By Robin G. Jordan
The present situation in North America is that we have three Anglican provinces, two which are recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and one which is recognized by the GAFCON and global South bishops and a raft of smaller Anglican jurisdictions which do not fit into these two categories. While all of these entities describe themselves as Anglican, none of them represent authentic historic Anglicanism. None of them completely and unreservedly embraces the doctrine and principles of the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition.* Most of them have taken to heart one of the revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism current in North America.
Most Anglicans and Episcopalians in the United States have never been exposed to authentic historic Anglicanism. They have been exposed to the various revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism but not to the real thing. They are unfamiliar with the true narrative of the reformed Anglican Church. The narratives with which they are acquainted are the false narratives that the proponents of these revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism have devised to persuade others that their beliefs and practices embody genuine Anglicanism.
The problem, however, goes beyond a lack of exposure to authentic historic Anglicanism. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Anglican comprehensiveness is not a form of theological pluralism, a system in which two or more sets of beliefs and practices coexist. Theological pluralism which places a high value on inclusion and maintains a relativistic view of truth is a modern phenomenon and reflects the influence of our post-modern, post-Christian culture. It is a worldview that is not consistent with a biblical worldview. Anglican comprehensiveness insists upon uniformity of belief on primary matters while permitting a broad diversity of opinion on secondary matters.
The boundaries of Anglican comprehensiveness are set by the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, historic Anglicanism’s confession of faith. The Articles stake out the historic Anglican positions on the Holy Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, his descent into hell, his resurrection, the Holy Spirit, the sufficiency of Scripture, the canon of the Bible, the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, the historic creeds, sin, free will, justification, predestination and election, salvation, the distinguishing characteristics of the visible church, the authority of the church, the authority of the ecumenical councils, the sacraments, and other key issues.
But what we find in the Anglican Church in North America, which was organized as a conservative parallel province to the increasingly liberal and heterodox Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church in the United States, does not even approximate such comprehensiveness. We find an Anglo-Catholic-philo-Orthodox wing whose influence is clearly discernible in the province’s constitution and canons and its proposed catechism and service book.
We find a second wing that is ritualistic, embraces Catholic practice, and is open to Catholic doctrine but at the same time displays the influence of the charismatic movement and manifests a certain degree of doctrinal ambiguity. This wing generally espouses the vision of the Anglican Church in North America as a denomination in which the three theological streams of Catholicism, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism merge into a single river. These three theological streams are conceived in a way that accommodates this vision rather than reflects their distinctive character. The significant differences between these three traditions are dealt with too lightly or not at all. The tolerant attitude that this wing exhibits toward these three traditions is not extended to liberal Protestantism or its Catholic counterpart. It also not extended to the Reformed tradition. This wing has an ambivalent view of the Protestant Reformation which may reflect the influence of Robert Webber and others.
While some readers may disagree, this wing may be described as being composed of theological lightweights, a characteristic that its members share with many Americans who are not a part of the ACNA and who identify themselves as evangelicals. The tendency to downplay the importance of doctrine is not confined to the ACNA. It is evident in a number of evangelical and charismatic churches. The views of this wing may be a peculiarly American phenomenon.
We also find a third wing that celebrates the Protestant Reformation, identifies itself as Protestant, and adheres to varying degrees to the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition. There is some overlapping with the second wing in the areas of ritualism and charismas of the Holy Spirit. This overlapping is testimony to the pervasive influence of ritualism in the North American Anglican Church and the wide sweep of the charismatic movement.
It is difficult to see how the GAFCON primates could declare the Anglican Church in North America to be a “genuine expression of Anglicanism” shortly after its formation. Their statement was premature and from all appearances politically-motivated. Of the three wings of the ACNA, the only wing that comes close to fitting this description is the third wing. The Council of the conservative evangelical Church Society would subsequently take the GAFCON primates to task for making a similar ill-considered statement about the Roman Catholic Church in which they ignored the significant differences between Protestant Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism.
I do not have any reliable statistical data on the size of the third wing or the size of the other two wings. Due to the way the ACNA is structured, however, it is possible for a relatively small wing to exercise considerable influence in the province if it positions itself in the right places at an early stage. By its own accounts the Anglo-Catholic-philo-Orthodox wing considers itself a minority in the ACNA. The particular characteristics of the second wing—its penchant for ritualism and Catholic practice, its openness to Catholic doctrine, its own doctrinal ambiguity, and is ambivalence toward the Protestant Reformation—make it susceptible to the influence of the Anglo-Catholic-philo-Orthodox wing (albeit this influence may have its limits in such areas as women’s ordination.)
With the Anglican Church in North America attracting larger numbers of people who do not have an Anglican and Episcopal background and therefore have an even greater likelihood of not having any exposure to historic Anglicanism, the North American Anglican Church may be entering a new crisis phase.
The two Anglican provinces that embrace a liberal reinterpretation of Anglicanism have been declining. They have lost members and have closed churches. While the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church has called for a revival of church planting and evangelism in that province, the longstanding apathy of Episcopalians toward mission and the growth of universalistic doctrine in the Episcopal Church pose formidable barriers to such a revival. The last wave of church planting in the Episcopal Church was in the 1980s—more than thirty years ago. If the state of Episcopal churches in western Kentucky is a reflection of the state of Episcopal churches nationwide, most Episcopal churches are struggling. Only in a few communities with a liberal population segment are Episcopal churches thriving.
Liberals are generally not churchgoers. They may describe themselves as spiritual but they do not place much value on organized religion or church attendance. The Episcopal Church will have its job cut out for it if this population segment is the focus of its church planting and evangelistic efforts.
One of the motives for promoting the expansion of the Anglican Church in North America has been to outdo the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church, however, is not a contender. This was glaringly obvious in the 1990s. When it comes to church planting and evangelism the Episcopal Church has not changed greatly from that time. It may explain why the older ACNA congregations made up of former Episcopalians are not doing as well as the newer ACNA congregations made up of people who do not come from an Episcopal background. Based on my own experience as a leader on an Episcopal church plant launch team in the 1980s, as a participant in an Anglican Mission in America church plant in 2002, and as an observer in a Episcopal church plant in the same year, most Episcopalians are more of a liability than an asset in launching and pioneering a new church.
The Continuing Anglican Churches are not doing any better than the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. Those jurisdictions that are not declining are stagnant. In a sense the stagnation and decline of these jurisdictions may be a blessing since most of them espouse a revisionist reinterpretation of Anglicanism, which is antithetical to historic Anglicanism.
The data tells us that the Anglican Church in North America is growing. What the data does not tell us is how much of the ACNA’s growth is transfer growth and how much of its growth is conversion growth.
Is the ACNA documenting the growth of a form of consumer Christianity that has found a market? This is a legitimate question.
We have little demographic and psychographic information on the population segments ACNA churches are attracting other than they are largely urban and suburban. We have only anecdotal accounts of why they are attracted to these churches. These accounts, however, are worrisome as they point to ambiance as a principle reason that the individuals who gave these accounts were attracted to a particular ACNA church—that and a sense of continuity with the past. We also have little information on their beliefs before they began to attend an ACNA church, whether they had previously attended a church, why they left that church, and other useful information which might help explain the appeal of the Anglican Church in North America to those who are attending its churches.
A major appeal of the Episcopal Church was its ambiance. The ambiance of the ACNA does not differ greatly from that of the Episcopal Church.
A longstanding problem of the Episcopal Church has been that it has made far more converts to its ambiance than it did to Christ. People would fall in love with the church but not the church’s Lord. With the prevalence of ritualism and Catholic practice in a large part of the ACNA, if one is to judge from its church websites, there is a real danger of the occurrence of this problem in the ACNA. Ritualism and Catholic practice are two main elements of the ambiance of the Episcopal Church.
If a significant portion of the growth in the Anglican Church in North America is conversion growth, this data does not tell us to what set of beliefs and practices are converts being brought over. Is it the set of beliefs and practices embodied in To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism and the 2019 Proposed ACNA Prayer Book? If those which the Anglican Church in North America is attracting with its ambiance are being indoctrinated into that set of beliefs and practices, it is another major cause for concern. They are being indoctrinated in a revisionist reinterpretation of Anglicanism. Those who transfer from other denominations are receiving a similar indoctrination.
The set of doctrines and practices embodied in these two formularies differ from historic Anglicanism not just on secondary issues but primary ones. It permits the teaching of doctrine which conflicts with the Holy Scriptures as well as is incompatible with the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition. It also sanctions practices that do the same thing. There is the very real problem of using the same language and different definitions and as a consequence having entirely different understandings of the gospel, justification, and salvation.
“In what direction is the growth of the Anglican Church in North America taking the province” is a question that ACNA’ers who celebrates the Protestant Reformation, identifies themselves as Protestant, and adheres to varying degrees to the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition need to be asking. It is also a question that Anglicans who have an affinity with these ACNA’ers but who are outside the ACNA need to be asking too. Is it growth that brings the province closer to historic Anglicanism? Is it growth that moves it further away?
As in the case of a local church all growth is not good growth. A church may grow large from transfer growth but have no impact upon the community’s unchurched population. It is a consumer church catering to consumer Christians.
Among the questions that ACNA’ers should be asking are “Are the churches that are producing the most growth in the Anglican Church in North America reaching and engaging the lost in their communities? Are they proclaiming to them the New Testament Gospel which the English Reformers recovered in the sixteenth century and whose truth they sought to protect with the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion? Are they instructing new believers in the teaching recorded in the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine and principles embodied in the historic Anglican formularies? Are they helping those who regularly attend their church services and other gospel gatherings to feed themselves from the Bible and to live life as missionaries to the community, the region, and the world? If not, what are they doing?” These questions are reasonable ones at which those occupying positions of leadership in the ACNA should not take offense because they probe into the kind of growth that the ACNA is experiencing.
Transfer growth is temporary growth, particularly if it is related to a consumer mentality. As soon as a more attractive church comes along, consumer Christians are going to move on. They may grow tired of ritual and Catholic practice as they grew tired of cool church. The kind of growth that the Anglican Church in North America should be celebrating is solid growth that arises from missional engagement and not ecclesial praxis.
There is also a very real danger that the Anglican Church in North America may be tapping into a culture-driven phenomenon. As the LifeWay-Ligonier Ministries study has shown, a high level of Biblical and theological illiteracy exists in the United States and a significant number of US Christians hold unorthodox beliefs. This study suggests that many US Christians lack the discernment to distinguish between orthodox and unorthodox beliefs.
For these reasons we should take a cautious attitude toward ACNA’s growth figures until we have a better picture of what is going on.
One of the steps that ACNA leaders who committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures and historic Anglican beliefs and practices, that is, those which are in line with the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition, may wish to consider is to require adherence to the doctrine and principles defined in the Thirty-Nine Articles of as condition of licensure for ministry in their diocese or network. ACNA congregations that share this commitment may wish to consider requiring adherence to the same doctrine and principles as a prerequisite for serving as the congregation’s pastor. This would be one way of ensuring that doctrine and principles which are from a historic Anglican perspective agreeable to the Holy Scripture are preached and taught in a particular diocese or congregation. Whatever the reasons they might have for attending an ACNA church, attendees would hear these truths. They would receive some exposure to historic Anglicanism.
*A couple of the smaller jurisdictions may come close but their retention of a Prayer Book that embodies the consensus of belief and practice of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the post-World War I period in which Catholic Modernism had already begun to influence thinking in that province weakens their position as does the praxis of a number of their clergy. This praxis is incongruent with a commitment to the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment