AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Last fortnight's developments in the TEC convention delayed my response to those who queried the reference to the 'historic episcopate' in the Fundamental Declarations of the ACNA. I would first like to thank David Palmer for his warning at the beginning of last month's blog and for his salient conclusion to the dozen blog entries. However, I think that that there must be a fairly narrow audience of one or two others who participate in these blogs, namely Mr Jordan (by a mile) and Mr Dungey. I often wonder at the value of these blogs, as I am not personally inclined to be sitting on my computer all day revealing my responses to the latest entry.
Nonetheless, perhaps some response is needed. I tabled the Fundamental Declarations of the ACNA so that readers could be well informed as to what the new province stood for. I recognise that 'orthopraxis' must always accompany 'orthodoxy' (both of which must spring from 'orthokardia') to ensure that faith and obedience hang together. However, I have no intimate knowledge of the practices of North American Anglicans and therefore began with their statements of belief.
The main sticking point seems to be article 3.
3. We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.
My own research of the term 'historic episcopate' reveals that the term has an elastic meaning conveying many interpretations. It can refer to the monarchical episcopate of the ancient and medieval church, with all the distinctive developments of those times. However, it can also refer to the 'historical' order of bishops in the New Testament church (Philippians 1:1). Since the ACNA claims it is 'part of the apostolic faith and practice', then this use of the term 'historic episcopate' must have had its origins in the New Testament. One can only assume that the 'episcope' to which they refer is that which is actually mentioned in the New Testament, as for example in 1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:7 and Acts 20:28. Of course the episcopate evolved during the three centuries following the apostolic church, where bishops more readily reflected the ministries of Timothy and Titus, than the average presbyter/episkopos. However, its roots and history are clearly in the New Testament. It is therefore not at all surprising that one of the readings for the consecration of a bishop in the Ordinal of 1662 must be from either 1 Timothy 3:1-7 or Acts 20:17-35.
I do not think that it can be proved from Scripture that what emerged in the medieval church in terms of the 'historic episcopate' satisfies Article VI of the 39 Articles:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Only that historical ministry of bishops (episkopoi), practised and taught by the apostles, can be proved by Scripture and thus be in the words of ACNA, 'an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.'
In the Internet debate preceding the inaugural Provincial Assembly nothing like the explanation of the historic episcopate that you gave was offered. The Governance Task Force repeatedly made reference to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the resolution that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops adopted in 1886, in which the House of Bishops asserted that the historic episcopate, as they understood it, was “an inherent part†of “this sacred depositâ€â€”a reference to “the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men,†also mentioned in that resolution, arguing that the position of the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was the position of the Anglican Communion. They failed to mention that Resolution 11 that the third Lambeth Conference adopted in 1888 makes no such claim. In 1886 the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church dominated the House of Bishops. The view of the historic episcopate embodied in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was the Anglo-Catholic view of the historic episcopate. This is how the Governance Task Force uses the term, “historic episcopate.†(continued below)
While the third declaration of Article I is a major sticking point in the ACNA constitution, it is not the only one. The ACNA constitution in the sixth declaration of Article I adopts as a standard of worship the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, with the Books that preceded it…†It does not identify to what books that it refers. As it is worded, the books in question may be interpreted to include the pre-Reformation medieval service books. In any event it makes a collection of unidentified books the real standard and not the 1662 Prayer Book.
The ACNA constitution in the seventh declaration of Article I adopts an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, one which is also favored by those liberals who do not ignore the Articles altogether. This interpretation basically relegates the Articles to the past. (continued below)
Would an independent Baptist church with godly congregational overseers possess the 'historic episcopate' as you understand it?
Blessings,
Mark
Not that I don't see some pragmatic value - as did the church fathers - in the Episcopate. I'm just wondering aloud at how clear and open we are when we say "the word was in the bible, so we're good to go." That doesn't look like integrity from where I sit.
Happy to be guided by someone with more wisdom on this one, though. No doubt this is hashed out in the blogs - I haven't had time to follow this at all.
For an article addressing the problem of comprehensiveness in the ACNA and the need for a new set of fundamental declarations, see, "Toward Genuine Comprehensiveness" at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/07/toward-genuine-comprehensiveness.html
Also see "Sizing Up the ACNA Constitution and Canons" and other recent articles on the fundamental documents of the ACNA at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/
In your subsequent post, you wrote...
That is about the terrible issue of same-sex relations in TEC.
But are we in danger of supporting deliberately ambiguous language over the historic episcopate? You put your own harmless reading on it above, but there is obviously more meant by it from the majority in ACNA. For example, is this part of why lay administration is such an offence to many US conservative Anglicans - as bad as same-sex relationships for some of them - because it goes outside understanding of ministry tied up with the historic episcopate?
Is there an ambiguity that will come back to bite us Anglicans who are evangelicals of a reformed character?
Under the terms of it's Fundamental Declaration ACNA's understanding are clearly intended to be the same as those found in the Ordinal attached to the 1662 Prayer Book. That is, the "historic episcopate" is the same office of bishop found in apostolic times--an office continually held "in reverend estimate evermore" in the universal Church from apostolic times until the present. The "historic episcopate" of ACNA's Declaration is certainly none other than the same office first created by the apostles and no other. It is precisely the bishop's office "continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England" from the creation of the Ordinal.
Title III, Canon 5 - Of Ministers Ordained in Jurisdictions not in Communion with this Church
The wording of this canon reflects the influence of Title III, Canon 10 of the canons of The Episcopal Church. With its stress upon the “Historic Episcopate†it takes an Anglo-Catholic view of ordination, emphasizing the apostolic succession understood in a tactual sense and the laying-on-of-hands in ordination as a sacramental act. It is a position that has led to what has been described as the “abuse†of regarding valid orders and sacraments as the one and only mark of the true Church.
The partisan wording used in the canon is unnecessary. In a church in which three orthodox theological streams are represented, much more neutral language was warranted. The canons of the Church of England and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia both contain examples of this kind of language, which is adapted from Article XXIII and the Preface of the Anglican Ordinal....(continued below)
Title III, Canon 8 – Of Bishops
Title III, Canon 8, Section 2 is adapted from Title III, Canon 23, Section 1 of the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. This can be seen from a comparison of the two sections....
[In the original article I give the two sections to which I refer.]
Both sections teach the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of tactile succession. Apostolic succession is transmitted by the imposition of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession. With the imposition of hands is given a special grace to “confect†or validly celebrate the sacraments and to tactually confer this grace upon priests at their ordination. The canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda are on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/Final Edition of the Canons of the Province of Rwanda.pdf
An examination of the Rwandan canons relating to orders and the sacraments will confirm this interpretation of Title III, Canon 23, Section 1. (continued below)
The identification of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, and the Thirty-Nine Articles as “standards†and “principles†has struck some as overly and perhaps impossibly precise. After all, have not Anglicans, through the Lambeth Conference now over 100 years ago, made formal the lack of explicitness with which these formularies are to be held as standards for all Anglicans. at least as it determines Communion-related “Anglican†identity? Yet we note the care with which the Constitution has cloaked these standards with a certain indefiniteness: “We receive the Book of Common Prayer…as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline†and as “the standard for the Anglican tradition of worshipâ€; “we receive the Thirty-Nine Articles…, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles…â€.
The clear implication is that there may be other legitimate “standardsâ€, and that the BCP of 1662 is rather one among many, although obviously an acceptable one. Clearly, that the early BCP’s represent the standard for “the tradition†of Anglican worship is incontestable as a historical claim....(continued below)
In the ACNA those who identify themselves as "evangelicals" may not actually stand in the evangelical and Reformed tradition in Anglicanism or they may stand with one foot in that tradition. Any appeal to the Anglican formularies on their part must be examined in light of their attitude toward the formularies and what they themselves believe the formularies say. "Evangelicals" in the ACNA have been exposed to Anglo-Catholic and liberal theology to the point that it has significantly influenced their thinking; in some cases, greatly. In a number of ways they are more "Broad Church" than "evangelical."
The ACNA leadership would like to determine how those both in and outside the ACNA see that church. They would like the ACNA to be seen as genuinely comprehensive. But it is not. (continued below)
In "Constitutions and Canons that define our identity as Anglicans," An Overview of the Work of the Governance Task Force, Philip Ashey makes the following points:
These declarations or “confessions†are so fundamental to our identity as Anglicans that it is the duty of every member of the Province to engage regularly in the reading and study of the Doctrine of the Church as found in Article I of the Constitution (Canon I.10.2). Congregations become members when their Vestry or comparable governing board certifies that they have subscribed to the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA—including Article I (Appendix A Guidelines, No. 9) All ordinands to the diaconate and presbyterate are required to swear an oath to “solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received themâ€â€”which includes the received Fundamental Declarations in Article 1 (Canons III. 3.2 and III.4.3, emphasis added). Bishops are also required to make the same declaration at their consecration (Canon III.8.5) and may be presented and deposed for violation of this vow (Canon IV.2.3) (continued below)
Yet it affirms adherence to the 39 articles in their literal and grammatical sense.
Lip service par excelence
Note for example the precise, literal words of Article XXII: "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." Taken quite literally and grammatically, this articles condemns on the ROMISH doctrice on these matters, not any doctrine related to these matters at all. Taken quite literally it leaves open the possibility of a revised and properly Anglican teaching that allows some form of all of these things to be continued. The "spirit" in which it was drafted in the 16th century might (or might not) have condemned any continued used of these practices at all, but the 'literal and grammatical sense" of the text does not.
This might seem silly to some, but the "literal and grammatical" reading of the Articles is a venerable practice that makes it possible for some people of strongly Anglo-Catholic leanings to endorse them who might not otherwise be able to do so. The ACNA Constitution's injunction that the Articles be "taken in their literal and grammatical sense" was, I believe, added specifically to make sure that ACNA could be a genuinely inclusive body, with a decent number of Anglo-Catholics at the table, and not one composed exclusively of staunchly Reformed evangelicals. I think it is difficult for many non-Anglo-Catholics to get a sense of how concerned many AC's are that ACNA will end up being an overwhelmingly evangelical and charismatic entity with little place for a legitimate Anglo-Catholic presence. The little concessions to Anglo-Catholic sensibilities that Mr. Jordan finds so offensive were, I believe, an effort to quite those fears and make Anglo-Catholics feel welcome in ACNA, not to "impose" AC doctrine on everyone else.
I see American history repeating itself in the amalgamation of the ACNA--like the days of the Wild West--no precedent, no overarching governance, just an honest attempt to survive convivially. We shall see. There are a lot of disparate factions in this mix, with churchmanship and theology of all varieties. Time will tell whether they last. The REC has the longest historical track record--1870s, but encroaching catholic practice is even attempting to intrude, with former TECs aboard.
From what I have seen in my lifetime, it seems as if Anglican episcopacy has abdicated its primary role of overseeing the maintenance of the faith once delivered to the saints. Maybe the time has come for us Anglicans to revert to the "rabbinical" approach--follow those leaders who emerge as fully trustworthy to faithfully lead us in the biblical walk of the Gospel, and disregard the purely CEO Articles-disregarding episcopoi who seem to have entrenched themselves as our leaders.
I respectfully direct your attention to [Tracts for the Times XC=http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/[/url]
This might seem silly to some, but the "literal and grammatical" reading of the Articles is a venerable practice that makes it possible for some people of strongly Anglo-Catholic leanings to endorse them who might not otherwise be able to do so.
Would that there were still Sydney men ( or women ) like TC Hammond and Broughton Knox who would knock that straight on he head.
As for the comments n the Reformed Episcopal Church. yes it was like Sydney thirty yeras ago, but it allowed an influx of high Church Tec refugees and has
a much higher Churchmanship. to the extent that some evenagelicals have withdrawn and in its sister Church in England there is a full blown schism.
[url=ENTER URL HERE]
TEXT HERE
[/url]
(all on one line)
:-)
In some parts of the United States the Reformed Episcopal Church may remain true to the principles of its founders. But in many areas under its present leadership it has abandoned those principles. The churches in those areas are quite Anglo-Catholic or at best Broad Church with strong Anglo-Catholic leanings. The Church Society in the UK no longer recognizes the REC as "Reformed," as do a number of former Reformed Episcoplains who left as a result of its drift away from the evangelical and Reformed tradition in Anglicanism and toward "High Church" principles both in theology and worship.
The General Council celebrated the adoption of the new 2005 Prayer Book with a solemn Mass, an indication of the direction that the REC has taken under the current leadership. Ray Sutton, the REC Presidng Bishop, played an instrumental role in the drafting of the Common Cause Theological Statement, which with some changes is now embedded in the ACNA Constitution as its Fundamental Declarations. The Common Cause Theological Statement is hardly evangelical and Reformed in the views that it takes. It is also not comprehensive. I know of a case of a REC deacon who was deprived and deposed because he refused to accept the Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. In its previous constitution the REC not only licensed clergy from non-epsicopal denominations without reordination but it also permitted (continued below)
The 2005 Prayer Book does contain a number of services from the 1662 BCP but a number of these services have been altered to make them more Catholic in tone. The 2005 Prayer Book also contains a number of services from the 1928 American Prayer Book that are quite Catholic in tone. The theology of the resulting Prayer Book is decidely Catholic. Among doctrines that these liturgical changes countenance are the Real Presence, baptismal regeneration, and tactual succession. The REC is hardly an evangelical and Reformed enclave in the ACNA.
When I submitted a proposal for an alternative constitution for the ACNA based on the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America to Royal Grote for distribution to the bishops of the REC for their examination, he claimed that he was not the right person to submit the proposal to. As you know, he is listed as the contact person for the REC hierarchy on the REC web site. He also sought to discourage me from presenting my proposal to the Common Cause bishops and the Common Cause Governance Task Force. Later I learned that he was a member of that Governance Task (continued below)
The way ACNA leaders do things is causing an increasing number of people in and outside the ACNA not to trust them. I draw attention to some of the ways that they have lost the goodwill of these people in my article, "Beneath the Glamour: An Evangelical View of the New Anglican Church in North America" on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/beneath-glamour-evangelical-view-of-new.html
The ACNA Constitution's injunction that the Articles be "taken in their literal and grammatical sense" was, I believe, added specifically to make sure that ACNA could be a genuinely inclusive body, with a decent number of Anglo-Catholics at the table, and not one composed exclusively of staunchly Reformed evangelicals. I think it is difficult for many non-Anglo-Catholics to get a sense of how concerned many AC's are that ACNA will end up being an overwhelmingly evangelical and charismatic entity with little place for a legitimate Anglo-Catholic presence. The little concessions to Anglo-Catholic sensibilities that Mr. Jordan finds so offensive were, I believe, an effort to quite those fears and make Anglo-Catholics feel welcome in ACNA, not to "impose" AC doctrine on everyone else.
One hears foregoing Anglo-Catholic talking points over and over again on the Internet. These concessessions are needed to assure Anglo-Catholics have a place at the table in the ACNA. But the result is that Anglo-Catholics have not just a "little place" at the ACNA table but an increasingly larger and larger place, with the ACNA constitution and canons privileging the Anglo-Catholic theological stream in Anglicanism and mandating conformity to this stream. Yet at the same time one sees very little willingness on the part of Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA to make concessions. One also hears talk of making the ACNA even more Anglo-Catholic. (continued below)
1. The Anglican Church in North America is a voluntary association of autonomous and self-governing dioceses within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, worshiping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, united under one Divine Head, and dedicated to the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ and the advancement of God’s Kingdom.
2. We hold the Christian faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the Catholic Creeds and the Anglican Formularies, that is, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons issued by the Church of England in 1662.
3. We receives all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the Word of God written and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and life of the Church, given by the inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation. (continued below)
5. We are determined by the help of God to uphold and preserve the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord has commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England has received and set forth in its Formularies; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.
6. We seek to be and desire to continue in full communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses, and Provinces holding the historic Christian faith and maintaining the aforesaid Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ.
For a number of proposed amendments to the ACNA canons that would address the problem of doctrinal partisan language, see "Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America" on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-canons-of.html
The bugaboo of the exclusion of Anglo-Catholics from the ACNA is just that--a bugaboo,an imaginary object of fear that Anglo-Catholics have been exploiting to their benefit. The result, however, is a church that is far from genuinely comprehensive in the range of orthodox theological views that it is willing to tolerate. It makes only room for Anglo-Catholics and those charismatics and evangelicals who can go along with Anglo-Catholic positions on a number of key issues.