Anglicans Ablaze Shares Its Take on the New CANA Diocese Initiative

By Robin G. Jordan

I welcome the Rt. Rev. Felix Orji’s new diocese initiative establishing a diocese-in-formation that will uphold the Biblical, Protestant, and Reformed principles of the Anglican Church and will offer a home for North American Anglicans who are faithful to these principles. I have recognized the need for such an ecclesial body in North America since the Common Cause Partnership days of the Anglican Church in North America when it became evident that the province-in-formation, like the two provinces to which it was supposed to provide an alternative would espouse a form of doctrine and practice that departed from authentic historic Anglicanism on key issues, leaving North America bereft of a genuine Anglican presence and witness.

While some networks of churches and individual pastors and congregations in the new province remained faithful to the Holy Scriptures and the historic Anglican formularies, those charting the future course of the new province had something entirely different in mind—a “new settlement” as the ACNA’s first Archbishop Robert Duncan described it—a settlement which was essentially a repudiation of the Elizabethan Settlement, the classical Anglican formularies, authentic historic Anglicanism, and ultimately Biblical Christianity. While the leaders of the new province might be using the same words as the leaders of GAFCON, they were speaking a different language.

The character of this “new settlement” became increasingly clear with the publication of the ACNA’s draft ordinal, its proposed catechism, its trial services, and more recently The Book of Common Prayer 2019. It would be a synthesis of doctrine and practices taken from the late medieval Catholic Church and borrowed from modern-day Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Intermixed with these conservative theological streams would be a stream of liberal or progressive Catholicism in the form of the ordination of women to the diaconate and the presbyterate. The result would be a form of affirming Catholicism which did not go as far as affirming the normalization of homosexuality in the church and society. In other words, the Anglican Church in North America would embody the theological confusion that has beset the Anglican Church since the 1958 Lambeth Conference and earlier.

While the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference sought to call the Anglican Church back to the Bible, the classical Anglican formularies, and authentic historic Anglicanism with the issuance of the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement and the subsequent publication of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the leaders of the new province were not listening. Indeed they had their fingers in their ears.

The new CANA diocese-in-formation will face a number of challenges. Among these challenges I have identified six that I believe that it is essential for the new CANA archdeaconry to meet.

1. The first challenge is that while one segment of the Anglican Church in North America will welcome the establishment of the new CANA archdeaconry, another segment will view the new network of churches as invading its turf. This segment of the ACNA, however, has no leg to stand on. Both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church view the ACNA as invading their turf. Furthermore the Holy Scriptures do not recognize the idea that a particular church has exclusive rights to a particular territory. Rather the Holy Scriptures teach that the whole vineyard is the Lord’s. He may dispatch workers into the vineyard wherever and whenever he pleases.

The whole vineyard is the Lord’s. He may dispatch workers into the vineyard wherever and whenever he pleases.

2. The second challenge will be planting new churches and strengthen existing ones. The fields are ripe for harvest and the new diocese-in-formation is a part of God’s answer to our prayers asking him to send more workers into the harvest. The first five years of the new archdeaconry will be a critical time for planting new churches. The first five years of these new churches will also be a critical time for them to plant new churches. If a church network or a church does not plant one or more new churches within its first five years, it is not likely to plant any new churches later on.

3. The third challenge will be establishing a workable leadership pipeline for recruiting, training, credentialing, and deploying pastors and other leaders. Church networks and churches need a steady supply of leaders to grow. They cannot wait for ministerial candidates to complete a one-year internship and a three-year seminary training program. To be effective in meeting the new archdeaconry’s need for more leaders, its leadership pipeline will need to include options for training leaders at the local church level while they are engaged in ministry and mission. It will also need to include ongoing opportunities for leadership development and formation.

4. The fourth challenge will be balancing what would be ideal with what is realistic. This is a major challenge to any new organization—ecclesiastical or otherwise. The implementation of some ideas which may be very good ideas will need to be postponed until the new archdeaconry has become a diocese. They are not practicable during the early stages of a diocese-in-formation. The initial phase will need to focus on planting new churches and strengthen existing ones and producing leaders who can go immediately to work in the Lord’s vineyard.

5. The fifth challenge will be countering the public perception of Anglicanism in North America, which has been shaped by the Catholic Revivalist false narrative. North America has proven fertile ground for revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism for the past 186 years. Catholic Revivalism is one of the oldest of these revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism and it has left its mark on what ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan describes as “American Anglicanism.” The new CANA archdeaconry can expect the modern-day proponents of Catholic Revivalism and those who are sympathetic to their views to question the authenticity of its Anglican theological credentials and to promote themselves as the only true representatives of Anglicanism as their nineteenth century predecessors did. It will need to be prepared to respond with reasoned arguments and writings.

6. The sixth challenge will be to balance the different interpretations of what it means to be Reformed and Anglican. I have generally tried to avoid the term “Reformed Anglican” in my own articles since it implies the existence of other legitimate forms of Anglicanism. In my view authentic historic Anglicanism is the only legitimate form of Anglicanism and it is Biblical, Protestant, and Reformed. While I can see the need for the new diocese-in-formation to distinguish its doctrine and practices from those of the various revisionist reinterpretations of Anglicanism, in identifying itself as “Reformed Anglican,” it has inadvertently strengthened the view that Anglicanism exists in more than one form. In identifying itself as “Reformed Anglican,” the new archdeaconry creates an unnecessary dichotomization between “Reformed” and “Anglican.” Genuine Anglicanism is Reformed. It is not only reformed in the sense of having its doctrine and practices reformed in accordance with the Holy Scriptures but it is also Reformed in the sense of sharing a common theology with the sixteenth century magisterial Reformed Churches of Switzerland and southern Germany, particularly the Church of Zurich and the Church of Heidelberg.

One group that recognizes the Biblical, Protestant and Reformed character of authentic historic Anglicanism is satisfied with what J. I. Packer describes as the “evangelical comprehensiveness” of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the broad latitude it permits on secondary matters. Another group that recognizes the Biblical, Protestant, and Reformed character of authentic historic Anglicanism wants to supplement or replace the Thirty-Nine Articles with the Westminster Confession and impose greater uniformity in secondary matters. If the new archdeaconry is to experience significant growth, it will require the cooperation of both groups. Disputes over the Westminster Confession and the secondary matters could effectively scuttle the new diocese-in-formation.

Among the attractions that historic Anglicanism holds for pastors of conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches is the freedom it permits on secondary matters. It is a major part of its appeal. If the new archdeacon is to flourish, it must be faithful to the tradition that it represents.

Despite these challenges I believe that the new CANA diocese-in-formation has a bright future ahead of it. I am excited that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) recognized the need for such an ecclesial body in North America and responded to that need.

For readers who wish to learn more about the new archdeaconry, please contact the Rev. Richard LePage at pastor@ReformationAnglicanChurch.org or (207) 894-0177 or the Rev Jonathan Smith at jonathan.smith@redeemerorl.org or (321) 356-9472.