Pages

Thursday, February 21, 2019

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.

6 comments:

  1. Dear Mr. Jordan,

    While I have the highest respect for your literary perspicacity and accuracy, I must take issue with your characterization of the Anglican Orthodox Church (of which I am a member for many years) as suffering from splits over churchmanship. I would also dispute your characterization of the 1928 American Prayer Book as "embody(ing) doctrine and principles that represent a departure from the doctrine and principles of the reformed Anglican Church."

    I have been closely associated with the principles of the AOC for almost fifty years and can assure you that the duplicitous matters which afflicted the small denomination had primarily to do with church discipline and order, and not primarily churchmanship as you suggest.

    Secondly, I always remind those who, rightly or wrongly, hold the 1662 English Book to be superior to the 1928 American Book that the Preface assures that "the foundations of the Faith be kept entire" as that of the Church of England, to be "continued firm and unshaken."

    I am personally concerned by the suggestion of baptismal regeneration found in that service in every Prayer Book written, save Dr. White's Proposed Book (1785), and by the suggestion of the popish power of priestcraft in auricular confession as found in the 1662 BCP - "Ego te absolvo." Yet I choose to ignore criticisms of the 1662 BCP by some Puritans (and others) that the Book embodies Popish doctrine and principles, totally unacceptable to a truly reformed Church.

    While I personally favour the use of the Irish Prayer Book, the Book of my youth and upbringing, I find myself incapable of offering prayers for the Queen of England. Of course, the Book does not require those prayers to be said, since the creation of the Irish Free State/Republic but I'm still sad that they remain in the Book. The 1662 is likewise faulty in that regard.

    It would seem that a great deal of Prayer Book churchmanship (lex orandi, lex credendi) depends on the user. I have attended Anglican "Masses" which made the service resemble a Tridentine Pontifical and some Protestant Episcopal Solemn High Pontifical Morning Prayer services that recalled a Masonic Installation Ritual.

    I think it is important to remember that Prayer Books of any vintage do not insure orthodoxy on the part of the users. John Henry Newman cut his ecclesiastical teeth on the 1662 Book alone, and John Shelby Spong could quote most of the 1928 from memory.

    Thank you for your kind attention.

    Respectfully,
    Charles Morley
    Eph. 5:30

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charles,
    I have changed the wording of the sentence of which you questioned the accuracy. I gathered from my research that a major contributing factor to the divisions in the Anglican Orthodox Church was churchmanship. Four AOC parishes were involved in the formation of the American Episcopal Church (AEC) in 1968 and one AOC parish formed the Anglican Episcopal Church of North America (AECNA) in1972. One wing of the Anglican Orthodox Church decided to move the jurisdiction in a more Anglo-Catholic direction in 1999. This would eventually adopt the name of the Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC) The OAC entered into an intercommunion agreement with the Old Catholic Church of Slovakia in 2007. A small group of AOC parishes that wished to remain faithful to the Protestant Low-Church principles of the AOC’s founder, Bishop James Parker Dees, reincorporated as the Anglican Orthodox Church in 1999, retaining the original name of the jurisdiction.

    I grew up with the two Prayer Books—the 1662 and 1928. I have a copy of the 1926 Irish Prayer Book in my Prayer Book collection and like you I have a high opinion of that book. It has one of the best conservative revisions of the 1662 Prayer Book. I particularly like its Tables of Lessons. Its rubrics permit the substitution of Urbs Fortitudinis or Psalm 148 for the Te Deum and the Benedicite. Space does not permit me to further enumerate what I like about the book.

    Since the 1926 Irish Prayer Book was used in the Republic of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland, it has prayers for both the President of the Republic of Ireland and the Queen of the United Kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I continue to use the 1928 Prayer Book because the church in which I am involved uses that Prayer Book, I also recognize that it is far from the ideal book for Anglicans who wish to remain faithful to the Bible and historic Anglican beliefs and practices.

    The Daily Offices omit the penitential sentences except at Evening Prayer in Lent.

    The Order of Ministration of the Holy Communion incorporates the Lesser Oblation into the Offertory and a petition for the dead in the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church. It retains the 1789 adaptation of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration with its anamnesis-oblation, invocation of the Holy Spirit, and references to our sacrifice, which Cranmer removed from the Prayer of Consecration in the reformed 1552 Prayer Book; moves the Lord’s Prayer and Prayer of Humble Access to the position that they occupy in the unreformed 1549 Prayer Book; and in around about away permits the singing of the Agnus Dei, which Cranmer dropped from the 1552 Prayer Book. The Order of Ministration of the Holy Communion also omits the Declaration on Kneeling. These were changes that the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church wings of the old PECUSA wanted. They were not changes that Evangelicals, if any had been left in the PECUSA, would have welcomed. They moved the American Prayer Book even further away from the 1662 Prayer Book.

    Since the PECUSA did not require clergy to subscribe to the 1804 American revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles, clergy were not bound to interpret the 1928 Prayer Book in accordance with the Articles. This meant that those who were of that mind could interpret the 1928 Prayer Book as teaching the medieval Catholic doctrines of eucharistic sacrifice and transubstantiation.

    The Offices of Instruction teach that the bishop bestows the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the confirmand when he lays hands on him—a doctrine that is based upon a misreading of Paul’s second epistle to Timothy. Paul is not referring to confirmation in that letter but to a gift that Timothy received by the laying-on-of-hands of the elders as the result of a prophecy which Paul makes clear in his first epistle to Timothy.

    The Form and Manner of Making Deacons dilutes the response to the third question in the Examination. The Order for the Burial of the Dead includes prayers for the dead, including prayers for their perfection after their death—an allusion to purgatory.

    The Ministration of Baptism omits the Flood Prayer and abandons the longstanding Anglican, Lutheran, and primitive Catholic doctrine that Christ’s baptism in the river Jordan has sanctified, that is, set apart all water for the purpose of baptism, and gives a central place to the priest’s consecration of the water in the font for that purpose. As you pointed out, the language of the rite takes the position that the newly-baptized is regenerate and has received the Holy Spirit, a position that can be reached only by cherry-picking a few texts from the New Testament and reading into them what one wants them to say while ignoring their context and disregarding whole counsel of the Bible. Jesus did receive the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. However, Cornelius and his household and Paul received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. The Samaritans and Simon Magus were baptized but did not receive the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans would receive the Holy Spirit later—a sign that God had opened the way to salvation through Jesus Christ to them as well as to the Jews and the Gentiles. The New Testament does not tell us what happened to Simon Magus. Based upon these accounts and what the Bible tells us about the character of the Holy Spirit—like the wind he goes wherever he wills—we may safely conclude that an individual may receive the Holy Spirit before, at, or after baptism or not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the other hand, an “Old Catholic” critique of the 1928 Prayer Book concluded that the Communion Office is not Catholic enough. It does not make any references to Christ’s bloodless immolation on altar for the sins of the world. The two superannuated Scottish Non-Juror bishops who drafted the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office did not believe that Christ was substantively present in the consecrated elements despite the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the realist language in the Prayer of Consecration. The Non-Jurors were receptionists. When the compilers of the 1789 Prayer Book adapted the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration for that book, they incorporated language from the 1662 Prayer of Consecration that eliminated any suggestion that the invocation of the Holy Spirit brought about a change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

    Bear in mind, however, that this occurred before the Oxford Movement and the Ritualist Movement. The Tractarians systematically went through the 1662 Prayer Book and read a Catholic sense into everything that they could. It was the Ritualists’ interpretation of the 1789 Prayer Book that prompted Evangelicals in the PECUSA to question its doctrine and eventually reject it as containing incipient Catholic doctrine. The 1928 Communion Office is the 1789 Communion Office with additions and alterations that I have described.

    The problem areas of the 1928 Prayer Book are not like those of the 1662 Prayer Book, in which one school of thought ignores such factors as authorial intent, the plain sense of a text, or the received interpretation of a text, and assigns its own meaning to the text as did John Newman with the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book before he abandoned the Church of England for the Church of Rome. They are texts and practices that have long association with unreformed Catholicism--for example, the Lesser Oblation--the offering of the bread and wine at the Offertory, and prayers for the dead. They are texts that Cranmer omitted from the 1552 Prayer Book or moved to a different location and put to a different use because they gave expression to unreformed Catholic doctrine. Other than the language is difficult for the younger generations and the rites and services might be more participatory I have no other problems with the 1928 Prayer Book. As I said, I use it every Sunday. It was one of the better Prayer Books of its time in the sense that it was well put together and it would influenced a number of Prayer Books of what would subsequently become provinces of the Anglican Communion--notably those in which clergy with Anglo-Catholic leanings were a significant influence. With the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book it would influence the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Mr. Jordan,

    It was most gracious of you to consider my remarks and to amend your article. I would wish to be able to communicate with you in private with regard to some of the issues you have raised regarding what has come to be known as "the Continuum." There is a history yet to be written regarding this phenomenon which would challenge any historian of the Balkans. It would most probably be considered fiction, even if every word of said history were verifiable truth.

    When you say the AOC has experienced "divisions" I would simply remark that there is not a single "non Canterbury" Anglican body which has not. Canterbury herself has experienced "divisions" yet is still considered a unified body - organizationally, at any rate. Smaller jurisdictions are less able to hide or mask their difficulties than larger ones. They are far more vulnerable to ridicule and gossip, and therefore appear to be grossly unstable and without vision or mission.

    I have been in several "continuing" jurisdictions over the past forty years and witnessed much of the history of "the Continuum" both good and bad. I often speculate as to the future of jurisdictions like ACNA, looking thirty years into the future. I wonder what that history will be like, compared to the Continuum, given that many of the same elements which currently concern that jurisdiction were also present in the early Continuing churches.

    I would be happy to share some of the unwritten history of the AOC with you which might paint the divisions that have occurred in a clearer light. For good or ill, the AOC has maintained the same doctrine , discipline, and worship throughout it's difficult history. There are few in the Continuum - or anywhere else in Anglicanism for that matter - who can make the same claim.

    Again, I thank you for you excellent ministry to the Church, and for your kind consideration of my babble.

    Respectfully,
    Charles Morley
    Eph. 5:30

    ReplyDelete
  6. Charles,

    I gleaned what little I could about the AOC from articles I have read on the Internet, including one that I believe that Bishop Ogles had posted on his old website, from Douglas Bess' book, Divided We Stand: A History of the Anglican Continuing Movement, and from friends and acquaintances in the Continuum or formerly in the Continuum. Please feel free to correspond with me at rjordan2atmurraystatedotedu and add to my fund of knowledge. "Divisions" was how the wikipedia article on the AOC described the several realignments that have occurred in the AOC.

    ReplyDelete