“Did the Archbishop of Canterbury really say that it doesn’t matter what you believe as an Anglican so long as you are in relationship with the See of Canterbury?”
I received this question in response to the article I wrote on January 28, “How can two walk together” in our last International Update. And the answer to the question is YES, that is exactly what the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be saying following his meeting with the Primates in Jordan. Let me explain.
When I wrote on January 28, I was citing the Press Conference in Amman immediately following the Primates meeting in Jordan. In addition to Archbishop Welby, two other Primates answered questions from the press: Archbishop Michael Lewis (Jerusalem and the Middle East) and Archbishop Justin Badi (South Sudan). You can find the link to the press conference here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHAhdgF_TBo
At 16:19, a reporter from overseas asked the following question of Archbishop Welby: “We’ve seen the formation of new churches such as the Church of Confessing Anglicans in New Zealand. Was this discussed in terms of how the Instruments of Communion should respond?”
At 16:30, Archbishop Welby replied: “We didn’t specifically discuss the formation of churches like that church. No, we didn’t at all. We discussed how in partnership with other Christians we grow the church of Jesus Christ, and that was at the very heart of our discussion. Church planting we discussed. Funny enough there was very little discussion or desire to discuss some of those negative aspects.”
So despite the formation by Gafcon of the new Church of Confessing Anglicans in New Zealand, precisely for doctrinal reasons-including dissent from the approval of same sex marriage by the “recognized” Anglican Church of New Zealand—neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Gafcon and Global South Primates present discussed this matter, much less even “desired to address such negative aspects.”
But there’s more. At 17:00 Archbishop Lewis added that the primates had engaged in “considerable and deep talk about Anglican identity, spelling out Anglican identity in a way that is clear and honest.” Archbishop Lewis went on to say that Anglican identity is rooted in specifics—including faithfulness to the Scriptures, the “unfolding tradition of the Church,” reason and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which states that the essentials of the faith include Scripture, the two sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, the historic Episcopate locally adapted, and the Creeds). But at 17:54, Archbishop Lewis hastened to add that “Anglicans are those who are in communion with the See of Canterbury” and complimented Archbishop Welby on his “inspiring efforts” to have the Primates think more deeply on the issue of Anglican identity and “how to be as generously inclusive of all who would claim the name of Anglican within the framework just outlined.”
At this point the Archbishop of Canterbury could have added a note of correction to Archbishop Lewis’s citation of the great Anglican theologian Richard Hooker for the often misstated maxim that Anglicans believe that equal weight should be given to Scripture, reason, and “the unfolding tradition of the Church.” Scholars and readers alike know that Hooker never said anything of the sort, that he always maintained the priority of the Holy Scriptures over reason and tradition, and in fact strongly asserted that “one word from the mouth of God” outweighs 10,000 councils of the Church that say otherwise (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, vol. 1, book 2, ch. VII.5).
In the correct spirit of Hooker, Archbishop Welby could have noted that the doctrinal foundations of Anglicanism which Archbishop Lewis cited as “clear and specific” essentials of Anglican identity are at least as important, if not more important, than a geographic relationship with the See of Canterbury. Instead he thanked Archbishop Lewis for the compliment. Then he waited for Archbishop Justin Badi (S Sudan) to add his remarks (beginning at 18:38). Here is what Archbishop Badi said in response to the question:
“My understanding for our coming for the meeting was not to discuss the formation of new churches. The main thing was to discuss how we move forward as an Anglican Communion, to prepare ourselves for the Lambeth Conference, and also to have our fellowship together. We strategized how we can plant more churches so that we expand and take the Gospel forward.” To which Archbishop Welby replied at 19:22: “And I should say that the agenda was put together by the consultative process with the Primates. It was not fixed by anyone, it’s just no one brought up those subjects,” with Archbishop Badi nodding in agreement.
So there you have it: a Communique and a press conference which ignored the crisis of false teaching in the Anglican Communion. Taking the words of Archbishops Welby, Lewis, and Badi at face value, it would appear that no one bothered to address the crisis of false teaching because such issues were “negative.” Instead, there was considerable discussion about Anglican identity without any “negative” discussion about differences of doctrine. According to the Primates press conference, “biblical faithfulness” is one factor in Anglican identity—but such faithfulness is only one factor to be balanced against reason and the “unfolding tradition of the Church.” In the end, there is an endorsement of a framework for Anglican identity which is uncompromising only in relationship to the See of Canterbury as being an essential marker.
“Generous inclusivity” within this framework is only for those who are in relationship with the See of Canterbury, which means Canterbury promotes the following notion: so long as you are in relationship with him, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you can make a case that what you believe squares with an interpretation of the Bible equally balanced with reason and “the unfolding tradition of the Church.” We know, in an ever-secularizing Western culture, what the shape of that “reason” and “unfolding tradition” looks like: the blessing of same sex unions and other innovations, which appeal to the “reason” of our times.
By their continuing silence and assent to the Jordan Primates Communique and this press conference, isn’t it fair to ask whether the Archbishops and Primates from Gafcon and the Global South are saying the same thing—that Anglican identity is based ultimately on relationship with Canterbury rather than on what we believe?
As I have written elsewhere the requirement of relationship with the See of Canterbury may have been important when the Churches of the Anglican Communion were colonies of the British empire, but we are past that colonial era. Today, what unites Anglicans in the global communion of Churches is the doctrine we share from our Reformational roots. For this reason, the largest Church in the Anglican Communion, the Church of Nigeria, in 2005 changed its Constitutional definition of membership in the Anglican Communion from “relationship with the See of Canterbury” to relationship with those who uphold the historical formularies of the Anglican Communion (The Bible, the 39 Articles, and the BCP 1662 and Ordinal). It was a long overdue signal that Anglican identity and membership is in fact based on a common confession– and not geography or mere “bonds of affection.”
This in turn shaped the definition of membership in the Anglican Communion in the Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion (London: Anglican Communion Office, 2008). According to Principle 10.4 of the PCLCCAC, “the relationship of ecclesial communion within the Anglican Communion is based on the communion of a church with one or more of the following (a) the See of Canterbury…; or (e) all churches which profess the apostolic faith as received within the Anglican tradition.” (emphasis added).
Three years later, in June 2008, over 1000 Archbishops, bishops, clergy and lay leaders from Anglican churches all over the world gathered in Jerusalem for Gafcon. These Anglican leaders from the majority of Churches in the Anglican Communion reaffirmed the historic doctrine and “formularies” of Reformational Anglicanism as the basis for true communion. In the Jerusalem Statement (2008) they stated without hesitation, “While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.” In the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) they drove the point home even further: “We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord (para. 13).”
Ten years later, Gafcon 2018, one of the largest global Anglican gatherings, brought together in Jerusalem 1,950 representatives from 50 countries, including 316 bishops, 669 other clergy and 965 laity. From that gathering of the Church came a direct appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Gafcon 2018 Letter to the Churches:
• to invite as full members to Lambeth 2020 bishops of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America and the Province of the Anglican Church in Brazil and
• not to invite bishops of those Provinces which have endorsed by word or deed sexual practices which are in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture and Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, unless they have repented of their actions and reversed their decisions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has refused both requests. Only those Churches in relationship with the See of Canterbury will send their bishops to the Lambeth 2020 Conference, regardless of what they believe and teach about human sexuality, marriage, and leadership in the Church.
How then can the Gafcon Primates who participated in the Primates meeting in Jordan turn back to a colonial definition of Anglican identity based on relationship with Canterbury? How can they walk away from their own Gafcon Jerusalem Statement and Jerusalem Declaration (2008) and Letter to the Churches (2018)? How can they walk away from the very principles and reasons for which they recognized and authenticated biblically-faithful Anglicans and their Churches in North America, Brazil, and now, New Zealand (NOT in relationship with Canterbury), in favor of walking with false teachers?
Likewise, how can the Global South Primates, led by the new President of the Global South Steering Committee, Archbishop Justin Badi (S Sudan), turn away from the doctrinal foundations of the new Cairo Covenant (October 11, 2019) as the basis for Anglican identity, and turn instead to walking with false teachers?
Last week the Gafcon office created “The Anglican reality-check” website, which sets out the facts in an easily accessible way to empower faithful Anglicans. It reveals how predominantly Western church leaders have relentlessly sought to undermine the authority of Scripture and its teaching on marriage and sexuality as reaffirmed by the vast majority of the world’s Anglican bishops at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. It is a very helpful and up-to-the-minute timeline of why we must urgently address both false teaching (the “gospel deficit”) and the lack of consequences (the “ecclesial deficit”) within the Communion of Anglican Churches.
If only the Gafcon and Global South Primates themselves would use this resource in their meetings with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders. Clearly, the current Gafcon and Global South Primates who met in Jordan did not use these well-documented facts in their conversations. Will there need to be another generation of Gafcon and Global South leaders who will use this resource to reaffirm Anglican identity on the basis of our historic Anglican faith? Will there need to be another generation of Gafcon and Global South leaders needed to use this resource to challenge false teaching and un-biblical practice among the leaders and churches of the Anglican Communion—including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself and the Church of England?
Or will that be too little, too late?
Orthodoxy is more than NOT Canterbury. What about ACNA? Is ACNA orthodox? How would the layman know? There is a dearth of information coming from the bishops. We are left to speculate.
What secret information would you like to know?
What Bob Duncan is up to. Why is the new prayerbook based on the poorly written 1979 the new reference for clergy formation and catechism? If there is overwhelming joy with the new prayerbook, why is there all of a sudden a traditional language version showing up? Will there be room in ACNA in the future for anyone besides the anglican lite folks? What new theology is in the new prayerbook that is lacking in the older ones? Is there anyone left in the College of Bishops opposed to WO? Can we get an exact count on those attending Easter services this year? Is there focus and does it have anything to do with salvation or is it just the demise of TEC? Any follow up with the Three Sisters and the House of Wives? Is the theme everything will be approached with prayer and Biblical scholarship dead? Is Abp. Beech being pushed aside or is he stretched too thin with holding GAFCON together. Is the homily out and replaced by 40 minute sermons? Is seven essays enough to explain a one page letter?
Most everyone I talk to is enthralled with Bob Duncan. I am not. He invited anyone and everyone to join the movement away from TEC with the promise of safe harbor but now what? It is my contention ACNA needs to morph quickly into something other than the Church of Duncan or throw up their hands and start their dwindling 40+ trek in the wilderness like the Continuum.
Attending a ACNA high church (Anglo-Catholic) parish, while also attending events held by the broader organization,I am convinced that low church evangelicals and charismatics volunteer much more. I am insure how successful they are in comparison, on the ground. Our parish is growing quick, with evangelicals who want structure, and Roman Catholics who want their kids to be safe.
The faithful want orthodox high church places of worship, but I am also unsure with the ACNA leadership and what they are pushing. There needs to be a space for high church methods, worship, and growth, or I can see dissatisfaction. Personally, I am fighting for high church catholicism in ACNA, and I welcome others to join. Ask for reverence, holiness, respect, and traditional practice. Live it, pray the office, keep the practice and we have a good chance.
Liturgy and tradition will survive the coming hard times better than a bongo drum band.
That’s the thing. Just clue us in please. This isn’t our first rodeo. The Episcopal church used to be broad based and had room for different styles. I came of age in a robust mission in an isolated village started by a Captain in the Church Army in an old two room school house. We had painted windows and the altar top was above a bleached out driftwood stump. The psalms to Morning Prayer were chanted or sung. The protocol was to enter the sanctuary and quietly greet the Lord on your knees as it is his house and he the host. We certainly weren’t Anglo-Catholic nor had even heard the term. Is there room for this in ACNA?
Not officially. We run a home church. Very Anglo-Catholic per our training at Nashotah House.
As long as Jesus and the Word of God are central to the worship, why would there not be room? The TEC strayed from the both Jesus and the Word of God and was more interested in imposing a cultural shift, than honoring the Word of God with Grace. If you are a follower of Jesus you are my brother or sister, worship how you please as long you are worshipping Jesus and following the Word of God.
You mean, gasp, get rid of the big screens and actually use a hymnal?
Perhaps people are afraid because it is harder to edit printed paper. You cannot keep iterating. You need to stick to something.
It is surprising how many of the people who say “I became an Anglican because I love the liturgy” never use a prayer book, opting instead for whatever the “liturgy committee” dreamed up at their meeting last week.
I have seen it as well.
As for me, I like being Anglican for the liturgy, the tradition, the Office, their view on sacraments, etc. I see it as the Eastern Orthodox of the Latin church.
Prayerbook use is common at my parish, and in my life.
You haven’t seen anything yet if you haven’t seen ‘liturgical dance’. Cringe worthy. Twelve year old girls from the local ballet school in tutu, prance prance pose, prance pose, prance pose, prance prance prance pose, repeat….
I became an Anglican through worshiping with the BCP 1662 in an 8:00 AM Communion service at St. Francis Church in Kenya. At the time their ASA was 15, half Kenyans and half “white” Kenyans–mostly over 60 former colonials, now permanent residents. Everyone was there because they unashamedly loved the old liturgy. At the time I believe it may have been the only 1662 service in the country. That service has now grown to about 150. I am now rector of a very happy growing ACNA parish, founded 8 years ago with 25 people. More and more people are finding their way to us from other traditions, hungry for reverence, stability, Biblical preaching, traditional music, hymns and psalms, traditional (unchanging) liturgy, ad orientem prayer. I do sense that we are more durable than many Anglican lite congregations, in the same way that the little group in Kenya had been durable. They were not chasing trends or trying to adapt to culture. They were there when I, a former Methodist and later contemporary community church pastor was ready to find a reliable home. We owe all the blessings of our current parish to that stubborn little band who kept the 1662 BCP service alive in Kenya. I believe time will tell, and tell pretty quickly in these days of accelerated change. It is amazing how anti-fragile a church can be when it abandons the quest for “cool”. Many people are actually becoming Anglican in order to be Anglican. We are not embarrassed by traditional things. I believe we can weather these days if we keep doing what we love joyfully and resist defensiveness. Eventually some of the fervent young Anglicans I see coming to churches like ours will find their way into leadership.
Conversely there are those who enjoy liturgy, without all the high Catholic overtones. If I wanted to be Catholic or Orthodox, that is where I would go. I feel the ACNA does a great job of balancing the “Three Streams” Evangelicals, Charismatics and Anglo Catholics. We can live together, worship in the style that we are comfortable with, respect the difference without the mocking that I see exhibited from time to time on the board. At all times placing Jesus as the center of our worship.
Yes. We used to sing or chant the Morning Prayer service in a plane Jane chapel. However, why is the 1662 and 1928 prayerbooks being downgraded? Is there a theological deficiency? Does changing words in the new prayerbook just for the sake of changing words make it more orthodox? I’m asking the College of Bishops to provide answers. Maybe, they are right. It will be unusual if they are but just speak up.
We’re getting the first hints that we can’t worship in the style that we are comfortable with. Some transparency is called for. (who said you can’t end sentences with prepositions? I just did).
Well-said.
I like the idea of 40-minute sermons! But they need to be delivered by men who really know how to preach. Where are Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Whitfield, Wesley…?
Martin Luther King, Jr. Very few can pull if off. Oratory in general is a lost art.
Not in the Anglican churches, obviously.
I have made a close line-by-line comparison of the 1928, 1979, and 2019, as have several others who can be found online easily enough. I think you’d have a hard stretch arguing that the 2019 is based on the 1979, although of course it incorporates some of it. But there are very full discussions to be found easily enough–there’s no secret here.
Because clearly some who prefer traditional language appreciate the new Prayer Book. This isn’t mysterious.
Yes.
There is plenty of poor theology in the 1979 BCP which is absent from the 2019. There is no discernible “new” theology which is lacking in the old ones; again, this has been worked over in several essays which can be found easily online; the answers are not secret.
Yes. Who is or who is not is certainly no secret!
No. Again, this is no secret, either 🙂
Salvation
Now that is secret information. They live in your head, not mine.
No.
This is a reasonable question. I don’t see evidence of it. Do you?
Not in my parish.
I suppose that more than seven have been written on the Epistle to Philemon. Why do you ask?
Thanks for the reply. You must be an insider. The reference to the seven essays is to the good professor’s clarification of his Letter to the Churches after the last GAFCON. You and I will probably always see things differently. There is a ACNA church 70 miles away which allows me to worship there once a month. Everything was cool and then the bishops feel a need to stir things up. Hopefully I’ll have a place to attend Easter if that doesn’t offend anyone. I like hearing and need reminding ‘Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.’ Those word didn’t need changing. Sorry.
The accomplished politician and president LBJ counseled it is better to keep people inside the tent spitting out rather than outside spitting in. Just saying.
Agreed. And THAT is why we need a BCP version in traditional language.
I would argue that the 2019 is based more on the 1928 than the 1979.
Admittedly, I don’t like the wording of the 2019. The lack of formal pronouns which most languages in the world use and the changing of words for the sake of changing words torques me. No prose. Poorly written. I did go to church 31 years with the 1979. Blah. Never heard anyone use the alternate wording of the Lord’s Prayer. Someone thought it was important to include.
Anyway, you’re probably right. But is it important to throw a monkey wrench in the gear works every time a small worshiping community is settled into a particular style?
I suppose I understand that the team that put the 2019 together didn’t want all the drama that I’m told accompanied the assembly of the 1979. Still, I’d have liked to have seen more public feedback before the final decisions were made. I gave feedback, but it was like shooting an arrow into the night, I got no response at all from it.
But I feel cheated. I was told that the 1662 was the gold standard, and would be the model for the new one. I don’t think that is the case. And this thing in the rubrics that you can switch the order around to reflect that of the 1662 is just absurd. The 1662 was not nearly as wordy as the 2019. And there are other differences.
I use the 2019, both Standard and Renewed Ancient forms, and I’m okay with it. I like the Daily Office. But I’m a real fan of the 1662, and I do think this misses the mark. I guess you can’t please everybody.
After all the interwebs 2019 complaining, I bought the 1663 to compare. I was shocked how similar it was.
I will do a whole study on it in the future, but I started with Mass and Daily Office, and I found a majority of overlap with some abbreviations. The intent seems strikingly similar.
Anglicans discovered to be….Anglican. Again.
It seems to me, as someone who is not a member of the Anglican church, that the problems within Anglicanism extend way beyond same-sex unions and related matters. My wife and I used to occasionally attend BCP services because we love the old liturgy. However these were always, here in Australia, conducted in ‘high’ churches. As a result there were two problems. First it was usually quite obvious that the dwindling, elderly attendees were mostly not converted Christians, but were what one might call camp followers who liked ritual and trusted in it for their salvation (or perhaps were not interested in salvation). Secondly the sermons were mostly not expository but simply expressed the everyday thoughts of the speaker with a sort of biblical gloss. Mercifully they were short. The advantage of the BCP was that the Gospel was in effect preached in the liturgy, so in that sense the sermon was not so important. In the low Anglican churches we have occasionally attended, the liturgy has been trashed, the interior of the church re-organised, invariably into a meaningless jumble intended to more closely resemble the venue of a rock concert, with hideous music (which the congregation likes) to match. An ordained minister in jeans then delivers what he imagines is a red-hot gospel message, along with a few jokes to make himself appear to be both a profound theologian and wonderfully good fellow. In none of the churches do any members of the congregation appear to read their bibles or even to be remotely familiar with their contents. In short it seems to me that Anglicanism’s woes must include much more than just same-sex unions. The disintegrating liturgical tradition which used to be a pillar of Anglican unity, is a major issue. Unbelieving congregants and unbelieving clergy, no matter how well-meaning and how well-behaved, are sapping the vitality of the church. And members are not reading their bibles and are not well taught, so that many remain in a permanent state of spiritual infancy. I have no solutions to offer. I weep (metaphorically) over what has been lost, especially the genuine reverence that used to prevail in our local Anglican church services, the strong faith, the sound bible teaching, and the magnificent tradition of English church music. Truly I wish I had never lived to see this day. My wife and I pray for the Anglican churches, visit them when we can, and hope that all that was good and true in Anglicanism is not to be permanently lost.