The Bad Seed

The website of an Anglican church in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic claims that the church is “a Bible-based protestant church” and “uses the beautiful new ACNA liturgy with traditional hymns from the 1982 Hymnal.” While it may be possible to maintain that a church is “Bible-based” and “protestant” while using the proposed “BCP 2019,” it is problematic. The church is not Protestant in the sense that the central Anglican theological tradition has understood Protestantism.

First, the doctrine of the proposed “BCP 2019” is unreformed Catholic. So are most of its practices. 

Second, Anglican Protestantism has historically been Reformed. As Reformed Christians Anglicans have rejected the unreformed Catholic doctrine and practices embodied in the proposed "BCP 2019" on Biblical grounds. The Anglican Church did acquire an Arminian wing in the reign of Charles I but this wing does not represent the central Anglican theological tradition. It has, however, rejected the same doctrine and practices on Biblical grounds. The Caroline High Churchmen were, for the most part, Arminian. But with one or two exceptions they accepted the Thirty-Nine Articles. They also prepared the 1662 revision of The Book of Common Prayer, which is essentially the 1552 Prayer Book.

The nearest theological tradition that might describe itself as Protestant and use similar rites and services to those found in the proposed “BCP 2019” is the High Church Lutheran tradition which has been influenced by unreformed Catholic doctrine and practices. Due to the influence of such doctrine and practices the Protestant theological identity of that tradition is questionable.

In the case of this particular church I do not believe that it would be inaccurate to describe what it views as Anglicanism may be what I described in an earlier article as "anything-goes Anglicanism." It is Anglican because the church in question chooses to call itself Anglican not because its beliefs and practices stand in continuity with historic Anglicanism. It is “protestant” for the same reason. Because it calls itself “protestant” does not necessarily mean that it has any connection to historic Protestantism.

What we have here is an example of the theological confusion that the Global Anglican Future Conference had hoped to address with the Jerusalem Declaration. While the Jerusalem Declaration was a step in the right direction, it has its weak points to which the Church Society’s Council drew attention. Its weakest point is that has no teeth. Its definition of Anglican orthodoxy is only binding upon Anglican provinces and dioceses that adopt the declaration and make it binding upon their clergy and congregations.

The GAFCON Primates have shown great reluctance to hold to account any member province or diocese that does not meet the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition of Anglican orthodoxy. The most obvious reason is that they themselves head churches that do not fully meet this definition.

The Anglican Church in North American has not taken the step of adopting the Jerusalem Declaration and making it binding upon its clergy and congregations. Such a step would require it to accept the doctrinal foundation of historic Anglicanism. In its fundamental declarations the ACNA emasculates that doctrinal foundation and in its catechism and much touted The Book of Common Prayer 2019 the ACNA rejects that foundation in entirety.

Like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice through the Looking Glass the Anglican Church in North America and its clergy and congregations can give any word whatever meaning that they want. They can describe as Protestant things that never had anything to do with Protestantism. They can even call unreformed Catholicism Protestant.

The Global Anglican Future Conference and the Jerusalem Declaration were a bold experiment but the experiment was a failure. GAFCON birthed an alternative Anglican province in North America that does not accept the doctrinal standards that it sought to establish. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has not yet recognized that the experiment was a failure. The proof, however, is before its eyes. It just needs to open its eyes and take a good look at the Anglican Church in North America.

Readers may be familiar with the 1956 movie “The Bad Seed.” It was remade in 2018. A central theme of the movie is appearances are deceiving. A young girl of elementary school age is revealed to be a murderous psychopath who kills without compunction or remorse.

In a sense the Anglican Church in North America has turned out to be a “bad seed.” Some readers may object to this description of the ACNA but it is not entirely inaccurate. Based upon its fundamental declarations, its canons, its catechism, and the proposed “BCP 2019,” the province is not doctrinally in line with the Jerusalem Declaration even though its archbishop has been invited to participate in the GAFCON Primates Council. It is certainly not in line with the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition.

Like the mother of the child in the movie the GAFCON Primates appear to be in a state of denial about the ACNA’s real character. If they do recognize its real character, they do not appear to consider it a matter in which they should intervene. This has been pointed out in other areas. The GAFCON Primates have their own problems to deal with and what others regard as problems, they do not see as their concern.

This attitude, while it is understandable to a degree, however, has exacerbated the present situation in the Anglican Church in North America. ACNA leaders have taken advantage of it to move the province further in a direction away from historic Anglicanism. After all, it has become quite evident to them that no one from outside of the ACNA who has any connection with the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans or the GAFCON Primates will take them to task for what they are doing. These two groups themselves appear to have adopted a hands-off policy toward the ACNA.

The ACNA’s catechism and its proposed “BCP 2019” are symptoms of a much deeper problem. A significant portion of the Anglican Church in North America does not have a sufficient grasp of authentic historic Anglicanism, much less a commitment to it. This may in part be a carryover from the Episcopal Church. It may also be the result of the influence of Anglo-Catholic movement and the Ancient-Future movement and their revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism. Rather than being a model for other Anglican provinces on how to address theological confusion that besets the Anglican Communion, the ACNA represents a prime example of that confusion.

Among the reasons that the Episcopal Church drifted away from genuine Anglicanism was that it adopted a prayer book that departed from the standard of the 1662 Prayer Book in the consecration-prayer  in its communion office and while it adopted a version of the Thirty-Nine Articles, it did not require clergy subscription to the Articles. The seeds that eventually bore fruit in the nineteenth century and the twentieth century were planted very early in its life as a church. The same thing is happening in the Anglican Church in North America.

Along with the dearth of leaders committed to genuine Anglicanism, the theological confusion in the Anglican Church in North America disqualifies the ACNA as a representative of authentic historic Anglicanism and consequently as an alternative Anglican province in North America. It has shown no movement in the past ten years as an ecclesial body toward genuine Anglicanism. Rather it has moved in the opposite direction. To be authentically Anglican, the ACNA must accept the historic Anglican formularies and not just make room for the central Anglican theological tradition but recognize that tradition as forming the core of its beliefs and practices. This still leaves ample room for a diversity of opinion. The ACNA shows no inclination to move in that direction. In its present state the ACNA is just another Continuing Anglican jurisdiction that is experiencing some growth, enjoys a modicum of support from outside of North America, and has delusions of grandeur.

While I see little movement toward the formation of a second alternative province at the present time, I believe that such a province is where the future of authentic historical Anglicanism lies in North America, and not in the Anglican Church in North America. Since the ACNA does not accept the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition does not form the core of its beliefs and practices, “Anglican Church in North America” is really a misnomer.

Clergy and congregations that are faithful to Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism and committed to the Great Commission need to shake the dust off their feet and form their own continent-wide network of churches. Disaffected Lutherans have formed more than one network of churches, recognizing the differences between them.

The formation of such a network is not going to dilute the Anglican presence and witness in North America because the ACNA in the present direction that it is taking has already done that. Rather it will be concentrating that presence and witness in a second province.

The ACNA is not interested in creating an ecclesiastical environment in which all conservative Anglican theological schools of thought can flourish. The faction that dominates its leadership has a different agenda. It therefore falls to clergy and congregations that are faithful to Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism and committed to the Great Commission to create for themselves an ecclesiastical environment in which they can thrive. The best way for them to do that is to form their own continent-wide network of churches, a network with its own governance documents, synods, bishops, catechism, and worship resources.

I realize that the formation of a second province is easier said than done. But I also believe that authentic historic Anglicanism, shaped as it is by the gospel, is too valuable a thing to toss on the ash heap of history.

William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, John Hooper, Hugh Latimer, and others gave their lives so that future generations of English-speaking people would have a Biblical faith and a reformed church. We should not treat their sacrifice lightly

An earlier generation would have viewed as traitors to that faith and to that church those ACNA leaders who are leading the Anglican Church in North America back to Egypt, back into slavery to error and superstition. They would not have viewed them as “godly bishops” as some ACNA’ers foolishly view them today but wolves among the sheep.

We might see ourselves as more enlightened than that earlier generation but what some regard as enlightenment, others view as self-deception. We should not forget what was the chief failing of the Corinthian pneumatics was that they believed themselves to be more enlightened than their fellow Christians and therefore superior to them. What they were, as Paul pointed to their attention was over-inflated with pride.

In the late nineteenth century Bishop J. C. Ryle urged his readers to return to the “old paths.” He was not talking about turning back the clock to pre-Reformation times. He was talking about returning to what Frederick Meyrick called “Old Anglicanism,” the beliefs and practices of the first two centuries of the reformed Anglican Church—to the teaching of the Bible and the principles of the historic Anglican formularies and the central Anglican theological tradition.

My prayer is that God will raise up more leaders like Bishop Ryle who will urge Anglicans here in North America and elsewhere to return to Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicans and who will show them the way.