What an ACNA Church's Website May Reveal about It

By Robin G. Jordan

When I visit the website of an Anglican church affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America or one of its sub-provinces—the Anglican Network in Canada*, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and the Reformed Episcopal Church, I look for a number of things—the church’s vision and mission statements; its statement of beliefs, its statements of the beliefs of the Anglican Church; the biographies of its clergy; the place where it meets; the days and times when it meets; sermons, articles, and newsletters; descriptions of church services and worship practices, the availability of a nursery, description of its children’s ministry and other ministries, any links to other websites or resources, and that sort of thing.

I also evaluate the website itself—the initial impression that it creates, how easy it is to navigate, how well images and videos are used, the extent that it is free from clutter, whether visitors to the website can give online, the prominence that it gives to the denomination, and whether I would recommend it to others as an example of a good church website.

I do the same thing when I visit the websites of Continuing Anglican churches, Episcopal churches, and Anglican Church of Canada churches.

Church websites can be very revealing not only into the character of a particular church but also into its relationship of the denomination with which it is affiliated.

While some church websites are quite clear in stating what the church believes, others are less clear. A number of ACNA churches adopt a version of the jurisdiction’s Fundamental Declarations.

The ACNA’s Fundamental Declarations identifies seven elements which they maintain are characteristic of the Anglican Way, and to which they require adherence as a condition of membership in the ACNA. The ACNA’s canons also require adherence to these theological positions as a condition for ordination in the ACNA or partnership with the ACNA.

The Fundamental Declarations declare that the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and that they contain all things necessary for salvation. They further declare that these books are “the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.” At first glance one might conclude from this particular declaration that the ACNA is a Bible church. But a further examination of the Fundamental Declarations does not support this impression.

The Fundamental Declarations declare that Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel, and that they therefore should be ministered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him. They infers in a subtle way that other sacraments exist beside the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The language itself is taken from the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral.

The Fundament Declarations declare that “the godly historic episcopate” is an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and that such an episcopate as a consequence is integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ. As the late Peter Toon pointed to our attention in his critique of the Fundamental Declarations that the ACNA in taking this position is adopting a party line and is excluding the larger number of Anglicans who do not believe that the historic episcopate is an essential part of the apostolic faith and practice and that it is necessary to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.

This party line is associated with the Anglo-Catholic movement in the nineteenth and twentieth century and was originally articulated in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adopted by the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops in 1886. It was adopted as a basis of “Home Reunion,” that is, reunification with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral followed on the heels of a canon that was adopted earlier in the nineteenth century by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention and which declared that all churches which lacked the historic episcopate were not a part of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church and prohibited Episcopal clergy from fellowshipping with their clergy, receiving communion from their clergy, or preaching in such churches. It also prohibited Episcopal clergy from inviting the clergy of these churches to preach in their churches or administer the sacraments in their churches. This canon was proposed by the Episcopal Church’s Anglo-Catholic wing and was directed at its Evangelical wing. Among the events that prompted the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church was Bishop George David Cummins’ violation of this canon.

A scaled-down version of the statement was adopted by the third Lambeth Conference in 1888. A restatement of what has become known as the Lambeth Quadrilateral was adopted by the 1920 Lambeth Conference. It omitted any explicit reference to the historic episcopate except in the commentary. It substituted the following rewording of the fourth point:

A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral or any other statement or recommendation of the Lambeth Conference is not binding upon any Anglican province unless the province adopts it. The Lambeth Conference’s statements and recommendations represent what is described as the “mind of the Anglican Communion,” that is, the opinion of the majority of the bishops in attendance, at a particular juncture in Anglican Church history.

The Lambeth Conference is a consultative body. It has only the authority that the individual member provinces of the Anglican Communion choose to give to its specific pronouncements. This is why the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church, and other liberal provinces choose to ignore its statements on marriage and human sexuality.

“The mind of the Anglican Communion” can also change as we have seen in the case of the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

The Fundamental Declarations declare that the Anglican Church in North America accepts the historic faith of the undivided Church as defined in the three Catholic Creeds--the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds, and “as proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” The particular declaration in question might have been worded better but its contents are typical of similar declarations in the governing documents of other Anglican jurisdictions that I have examined.

The Fundamental Declarations declare that the Anglican Church in North America affirms the teaching of the first four Councils of the undivided Church and “the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.”

The particular declaration in question is a compromise. An earlier version of the same declaration accepted the teaching of all seven Councils.

In his critique of the original Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations are taken, Dr. Toon noted that this position was a radical departure from historic Anglicanism and represented a position over which Anglicans were deeply divided.

The later version of this particular declaration backs away from what is an Anglo-Catholic party line but not completely.

Very few of the constitutions of Anglican provinces that I have examined contain any reference to the Councils of the undivided Church. Those that do generally refer only to the first four Councils and contain no reference to the fifth, sixth, and seventh Council. The Jerusalem Declaration refers only to the first four Councils. This particular declaration could have been omitted.

The Fundamental Declarations take a radical position on The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Forms for Making, Ordering, and Consecrating Deacons, Priests, and Bishops of 1661, which, together with the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571 form the longstanding Anglican standard of faith and practice.

We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.

The particular declaration in question recognizes the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal as one of a number of standards for Anglican doctrine and discipline. It does not, however, identify these other standards. The wording does not rule out what the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church call “holy tradition” or “sacred tradition” or the pronouncements of those who claim to have a special pipeline to God.

It also reduces the 1662 Prayer Book to one of a number of books that form the standard for the Anglican worship tradition. It does not  identify these books but only states that they preceded the 1662 Prayer Book.

The wording does not rule out the pre-Reformation liturgies going back as far as pre-Nicene times. This is a very broad standard and permits the development and use of liturgies whose doctrine and liturgical usages are radically different from that of the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1552 reformed Prayer Book on which it is based.

The Fundamental Declarations take an equally as radical position on the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as they do the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1661.

We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

The phrase, “taken in their literal and grammatical sense,” is a dog whistle for Anglo-Catholics. The Urban Dictionary offers this definition of a dog whistle.

A dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is ‘in the know’ will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.

John Henry Newman in Tract 90, “Remarks on certain Passages of the Thirty-nine Articles,” took this phrase from Charles I’s 1628 Declaration at the beginning of the Thirty-Nine Articles and used as the basis for his interpretation of the Thirty Nine Articles in which he dismissed the need to consider authorial intent and historical context in their interpretation. See Gillis Harp’s article, “Recovering Confessional Anglicanism.”

Anglo-Catholics welcomed its inclusion in the particular declaration in question since it meant that they would be free to misinterpret the Articles as Newman had.

The declaration also infers that the doctrinal issues to which the Articles responded are in the past and that only some of the principles embodied in the Articles are applicable today. This is a far cry from the historic view that the Articles are Anglican Church’s confession of faith or the Jerusalem Declaration’s position that the Articles contain the true doctrine of the Church, agree with God’s Word, and are as authoritative for Anglicans today.

When an ACNA church uses a version of the Fundamental Declarations as a statement of its faith, I look elsewhere for clues to what it believes. I will read the pastor’s biography, examine a selection of his articles and sermons, and read the history of the church if one is posted on the website. I will also ascertain whether the church is using To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism and the 2019 Proposed ACNA Prayer Book.

ACNA churches that use a version of the Fundamental Declarations as their statement of faith tends to be institutionalist. They tend to emphasize membership in the ACNA at the expense of other factors. Their denominational affiliation will often be prominently displayed on their website. In this regard they are similar to a number of Episcopal churches whose websites I have visited.

Such churches also tend to embrace a reinterpretation of Anglicanism that it is not grounded in the first two centuries of the reformed Anglican Church but has its origin in the nineteenth century or later. Here again there is a discernible similarity with a number of Episcopal Church. Like these churches, they are disconnected from what was a seminal period in the development of historic Anglicanism. It was the period when the Anglican Church’s doctrinal foundation was laid.

If the North American Anglican Church is going to experience a renewal of historic Anglicanism, clergy and members of ACNA churches need to become better acquainted with this period in Anglican Church history. It produced the historic Anglican formularies and gave shape to historic Anglicanism. Later reinterpretations of Anglicanism do not do justice to what was a major spiritual movement in the English Church.

*The Anglican Network in Canada became a diocese of the ACNA due to its size. However, its network of churches stretches across Canada and it may be viewed as a national church in formation. To my mind it also should be recognized as a sub-province of the ACNA since it meets the criteria for a distinct jurisdiction within the ACNA. It has a unique character and history of its own.