On the Horns of Dilemma: Catholics and Protestants in the Anglican Church in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

Clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America who highly value the Protestant Reformation and the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies are faced with some tough choices. In this article I am going to look at a number of possible options from which they might choose and weigh the pros and cons of each of these options.

1. These clergy and congregations can gradually abandon historic Anglicanism and embrace the confession du jour, the form of unreformed Catholic beliefs and practices embodied in the ACNA’s formularies, proposed and otherwise. This is the path that the ACNA leaders who are responsible for these formularies are hoping will happen. They are hoping that the clergy and congregations will quietly acquiesce to the form of unreformed Catholicism that they are foisting on the province and will put up no resistance.

I do not expect to see clergy who do not accept these formularies ejected from their churches. However, I do expect them to experience pressure from their bishops and fellow clergy to conform, particularly in dioceses in which the bishop and other clergy subscribes to the form of unreformed Catholicism embodied in the formularies or place support of the ACNA as an organization above other considerations. This happened in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA when the agenda of progressive liberal Anglicans and Episcopalians became the official policy of the denomination. The ACNA shows no evidence of being any different from these two Anglican provinces in this regard. It is the nature of the beast.

If these clergy and congregations do conform, the North America will be left without a genuine Anglican presence and witness as well as the Anglican Church in North America.

2. Clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America who uphold the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies might migrate to one of the other breakaway churches. Of the older breakaway churches that form the Continuum or predate the 1970s St. Louis Continuing Movement, only two jurisdictions claim to uphold the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies—the Anglican Orthodox Church and the United Episcopal Church of North America. Both jurisdictions are small and aging. One has experienced a number of divisions; the other has vacillated between Anglo-Catholicism and Protestant Broad-Church Anglicanism.

Both jurisdictions are poorly equipped to have an effective witness on the twenty-first century North American mission field. Both jurisdictions permit only the use of the King James Bible in church services. They do not permit the use of modern Bible translations. This puts them at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reaching the younger generations who struggle with the Elizabethan English of William Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets and the Jacobean English of the King James Bible. University students for whom English is not their native language have a particularly difficult time with these older forms of the English language.

Both jurisdictions have adopted the 1928 Book of Common Prayer as their official Prayer Book. The United Episcopal Church of North America also permits the use of the 1662 Prayer Book and 1962 Canadian Prayer Book in its churches. The language of these Prayer Books presents the same kinds of difficulties for the younger generations and foreign exchange students as does the language of the King James Bible. The doctrine and liturgical usages of the 1928 Prayer Book and 1962 Canadian Prayer Book do not conform to those of the 1662 Prayer Book. The use of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book weakens their claim to uphold the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her formularies. Both books embody doctrine and principles that represent a departure from the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church.

For some clergy in these two jurisdictions their attachment to the 1928 Prayer Book (or the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book) is sentimental. They have used the book for the better part of their ministry. For others this attachment is sentimental and doctrinal. In such cases one must question the full commitment of these clergy to the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church. A few may use the 1928 Prayer Book simply because it is the only Prayer Book that they are permitted to use. They have no attachment to the book, sentimental or otherwise.

In my opinion both jurisdictions would benefit from adopting a policy of permitting the use of modern translations of the Bible and contemporary versions of the 1662 Prayer Book services. But it may be too late in the game for them to do so. Their existing clergy and congregations, I suspect, have too much invested in the continued use of the King James Bible and the 1928 Prayer Book.

Neither jurisdiction is vigorously engaged in planting new churches in the United States and Canada and remissioning existing churches. Both jurisdictions are heavily reliant on transfer growth.

The Anglican Orthodox Church has more overseas affiliates than it does parishes and missions in the United States. These overseas affiliates are not the result of the missionary efforts of that jurisdiction but are, for the most part, if not entirely, small indigenous churches that have, out of a desire to be a part of a larger network of churches and thereby to gain a measure of legitimacy, placed themselves under the umbrella of the Anglican Orthodox Communion, the brain-child of the AOC’s presiding bishop. The extent to which these overseas affiliates adhere to the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in its historic formularies is unknown.

As can be seen this option has its drawbacks. It may be the right choice for some clergy and congregations who have no other alternative.

A mass migration from the Anglican Church in North America to one or both of these jurisdictions, however, would be, to my mind, pouring new wine in old wineskins. While these two jurisdictions might initially welcome the new clergy and congregations, they would likely experiencing difficulty in assimilating the newcomers in the long run. While they may share a commitment to the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church, they are poles apart upon the use of modern translations of the Bible, contemporary versions of the 1662 Prayer Book services, and a host of other issues. These differences would likely create tensions between longtime clergy and congregations of the two jurisdictions and the new arrivals and might lead to divisions that do not serve the cause of a united reformed Anglican presence and witness in North America.

3. Clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America who highly value the Protestant Reformation and the doctrine and principals of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies can try to maintain a shadow existence in the ACNA. They can cling to the hope that they can outlive the present leadership of the ACNA and at some future date can gain control of the levers of power in the province.

The problem with this option is that it is predicated on the idea that these clergy and congregations can somehow not only survive in the environment that the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church in North America is seeking to create in the province but also thrive in that environment. It is not an environment that is friendly to the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church or to clergy and congregations that uphold such doctrine and principles. It is an environment intended to spread the form of unreformed Catholicism which that wing espouses to all levels of the ACNA—provincial, diocesan, and local.

Clergy and congregations who uphold the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church may for a time find refuge in the dioceses of bishops who may be friendly to such doctrine and principles or tolerant of them. They, however, have no assurance that these dioceses will be such a refuge for the long term. Under the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America, the College of Bishops has the last say in regards to who may become the bishop of a diocese in the province. The College of Bishops has authority to confirm the election of a bishop elected by a diocese or to appoint a bishop for the diocese from candidates nominated by the diocese.

The Catholic wing of the ACNA has pushed to make the second method of choosing a bishop the primary method of choosing a bishop and to phase out the election of bishops by dioceses. Eliminating the first method of choosing a bishop, which is most ancient method of choosing a bishop, would give the College of Bishops greater control over who became a bishop. Since the College of Bishops is dominated by the Anglo-Catholic-pro-Orthodox bishops, it would also give this faction in the College of Bishops greater control over who became a bishop. The provisions of the constitution and canons do not require the College of Bishops to choose one the nominees proposed by the diocese for the office of bishop of the diocese. They also do not prohibit the College of Bishops from choosing its own nominee for that office.

This particular method of choosing bishops was originally touted as an improvement over the way bishops are elected in the Episcopal Church. It was further touted as one of the ways that the African provinces chose their bishops and maintained the orthodoxy of their episcopal college.

What was not mentioned was that the Roman Catholic Church has exercised a strong influence upon the African view of bishops as has traditional African society. This particular method is similar to the way Roman Catholic bishops are chosen. In the Roman Catholic Church the conference of bishops of a province submit a list of candidates for the episcopate to the Apostolic See. Individual bishops may also submit the names of candidates to the Apostolic See. The Pope chooses new bishops from these nominees. The Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law does not prohibit the Pope from choosing a new bishop from other candidates that he believes are suitable for the episcopal office.

In the African adaptation of this method of choosing bishops the episcopal college of a province takes the place of the Pope. Just as the Pope consults with the bishops of a province before choosing a new bishop, the episcopal college consults with the diocese. The episcopal college then makes its choice as does the Pope.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why the Anglican Church in North America’s Catholic wing prefers this method of choosing bishops. It enables that wing to entrench itself in the College of Bishops and through the College of Bishops to control the direction of the province.

4. Clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America who uphold the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies can push for the reorganization of the ACNA and other major reforms in the province. I do not know how far they would get. The provincial legislative process is designed to inhibit much needed reform, not to facilitate it. It also designed to permit one faction in the ACNA to control the entire process.

Dioceses may make recommendations to the Provincial Council which may refer the recommendations to the Governance Task Force which may draft proposed legislation based upon these recommendations. If the Provincial Council is not satisfied with this legislation, it refers the legislation back to the Governance Task Force with any recommended changes. There is no such thing as a private member’s bill in the Provincial Council. A member cannot propose legislation or an amendment to legislation. If the Provincial Council is satisfied with the revised legislation, it formally adopts it and passes it on the Provincial Assembly. The Provincial Assembly has the choice of approving the legislation or referring it back to the Provincial Council. The Provincial Assembly cannot amend the legislation itself. It only can recommend changes to the legislation. It has no power to initiate legislation or revise it or substitute other legislation for it. Its legislative sessions are tightly orchestrated. Discussion of legislation is kept to a minimum. Except for rubber-stamping any legislation submitted to it, the Provincial Assembly is largely an overblown pep rally.

The Anglican Church in North America’s legislative process reflects a basic distrust of the judgment of the ordinary clergy and laity who are the primary stakeholders in the province. It designed to lend an air of legitimacy to the decisions of the top echelon of the province—its bishops and a few other key leaders.

Due to the way the Anglican Church in North America is organized, clergy and congregations committed to biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism might be more successful bringing about reform at the diocesan level. The provisions of the ACNA’s canons do, however, require the constitutions and canons of a diocese to contain nothing that is inconsistent with the province’s constitution and canons. If the province’s Catholic wing becomes alarmed by a movement among the dioceses to assert greater independence for themselves in such areas as governance, election of bishops, catechetical instruction, and forms of worship, those involved in this movement should not be surprised if that wing rams legislation through the Provincial Council and the Provincial Assembly restricting their independence. The province’s Catholic wing is not happy with the degree of independence that they enjoy now. Any movement toward greater diocesan autonomy would be viewed as a threat to its hegemony.

5. A fifth option that clergy and congregations in the Anglican Church in North America who highly value the Protestant Reformation and the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies may wish to weigh is taking advantage of the provisions of the ACNA’s constitution and canons which recognize the right of dioceses to band together for the purpose of missions or in distinct jurisdictions and form a network of dioceses and churches committed to upholding the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church—something like the Anglican Communion Network. The ACN, as you may remember, was the forerunner of the ACNA. This network could combine its resources to plant new churches and to remission existing ones and cooperate on other projects such as the publication of catechetical material of its own and contemporary versions of the 1662 Prayer Book services and maintenance of a central registry of affiliated clergy and congregations, as well as represent historic Anglicanism in North America. It might draw up its own covenant recognizing the plenary authority of the Holy Scriptures and affirming the one apostolic and catholic faith embodied in the creeds and the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church embodied in her historic formularies.

I understand that some clergy and congregations have changed their affiliation several times and may be suffering from fatigue associated with these changes. They are numb from the theological disputes that have divided the Anglican Communion and the non-Communion Anglican Churches over the past 50 odd years. However, if they are truly committed to biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism, this option may be their best choice.

If the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church in North America attempts to block the formation of such a network, it will show to the GAFCON Primates that the ACNA is not GAFCON in North America as they might like to believe. If the GAFCON Primates side with the ACNA’s Catholic wing, it will show to the world that GAFCON Primates do not really stand for biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism as they claim to do.

The formation of such a network would also facilitate an amicable parting of the ways between the ACNA’s Catholic and Protestant wings should they decided that the two wings cannot inhabit the same ecclesial body due to their differences. It would not mean that they could not continue to cooperate in some areas such as the funding of a joint pension fund and health insurance plan and the protection of the unborn.