27 April 2015 A.D. ORDNANCE ON TARGET: ACNA, Romewardizing Tractarians and Leadership--Ackerman, Iker, Duncan, Riches & Sutton—Back-Door Ops, Secretive, Surreptitious Yet Governing
27 April 2015 A.D. ORDNANCE ON TARGET: ACNA, Romewardizing Tractarians and Leadership--Ackerman, Iker, Duncan, Riches
& Sutton—Back-Door Ops, Secretive, Surreptitious Yet Governing
Jordan, Robert G. “A Survey of ACNA
Doctrinal Statements and Their Theological Leanings: The Constitution.” Anglicans Ablaze. 25 Apr 2015. http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-survey-of-acna-doctrinal-statements.html.
Accessed 27 Apr 2015.
In Article I the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America identifies seven elements that it maintains
comprise the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism—what defines core Anglican
identity. The third, sixth, and seventh of the elements identified in the
article clearly represent partisan doctrinal positions. This was drawn to the
attention of the Common Cause Partnership’s Governance Task Force when the
proposed constitution was first made public for examination and comment for a
very brief period before its adoption and ratification. The reaction of the
Governance Task Force was to deny their partisan character.
CANA Bishop Martyn Mimms also raised the issue of the
partisan character of these positions at the Provisional Provincial Council
meeting at which the draft constitution was adopted. The Anglo-Catholic members
of the Council would block any major changes to Article I, showing that they
had a vested interest in the particular wording of the article.
We examined Article I.3 in my previous article, “The Anglican Church in North America—a Church for All
Conservative North American Anglicans?” The position articulated in this clause of the
article, in the words of the late Peter Toon, “excludes most Anglicans
worldwide today and excludes the millions of evangelical Anglicans who have
been faithful Anglicans over the generations!”
Article I.6 recognizes the 1662 edition of the Book
of Common Prayer and the 1661 edition of the Ordinal as “a standard for
Anglican doctrine and discipline.” Article I.6 infers that other standards
exist. The two historic formularies are just one of a number of standards. This
included standards based upon what John Henry Newman and the Tractarians
maintained is the “Catholic faith” and which they constructed out of “extracts
from the Fathers and the Caroline Divines.” It also includes standards drawn
from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching. Article I.6 effectively
waters down these two formularies as a part of the doctrinal foundation of
Anglicanism—of what defines core Anglican identity.
This view of the two historic formularies is
particularly congenial to Anglo-Catholics. As Anglo-Catholic ACNA Bishop of
Forth Worth Jack Iker in a
sermon preached at the Synod Eucharist of the annual gathering of the REC
Diocese of Mid-America on February 21, 2014 put it, “we [a reference to Anglo-Catholics]
rather like the 1549 Prayer Book as the standard.”
Article I.6 does not preclude the ACNA from making
not only the partially-reformed 1549 Prayer Book its standard but also the
pre-Reformation medieval service books such as the Sarum Missal from which the
various Anglican missals are derived. These manuals enable Anglo-Catholic
clergy to transform the Anglican Communion Service into a facsimile of the
Roman Mass.
In its recognition of the Prayer Book and the
Ordinal as “the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship” Article I.6
adds this qualification “with the Books which preceded it.” Article I.6 does
not identify which books. Keith Aker, a presbyter with the REC Diocese of the
West, in the Book of Common Prayer 2011 takes the position that the books
in question include the pre-Reformation service books as does the ACNA Liturgy
and Common Prayer Task Force in Texts for Common Prayer (2013).
The inescapable conclusion is that Article I.6 is
neither theological nor liturgical neutral. It favors the development of a
liturgy that is Anglo-Catholic in its doctrine and its liturgical practices.
Anglo-Catholics would hail the inclusion of the
phrase, “taken in their literal and grammatical sense,” in Article I.7 as an
endorsement of John Henry Newman and the Tractarians’ reinterpretation of the
Thirty-Nine Articles in a Rome-ward direction, disconnected from their original
historic context and the original intent of their framers. In Tract 90 Newman
contended that the reference in the Royal Declaration of Charles I to only “the
literal and grammatical sense” freed interpreters of the Articles from
considering "the known opinions of the framers" in interpreting them.
The phrase “expressing the Anglican response to
certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time” in Article I.7 infers that
doctrinal issues referred to in that phrase are no longer of concern to the
Anglican Church, a view taken by liberals as well as Anglo-Catholics. Since the
sixteenth century the Anglican Church in their estimation has moved on and come
to a different understanding on these doctrinal issues. For example, the
Anglican Church no longer recognizes only two sacraments. The Anglican Church
no longer insists that a vital faith is necessary to receive any benefit from
the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The Articles, in other words, are a relic
of the past and are not relevant or authoritative for today’s Anglicans.
The phrase “expressing fundamental principles of
authentic Anglican belief” leaves to the interpreter to decide what such
fundamental principles that the Articles express, permitting the interpreter
not only to selectively chose from the Articles what he considers genuinely
Anglican—in other words, consistent with his own particular reconstruction of
Anglicanism, but also to give his own spin to what he cherry-picked from the
Articles. Instead of the Articles determining what is Anglican, the interpreter
determines for himself what is in the Articles is Anglican. This completely
sabotages the functions for which their framers intended the Articles to serve.
The view of the Thirty-Nine Articles expressed in
Article I.7, while it may be congenial to Anglo-Catholics and liberals, is far
from agreeable to conservative Evangelicals and other Anglicans who take the
Articles seriously as Anglicanism’ confession of faith, comprising with the
Book of Common Prayer in its 1662 edition and the Ordinal in its 1661 edition,
the long-recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism. (The Book of Homilies is
also a part of this standard, recognized in the Articles themselves as
containing “Godly and wholesome doctrine” and expounding in more depth and
detail the doctrine of the Articles.) It is not a view of the Articles that is
compatible with that of the Jerusalem Declaration which upholds the Articles
“as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s word and is
authoritative for Anglicans today.” There is no equivocation in the acceptance
of the authority of the Articles in the Jerusalem Declaration as there is in
Article I.7.
The other doctrinal statements that the Anglican
Church has produced to date show conclusively that the ACNA does not accept the
Articles’ authority but treats them as something with which it can do whatever
it pleases or which it can ignore altogether. In this regard the ACNA is no
better than the Episcopal Church from which it broke away.
The view of the Thirty-Nine Articles expressed in
Article I.7 is decidedly not theologically-neutral. It favors both
Anglo-Catholic and liberal views of the Articles.
The partisan character of the ACNA constitution is
not limited to Article I. It is also evident in Article X.1, which describes
the College of Bishops as serving “a visible sign and expression of the Unity
of the Church,” echoing themes found in Letters to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some
Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (1992).
Article XIII in permitting dioceses to maintain a
claim of ownership over the property of churches in the diocese points to
Anglo-Catholic view of the nature of the diocese and of the churches forming
the diocese and to an underlying Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology of the Church.
Also see:
Comments
Post a Comment