the pattern of dealing with Anglican heterogeneity when clergy and parishes realize that they have become a lost minority in a quasi-Anglican movement. We do not want to serve in isolation, unable to find support within a given diocese.
For us, this was the case where Anglo-Catholicism, charismatic excess, and women's ordination was the accepted norm. We are not interested in forming any new jurisdiction, but simply find one that is most congenial to our Anglican practice and tradition.
To my knowledge, the UEC is the only remaining evangelical traditional option, certainly in Northern Michigan. Instead of joining a diocese and a bishop hundreds of miles away, we have, for the first time, a bishop (actually 3 bishops) in the same state where we live and who actively support our ministry and common life. Our primary call is to minister to the people in our community, faithful to the Bible and to traditional Anglican faith and practice. The future of the ACNA is important, but less so for our local Mission - which must include the planting of new Missions, as you rightly pointed out.
The PEARUSA is also defunct now. It sought to maintain connection with the Anglican Church of Rwanda. But they eventually recommended that N American Anglicans join existing jurisdictions, mostly the ACNA. As I mentioned that did not work for us since the "Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes" (not the "Diocese of the Great Lakes") has little continuity with traditional Anglicanism.
Every pastor and congregation must make their choices based upon their particular circumstances and where they sense God is leading them. I adopted that position at the time I launched this blog 15 years ago. At that time some people were urging folks to leave the Episcopal Church; others were urging them to stay. To my mind, both might be the right thing to do. It depended upon an individual’s circumstances and what that individual sensed that God was leading them to do.
I did not leave the Episcopal Church exactly on my own initiative. I befriended a AMiA church planter and accompanied him on a courtesy visit to my church. I was going to introduce him to the rector but forgot that the rector took that particular day of the week off. When the rector learned that I had accompanied an AMiA pastor to the church, he demanded my resignation as the church’s long-time senior lay reader. He thought that my friendliness toward the church planter represented a conflict of interest for anyone in the leadership position in the church. He gave me the option of having nothing further to do with the church planter, in which case I could retain my position. I resigned, figuring that he would not trust me anyway. I thought that he was blowing things out of proportion because I had never cultivated a following at the church. While I was not always easy to work with as was he, I did not represent a threat to him or his ministry.
Episcopal priests were really paranoid about the AMiA in its early years. My rector had also experienced a church split the year before and feared another church split. But I was not planning to leave or to take anyone with me. After I resigned, he dropped my name from the church rolls. When I thought about it, I concluded that I had no future in the Episcopal Church. I decided to pursue my passion for church planting and small group ministry. That was in 2002.
I attended the Sacred Assembly or whatever that gathering was called at which PEAR-USA was formed. I concluded then that PEAR-USA would be assimilated into the ACNA. The folks in PEAR-USA were experiencing too much pressure from their friends in the ACNA. The bishops of PEAR-USA were leaning in that direction. Archbishop Duncan was at that gathering as was Archbishop Rawje. Duncan wanted to boost ACNA’s numbers. After the debacle with Chuck Murphy, Rawje was not particularly eager to hang onto PEAR-USA.
I have a number of friends and acquaintances in the Continuum and the other breakaway churches. They are good folks. But from what I have observed none of the jurisdictions themselves have what might be called an “evangelistic vigor.” Individual bishops, pastors, and congregations may have this vigor but not the jurisdiction as a whole. They do not have the energy, the know-how, and most importantly the will to become jurisdictions that plant churches that plant churches. Ed Stetzer on his blog on edstetzer.com writes about what a church that wants to plant more churches can do under those circumstances. You may want to check out his blog. Let me know your name and the name of your church and I will add them to my church’s prayer list.
Post a Comment