Can Evangelicals Accept the “Historic Episcopate”?

The Moravian Episcopal Dialogue has spent some time on episcopal ministry and the historic episcopate. I commend the proposal “Following our Shepherd” for study. The ACNA statement appears to restate the Quadrilateral.

If one accepts the “historic episcopate” by rejecting an “Anglo-Catholic reading”, one has accepted nothing except ecclesiastical bureaucrats with a fancy wardrobe.

Dan Crawford,

“one has accepted nothing except ecclesiastical bureaucrats with a fancy wardrobe.”

Or

one has accepted the necessity of the office of episcopoi as defined in the NT and as existing throughout the history of the Church.

I’ll take option two

Notice the lack of capitalization of the term “historic” in the ACNA statement. This seems to imply that the term is being used as a descriptive rather than as part of the proper name for a doctrine—which would favor the less absolutist reading in my post.

#1 Tom is correct.  The ACNA statement just restates the Quadrilateral.

I agree…and evangelicals of unquestioned pedigree were prepared to accept the quadrilateral

Matt the question seems to be ‘Will evangelicals except it now?” and how will this play out in the ACNA?

bob+
an Anglo-Catholic by-stander to the ACNA Province meeting

Matt Kennedy, who seems pretty Reformed evangelical to me, joins Stephen Noll, J.I. Packer and John Rodgers in endorsing ACNA and viewing Declaration 3 as acceptable to evangelicals.  I wonder about the agenda of those insisting on a particular reading of this article, especially when they are now endorsing a new and separate province apart from ACNA…

Yes, they can

This should read “No, they cannot”; because the Presbyterian statement is not an affirmation or acceptance of the historic episcopate, it is a denial of it.  By saying that they accept “the Presbyter-bishop of the New Testament and the Apostolic times,” they are saying (as consistent Presbyterians must) that the offices of bishop and presbyter are one and the same.  To “recognize” the historic episcopate while pretending that the episcopate is not a distinct office is to rob the episcopate of all of its meaning.

I think, too, that you are misreading the Quadrilateral’s statement on the episcopate, in the hope of similarly misreading the ACNA constitution.  When the Quadrilateral describes the episcopate as an inherent [part] of this sacred deposit—that is, an inherent part of the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world—it is not saying that the episcopate is optional.  It is an inherent part of the apostolic deposit of faith.  That is not only patient of the Anglo-Catholic view; it is the Anglo-Catholic view.

When the ACNA constitution says that the episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, it is saying what the Quadrilateral says:  that the episcopate is an inherent part of the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church.  In other words, not an administrative convenience devised by men, but a part of the faith and order given to us by Christ.

Finally, as to the term “historic”:  it is not a qualifier which somehow demotes the episcopate from esse to bene esse.  It is a specifier which clarifies exactly which “episcopate” we are talking about.  An “episcopate” which we create by appointing certain ministers to administrative positions and giving them the title of “bishop” is not the “historic episcopate.”  The “historic episcopate” is the one that is actually known in Church history, and which has continuously existed in Church history—the episcopate started by the Apostles (cf. St Clement of Rome) and continued from their time to ours.  Any other “episcopate” of human devising (based on a purported identity between presbyter and bishop) is a-historical.

Thus by speaking specifically of the historic episcopate and affirming that it is part of the apostolic deposit of faith, both the Quadrilateral and the ACNA constitution speak only of the Catholic episcopate and no other.

Hi Chris Jones,

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree about the Presbyterian statement. I certainly recognize that Presbyterian polity combines the offices of presbyter bishop as the statement makes clear. And yet the first line of the statement makes it just as clear that they were willing to accept as legitimate the office of overseer as distinct in the Episcopal Church. What they were not prepared to accept, as is made clear by the last part of the statement, is “any claim of the Diocesan Episcopate to the exclusive right of ordination.” That particular claim is associated with the Anglo Catholic idea that ordinations are only valid when performed by bishops in apostolic succession (through the laying on of hands) and so it is perfectly understandable that the Presbyterians would reject it while at the same time accepting the historic Episcopate

2. I think you are misreading me. I do not think and did not suggest that the episcopate is optional.

3. I believe the “historic” episcopate has clearly been exercised in both Catholic and evangelical bodies from the very beginning.

Good question Nevin.

The Chicago and Lambeth Quadrilaterals are two different statements.

Though commonly called the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the Chicago and Lambeth Quadritlaterals are two different things. They both share the fourth point - “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.” However, the language concerning concerning it’s “inherent”-ness does not appear in the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

The Chicago Quadrilateral was only passed by the TEC House of Bishops. It was not approved by the TEC House of Deputies nor by bishops in the rest of the Communion - i.e., the Chicago Quadrilateral cannot be used to establish the mind of the worldwide Anglican Communion at that point or any other.

On the other hand, the Lambeth Quadriateral was approved by the bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion. In other words, the Lambeth Quadrilateral does represent a significant consensus for the Anglican Communion. Since the Lambeth Quad was approved two years after the Chicago they certainly could have approved the same language on “inherent”-ness, but they did not do so. Rather, the Lambeth Conference chose to simply approve the four points without the additional language.

Are we going to really base the language for ACNA fundamental declaration 1.3 on something that was only approved by the TEC house of bishops and something that their own House of Deputies did not approve?

This is why many have suggested that if ACNA wants to base Fundamental Declaration 1.3 on the “Quadrilateral,” they should base it on the Lambeth Quadrilateral which was approved by the worldwide Anglican Communion Bishops. Further, let’s use the exact language that Lambeth used and affirm “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.”

Hi webdac, I certainly agree with the facts of your first four paragraphs and the differences between the Chicago Declaration and Lambeth Resolution 11 are apparent, I think, the link I provided above.

As for the question in your last two paragraphs, I would certainly have no problem with the Lambeth language. And I do not have any problem with the Chicago Statement since I think both can be understood as consistent with evangelical principles.

Here is Dr. Noll’s post on the topic from an earlier discussion on an earlier thread. I think it supports Matt’s assertion. However, I whole-heartedly agree with Dr. Noll’s suggestion that the language on the episcopacy would be far better for ACNA Fundamental declaration 1.3. Dr. Noll is correct, that the language for the JD would be more “descriptive - normative” than “prescriptive - normative.” It would allow more room for three different streams or orthodox Anglicanism that make up ACNA.

Evangelicals could affirm the less prescriptive language of the JD on the episcopacy. However, Anglo-Catholics could affirm beyond that language and embrace the “esse” position. This would be the concept of subsidiarity properly applied where a diocese would be free to affirm a more prescriptive standard than ACNA as a whole. By way of example, Fundamental Declaration 1.7 works this way. The affirmation of the 39 Articles has been written in a less prescriptive way than the affirmation in the JD. However, an evangelical diocese could more prescriptive language.

Here’s Dr. Noll’s post from the other thread - 

Personally, I prefer the phrasing of JD clause 7:

We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

to Fundamental Declaration 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.

It seems to me JD #7 is better because it is descriptive-normative rather than prescriptive-normative. Maybe the Anglo-catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution. However, phrases like “godly” and “historic” episcopate, along with “inherent” and “fullness” are intended to give qualification to a view of purely tactile and instrumental apostolic succession. I know there are Evangelicals who consider the LQ to be the camel’s nose in the tent of true religion, but in the North American context, it has more often served as a defence of the fundamentals.

Matt (13) - Thanks for your response. I see the Lambeth Quad as consistent with evangelical principles, but I don’t yet see that same consistency in the additional language in the Chicago Quad. I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but I don’t yet see it. Thanks by the way for the thread and the opportunity to dialogue.

However, again I would say that we shouldn’t use the Chicago Quad as proof of anything except what the TEC House of Bishops believed in 1886.

Whether we can accept the Chicago Quad as an evangelical is one question. But, I’m asking why we are looking to the Chicago Quadrilateral at all as some sort of understanding of what Anglicans believe when it was only approved by the TEC House of Bishops? It would seem to me far more appropriate to look to the language of something like the 1550 ordinal - which says “We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons.”

Again this would represent a proper application of subsidiarity where the more general statement is used at the top and dioceses would still be free to adopt a more prescriptive standard.

Hi webdac,

My argument is not that there is the “same consistency” between the Lambeth and Chicago statements but rather that both can be read in ways that are consistent with evangelical principles. Clearly the Lambeth statement is preferable but that does not mean that the Chicago statement is unacceptable.

I also agree with you regarding the ordinal language as opposed to either the Chicago or Lambeth statements.

At the same time:

1. The ACNA Const. did not create 1.3. 1.3 had a prior life as part of the Common Cause Theological Statement.

2. Since all parties—evangelical and Anglo Catholic—had already agreed to that language and it had already functioned as part of our common life, the decision to include 1.3 was uncontroversial.

3. Because I believe that the language is not antithetical to evangelical principles, I see no reason to oppose the Constitution on that basis.

webdac, your suggestions have merit and may be a good resolution.

Still, I am a slightly annoyed at those evangelicals who are making a Big Issue out of this.

Is Matt K serious in claiming that Article I.3 allows for presbyterianism?  That would be a new level of Episcopal fudge.

Um…no. Matt K is not “serious in claiming” that “Article 1.3 allows for presbyterianism” Since he never made that claim.

Also, please see John Rodgers post on the issue from here - <a >http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2009/06/acna-constitution-evangelical-view.html </a>

The second is a theological reason. According to traditional Evangelical theology and Anglican theology in general, a particular church order is not of the “esse” of the Church. It is not a defining mark of what is or is not a visible Church. With this Article 19 of the 39 Articles agrees. So does the language of the Anglican Communion, for the language found in the several Lambeth Conferences of the Anglican Communion refers time and again to the various Christian Bodies as Churches even when they are not ordered under the Historic Episcopate. The language found in Article 1 concerning the Historic Episcopate is not intended to set forth an “esse” position. Even more directly pertinent to the decision before us, since for a body to be a Church it must preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments of the Gospel in accord with Christ’s institution, and exercise faithful ecclesiastical discipline (see the Homily on Whitsunday) this concern regarding the language about the Historic Episcopate while significant and needing to be resolved need not stop us from forming a Church which bears the marks of a visible Church. Faithfulness to the Proposed Constitution will enable us to be such a Church. In fact, since we will be ordered under the Historic Episcopate we will be such a Church as Anglicans, an Anglican orthodox Church on mission. Being united so basically in the biblical, Apostolic Faith and mission, (look at the list of agreement in Article 1), it is incumbent on us to move ahead with vigor and joy. North American needs us to be such a Church; indeed, the world needs us to be such a Church on mission.

While he certainly is arguing that we should move forward with the ratification of the ACNA Canons and Constitutions, he identifies the language about the Historic Episcopate to be “significant and needing to be resolved.” Does anybody think it will be easier to resolve this issue post-ratification the pre-ratification?

Here is a proposed amendment, striking the above language and inserting:

“We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.”

This amendment draws from the classic first sentence of the 1550 Ordinal combined with the fourth article of the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

bb

bb,

I would probably support the amendment if offered…however, let me ask: say that such an amendment would mean the departure of some Anglo-Catholic bodies from the ACNA—not because the language itself is bad—but because it represents to them a sign that their principles will be under attack by evangelicals. Would you still want to offer it?

Given that we have already lived with the language of 1.3 for four years in the CCP and that the language is not impossible for evangelicals to embrace—it would seem to me unnecessarily divisive.

I certainly think there are issues that can and should cause division between Anglo Catholics and evangelicals, this is not one of them.

Matt+ & Nevin:  I am not one who is endorsing a new body other than ACNA, but I still have concerns about the substance of the proposed Constitution and Canons and the way in which they are being rammed through the process with meaningful opportunity for input.  The last thing we need is yet another putatively Anglican body out there.

Matt+ I know that the language came from the CCP Theological Statement, but you did not adopt all the language from the statement: why not?  That would be a useful thing to hear.  Moreover, it is perplexing to invoke a document like the CCP Theological Statement as some sort of binding precedent when it was (1) anonymously authored, (2) never ratified by CANA or ADV as required by the CCP agreement, and (3) most importantly, uses arcane and novel language to describe basic concepts that have been well-described in previous Anglican formularies.  Why are we supposed to feel bound to this particular formulation and if not, have our motives and bonafides questioned by you and others on this website? 

The comment process has been a bit of a sham, frankly.  The Archbishop-designate asked for comments, individuals from Truro Church provided comments (and the Vestry expressed its support for those comments), and then was told by the chair of the Governance Task Force that major changes were not really welcome before the Assembly.  Like Bishop Rodgers, he said it was too late in the process to make major changes.  Why ask for input if all you want is proofreading?  Why is there such a rush to adopt this particular doctrinal formulation now?  Why not have a double-reading process like many organizations in which the draft Constitution is published and discussed at this session and voted upon at the next?  We could certainly live with the provisional constitution in the meantime.

And why is everyone being so secretive about the identity of the drafters of these documents?  Why can’t we know who wrote the proposed constitution and canons?

Matt (16) -

Thanks again. I understand your point 1 and 2. Clearly, you have a point that this language came from the Common Cause Theological Statement and so I can see the perspective of those who argue that these points should come over into ACNA’s Constitution.

However, at each stage in our development there is the opportunity to evaluate and modify as appropriate. Certainly, the establishment of our constitution represents such a point.

Additionally, since the Common Cause Theological Statement has come out, we have had GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration. I was personally very pleased with the Jerusalem Declaration which was agreed to by the Common Cause Partnership and our Global South Primate Benefactors. I had thought that the JD would in some ways supersede the Common Cause Partnership as representing a broader and more consensual representation of what worldwide orthodox Anglicans believed. And so, I thought and think that we should look to modify or condition the Common Cause theological statement in light of the Jerusalem Declaration.

This is one reason why I have been so saddened to see the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from the fundamental declarations (1.8) and it’s re-location to the pre-amble. The point being that when people today or in the future look to see what we believe they are going to look at our fundamental declarations and not our pre-amble.

Do you think that most people are even aware of this move of the affirmation of the JD to the pre-amble?  Was there any sort of Communication from the GTF to the constituent members of the forming ACNA of this very substantial change?

On your point 3 that fundamental declarations is “not antithetical to evangelical principles” I don’t yet see it. But, I am thankful for the discussion and opportunity to be persuaded.

Matt,

To what “evangelical principles” are you referring—to those of the sixteenth century English Reformers during the reign of Edward VI and Elizabeth I, to those of classical evangelical Anglicanism?

In my reply to Bishop Rodger’s article I point to the attention of my readers:

Bishop Rodgers claims that the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the ACNA proposed constitution was not intended to set forth the “esse” position on the historic episcopate. Whatever the intentions of the drafters of the Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations were taken, this section is open to the interpretation as representing that position: “…a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic doctrine and practice….” “Inherent” means “essential” and “essential” means “of, constituting of a thing’s essence” and “an indispensable element.” In other words, “a godly historic episcopate” constitutes a part of the essence of the apostolic doctrine and practice; it is an indispensable element of that doctrine and practice. This is certainly open to interpretation as expressive of the “esse” position, a doctrinal position over which orthodox Anglicans have historically divided and over which they continue to be divided to this day. In a church that is supposed to be committed to providing a home for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams such a doctrinal position is out of place. In response to the assertion that reading Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA constitution as a statement of the “esse” position on the historic episcopate is a misinterpretation of that section, it must also be noted that any provision of a constitution or canon that is open to two or more interpretations is in need of revision: its language is not clear or specific enough to prevent it from being susceptible to more than one interpretation.

In my article, “The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You - Part I”  I draw to their attention:

Due to the influence of the 19th century Oxford Movement and 20th century Anglo-Catholicism many North American Anglicans are unfamiliar with the doctrinal position of the English Reformers on the historic episcopate. The English Reformers found no evidence in the Holy Scriptures that God had ordained any one form or order of church government. They concluded, however, that while episcopacy was not divinely ordained, it was in the words of Bishop John Jewel “ancient and allowable.” To the English Reformers the one necessary mark of the Church was its continuance in apostolic and scriptural teaching, not the institution of episcopacy. What mattered most was the succession of the word, not a succession of persons. A bishop was a successor to the apostles in so far as he taught what they had taught. He had no other grounds to claim to be a successor of the apostles. The authority of a bishop was derived from his adoption of apostolic doctrine. If a bishop did not teach what the apostles taught, the bishop had no authority. This is not only the doctrinal position of the 16th century Reformers on the historical episcopate, it is the doctrinal position of classical evangelical Anglicism and of 21st century conservative evangelical Anglicans in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, North America, and other parts of the world.

My research for the article included consultation with a number of evangelical Anglican leaders outside of North America, supporters of GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, in the UK and Australia, and they confirmed the accuracy of my understanding of the historical evangelical Anglican position on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession and that of conservative evangelical Anglicanism. They expressed surprise and concern at the ACNA’s adoption of a decidely partisan doctrinal position on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession. The reaction of evangelical Anglican leaders in Ireland and South Africa that I consulted was similar. They also confirmed the accuracy of my understanding.

I have not been alone in taking issue with the partisan nature of third declaration of the ACNA constitution. Others have drawn attention to its problematic language.

A case can be built that a number of the fundamental declarations are partisan in their outlook, accomodating the Anglo-Catholic position on a range of issues, for example, the Councils of the Church, the authority of the Anglican formularies at the expense of the evangelical position rather than adopting more comprehensive language. In comparing the ACNA constitution’s fundamental declarations with those in the constitution or canons of a number of Anglican provinces, I have found nothing that even came close to the fundamental declarations in the ACNA. Indeed a characteristic of these constitutions and canons was they avoided articulating such a partisan statement. The only set of canons that had anything that approximated the third fundamental declaration of the ACNA constitution was the canons of the liberal Scottish Episcopal Church:

The Scottish Church, being a branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, retains inviolate in the sacred ministry the three orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as of Divine Institution. The right to consecrate and ordain Bishops, Priests and Deacons belongs to the Order of Bishops only.

Before it succumbed to liberalism and modernism, the Scottish Episcopal Church was known for Anglo-Catholicism.

On another thread on this website I have referred readers to Mark Burkill’s Better Bishops. It is on the Internet at: http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/betterbishops.php

In his introduction to the booklet on the Reform website, Rod Thomas, the chairman of Reform, describes the booklet in these words:

He [Mark Burkill]carefully reviews the history of how episcopacy has developed and shows that while it cannot be regarded as ‘essential’ to the life of the church, it is nevertheless a wise way to order our affairs. Godly bishops help to provide wise leadership as they maintain their presbyteral teaching roles (since Biblical teaching is essential to church life and witness); as they provide pastoral help and guidance; and as they lead in mission.

Mark’s booklet highlights the benefits of a biblical approach to episcopacy and helps us to see how we can support godly bishops. However, he also demonstrates how the role of bishops has started to be misconstrued to the great detriment of the Church. He finishes with a plea that something which is a secondary feature of church life should not be regarded as primary. The more the wider church heeds this call, the more flexible we can become to meet the challenges of mission in our secular age.

I therefore must inquire to what “evangelical principles” are you referring.

hi AA,

Briefly because I have a meeting in half an hour.

1. 1.3 did come directly from the CCP Charter. Could you point out the other specific language that was changed…not because I am disputing your assertion, I just am about to run and don’t have it in front of me.

2. the CCP Theological Statement was drafted and adopted before the creation of CANA and the ADV if I remember correctly.

3. Leaders of CANA and ADV were instrumental in drafting and approving the present CandC’s.

4. delegates from CANA and/or the ADV will be able to vote against or for the current draft at the assembly.

5. What did you expect to come of the comment process? I sometimes get the impression that any comment process would be unsuccessful in your view unless it ended with the adoption of your proposed changes.

6. Despite the “arcane” and “novel” language—going back to 1886, as this post shows, serious evangelicals have and can accept it without compromising their principles.

7. I thought, though I could be mistaken, that the names of those on the Governing task force are listed on the CCP website?

Matt writes: I would probably support the amendment if offered…however, let me ask: say that such an amendment would mean the departure of some Anglo-Catholic bodies from the ACNA—not because the language itself is bad—but because it represents to them a sign that their principles will be under attack by evangelicals. Would you still want to offer it?

I think I am assuming that we are all grownups and what matters at the end of the day is the language.  I do believe this language is what we can all agree on - Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals.  After all Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals are proposing it.

bb

“I think I am assuming that we are all grownups”

heh

“and what matters at the end of the day is the language.”

precisely

“I do believe this language is what we can all agree on - Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals.  After all Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals are proposing it.”

Do you mean your amendment or the existing language…what you say is certainly true of the existing language

BB, Matt -

I totally agree with BB. And while you and some other evangelical Anglicans are at peace with 1.3 and see it to be congruent with evangelical principles, some of us aren’t convinced. So to turn the question around, are we willing to lose some evangelicals by leaving the language as is? Both the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic constituencies are important aren’t they?

I think the point is to find language (which is seemingly readily available) that honors the integrities of both groups. Let’s not lose either. The fact, that some evangelical Anglicans are ok with the language doesn’t mean that all orthodox evangelical Anglicans that should be a part of ACNA can (I am not talking fringes here - I’m talking about Truro).

Let’s appropriately apply subsidiarity and leave appropriate space on issues where legitimate orthodox Anglicans disagree. By narrowly deciding on the issue at the ACNA constitution level some orthodox, evangelical Anglicans are feeling very squeezed. These are not fringe groups - these are people who have made great sacrifices personally (in finances and careers and family) to see ACNA birthed and now feel as if there concerns are being kicked to the curb. Some of us are very much hurting as we see this process unfold.

Matt [22]
Evangelicals like myself are growing tired of Anglo-Catholics using the threat of leaving as leverage to make their doctrinal views the official doctrinal views of the the ACNA. Isn’t that like a group of kids on the playground refusing to play a game unless the other kids play by their rules? It is very manipulative.

We are also growing tired of ACNA leaders falling all over themselves to accomodate them. The vision of many of us of the the ACNA is a church in which all three orthodox Anglican theological streams are permitted to flourish, not just one, with charismatics and evangelicals taking the backseat to Anglo-Catholics.

What you have read on this thread and elsewhere on this web site is not evangelicals and others demanding that the ACNA adopt evangelical doctrinal positions on issues such as the historic episcopate and apostolic succession but positions on which all parties can agree.

The concerns of those who have posted on various threads in connection with the ACNA constitution and canons are not just related to partisan doctrinal stance of those documents, they are also related to the structure and governance that they create, the diminished role of the laity, the modes of electing bishops and a primate, and the Governance Task Force’s interpretation of the constitution reflected in the canons.

If the ACNA is not going to be a church that makes full room for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams, not only in the area of doctrine but also in the areas of structure, governance, the role of the laity, and the modes of episcopal and primatial election, it is no better than TEC or one of the Continuing Anglican Churches.

Trying to split hairs in order to support your contention that an unacceptable position statement is acceptable is not the answer to this dilemma. The anwer is to drop the fundamental declarations altogether, replacing them with something very general like that in the constitution of Southern Cone and then make other needed changes to the constitution and canons. These changes need to be made before they are ratified while there is incentive and motivation to change them.

As I draw to the reader’s attention in my reply to Bishop Rodgers, the time to revise the constitution and canons is now:

Anyone who has worked with people in crisis knows that the crisis gives to the people it is affecting incentive or motivation to change. Remove the crisis and those affected by the crisis loose their incentive or motivation to change. Crises put people in a state of disequilibria and they will seek to regain their equilibrium. Once they have regained their equilibrium either by the removal of the crisis or by adjustment to the crisis, their incentive or motivation for change evaporates. Ratification of the proposed constitution and code of canons would remove the crisis that some people are experiencing over the prospect of these two documents not being ratified. Whatever incentive or motivation they may have to support any changes in the two documents would disappear.

From their actions the ACNA Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council give no indication of any real desire upon their part to make any substantive changes in the proposed constitution and code of canons related doctrinal, governance, and other concerns. While individual members of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have shown themselves open to listening to concerns, the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have collectively shown themselves unwilling to countenance substantive changes in these two documents in connection with these concerns. Ratifying the proposed constitution and code of canons is highly unlikely to make the two bodies more amenable to substantive changes in the two documents in respect to such concerns. The notion that these concerns can be addressed and the provisions of the constitution and code of canons amended after the proposed constitution and code of canons are ratified ring hollow. The window of opportunity for revising these two documents is now. That window of opportunity will slam shut as soon as they are ratified.

Hi AA, the question is whether the language of 1.3 is acceptable for evangelicals—not necessarily 16th/17th century English Reformers. The NT office of episcopoi is a biblically defined office and as described in my original above, I think it is part and parcel of the Church.

I certainly agree that episcopoi is not necessarily passed down through the laying on of hands etc…and I agree that “apostolic succession” is a succession of apostolic doctrine. For that reason it is difficult to think of a church without “overseers” in “apostolic succession” as described in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. I do not think one has ever existed…the office seems to exist even in those bodies that claim not to have them.

gotta go. I’ll be back this after noon

and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration

Granted that I don’t see things getting this far in ACNA, but take a long look at the N. Michigan website with the Apostolic duties of the Episcopate being divided among 12 people and you will see an example of how far out of whack things can get when “locally adapted.”

On Matt’s point about Anglo Catholics- truth be told, I think we are hanging in the Anglican Communion as a whole by a very slim thread. Despite all the promises, the various votes on retaining Anglo Catholics in the CoE have gone much like the Covenant vote in the ACC- ++Rowan gives lots of lip service to a way forward that includes Anglo Catholics, but when the votes come up in Synod, muddies up the waters with his interjections, and the outcome is precisely the opposite.

This is about vastly more than WO. Holy orders are a Sacrament.  We do not require others to think that way, but to maintain communion, we must be allowed to think that way.  The Evangelicals within the Communion in general, and ACNA, need to decide whether they will tolerate our theology or not.  And just let us know one way or the other.

Matt[26]
The reference to the 1562 Articles was changed to the 1572 Articles.

An affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration (which contains a definition of Anglican orthodoxy) was added to the Fundamental Declarations but in the finalized version of the constitution was moved to the Preface where it is much less authoritative, making the Fundamental Declarations for the ACNA the primary definition of Anglican orthodoxy. The introduction to the Fundamental Declarations, however, continues to refer to eight elements.

It would appear from the language of the Fundamental Declarations that irregardless of who was involved in their drafting the doctrinal positions of classical evangelical Anglicanism were not adequately represented and the resulting document is decidely Catholic in its leanings. In its position on the Councils of the Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the 1662 Prayer Book the Jerusalem Declaration is decidely more evangelical than the Fundamental Declarations of the ACNA.

I would suggest that the Common Cause Theological Statement, even in its present shortened form, does not belong in the constitution of the ACNA. It has served its purpose. What is needed is a simpler and more general Fundamental Declaration like that of Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America, the Anglican Church of Australia, or the Church of Ireland or no Fundamental Declaration at all. The Church of Nigeria has none.

Matt [31]
I also point to your attention that it is the position of classical evangelical Anglicanism and a substantial number of evangelicals in this century, which I have confirmed not only from my conversations with evangelical Anglicans in and outside of North America. I am afraid that you cannot do what our liberal friends are prone to doing and dismiss the position of the 16th/17th century English Reformers as no longer relevant today. Their position on a number of key theological and ecclesiological issues form not only the basis of the evangelical theological stream in Anglicanism but they are also the position of a substantial number of contemporary evangelical Anglicans.

tjmcmahon:  Do you think the ancient language of the Ordinal, or the actual language of the 4th point of the Lambeth Quad tolerate your theology?  If not, why not?  Serious questions.

Related, I must disassociate myself from Anglican Ablaze’s broad claims that there is some grand A-C conspiracy to takeover the ACNA.  I recognize there is need for compromise, and I’m talking about problems with particular provisions.  Let’s argue those on the merits, without worrying about the motives behind them.  But that point cuts both ways:  Don’t just say you’re annoyed with evangelical troublemakers.  I don’t want to sink the ACNA; I want to see it well constituted.  Right now, it’s not, and, as webdace argues, changes don’t become easier once something is adopted, binding, and essential for membership.  Correspondingly, I heartily concur in webdac and bb’s response to Matt K’s pulling out the supposed threat of huffy departures to shut down discussion.  Any such threat should explain why substitute language is unacceptable—especially when it isn’t invented out of the blue.  As webdac points out, subsidiary suggests that we use the broadest language we can in the national document—as was done with the 39 Articles (and even more broadly than in the sacrosanct CCP statement).  Thus my question to tjmcmahon.

In reading this thread—and in feeling very thankful that Matt has posted and commented on this—two comments stand out for me:

Anxious Anglican’s . . . 

The Archbishop-designate asked for comments, individuals from Truro Church provided comments (and the Vestry expressed its support for those comments), and then was told by the chair of the Governance Task Force that major changes were not really welcome before the Assembly.  Like Bishop Rodgers, he said it was too late in the process to make major changes.  Why ask for input if all you want is proofreading?

And Chris Jones’s . . .

Finally, as to the term “historic”:  it is not a qualifier which somehow demotes the episcopate from esse to bene esse.  It is a specifier which clarifies exactly which “episcopate” we are talking about.  An “episcopate” which we create by appointing certain ministers to administrative positions and giving them the title of “bishop” is not the “historic episcopate.” The “historic episcopate” is the one that is actually known in Church history, and which has continuously existed in Church history—the episcopate started by the Apostles (cf. St Clement of Rome) and continued from their time to ours.  Any other “episcopate” of human devising (based on a purported identity between presbyter and bishop) is a-historical.

Thus by speaking specifically of the historic episcopate and affirming that it is part of the apostolic deposit of faith, both the Quadrilateral and the ACNA constitution speak only of the Catholic episcopate and no other.

Matt [26]
First, the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution was adopted when Anglo-Catholic bishops dominated the Episcopal House of Bishops and evangelicalism had fallen into decline in the Protestant Episcopal Church. Conservative evangelicals had left the church in 1873 and liberal evangelicals had become Broad Churchmen. By 1900 traditional evangelical Anglicanism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church altogether. It would not experience a revival until the 1970s.

The resolution that the third Lambeth Conference adopted in 1888 was a scaled back version of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution, closer to Wiliam Reed Huntington Reed’s own wording and importantly omitting any 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 “...as inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom….” It stated:

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God’s blessing made towards Home Reunion:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s Words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

The most controversial point of this resolution has been the fourth. Anglo-Catholics and those who share their views of the historic episcopate claim that it opens the door to challenging what they hold is the Church’s tradition of apostolic succession.

Any claim that evangelicals have not experienced any difficulty with the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution is highly debatable.

The third fundamental declaration of the ACNA constitution may echo the language of the 1886 Chicaco-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution but that should not as you appear to assert make it acceptable to evangelicals since the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is the more Catholic in its position on the historic episcopate of the two resolutions and therefore is the more objectionable to evangelicals. If indeed the third fundamental declaration echoes the language of the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution as you claim, then you are supporting my contention that the third fundamental declaration takes a decidely partisan doctrinal position on the the historical episcopate. You can dance around the issue all you like but the fact of the matter is that it does. Even Bishop John Rodgers recognized it. Steven Noll acknowledged the Anglo-Catholic influence upon its language. 

As I see it, Anglo-Catholics can treat objections to the third fundamental declaration as an attack on their doctrinal views. Or they can show their commitment to the vision of a new province in North America in which all orthodox Anglican theological streams will be permitted to flourish, not one at the expense of the others, and agree to a more comprehensive statement which is agreeable to all three orthodox Anglican theological streams.

Indeed I see in the controversy surrounding this provision of the constitution and other provisions of the constitution and canons of the ACNA a test of the place that each orthodox Anglican stream will occupy in the ACNA. Will one theological stream dominate the life of the church? Or will all three theological streams not only have place at the table but also a good chair, plenty of elbow room, and as much to eat as they want, with no theological stream sitting higher than the others and with Christ sitting at the head of the table?

It depends on what the meaning of the word, “is” is. 

If there is not a genuine meeting of the minds here, or at least the acknowledgment that there are two sides who will agree to disagree on this one, then the whole thing will fall apart. It will do no good to leave the language vague, or parse the words so that both sides can claim that their view is the one that is expressed. 

Perhaps the ACNA is not ready to pass C&C;yet.

As I see it, evangelicals of the non-Anglican type - Anglicans always having had “locally adapted” bishops - such as “Anglicans Ablaze” can treat the third fundamental declaration as an attack on their doctrinal views. Or they can show their commitment to the vision of a new province in North America in which all orthodox Anglican theological streams will be permitted to flourish, not one at the expense of the others, and agree to this comprehensive statement which is agreeable to all three orthodox Anglican theological streams.

Aidan [36]

Where do make any claims of the existence of a grand Anglo-Catholic conspiracy to takeover the ACNA? My point is that in the interplay that goes on in meetings and the like Anglo-Catholics have come out ahead because they have been unwilling to compromise their convictions, they gained the sympathy of the other parties with their repeated expression of the fear of being excluded, and they have benefited from the fear of the other parties that they will walk out. I do not know how to describe these dynamics in a way that someone may not regard as offensive but I believe that Anglo-Catholics have benefited from them. I am suggesting that the other parties need to stand up for their own convictions and to insist upon more flexibility from those who do not share their convictions, which involves the adoption of positions that are agreeable to all parties.

What has been happening in meetings is similar to what has been happening in the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. In that dialogue there is such a desire on the part of Anglican negotiators for reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church that they have traded away a number of Anglican positions on key issues and received very little if anything in return. The committee, commission, or task force, when it makes its report, has adopted the position of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglicans have come up with some kind of rationale for adopting that position. 

I see dynamics like these at work. I do not see any conspiracy. If anything I applaud Anglo-Catholics for having convictions and sticking to them even if I do not agree with their convictions and do not like the outcome of meetings where they have stuck to their convictions and the other parties have accomodated them and compromised their own convictions.

By no means am I a conspiracy theorist. What I see is human beings acting like human beings. I worked as a social worker for 27 years. My experiences as a social worker may give me a rather jaded view of human transactions; I am also Reformed in my understanding of the human condition, that is, human beings have a propensity to do the wrong thing except when God’s influence is working in their lives. These two factors may have made me somewhat cynical.

I hope that I have provided clarification from where I am coming.

Phil -

I think there is an opportunity for both sides to show their commitment to ACNA and to their brothers in Christ by 1) acknowledging the issues and 2) creating a declaration that is historical, Anglican and not so prescriptive as to preclude any of the three streams. As Faramir said in LOTR this may be an “opportunity to show our quality.”

Something like what has been proposed by many including both evangelicals and anglo-catholics - “We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and people called by God into the unity of His Church.”

It’s from the 1550 Ordinal and the Lambeth Quadrilateral.  historical? - check, classically Anglican? - check, acceptable to Anglo-Catholics? - check, acceptable to evangelicals? - check, acceptable to charismatics - check. In line with the Jerusalem Declaration and our fathers in God who have sacrificed so much to stand with us? - check. Or use what Stephen Noll suggested, the JD statement on the episcopate - “We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.” Again, check, check, check, etc. Problemo Solved.

An additional benefit - a GTF that asked for feedback, received it and appropriately responded in a way that is charitable to all constituencies - awesome! Come Lord Jesus!

Let us all be so committed to loving one another and the respectful of one another’s integrities that absolutley none of us will be satisfied with fundamental declarations that do not respect the integrities of anglo-catholics, evangelicals and charismatics.

And the world will see our love for one another and our commitment to Christ and praise God!

Phil [40]

The third fundamental declaration is far from a comprehensive statement. It is decidely partisan. I do not think that you can turn things around as you are trying to do and suggest that evanglicals like myself are treating it as an attack on their doctrinal views. The third fundamental declaration takes a position that has been historically recognized as representing the position of particular school of thought on the subject. It is also a position over which Anglicans have historically been divided and are still divided to this date.

I would also suggest that you lack familiarity with evangelical Anglicanism.

AnglicansAblaze,

Unless you can tell me when Anglicans have not had a locally-adapted episcopate, I do think I can turn it around.  In fact, you make it pretty easy.

webdac, I completely agree with your posting; on the other hand, you may want to take it up with AnglicansAblaze and his party.  If they’re going to go out of their way to treat even the anodyne statement proposed as an attack on their doctrinal views, I would suggest phrasing such as “bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession” would probably come off like a declaration of war.

Anglicans Ablaze: thanks for the clarification.

Revrj (39):  Not necessarily.  TEC often liked to adopt a “private meaning” of words that meant something else to everyone else who spoke English.  (Sort of like in The Princess Bride.)  That’s bad Anglican ambiguity, equivalent to deception. 

There’s also good Anglican ambiguity, which has a long history and is one way of being comprehensive by being careful only to say what you need to say.  The 39 Articles do this at several places.  The BCP Eucharist service has long done this; all the way back to 1559, I think.  And the full first sentence of the Ordinal is a superb example of this—it affirms the three orders, ties them to “the apostles and the early church” (I paraphrase from memory) and leaves it at that. It allows for a Cranmer/Jewel view of episcopacy.  It also allows (I think—happy to be corrected) for a Keble/Pusey view.  Neither mandates nor excludes either.  The 4th point of the Lambeth Quad—lacking the “inherent” warm-up language of the Chicago Quad—is in the same spirit.  The current language of I.3 lacks such a virtue, apart from Bp. Rodgers’ one-sentence assertion that it doesn’t mean what its words say (while conceding the language is problematic), and Matt K’s invocation of presybterianism to try to redefine terms (as others have pointed out better than I).  Those of us who aren’t buying these explanations aren’t inventing problems; we’re taking the words seriously, because it’s those rather than internet rationalizations that will bind us in this new structure.

Aidan - Exactly!

As I wrote earlier, I have reviewed a number of constitutions and sets of canons of Anglican provinces and I have not come across anything like the ACNA Fundamental Declarations. I have, however, come across similar statements in the constitutions of Lutheran Churches. The following example comes from the constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada:

Article II   Confession of Faith
Section 1. This church confesses the Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—as the one true God. It proclaims the Father as Creator and Preserver; His Son, Jesus Christ, as Redeemer and Lord; and the Holy Spirit as Regenerator and Sanctifier.
Section 2. This church confesses that the Gospel is the revelation of God’s saving will and grace in Jesus Christ, which He imparts through Word and Sacrament. Through these means of grace the Holy Spirit creates believers and unites them with their Lord and with one another in the fellowship of the Holy Christian Church.
Section 3. This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the Church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the Church.
Section 4. This church subscribes to the documents of the Book of Concord of 1580 as witnesses to the way in which the Holy Scriptures have been correctly understood, explained and confessed for the sake of the Gospel, namely
a.  The Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds as the chief confessions of the Christian faith;
b.  The unaltered Augsburg Confession as its basic formulation of Christian doctrine;
c.  Luther’s Small Catechism as a clear summary of Christian doctrine;
d.  The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Large Catechism, the Smalcald Articles with the Treatise, and the Formula of Concord as further witnesses to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

This particular one was one of the shorter ones. Indeed in my study of constitutions and canons I noted a number of similarities between the layout of the constitution of the ACNA and the constitutions of a number of Lutheran Churches

Fundamental Declarations in Anglican documents were much simpler and less involved. The following example comes from the constitution of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America:

1. FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATION
The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone is established as a Province of the Anglican
Communion, a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which professes the
historic Faith and Order as contained in the Holy Scriptures, to conserve the Doctrine,
Sacraments, Ministry and Discipline of the Anglican Church and as observed in the Book of
Common Prayer and the administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies, in the
form and manner of Consecration, Ordination or Institution of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons
and the Articles of Religion maintains the ecclesiastical unity of the Dioceses and Provinces
legitimately established and that are in communion with the See of Canterbury.

If a comprehensive position statement cannot be agreed upon, the replacement of the entire fundamental declarations section with something like the foregoing or its omission altogether would be another option.

In my study of constitution and canons I also found that the canons of most Anglican provinces were simpler and less involved than those of the ACNA. The ACNA code of canons covers a number of subjects that they do not cover.

Phil [44]
My impression is that you are trying to muddy the waters with your assertions. The problem is not my point of view which has a historical basis but the language of FC#3. May I suggest that the person with whom you are arguing is a figment of your imagination, a straw man that you are hoping to set up so that you can knock it down. I decline to be drawn into such arguments.

What you decline to do, AA #48, is tell me when Anglicanism has not featured a locally-adapted episcopate.  For understandable reasons; there is no such time.  The real straw man here is your view of Anglicanism.

Read more carefully: I haven’t made any assertions, only asked a simple question.

Okay, I am back and have read the comments and as with the other threads on this topic, I am amused at the way Anglican Ablaze and, on this thread at least but he was more reasonable on others, Aidan, have taken other people’s words and twisted them into assertions and conclusions that have very little relationship to the original statement…a good deal of posturing and sounding off for effect…and some mischaracterization to boot.

For example: Aidan says that I have tried to argue that 1.3 “allows for Presbyterianism”. Later he moderates his claims somewhat. Now, according to Aidan I have invoked “presybterianism to try to redefine terms.”

In fact, I have done neither. I used the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to point out that the words “Historic Episcopate” may be and have been embraced by evangelicals without succumbing or accepting the Anglo-Catholic definition of those words.

In another comment BB suggested a change in 1.3. I noted that there had already been a broad agreement between evangelicals and catholics on the existing language so why push for a further redefinition if it risked causing division over non-essential matters. Here is what I wrote.

“let me ask: say that such an amendment would mean the departure of some Anglo-Catholic bodies from the ACNA—not because the language itself is bad—but because it represents to them a sign that their principles will be under attack by evangelicals. Would you still want to offer it? Given that we have already lived with the language of 1.3 for four years in the CCP and that the language is not impossible for evangelicals to embrace—it would seem to me unnecessarily divisive. “

Here’s how Aidan characterizes my words:
“Matt K’s pulling out the supposed threat of huffy departures to shut down discussion.”

Yeah, that’s the ticket. The question of whether or not 1.3 is worth the possibility of division is my attempt to “shut down discussion” on a thread I STARTED for the very purpose of discussion.

But, Aidan, don’t let my actual words get in the way of a good time…

Anglicans Ablaze is a study in this sort of thing. He writes: “I am afraid that you cannot do what our liberal friends are prone to doing and dismiss the position of the 16th/17th century English Reformers as no longer relevant today.”

Ah yes, that is me, flaming liberal revisionist Matt Kennedy. But wait…did I say that “16th and 17th century English Reformers are no longer relevant today”

Here is what I did say:
“the question is whether the language of 1.3 is acceptable for evangelicals—not necessarily 16th/17th century English Reformers.”

Not quite kicking to the Reformers to the curb. My point was simply that 16/17th century English reformers are not the highest bar for evangelicals. The question of whether anything is “essential” is a biblical one as it is an historical one and while some English Reformers did indeed think that issues of polity are not essential to the church, many Reformers, English and otherwise, believed that when scripture identifies/defines an office, that the Church is obligated to maintain it. I believe this was at issue between Hooker and the puritains.

In any case, my simple statement that the thoughts of one generation of English Reformers is not the only measure by which we determine whether something is acceptable for evangelicals is twisted by AAblaze into evidence of revisionist tendencies.

I won’t even address the dark Anglo-Catholic conspiracies that seem to haunt AA’s mind

I am beginning to see why this discussion has been difficult and why it might be hard for the two of you to fairly critique any document at all.

[45] Aidan:  Agnlican ambiguity can be a good thing as long as we are clear that we are being intentionally ambiguous.  Sort of like saying, “Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and we will not define exactly how He is present.”  There is no attempt in a statement like that to allow one group to believe it carries one specific meaning and another group to believe it carries quite a different yet specific meaning. 

The phrase, “historic Episcopate,” is a term of art in the Anglican tradition that has a specific meaning.  By imposing a Presbyterian lens over the top of it to make it acceptable to those who would reject the traditional Anglican understanding is the kind of ambiguity practiced by postmodern western people today.  It is a way of pretending there is agreement when there is not. 

For a body that lays claims to Anglican roots to say that it accepts the historic Episcopate as essential to the apostolic faith is to say that within an Anglican context, not a Presbyterian context, but an Anglican context.  Therefore, it would be (intentionally?) misleading to make such a statement and then in a different place say, “Well, look at it in terms of what Presbyterians say, or Moravians, or the Church of God in Christ.”  That’s not ambiguity. If this is the direction the ACNA is taking to reach “agreement,” that agreement will be very short lived indeed.

AnglicansAblaze:

Evangelicals like myself are growing tired of Anglo-Catholics using the threat of leaving as leverage to make their doctrinal views the official doctrinal views of the the ACNA. Isn’t that like a group of kids on the playground refusing to play a game unless the other kids play by their rules? It is very manipulative.

And again, AnglicansAblaze:

I hope that evangelicals in GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans outside of North America are reading this thread. They may wish to reconsider their support the ACNA as a new North American province and shift their support to a more comprehensive ecclesial body.

Pot, meet kettle…

Wow, interesting thread but seems to be getting a little testy.  I suspect that is because it matters so much to many.

Personally, I am evangelical and support the historic Episcopate as bene not esse.  It is a good thing when its bishops are good and faithful to God, His Holy Words, and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.  The problem in TEC is that many of our bishops have turned their back on all three.  They pick and chose what scripture to accept and reject others.  They lean and depend upon their own understanding.  They may be part of the historic Episcopate and Apostolic Succession but do not embrace the teachings of the Apostles or the catholic Church.

As one can live or die by the sword, so can one live or die by one’s bishop.  The question has been raised by others that the Orthodox Tradition and Roman Catholic Tradition is doing better than the EC.  This is true presently, but what happens when a pope or metropolitan is elected who is not faithful to God and His Holy Word.

I am evangelical but not as reformed in my theology as Matt….but I find these discussions useful to show our sharp edges and where we differ.  In any case, I believe Evangelicals can accept the historic Episcopate just fine.

I also believe it would be a mistake for those forming the ACNA not to go forward at the Texas Meeting just as it was a mistake not to send the Covenant forward to the Provinces.  Lost opportunities are hard to come by and should not be taken for granted.

We have such a problem with trust these days for good reason.  Trust is hard to come by especially under present circumstances.  But it might be wise to question but not hesitate and trust that the new agreement is worthy of trust and even open to correction. 

We have lost this in the EC…but the ACNA seeks to find it.  I hope they do.

..and then there is the hysterical episcopate.

heh

Been reading this stuff for a few weeks now, and those criticizing the means and methods by which the C&C;of the new province were developed are becoming more aggressive in their criticism as the time nears for the First General Assembly meeting in Bedford, TX.  A note to unhappy evangelical Anglicans:  You may have a number of allies in opposition to the proposed C&C;among a number of your Anglo-Catholic brethren. 

The fact is that no one—and I mean no one—is completely happy with all of the language of these documents.  When the GTF sat down to begin work on these documents, a group of committed Christians and clergy with vastly different theological viewpoints attempted to craft a Constitution and a set of Canons with which every view represented could at least co-exist.  A substantial majority of the six or seven bishops participating on the GTF hold to an evangelical Anglican theology.  But compromise, tolerance, true “inclusivity” and Christian love were the orders of the day, and while a better crafted document may well could have been produced, the document that was produced was sufficient to equally disatisfy just about everybody. 

Having had experience in participating in the settlement of countless disputes, I can honestly say that the best settlement agreement is an agreement where neither side wins, where both sides are essentially disatisfied, but where enough compromise and consideration have been given so that both sides can live with the result.

What faithful Anglicans can expect from the new province is that the laity will have a much stronger voice in the councils of the Church than what was experienced in TEC, and that those in leadership positions will actively listen and act upon the genuine concerns of those who, in good faith, remain interested in building up the Body of Christ, as opposed to some who seem interested only in expressing their criticism as a way to show the world how much smarter they are than the rest of us.

Matt:  thank you for your questions/comments at 26. Here are my thoughts in return, ranked in order of concern:

My biggest concern is the lack of notice or an adequate opportunity to be heard concerning the proposed constitution and canons.  You wrote,

What did you expect to come of the comment process? I sometimes get the impression that any comment process would be unsuccessful in your view unless it ended with the adoption of your proposed changes.

 
As a lawyer, I would have been content to have my comments rejected on a substantive basis, but the chair of the GTF and Bishop Rodgers both said that there is not time to consider substantive comments like those submitted by the Truro observers before the Assembly. As I mentioned earlier, I thought the Archbishop-designate asked for comments, not proofreading, and he set the timeline.  If the leadership of GTF and ACNA knew the timeline was not adequate to receive and consider major comments, what was the point in asking?

I am also very concerned about the artificially induced “all-or-nothing” aspect of this issue.  You wrote,

delegates from CANA and/or the ADV will be able to vote against or for the current draft at the assembly.

This is consistent with what we have been told elsewhere: at a meeting with representatives from the GTF, the Truro delegation was told it could just leave ACNA if they did not like the proposed constitution and canons. Why does this have to be all-or-nothing?  I don’t understand why the Assembly couldn’t amend this document like any other parliamentary action, but to suggest modification is to provoke a variety of questions about my bonafides as a Christian let alone an orthodox Anglican. No one wants to leave, or even vote against these documents (well, except maybe Anglicans Ablaze); but why are these proposals so privileged and why is discussion about revision so brittle?

The fact that CANA and ADV leaders were involved in the drafting of these documents does not alter the qualitative critique offered elsewhere by Aidan, myself, and others or the failure to provide CANA/ADV clergy and laity adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the merits or problems with the draft documents.  BTW, CANA (2004?) predates the CCP and its Theological Statement (2007), and I do not recall the CANA governing bodies ever voting to ratify the agreement, let alone the accompanying Theological Statement; perhaps that would explain why Aidan and I do not understand the weight you are attributing to the CCP Theological Statement.

I think that it is also important to note that there are a variety of reasons to object to the proposed documents, and Aidan and Anglicans Ablaze represent two very different sets of objections.  Aidan is objecting to what some of us perceive is the novel and unnecessarily exclusive language in Article I of the proposed constitution and the clerical emphasis in the governance structure; I do not perceive that he is rejecting the whole proposal (like Anglicans Ablaze appears to be advocating), and his comments also do not appear to be the sort of personal attack that you seem to be interpreting them as being.  The thrust of his argument appears to be that words have meaning, meaning has consequences (sometimes bad), and we have been presented with words that have unnecessarily exclusive and disempowering consequences without an opportunity for meaningful input. 

I did find the GTF membership on the CCP website, but it is not on the pubicly-accessible portion.  Thank you for the suggestion.

Or the publicly-accessible portion, either.  (Sorry!)

My take on this?  We can satisfy some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but we can’t satisfy all of the people all of the time.  So what do we do?  We try to craft a constitution which will satisfy everyone, and hope for the best. 

The conclusion is that it’s an impossible task, with the result being that we either scrap it, or proceed with what we’ve got.  I think it’s much too late to do the former, and therefore we do the latter, with any amendments to come at a later Assembly at some time in the near future; about a year from now would be my guess.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Matt,

Regarding the proposed amendment:

“We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.”

Yes, this amendment is being proposed by the combined work of an Evangelical and Anglo Catholic - both lawyers by the way and members of a Vestry that was individually sued by the Episcopal Church. 

I believe it is helpful in affirming the Anglo Catholic understanding of the Historic Episcopate and at the same time there is freedom for its expression to be locally adopted, which I think is what gives the Anglican way such an exciting expression of God working amongst His people.  Indeed, this evangelical has come to deeply appreciate the worship and ministry of Ascension and St. Agnes in Washington DC and the marvelous work of the sisters at All Saints Convent in Catonsville, MD. 

Evangelical Anglicans embrace the episcopate. Indeed, at the CANA ordination this past weekend when it came time for the bishop to charge those newly ordained and priested to their ministry, he forgo the usual text and instead put each of newly ordained in his own bishop’s chair and washed their feet.

I believe this language offers a clarity that is not present in the original language and this amendment includes the work of both Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics, working together as we move forward, by God’s grace, into a new province in the Anglican Communion.  To God be the glory.

bb

Anxious Anglican, I agree completely with you concerning the comment process.  I also agree with you concerning the relative lack of power by the General Assembly to amend the provisions (the GA either votes them up or down, in toto).  These, among other things, I have found to be objectionable.  And since I am not a delegate, I am relieved of the responsibility to decide whether to vote for or against the Constitution and Canons that have been adopted by the Provincial Council.  Nevertheless, I do support their ratification by the Assembly, because the failure to do so would interrupt the momentum that has been built over the past many months toward the establishment of the province.

For some reason, the leadership of CCP perceived some pressure to act more quickly in establishing the province than anyone thought would be necessary.  There has been speculation on this site and others about where that pressure originated, but I am convinced that it is real, and had those time pressures not been present, I also am convinced that there would have been much more opportunity for meaningful comment on the proposals.

As a purely practical matter, there simply is not time to re-draft the entire set of documents.  I disagree, however, with the assertion that the failure to force amendments to the provisions at this time forecloses future opportunities to do so.  To the extent that the existing provisions are problematic, those advocating amendments will have ample time and opportunity to propose their changes in due time.

Hi Anxious Anglican,

1. an apology, I confused you with Anglicans Ablaze when I wrote this:

“What did you expect to come of the comment process? I sometimes get the impression that any comment process would be unsuccessful in your view unless it ended with the adoption of your proposed changes.”

2. I did not at all intend for this: “delegates from CANA and/or the ADV will be able to vote against or for the current draft at the assembly.” to be taken as a “take it or leave it” sort of comment. The intent behind my words were that I assume this will be a fair legislative process not only in June but going forward…that means that there are ways to build support for amendments and fight for them through legislation. I did not mean to be flippant.

3. I think it would be easier to understand Aidan’s point if he did not seem so intent to misrepresent mine.

4. I certainly understand that words have meaning…and agree. For that reason, I think that when broad descriptive terms are applied narrowly by one particular party, my urge is to resist. I do not think it necessary to allow only the narrow Anglo Catholic definition of the “historic Episcopate” to rule when a number of other understandings of that term are available.

As I said BB, I would be happy to support such an amendment but not if it would cause a rupture—in which case I would be against it—since I can live with the present language.

Hi Nevin
A fellow by the very same name in the late 1800s or early 1900s suggested that the refromation was a good and necessary thing.  But after certain changes were made by the Church of Rome we should have come back together.  Are you related?

Old Soldier, I assume you are referring to John Williamson Nevin, in which case the answer is no relation.

Revrj (51):  I actually agree with you.  I’m not the one putting a presbyterian lens over the language of Article I.3.  Matt K. is, which is why I’ve been poking at him.  As I read his initial posting, the following, from the Presbyterians, is a permissible view of “the Historic Episcopate”:  “the office of ‘episcopoi’ or ‘overseer’ as defined in the New Testament is necessary to the Church and has existed throughout the history of the Church.”  One might reasonably ask what’s “historic” in that formulation.  And if that’s not what Matt K. meant as to the phrase’s meaning, then I don’t know what he did, except maybe that it’s greatly malleable to an indeterminate extent.  All we’re really left with is his telling us what “Historic Episcopate” does not mean.  I suppose that’s a bit helpful, but doesn’t take you very far.

But the issue is not actually “historic Episcopate” or “Historic Episcopate”—or else the Lambeth Quad would be objectionable to reformed folks (except, I suppose, that if you water it down enough, as the presbyterians did and Matt at least suggested, it’s obviously biblically mandated).  The issue is why one holds to the h/Historic Episcopate, and it’s that on which longstanding Anglican ambiguity would be most welcome.  Is it, as Article I.3 claims, “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice” (language that is conspicuously not in the Lambeth Quad) or is it just A Very Old and Good Thing?  Put differently, is it an issue of the definition of the church (“inherent” sounds pretty definitional to me) or the tradition of the church?  The point that I and others are trying to make is that whatever we say about episcopacy in the ACNA constitution should leave room for either view.  As I think webdac set out several threads ago (probably in Sarah’s original thread), the latter is the view of Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and others. 

In any event, here’s the full language of the first sentence of the Ordinal, which I mangled in my last posting:

“It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”

I have yet to hear anyone explain what is objectionable in that language from an Anglo-Catholic perspective.

DFW Lawyer (61):  Who’s asking “to re-draft the entire set of documents”?  (Other than perhaps Anglicans Ablaze.)  On this thread, we’re focusing on changing one short section of one article.  On earlier threads, the discussion was basically limited to:
(a) allowing dioceses, particularly new ones, to pick a single candidate for their bishops, which would mean deleting one sentence of the canons and revising the application materials (that issue was the cause of Sarah’s original posting);
(b) giving laity and clergy a say in electing the archbishop, which could be done with a minor tweak, perhaps in Article IX; and
(c) eliminating the preference for a tithe to the diocesan and provincial bureaucracy, which would involve tweaking a one-sentence canon and modifying the application materials. 

It’s possible I’ve missed something that came up in the threads, but that’s not a “re-draft.”  In fact, it’s less than the changes that the GTF itself made between the 12/08 and 4/09 drafts.

This discussion points to the “problems” inherent in the ACNA proposal.  The AC and Evangelical (really Reformed Anglicans) camps could “get along” (tolerate each other) as long as there was the great (majority) of moderate/liberals (Latitudinarians) in the church.  Once the AC and Evangelicals are the only ones in the room, a fight will follow.  I am afraid the differences in ecclesiology are too significant for the two groups to form a fully functional church. 
Personally, I wish the ACNA success. But, since the vast majority of those forming the ACNA left the TEC for theological reasons, theological principles are foundational to each camps’ self-understanding.  I foresee disagreements over the historic episcopacy, woman’s ordination, liturgy, vestments, etc.  It may be a replay of the ritual controversies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  It is sad, but a common rejection of heresy may not be a sufficient platform for unity.

In reading this thread I have become quite confused (a rather consistent thread in my comments of late, since returning to SF since my confirmation over across the Tiber).

Now I’ll admit that I’m nowhere near the authority on Anglican history or theology that many of my learned colleagues are, supra.  And while it may, in fact, remove all doubt as to my personal ignorance, it may yet yield exposition for others, like me, who are confused as to the substance of this disagreement.

As I understand what I’ve read, the Evangelical faction hereinabove believes that the current wording of the ACNA favors the Anglo-Catholic understanding of the term Historic Episcopate.

According to my understanding, the Anglo-Catholic faction avers that the current wording is simply a neutral statement of historic Anglican formulation. Moreover, the Anglo-Catholics seem ready to challenge the Evangelicals to cite an “Anglican” church that has no set of Bishops in the diocesan sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, my worthy brothers and sisters: the questions that present themselves to my mind are these: (1) have there been any Anglican situations where Bishops have not been used?  (2) Do Evangelicals need an absence of Bishops in order to sign-on to ACNA?

Additional note: You may be wondering why a newly-minted Roman is back over here on SF.  Well, I’ll be honest: whilst I am now in communion with the Holy Father, and whilst I have fully embraced the Magisterium of the Church, I find myself remaining an Anglican—or Pre-Reformation-English?—Catholic in my worship, devotional, and doctrinal sensibilities.  I very much appreciation Anglicanism, and I will be a staunch ally of the Orthodox Christians remaining within Anglicanism (with Episcopalian or North American).

And, I’ll admit: I also enjoy a good argument, and SF never disappoints for that!

So apparently I need to proof-read.  My bad.

I may not quite understand what is meant by evangelicals here, but if it means here what I think it does, the idea of their accepting the Episcopate even as it was in 1054 is silly.

bb#60 -  I do wish someone of both Evangelical & Catholic would explain the ramifications inherit in the blockquote of #60.
<blockquote>“We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and we affirm the Historic Episcopate,<b> locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.”

Hi Aidan, you were not so much “poking” me as you were mis-characterizing my words…but oh well.

Secondly, the Presbyterians were not “watering down” the the term “historic episcopate”. They were simply not accepting the narrowly Anglo Catholic understanding of that term as definitive which you have done.

The Presbyterian Assembly (above) seems to have accepted the “Historic Episcopate” in the following sense: the office of “episcopoi” or “overseer” as defined in the New Testament is necessary to the Church and has existed throughout the history of the Church.

They see presbyters (Gr, pl?) and episcopoi as equivelent. 

I struggled with a lot of things when I went Episcopalian over from the OPC, but the debate over two vs three offices was not one of them.  That was because the Reformed Marks of the Church don’t depend on how many offices are affirmed within any given denomination.

My guess is these Presbyterians saw things through the same lenses.  They wouldn’t separate presbyter from episcopos, but they would affirm Anglicanism as a valid arm of the Church, as well as affirming the spiritual authority of Anglican priests and bishops (though again, they’d equate their teaching and ruling elders with the Anglican priests and bishops in terms of authority).

Ah yes, that is me, flaming liberal revisionist Matt Kennedy.

Well, you know, it must be admitted that there is some evidence for this.  Sarah does testify from time to time on this board that Matt is a “moderate” and we all know what that means in a modern context.  Chickens, meet roost, and all that.

carl

#71 - I can tell you that the portion you highlighted is lifted directly from the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:

“4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.”

The Lambeth Conference of 1888 endorsed the language of Section #4 exactly as is.

I could perhaps give an example of our experience in Virginia, where the bishop has historically had somewhat limited powers.  For example, in Virginia, he does not have the authority to impose “askings” on the parishes.  The parishes are free to give as much as they wish, or as little as they wish.  They may receive raised eyebrows at Council, but that’s about it.

The Bishop of Virginia also has limited authority over the parish vestries.  For example, at the 2008 Annual Council, the Bishop sought to change the canons of the diocese so that he could appointment people to local vestries.  When it became evident that a rather fascinating ad-hoc coalition of opposition had sprung up that aligned both the progressive low-church leaders and the conservative low-church leaders, he had his chancellor withdraw the canon changes.

These are simple examples that come to mind of local adoption of the methods of administration.  There are many others.  You can see it worked out in the variety of vestments worn at Episcopal gatherings of bishops, even at Lambeth.  The idea of allowing flexibility over the administration of the historic episcopate (high church and low church) is that it will bring unity to the Church. That is the point.

bb

Fr. Kennedy wrote, “Secondly, the Presbyterians were not “watering down” the the term “historic episcopate”. They were simply not accepting the narrowly Anglo Catholic understanding of that term as definitive which you have done.”

So how is the Anglo Catholic “understanding” narrow?

And, if I might ask, what is your definition of an “Anglo Catholic?”

We in the Anglican Catholic Church are asking these questions because Bishop Duncan has graciously invited our Archbishop to the inaugural synod of the ACNA.

We were wondering what might await him.

I find this discussion, as so many similar such discussions, bizarre.

Evangelicals waxed indignant over Newman’s treatment of the Articles in Tract 90, claiming that he was twisting words out of their supposed “obvious” meaning (obviously protestant, that is).  Yet when it comes to a simple declaration of the historic episcopate, some evangelicals are willing to twist themselves into linguistic pretzels that would make any post-modernist proud, all to make sure they are not being too catholic.

Since the alleged sine qua non of conservative Anglicanism these days is the 1662 Prayer Book, why not just read the Ordinal, which makes it clear that the “divers orders” of deacon, priest and bishop are the work of God through the Holy Spirit, rather than administrative conveniences?

“anglicancatholicpriest”

I did not mean “narrow” in a pejorative sense but in a descriptive one…as in “the only”

Fr. Kennedy,
Well, I don’t find it an accurate description.  Since we
(Anglo Catholics)have the same doctrinal view as the Romans and the Eastern Orthodox on the apostolic succession (is that different from the “historic episcopacy”?)I would not call it “narrow.”  And it does have a pejorative ring, as in “your view of this matter is narrow.”

But I understand what the ACNA is up against in trying to hold the Elizabethan settlement together.  We tried and failed.  No priest to my knowledge celebrates Mass in a cassock and surplice in the ACC.  In the early eighties there were quite a few.  We didn’t run them off, they left voluntarily and I am not sure why.  I think because they were a minority within the ACC.

Now the ACNA seems to have a majority of evangelicals and a minority of “Anglo Catholics” (how do you define that?). It will be a challenge to keep this group intact, and eventually the dreaded moment of facing the issue of W.O.

Good luck and God’s blessings.

And God bless you for your persecution at the hands of TEC.

anglicancatholicpriest,

Thank you for that. I believe the term “historic episcopate” was used by the bishops in 1887 instead of Bishops in Apostolic Succession in order to broaden the definition out and accommodate protestant/evangelical sensibilities…so if we insist that the term must refer to Bishops in Apostolic Succession and say that 1.3 means that such bishops are essential to the Church it would mean embracing a narrower meaning than the term demands. That’s all I meant by narrower.

Well, Matt, I can’t speak for anglicancatholicpriest, much less for those bishops in 1887, but it’s hard for me to see how “historic” any episcopate would be that did not include apostolic succession.  What else could “historic” mean in such a context?

The problem is that Presbyterians are not linked to the early church by way of the Apostolic imposition of hands as their Continental predecessors parted ways with the Church Catholic and all it’s Sacraments with exception to the Word (at least most of it).
Many “Evangelical” minded Anglicans like to quote the sound bite formula “1 bible, 2 testament, 3 creeds, 4 councils, 5 centuries” but rarely give full voice to where that came from. Bishop Rodgers uses the phrase and seems sympathetic to the Presbyterian ethos as his comments on “Esse” demonstrate.

Jeremy Taylor’s “letter to a Gentleman seduced to the Church of Rome” fleshes out that ‘formula’ and truly identifies what is Catholic about Anglicanism over against challenges to the contrary.  Bishop Taylor (1613-67) , a man in the Apostolic Succession, had more to say than that alone:

“What can be supposed wanting [in the Church of England] in order to salvation? We have the Word of God, the Faith of the Apostles, the Creeds of the Primitive Church, the Articles of the four first General Councils, a holy liturgy, excellent prayers, perfect Sacraments, faith and repentance, the Ten Commandments, and the sermons of Christ, and all the precepts and councils of the Gospel.  We teach the necessity of good works, and require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life.  We live in obedience to God, and are ready to die for Him, and do so when He requires os so to do. We speak honourably of His most Holy Name.  We confess His attributes.  We love all Christians, even our most erring brethren. We confess our sins to God and to our brethren whom we have offended, and to God’s ministers in cases of scandal or of a troubled conscience.  We communicate often,  We are enjoined to receive the Holy Sacrament thrice every year at least.  Our priests absolve the penitent.  Our Bishops ordain priests, and confirm baptized persons, and bless their people and intercede for them, And what could be wanting here for salvation?”

Bishop Taylor would very much disagree with the those whose lineage parted with the A.S. as to being in the episcopate.  JT was a Catholic, an Anglican Catholic who also is known for his great contributions to the translation of the Authorized Version of the Bible which many ‘Evangelicals’ eschew for generic dynamic equivalents.

Much discussion over these words ‘evangelical’ and ‘catholic’ as pertaining to Anglican pedagree but if you are evangelical in the contemporary USA sense without being first Catholic you are not really Anglican but generically Protestant.  Nothing wrong with that if that is want you want to be.  But since even the most presbyterian among us will admit to the BCP being the bedrock of our Anglican formularies isn’t it interesting that the word “Protestant” appears not one time within it’s pages and the word Catholic appears often.  Words in a document mean things. Admonition against Communicating unless Confirmed also appears and that is a Catholic understanding not a Presbyterian one.  These things (J.T.s litany) the Presbyterians do not have and they do not because they are a product of the Continental Reformation not the English Reformation.

Now the TEC has given up enough of JT’s statement to make the Presbyterians look Catholic in comparison- that I will grant you!

John Cosin, Bishop of Durham 1660 also states the above formula somewhat differently but following the same basic sense ‘1 Bible,2,3,4,5-etc’.  As an English Catholic he also asserts the “blessed Sacraments”, “Confirmation”,  “imposition of hands according to the examples of the holy Apostles and ancient Bishops of the Catholic Church.”  These things are Catholic. The are English Reformers speaking in context of the times. 

Those “ancient Bishops” Cosin speaks of utilized the “succession” to thwart impostors preying on the early church and to assure the faithful of their Authority and authenticity , just as did Matthew on Jesus’ genealogy.  The biblical implication of the Office are evident in the recitation of Jesus’ genealogy in the beginning of the Gospel of St Matthew and also in Acts.
Here are some of the earliest recordings of the Succession:
Hegesippus (c. 175):
“The Church of Corinth remained in the right doctrine down to the episcopate of Primus at Corinth.  I had converse with them on my voyage to Rome, and we took comfort together in the right doctrine.  After arriving in Rome I made a succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus.  To Anicetus succeeded Soter, who was followed by Eleutherus.  In every succession and in every City things are ordered according to the preaching of the Law, the Prophets and the Lord.
Irenaeus:
The Blessed Apostles after founding and building up the church, handed over to Linus the office of Bishop. (Paul mentions Linus in 2Timothy iv 21)... he was succeeded by Anancletus, after whom… Clement… Euarestus; then Sixtus was appointed the sixth after the Apostles… Telesphorus (Martyred)... Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter.

St Matt: A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:  2Abraham was the father of Isaac,    Isaac the father of Jacob,    Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,    3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,    Perez the father of Hezron,      Hezron the father of Ram….  15Eliud the father of Eleazar,  Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The parallel between the Geneolgy and the Succession could only be lost on the most opaque.  The Presbyterians never tried to rejoin the Church Catholic and regain this.  The Methodists actually did:  Superintendent White approached Bishop Seabury on this matter but Seabury turned him down. From that point on they engaged in the ‘uselessness’ of the AS. Bishop Seabury’s point to them was that it would not serve to have another Church, that Christ only appointed one.

Now the Anglican Church has always been Catholic even under attack from the Puritans and Rom,e and at times almost snuffed… the Presbyterians simply have not the link and many Evangelicals having substituted generic Evangelical theology for their own Anglican understanding buy into the arguments.  Seems funny how truncated the understanding of some who consider themselves Anglican is.

My point is that to be Anglican is to be Catholic. And every Anglican who believes the Creeds he or she recites each Sunday cannot differ without being double-minded.  If as an Evangelical you say “1 Bible,2 Testaments, 3 Creeds, 4 Councils ,5 Centuries of the early Church” that includes the Succession as is amply demonstrated above.  Churches that choose to cut themselves off simply are cut off. People that truncate what John Cosin and Jeremy Taylor wrote (among others) cut themselves of from a full understanding of their own heritage as Christians in the Anglican Tradition.

John Dixon
Richmond VA.

I would point out to Baby Blue that the Bishop of VA (TEC) has and does engage in the politics of influencing vestries by way of subverting vestry elections and of planting loyal people in parishes.  Of this I am a witness.

Id rather not say,

I am not saying that the term is not used to refer to Apostolic Succession. I am saying that it is not used—and wasn’t used—exclusively in that way. Here, in support of that, is a paper read by an Episcopal clergyman to the Church Congress of 1887, who points to a broader definition of the term
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/eharwood/episcopate1887.html

An understanding and assent to the ‘1-2-3-4-5’ plus Apostolic Succession, do not guarantee, and cannot substitute for, the impartation of the revelation that Jesus is Lord, Truth, Love and Life into the soul of the believer which is an act of God.  Rather, it would seem the absence of the latter in the lives of leaders (like Robinson, other doubters) would guarantee to lead to the erosion of the former in the Church.  The new birth is preceded by repentance and followed by the gift of faith and these are the evidence of an act of God.

With all due respect.  Papers of the 1800’s have no influence on what the early Fathers have already instituted they simply reflect the though of a particular group of men in a snapshot.  To select it outside the overall picture of the Church does not give any Document authority it actually take authority out of it.  Only if a doc jives with what the Holy Ghost has already conveyed consistently can a document be valid.  This doc is decent but it shies from the truth to achieve an end.

As to “substituting… Jesus is Lord” it is part of the revelation that JESUS instituted the succession Himself.  This was revealed when Jesus breathed the Holy Ghost onto the Apostles and gave them power to loose and bind and to remit or retain sin. This was given to the Apostles and no others.  That the Apostles guarded it as precious is given testimony by the early fathers in their own words above.  That the Apostles continued this authority is well documented in Acts and the NT.

Floridian are you suggesting that Jesus is Lord but cannot institute authority or that because He is Lord what he institutes is not ‘esse’?  Jesus says “If you love me you will keep my commandments” Jn 14:15/Exodus 20:26 Did He not command the Apostles to go out and make disciples and did he not give them the Holy Ghost and the powers mentioned in order to accomplish that very command?

If binding and loosing, remitting or retaining sins is given to the Apostles and those they in turn laid hands on is it not logical that these people have the the powers given them in authority?  Do we really think if Jesus is Lord that he did not know what he was doing or that His power and Authority as God of very God was such as it either did not take or gets watered down in a couple of generations?  Did He not send these men the Holy Ghost to guide them or do we say that was either a lie or the Holy Ghost wears off after a couple hundred years?  Remember the A.S. is not an institution of men nor is the Gift they receive come out of men by their own authority giving something of themselves to each other. The Holy Ghost is operating not the men. As to exclusivity I cannot say- where else the Holy Ghost operates and how is up to him so while Gift(s) may not be exclusive does not mean the Gift is no longer valid or that Paul’s admonition to “keep the traditions we gave you ” (Titus) let us off the hook.  What I can say and has been said by Catholics/Anglicans is keep the efficacy of what was given to our forbearers at their command and example and Authority.  As the Communion Hymn Adoro Devote says so eloquently:  “I believe what-e’er the Son of God hath told; what the Truth hath spoken that for Truth I hold.  I hold this”.  Every generation of Christens since Jesus has held this only until recent times.  Apparently many do not hold what He has spoken for Truth and that is a revelation unto itself.
Re VGR:
Is VGR any different than Judas?  Judas fell away and he was replaced.  The Reformers recognized the problem of living in a fallen world with wheat and tares and as well as the indelible mark of holy Orders that is why they mention the issue of unworthy men in the Articles cannot overthrow the nature of a Sacrament.  The problem is not that the Apostles or their successors fall they do from time to time, it is that the modern Church is full of people so timid as to be afraid to excommunicate those that have.  It is also flawed in how it raises people up to the apostolate- by way of a democratic ideals and politics-  If the Church bases it’s model off of secular society, if we say our ‘leaders’ are CEO’s, or “Presiders” (not a biblical phrase) etc., and copy either a corporate or political model then we are assured of a corp. or political result.  And this is evident in the existence of this very website wouldn’t you agree?

JD

Jadix,

you have misunderstood my point. The question I was addressing was how is the word, “Historic Episcopate” used in and around the time of the Chicago Statement of 1886. Was the term used in a broader sense which would include various protestant understandings of episcopoi or in the narrower sense you describe above? In pursuit of that question papers from the 1880’s are somewhat pertinent.

Jadix -

I appreciate your posts and your perspective.  Would a statement like what has been proposed to replace fundamental declaration 1.3 be acceptable to you?

“We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and people called by God into the unity of His Church.”

[53] Creighton+ writes:

The question has been raised by others that the Orthodox Tradition and Roman Catholic Tradition is doing better than the EC.  This is true presently, but what happens when a pope or metropolitan is elected who is not faithful to God and His Holy Word.

Actually, this has happened in the Roman Catholic Church at least once, the Avignon Papacy, aka the Babylonian Captivity.  There were a few reasons the church held together.  One was that it was the only church available to the people of the day. There was nowhere else to go.  Another was that the rest of the historic Episcopate worked things out.  Another was that the people were not moving at the pace that we move today.  They had no online threads to discuss the matter.  Most of all, as we adhere to the apostolic faith, when part of the church strays from that faith, the Spirit moves things back to where they need to be.  It may take time, but the Spirit will preserve the church.  However, if there is no succession of the church, then there is no time for the Spirit to work things out.  That is one reason the historic Episcopate is an essential part of the apostolic faith.  Our Orthodox brothers also point out the fact that the succession must be doctrinal and tactile, and not one or the other.

The history of the early church also provides examples of times when the prevailing view of the bishops was heretical.  Again, through patient struggle under the guidance of the Spirit, the bishops eventually figured out that the Arians were wrong.  Without a clear succession, the councils would have been in chaos.

Number 89, true as far as it goes….but that was then and today the situation is much worse.  I am not as familiar with the orthodox traditions but even in the RC Tradition here in the state liberal theology is being taught and many bishops, priests, and others are embracing it.  Culture is making major in roads even into these other traditions.  Eventually, I fear what has happened in TEC and the Anglican Communion will happen in the other Traditions who have weathered the storm better prior to today.

Also, in response to “historic episcopate” I agree with Matt that it is no just about apostolic succession but also upholding of apostolic teaching of the catholic church.  I see the two as held tightly together and when separated then it all falls apart.  Which is what I see happening today.

When we have godly bishop who humbly submit to Christ, Holy Scriptures, and the faith of the one holy catholic Church we are indeed blessed….and when they depart we all suffer.  So, again it is bene for me not esse.

Fascinating discussion.  Anglicans can certainly become worked up over what I would call a secondary issue of church governance.  I’m not looking at joining the the ACNA anytime soon but on the matter of the Historic Episcopate as an evangelical Anglican I find the 5th principle of Wycliffe College more than sufficient. “The historic episcopate, a primitive and effective instrument for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church.” This comes with the qualifier “Non-Anglicans should note that the fifth principle does not assert the exclusive validity of an episcopal polity.”

Matt,

A little off topic, but have you always been an Anglican?  Is that how you were raised?

Just curious,
RoF

Ross,
I would suggest to you that one of the huge problems within the Anglican Communion is the feeling of the majority in any given situation to believe that they have a right to determine what is a first or second (or third or fourth) order issue.  The whole problem in TEC and ACoC right now is that the majority have, essentially, required the minority to accept that same sex blessing is a second order issue.  Of course, to any Anglo Catholic (for instance) Matrimony is a Sacrament and therefore, any alteration of it is a first order issue by definition.

I don’t mean to put words in his mouth, but I think it fair to say that to Anglicans Ablaze (judging by the amount of time and trouble he is dedicating to the issue), the questions over the degree of authority of bishops and the specific wording in the ACNA constitution and canons, is a first order issue- as it is also to Anglo Catholics, although obviously we are at different ends of the spectrum. 

What makes these first order questions, in my mind, is whether they are potentially church dividing.  That is to say, if a substantial number of people are willing to structurally divide the church over the issue, it is first order.  Not all first order questions are solvable- can the Communion, for example, conceivably craft a Covenant that will be approved by both TEC and Nigeria?  Not to put words in their mouths, but I think the election of KJS was a first order issue for the FiF bishops in 2006, although most everyone else in the HoB saw it as a second order issue or not an issue at all.

I think we make a great mistake when we demean the people we disagree with by relegating the issue at hand as “second order” unless both sides in the argument agree that is the case.

Just since three yrs old. I was raised, baptized and confirmed in this parish:
http://www.allsaintscorpuschristi.org/

There is an old joke that goes like this:

An Anglican priest and a Lutheran pastor are talking about the church.  The Lutheran says, “We regard episcopacy as desirable but necessary.”  The Anglican replies, “Well, we regard it as necessary but not desirable.”

As an evangelical Anglican (and even a Calvinist) I can accept the historic episcopate.  In fact, as I talk with people in other denominations, I see that they have people in their structures that carry a lot of the roles that bishops do - although often by other names.  Even Baptists (American Baptists, at least) have clergy who serve an area and its pastors.  And groups as diverse as the Mennonites and the Four-Square Gospel Church as explicitly episcopal in governance.

In short, I think that the Church needs bishops.

I do not mean by this, however, that a bishop has be able to trace some historic line of hands placed on heads going back to the Apostles or else that person cannot possibly be a true bishop.  For one thing, there are generations of non-believers who were bishops - how could they be necessary for a proper spiritual pedigree?  Even more importantly, no one can trace a line back to the Apostles - it is simply unverifiable.  I think that we can get back to immediate pre-Constantinian bishops, but no further back than that with any degree of assurance.

We need bishops.  But the apostolic succession of doctrine is of more worth than the “apostolic succession” of an unbroken chain of hands upon heads.

tjmcmahon, I think I hear what you are saying.  And perhaps I need to become more sensitive to where others are coming from.  It will be hard, however, especially when people start to aggressively push something I believe to be completely wrong.  Problems arise when people make what I may call a secondary concern into a first order issue.  Then it becomes a matter of primary concern for me too but not for the same reason as theirs. So when people say that the historic Episcopate is “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice” and is “integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ” red lights start flashing as they should for any child of the Reformation.  They are adding to the Gospel.  The essence of the Church is faith in Jesus Christ.  Faith is what sets us apart as the Church of Jesus Christ not whether or not we happen to have bishops of the appostolic succession.  With apologies to John the Baptist, “from these stones God is able to raise up successors to the apostles.”

Problems arise when people make what I may call a secondary concern into a first order issue.

The problem is, of course, that your second order is not everyone’s second order. Who decides?

Where something is first order for some folks, and second order for other folks, that’s the time for the latter group to do all it can to find a way to accomodate the former.  An all-male episcopate comes to mind in the context of the ACNA constitution.  (I recognize that this issue cuts across the A-C/evangelical divide.  That’s not relevant to the point.)  The problem is when the accommodation is done or written in a way that infringes on another group’s first order concern—such as whether a certain point, even if good, can be “inherent” in the “apostolic faith and practice” (not just inherent in Anglicanism) when in their view it is not “read” in or “proved” by Scripture.  (Article 6.)  That’s when an option may be to take a position with which everyone can live without mandating a reason for why you’re taking it.  The ACNA does not give a reason for the all-male episcopate.  That’s a good thing.  Would that there had been similar discretion with Article I.3.

Rev. Matt,
If I misunderstood forgive me. 
What perplexes me is the definition of ‘narrow’  I read your explanation to another;  but most of what passes as “evangelical” or “protestant” opinion on this topic seems narrow to me by defining down what is an Ordinance directly from Christ and observed from the Apostles through the Reformation in England as I have demonstrated.  The view of Holy Communion by evangelicals is treated similarly even though Christ says “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.  They still opine it is a memorial only.  These views are narrow <i>.

It is not about being acceptable to me- I do not have the authority to make such an arrogant assumption as ‘acceptable to me’  this is the core of the nut in the “Anglo Catholic” understanding- it ain’t ours to change! What I can agree with is that which does not impose doctrine or innovation onto Scripture and the practice and tradition of the early Church. 
  Paul says <i>“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us”. 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6 because the ordinances and traditions he gave them are of divine origin. 
The better question is is the evangelical subject to Holy Writ or can he pick and choose?  You may recall Al Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” .  This seems to be a dogma for some in Evangelicalism.
A poor example:  Lets say we are citizens of a constitutional nation and within the borders of that nation a group voicing what sounds to be the same constitution begins what they call a new and separate nation within the borders of the first and begin to legislate and elect a high court and that body and court makes laws and rulings etc.  Could the two live in harmony, would the laws of the second apply to the first?  would they have authority over the first and true constitution?  Would the latter be an impostor?  Is this a like unto a church within a church?

The myth posited often and repeated here and there is that there is such a thing as a “second order”  of the Faith Once Delivered and that any individual is free to determine what that might be outside of the early Councils .  That things Christ says or does or ordains or teaches can be relegated to a second order. is a bizarre notion at best.  There is no Scripture to support such a notion so the notion is a secular one. The A.S. is a biblical and Holy Ghost guided institution and while that does not mean individuals will not fail it it certainly does not reason or justify it as a “second order” issue when there is no such notion possible or desirable. If a man goes heretic excommunicate him or declare his See empty and send a orthodox Bishop in.  This the Church has done many times.  Nothing Christ did or taught was ‘second order’.  He did not suffer the Cross for ‘second order issues’.

If the AS is a “second order” issue then none of you has any gripe or excuse not to return to the Episcopal Church because VGR as an ordained homosexual would qualify under you general perameters for determing such a state as a “second order” issue, what your saying is that you are schismatics rather than than the heretics controlling TEC.  There is no such thing as a “second order” issue regarding any Sacrament or doctrine because we are dealing with a deposit of Revelation.  You cannot cut something out at will- if you do then you make the decision making process a right and then some else will ask for the same ‘right’ as has been done with WO and VGR.

I do not mean by this, however, that a bishop has be able to trace some historic line of hands placed on heads going back to the Apostles or else that person cannot possibly be a true bishop.  For one thing, there are generations of non-believers who were bishops - how could they be necessary for a proper spiritual pedigree?  Even more importantly, no one can trace a line back to the Apostles - it is simply unverifiable.  I think that we can get back to immediate pre-Constantinian bishops, but no further back than that with any degree of assurance.”

This is an interesting proposal.
If Jesus instituted it as Scripture clearly tells how can you see this as optional?  Can you give a Scriptural example to support your opinion?

If no one can trace a line back to the Apostles how is it you know ther were “Generations” of non believers in the Apstolate?
In fact the linage has been closely guarded in both the East and Western Churches.

No further back than that?  Then all you have is a group of Baptist pastors- if that is what you want fine there is no need for your brand of Anglicanism since there is already thousands of Baptist church denominations.

I missed the italic backslash! sorry no emphasis meant.

“Presbyter is but priest writ large.”
John Milton

Jadix:  There is an extensive history of Anglican thought beginning with the Reformation and running to the present taking the view that Scripture does not command episcopacy (in anything like what most people now understand the word to mean—something distinct from the office of presbyter and having authority over more than one church and exclusive authority over ordination), but that instead episcopacy developed in the late first and into the early second centuries (likely with the involvement of John in Asia Minor).  So episcopacy is old, good, etc., just not inherent in the faith.  If you don’t like the English Reformers (Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker), give Bishop Lightfoot a look.  You may well disagree with that view; it appears you do quite vigorously.  I’m not trying to say you’re wrong.  I am saying that the view undoubtedly exists, has and has had many faithful and intelligent adherents, and deserves a place in modern Anglicanism.  Especially when it can be given a place without ruling out the view of folks such as yourself.

Jadix: “If no one can trace a line back to the Apostles how is it you know ther were “Generations” of non believers in the Apstolate? “

The Middle Ages; the Renaissance popes.

I did not say that there were not lists - I said that we can’t be assured of those lists, for a variety of reasons.

Will there be Baptists in heaven?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

AnglicanXn: you made a sweeping charge but you still have not named any individuals.  I easily offered the first six and then 12 of those in the “succession”. And what you actually said is ‘you’ will not be convinced of those lists but you have not stated any reason why. Give us a reason from the early church or the Scripture. Surely you can mane one example that meets your same demand for explicit proof of the AS.

I am not a Baptist. It is the concern of the Baptist as to the reasons of the efficacy of their tradition’s chosen path to final destination.  The Church Catholic has preserved what Paul commanded be preserved and through those traditions is assured salvation by the promise of the Holy Ghost.  As I have already said if you would read the comment, the Holy Ghost goes where He will and His mercy is great, the Anglican tests not God by maintaining those traditions which Paul has commanded.  As Jeromy Taylor, an English Reformed Catholic, said “what is lacking for salvation” if the Baptist is assured let him list why.

Aidan
I quoted two English Reformers. Surely you read my first post.
The only argument that gets trotted out is one of “Scripture does not prove” but Scripture convinced the English Reformers as well as the early church to keep the succession, of that there can be no doubt or question it is a fact and I have demonstrated 4 examples that are in harmony spaning 1400-1500 years. 

So it is not me that questions them, most especially Cramner, who was an Archbishop (a title already mentioned as being questioned by the evangelical). It is the position of the Evangelical that questions the English Reformers on this matter wanting to import foreign practices into the Church Catholic. 

The position I have demonstrated has no counter argument for those who refuse to acknowledge the AS, only a stubbornly held doubt.  If you believe as most evangelicals believe, that the church started no farther back than the Continental Reformation, and Erastus, Zwingli and Calvin are your apostles, and your church began in medieval Europe and not Jerusalem and there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise, but again, that obstinate position actually condemns the action of the Holy Spirit as too weak to overthrow evil men for all of 2000 years?  Is that your God?  If you actually believe that then you should work for Dan Brown and Ron Howard as a script writer.

Unless those closest to the EVENT had reason or even the ability!!! to overthrow the Holy Ghost you must logically accept that the HG guided as promised in all aspects of the “Catholick Faith” to make sure it has been given us intact. 

It is not my purpose to speak to one who believes as such as that but to make known to the faithful believer what the Reformers thought and decided based on the known writings of the men under the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the early Church who faithfully passed down what was given them and to defend against those who mislead by a self imposed unreasonable obstinacy.

The position I have outlined is in complete harmony with the English Reformers; they had access to the Scriptures and the letters of the early fathers and made a conscious decision to continue the Apostolic Succession as a means of Grace appointed by Jesus Christ and that makes it an channel of Grace towards Salvation.  Grace can come by different means and is the will of the Holy Ghost but to cut oneself off from known and demonstrable Grace to prove an imagined absence of proof or reinforce doubt is more like a path towards suicide than life everlasting. Many, many, millions past and present, Anglican, Roman, Eastern Orthodox more with my ‘broad” examples than with the narrow and exclusive contemporary opinion of the self described “evangelical”.  These differnt traditions disagree on many things but not on this and that is by far more convincing to a reasonable person than the complete absence of evidence offered by those who disagree. 

What kind of “evangelical” leads people away from the efficacy of what Jesus has ordained?

“For we have lost the substance, and dwell too much in opinion.”
William Laud on the gallows, 1645

“God’s grace is promised to a good mind and one that feareth God, not unto sees and successions”  - Bishop John Jewell

“Succession, you say, is the chief way for any man to avoid antichrist. I grant you if you mean the succession of doctrine!”  – Bishop John Jewell

“I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ. I do deny that the Scriptures do express particularly everything that is to be done in the Church, or that it doth put down any one sort of form and kind of government of the Church to be perpetual for all times, persons and places without alteration.”  – Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift

“As concerning the ministers of the Church, I believe that the church is bound to no sort of people or any ordinary succession of bishops, cardinals, or such like, but unto the only Word of God.”  – Bishop John Hooper

“They are the successors of the apostles that succeed in virtue, holiness, truth, and so forth; not they that sit on the same stool.”  – Bishop Babington

“I conceive that the power of ordination was restrained to bishops rather by apostolic practice, and the perpetual custom and canons of the Church, than by any absolute precept that either Christ or His apostles gave concerning it. Nor can I yet meet with any convincing argument to set it upon a more high and divine institution.”  – Bishop Cosin

“You shall not find in all the Scripture this your essential point of succession of bishops.” – John Bradford, Reformer and martyr, Chaplain to Bishop Ridley.

“Now there are many in this day who would have us tell all Presbyterians and Independents that the only true church is always an Episcopal church; that to this belong the promises of Christ, and to no other kind of church at all; that to separate from an Episcopal church is to leave the Catholic Church, to be guilty of an act of schism, and fearfully to peril the soul. This is the argument made use of by many. Let us be aware of ever taking up such ground. It cannot be maintained. It cannot be shown to be tenable by plain, unmistakable texts of Scripture.”  Bishop J. C. Ryle

“The teaching of the Apostles is found in the New Testament. It is here that their teaching has been bequeathed to us in definitive form. This is the true ‘apostolic succession,’ namely a continuity of apostolic doctrine, made possible by the New Testament.”  The Rev. John Stott

“At the same time, this final plank of the Quadrilateral seems oddly fitted with its mates. Is it really true that bishops in apostolic succession are as necessary as the Bible or the Creeds or the sacraments? Are we prepared to unchurch or belittle those who have a different polity and do not keep genealogies? Is the threefold order of ministry an essential of the faith or is it adiaphora?” He continues, “…it is necessary to take a second look at these Instruments, which have only recently been recognized as normative, and see whether and how they represent proper episcope in the worldwide church.”  – Stephen Noll

“It might have been expected that the defenders of the English Hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and challenge for the bishops the same unreserved submission, on the same plea of exclusive apostolical prerogative, which their adversaries feared not to insist on for their elders and deacons. It is notorious, however, that such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper and others, to whom the management of the controversy was intrusted during the early part of Elizabeth’s reign. It is enough with them to show that the government by archbishops and bishops is ancient and allowable. They never venture to urge its exclusive claims, or to connect the succession with the validity of the sacraments.” - John Keble

“Looking first at the Reformers’ doctrines of episcopacy, one must always remember that the crucial emphasis for men such as Cranmer and Latimer was the reliance on Scripture as the supreme authority for faith and practice. Tradition and reason may inform the Anglican’s use of Scripture, but the Scripture itself is always the basis of faith. The English Reformers defended episcopacy as a legitimate form of church government, as even perhaps the best, but by no means did they consider it part of the Church’s very essence. Any sacerdotal concept of bishops, as needing to be in the tactual succession from the apostles, was repulsive to them.” - Eric A. Badertscher

Interesting quotes but as I previously point out Cosin also says in his letter as to what is agreed by Anglicans with the Roman Church in “A letter to the Countess of Peterborough”: ” In the reception and use of the two blessed Sacraments of our Savior; in the Confirmation of those persons that are to be strengthened in their Christian Faith, by prayer and imposition of hands, according to the examples of the holy Apostles and ancient Bishops of the Catholic Church”, tempers the quote you supply.

And while I am sure you can find many more the question does their collective opinion jibe with the Scripture and early Church as Cosin implies?  To me they do not and I am not in any minority.

These quotes do not undercut the position I have offered they simply remind us of the incoherence of a broad church polity.
The Scripture is clear on the imposition of hands as Acts readily demonstrates time and time again and as is demonstrated through out the NT.  Argument as posited by the quotes is not from Scripture but rather a choice as to what an individual believes. Again not a single example past expressed personal opinion.  These men are only a fraction of those in the same mindset but they do not represent the whole of catholic thought from the earliest times.

In fact their opinion is the same as John Spong, John Chane, Frank Griswold and Katherine Jefferts-Schori but I note you neglected to mention them. 

Regardless of what these men believe does or does not takes place when hands are laid on the Reformers RETAINED it as authentic and of power.  This is an undeniable fact. 

Since you name men name me a man in the NT who received the authority to govern in the New Testament without imposition of hands or who performed miracles without the imposition of hands or who says the imposition of hands is a secondary issue or an optionso now that you have proffered quotes explain the Scripture those men base their opinions on or you have nothing.

And if you can answer me this: if the imposition of hands is not necessary than why does the Scripture or Tradittion not report other churches outside of the one the Apostles founded and report the names of others not having hands laid on them performing miracles and other signs of power?  Now it is up to the innovator to explain their contentions that diverge from the Catholic Faith ...  if you cannot than all you have is subjective opinion. 

Where is your evidence? Where is your Scripture to back up these assertions?  I see none of these fine men listed are from antiquity. Where are your quotes from Sestus,  Ireneaus or Alexander or Athanasius, Nicholas or Chrysostom or Justin. or Gregory(s), etc.? 

No consistency from antiquity = no proof= contemporary opinion.

12345 centuries of the early church… remember?  That is the context we are speaking.  anything that is not consistent with these minimum principles has no foundation in the early church and therefor has no authority or authenticity as a teaching.  If theere is no foundation in the early church or Scripture to form the opinions above then they are of no value and prove nothing.

I would ad if the fact of divergence opinion (as long as it meets protestant mindset) is absolute proof of a negative in the case of the AS, than shouldn’t we also suspend all other contended doctrines such as the Nicene explanation of the Trinity since Arius could be sited as having a different teaching on that subject as do the men you site on AS?  Can we agree to be consistent?

Jadix -

my intent in sharing these quotations are intended to show that many Anglicans past and present did and do in fact believe in a church with the episcopate while not holding the Anglo-Catholic perspective on the episcopacy and apostolic succession.

These were and are orthodox Anglicans. ACNA’s Constitution and Canons should certainly be written broadly enough to accommodate them.

ACNA’s Constitution and Canons should certainly be written broadly enough to accommodate them.

They are.

Quotations:

Bishop John Jewel

God’s grace is promised to one who feareth God and not to sees and successions.

Archbishop John Whitgift

“That any one kind of government is so necessary that without it a church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do be these. The first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed and commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ, which no doubt should have been done, if it had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church. Secondly, because the essential notes of the Church be these only: the true preaching of the word of God, and the right administration of the Sacraments. . . . So that, notwithstanding government, or some kind of government may be part of the Church, touching the outward form and perfection of it, yet it is not such a part of the essence and being, but it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government, and therefore the kind of government of the Church is not necessary unto salvation. . . . I deny that the Scriptures do . . . set down any one certain form and kind of the government of the Church, to be perpetual for all times, persons, and places without alteration”

Richard Hooker

“…the complete form of Church polity . . . is not taught in Scripture…”

“it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops doth still uphold and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord Himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves.”

“there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination without a bishop.”

Dean Sutcliff

“The external succession, which both heretics often have and the orthodox have not, is of no moment. Not even our adversaries themselves, indeed, are certain respecting their own succession, which they so greatly boast of. But we are certain that our doctors have succeeded to the apostles, and prophets, and most ancient Fathers. And, moreover, if there is any weight in external Succession, they have succeeded to the bishops and presbyters throughout Germany, France, England, and other countries, and were ordained by them. They have succeeded, also, as it respects doctrine, to those pious men, who, amidst the darkness of the Papal synagogue, beheld the light, and boldly preached against its corruptions.”

Archbishop William Laud

“For succession in the general I shall say this: it is a great happiness where it may be had visible and continued, and a great conquest over the mutability of this present world. But I do not find anyone of the ancient Fathers that makes local, personal, visible and continued succession, a necessary sign or mark of the true church in any one place”

Archbishop John Bramhall

“I do not make this way to be simply necessary but only show what is safest, where so many Christians are of another mind. I know there is a great difference between a ‘valid’ and a ‘regular’ ordination. For my part I am apt to believe that God looks upon his people in mercy, with all their prejudices; and that there is a great latitude left to particular churches in the constitution of their ecclesiastical regiment”

Archbishop James Ussher

“The Churches in France, who living under a Popish power, cannot do what they would, and are more excusable in this defect then the Low Countries that live under a free State, yet for the testifying my communion with those Churches, which I do love and honour as true members of the Church universal I do profess that with like affection I should receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers if I were in Holland, as I should at the hands of the French ministers if I were at Charentone.”

Bishop John Cosin

“If at any time a minister ordained in these French churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among us in the Church of England (as I have known some of them to have so done of late, and can instance many others before my time) our bishops did not reordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they must have done if his former ordination here in France had been void. Nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public consent to the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe to the Articles established.” (Letter to M. Cordel.)

“Dr. De Laune, who translated the English Liturgy into French being collated to a living and coming to the bishop . . . .his Lordship asked him where he had his Orders. He answered that he was ordained by the Presbytery at Leyden. The bishop (John Overal) on this advised him to take the opinion of counsel, whether by the laws of England he was capable of a benefice without being ordained by a bishop. The doctor replied that he thought his Lordship would be unwilling to reordain him, if his Counsel should say “that he was not otherwise capable of the living by law.”

‘Reordination we must not admit no more than a Rebaptization; but in case you find it doubtful whether you be a priest capable to receive a benefice among us, or no, I will do the same office for you, if you desire it, that I should do for one who doubts of his baptism . . . . Yet for mine own part, if you will adventure the Orders that you have I will admit your presentation, and give you institution into the living, howsoever.’ But the title which this presentation had from the patron, proving not good, there were no further proceedings in it; yet afterwards Dr. De Laune was admitted into another benefice without any new ordination.”

Archbishop Wake

“I could have wished that the episcopal form of church government had been retained by all of them (the Reformed churches). In the meanwhile, far be it from me to be so iron-hearted that on account of a defect of this kind . . . . I should believe that some of them are to be broken off from our communion, or, with certain insane writers among us should assert, that they have no true and valid sacraments.”

Bishop John Percival

“There is no trace in the New Testament that any ordinances on this subject were prescribed by the Lord, or that any such ordinances were set up as permanently binding by the Twelve or by St. Paul or by the Ecclesia at large. Their faith in the Holy Spirit and His perpetual guidance was too much of a reality to make that possible. Of officers higher than elders we find nothing that points to an institution or system, nothing like the episcopal system of later times. In the New Testament the word Episcopos, as applied to men, mainly, if not always, is not a title, but a description of the Elder’s function. On the other hand, the monarchial principle, which is the essence of episcopacy, receives in the Apostolic age a practical though a limited recognition, not so much in the absolutely exceptional position of St. Peter in the early days at Jerusalem, or the equally exceptional position
of St. Paul throughout the Ecclesiae of his own foundation, as in the position ultimately held by St. James at Jerusalem, and also to a limited extent in the temporary functions entrusted by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus when he left them behind for a little while to complete arrangements begun by himself at Ephesus and in Crete respectively. In this, as in so many other things, is seen the futility of endeavouring to make the Apostolic history into a set of authoritative precedents, to be rigorously copied without regard to time and place, thus turning the Gospel into a second Levitical Code.”

Recommended Reading:

David Philips, “Church As Communion (1991)”
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/ecum/iss_ecum_arcic-church1991.asp 

W. Hay M. H. Aitken, “Apostolic Succession, ” Church Association Tract 321
http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/documents/CAT321_AitkenSuccession.pdf

Well, with all that research, AnglicansAblaze, are you now able to tell us when and where in Anglicanism there has not been a locally-adapted episcopate?

Phil:  I don’t think he’s ever claimed such a thing, nor has anyone else on this thread.  The issue is why do you have an episcopate, locally-adapted or not.  Is it (merely but hardly insignificantly) traditional Anglican polity drawn on the traditions of the early church?  Or is it “inherent in the apostolic faith and doctrine.”  Put differently, is it an issue of Article 34, or of Article 19?

The issue is as I see it is not whether “evangelicals” can accept the “historic episcopate,” as Matt Kennedy has sought to redefine the issue, but whether decidedly partisan doctrinal positition statements should be included in the constitution and canons of the ACNA when that ecclesial body includes three orthodox theological streams that hold different positions on a number of key theological and ecclesiological issues. The question that you raise is a red herring, something intended to draw attention away from the real issue, and is not germane to this discussion. The material I posted as did the material to which webdac refers in his posts and as does the historical record itself point to the fact that Anglicans have historically held and continue to hold different doctrinal positions on such matters as bishops and apostolic succession. Decidely partisan doctrinal statements have no place in a church in which all three orthodox theological streams are represented. What makes matters worse is that not just one but several such statement are included in the constitution’s definition of Anglican orthodox. Their inclusion is extremely divisive. It creates disunity and dissension. They should be removed from the constitution as should be any decidely partisan doctrinal statements from the canons. It violates the understanding of many supporters of a third North American province that in the province that would be established, all three orthodox theological streams would be free to flourish, not that two of the three would have to defer to the views and practices of the third.

Or, is it an issue of Article 36, which clearly presupposes bishops, priests and deacons, and goes so far as to say of the ordinal, “neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly…”  That’s the same ordinal (1792) that starts out, “IT is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church - Bishops, Priests and Deacons.”

Well, I guess it isn’t evident to all men.  On the other hand, is it possible the Romish conspiracy was planted more than 200 years ago, Manchurian Candidate-like, just for this moment?  I didn’t see The DaVinci Code, but maybe ...

Unless somebody’s planning to change something, the answer to your first question is, “Who cares?”  For Anglicans - what we’re talking about here - for the Anglican Church of North America - it’s inherent.  And, if somebody is planning to do it another way, then I guess I’m going to borrow a line from our opponents (hey, even a stopped clock’s right twice a day): go be a Baptist.

Sure, lots of great material, AA.  Lots of people shooting their mouths off, like Bishop John Jewel, and Archbishop John Whitgift, and Archbishop William Laud.  Who, when it came down to it, kept things organized just the way they found it - just the way it’s been since day one - in the Church, and in Anglicanism.  Unless you think idiots like Irenaeus, among countless others, had it all wrong, but now you’ve fixed all their mistakes?  Come to think of it, if that’s your line of reasoning, don’t bother with the Baptists, just go back to being an Episcopalian.  And, if it isn’t, submit yourself to the witness of those universally-recognized Fathers of the Church that lived some two-thousand years closer to Christ and the Apostles than do you.

Phil, I think you’re missing these folks’ point.

RE: “Or, is it an issue of Article 36, which clearly presupposes bishops, priests and deacons . . . “

They’re not arguing with you about whether their should be bishops, priests and deacons. 

The issue is *why* does one have them—and should the ACNA C&Cs;come down on ONE SIDE as to *why* all Anglicans should have them.

And one more thing, AA: can you tell all of us how your precious theological stream is going to be strangled in its cradle by the sentence under discussion?  If that’s the case, you’ve got some pretty big problems that have nothing to do with any kind of episcopate.

Phil:  Article 36 is an application of Article 34, defending the Ordinal both against Roman Catholic and Puritan criticisms from opposite sides.  You won’t get any quarrel over it from me.  And the first sentence of the Ordinal is in fact quite carefully written (perfect Anglican ambiguity)—which is why many of us have proposed it as a more comprehensive alternative.  I’m delighted at last to have an answer to a question I asked a while ago—whether there is any Anglo-Catholic objection to the Ordinal’s first sentence.  Even more delighted that the answer is no.

Maybe you and Anglicans Ablaze can take it outside, but neither he nor webdac is making this stuff up.

Why would there be an objection, Aidan?  The statement is pure vanilla.

Let me see if I understand, though: you agree that it’s evident to all men that there have been bishops, priests and deacons since the time of the Apostles, but they aren’t “historic,” or “inherent” or “integral” to the Apostolic Faith.  Got it.

RE: “Why would there be an objection, Aidan?”

Well, it appears there is an objection—to making it the statement that Anglicans have to agree to in the ACNA C&Cs;, that is.

I’m sorry, Sarah, I was unclear: the statement to which I was referring was the beginning of the Ordinal, responding to Aidan’s #120.

Webdac:

my intent in sharing these quotations are intended to show that many Anglicans past and present did and do in fact believe in a church with the episcopate while not holding the Anglo-Catholic perspective on the episcopacy and apostolic succession.

These were and are orthodox Anglicans. ACNA’s Constitution and Canons should certainly be written broadly enough to accommodate them.

Ok got it.  But you keep referring to the views of Anglo Catholics as if they are somehow an anomaly with a theology that comes out of nowhere.  In fact the opposite is true.  The vast majority of Christians both asleep and alive have the very same understanding.  It is the “it’s just a governance thing” crowd that has to prove it’s contention.  And it cannot.  Not by the Early Church, not by the Eastern Orthodox Churchs (550million), not by the Romans (1.2 Billion) and not by much of Anglicans through out the history of the English Church without the narrow time line of either evangelicals who have adopted foreign theology or their Calvin or Puritan influenced forebears.

BTW I apologize for using the word ‘you’ I mean to say generically ‘any evangelical’ to prove from Scripture that the Apostles share the evangelical notion that the AS or other Sacraments are as some of the quotes you supplied imply.  I would ask you once again to supply one quote from one Patristic Father who is known not to be a heretic or gone heretic that suggest the AS is not of Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost.  I would like one Scripture passage not out of context of those demonstrating the Gifts to the Apostles from Christ, the Apostles employing those gifts and passing them on in the same manner through their imposition of hands that supports the position you suggest is a viable alternative to what I have presented.  If you cannot you simply are manufacturing a doctrine.

One more quote:  Geoffry Fisher 99th Archbishop said we have no doctrine but that of the early church.  I have presented part of that doctrine and no proof otherwise has been presented.  It is the AS that the English Reformers deliberately kept and it is was makes us unique in a word that despises uniqueness.  To allow the Puritans to drag Anglicanism into the mud puddle of denominationalism would be sad indeed.

If one does not accept the Apostolic Succession,  the unbroken laying on of hands, then one is not orthodox.

The entire being and authority of the Church depends upon the apostolic episcopacy.

The definition of a church is a bishop in the apostolic succession, surrounded by his clergy.

No bishop, no church.  This is not just my personal opinion. 

If any document fudges it so that people who do not subscribe to this all important doctrine can teach and preach otherwise, and that is what I am reading here, that would be a document no authentic Anglican Catholic could subscribe to.

Phil:  Well, I’m not an Anglo-Catholic and I don’t play one on TV, so I was asking around just to make sure.  I recognize from your sarcasm that you may find this hard to believe, but I and others are just urging the ACNA to find language that encompasses all the streams of Anglicanism.  The “plain vanilla” aspect, as you put it, is precisely the point—when the issue is a mandatory doctrinal statement in a national document.  So thanks for clearing this up.  If you seemed to really care, I would parse the Ordinal for you, but I think it’s sufficient for present purposes just to point out that everyone on this and earlier threads who has objected to Article I.3 is fine with the Ordinal.
And in case jadix cares, I have read webdac’s comments not to say that *jadix’s* views are an anomaly or somehow out of bounds (see previous paragraph) but just to establish that the viewpoint that would have a problem with Article I.3 is far from a novelty in Anglicanism.  If you can agree with that, there really isn’t any dispute between the two of you as far as I can see (at least not one relevant to this thread, I should say).  But if you want to keep fighting with him over things he isn’t actually claiming, you are of course free to do so.

Aidan, I’ll try it without the sarcasm, then.  You tell me where I’m wrong:

“We confess the godly…” – should be no problem here, unless one thinks the entirety of Anglicanism up to this point was ungodly.

“…historic Episcopate…” – historic, 1. significant in history or 2. Same as historical (sense 1), i.e., (3.) supported by facts from history (Encarta).  Simple statement of fact.

“…as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice…” – conceded by the Ordinal, with which we all claim to agree; QED.

“…and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.” – I would argue that, unless you think the Apostles screwed up somewhere, this really must follow from the foregoing, “inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice,” especially considering the word, “fullness.”

Again, we have to consider this in the context of this being written for an Anglican body, of which there are no examples of any choosing to organize themselves otherwise.  “Inherent” and “integral,” imply that’s the way it has to be done – which, as long as you plan on being Anglican, it does, by the consistent evidence.  Note once more: for all the rhetoric about “ancient and allowable,” no Anglican body ever dared do it differently.

By the way: to answer Sarah’s objection, 1.3 doesn’t attempt to answer “why.”  It’s purely descriptive.

Phil,
There are people who are convinced that the three orthodox schools of thought in North American Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical, cannot coexist together in one church because one school of thought will insist that the other two schools of thought defer to its views on key theological and ecclesiological matters. You have so far been making their case for them, insisting that there is only one Anglican doctrinal position on the historic episcopate and apostolic succession and that is the position of the school of thought to which you belong. One of the reasons that there is a need for a third North American province is that the liberal-revisionist school of thought is doing the same thing in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. The issues may be different but the dynamics are the same—one school of thought insisting that other schools of thought defer to its views.  To defer to another school of thought’s views a school of thought must compromise its own convictions—its most strongly-held beliefs.  The vision of a third North American province that underlies the support of many for such a province is a vision in which all three orthodox schools of thought are free to flourish and are not forced to defer to the liberal-revisionist school of thought or to any other school of thought.  Take away that vision, which a number of sections of the ACNA constitution and code of canons do in the spheres of doctrine, ecclesiastical governance, diocesan autonomy, and the modes of episcopal and primatial election, and you also undercut that basis of that support. You lose the support of even members of your own school of thought who are committed to that particular vision of a new North American province. An ACNA in which one school of thought dominates at the expense of the other schools of thought can expect to be short-lived. It is treating major stakeholders as something less than stakeholders. No school of thought is going to invest its energies and resources in an ecclesial body in which it is given no room to flourish, to not only hold its convictions but to practice them.  This may include considerable lay involvement in the governance of the church and the nomination and election of bishops, including the primate, as well as the freedom to hold, teach, and put into practice its views on a range of key issues. Arguing that your own school of thought is right and the others are wrong misses the point. The question is does the ACNA constitution and code of canons create environments in which the integrity and authenticity of all three orthodox schools of thought are respected? The answer is no. You cannot claim it does if representatives of one school of thought are convinced that it does not. They are the only ones in a position to judge whether it respects the integrity and authenticity of their school of thought.  This is a point that the three orthodox schools of thought have repeatedly drawn to the attention of the liberal-revisionist school of thought in the ACA and TEC.

Aiden,
I have no contention with anyone perhaps you have me confused with another. 

We see things very differently though. Anglicanism has no doctrine of it’s own, (and has always claimed such) but that of the early church.  That was the driving force behind the reformers. The assumption that the AS has no special grace is a novelty.

I am not challenging individuals I am challenging this assumption and the statements made without support other than sheer opinion.  I have asked reasonable questions and rather than receive answers to them the responses tend towards repeating the opinions of men outside the early church.  That is a diversion and a contradiction to the formula 1 bible…etc.  Whether or not an opinion is held widely or not it cannot trump the doctrines of the early church without some basis other than opinion or suspicion.

What are the names of the churches in the NT that had leaders outside of the Apostles or their appointed successors? 
What are the names of the churches in the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th centuries that were outside of the AS that were considered orthodox if any? Who were those people?
What men performed miracles or were placed by the Apostles as Bishops over churches without imposition of hands first performed by Christ?
If the imposition of hands is nothing more than putting hands on somebody why would Jesus bother to institute it and why is it always connected to those who perform miracles and have the authority to Ordain and why did the early Fathers so jealously guard the succession and the ability to recall it as well as the Genealogy in Matthew? 
Why is there no record of people who were not Apostles laying hands on their peers to ordain them to the threefold ministry in the NT?
If it be some notion of Sola Scriptura that you desire than stick to this notion and answer from only from Scripture. You cannot create doctrine or silence doctrine out of silence. And, if you cannot answer from Scripture you have no valid reason to doubt the succession or the Aspostles and those they ordained who preserved it, including the Reformers.

The NT is silent because such things did not take place outside of the succession.  And this is a huge problem for those who assert it is secondary or of no importance.

I would also ad again that the argument there is no avenue of Grace given in ordination and the AS is of no special significance is exactly the climate that was able to produced VGR.  If there is nothing special or their is no mandate from Christ.  No indwelling or gift from the Holy Ghost.  If it is not a Holy institution what grounds do you have to prevent VGR from being ordained?  On what grounds could the Pastoral Epistles demand any standard as to the character of a Bishop?
Please answer from Scripture or antiquity.

Thank you,
John

Jadix, Phil -

I think AAs and Aidan’s comments are helpful here. We can respectfully agree to disagree on our exact understandings of the historic episcopate and apostolic succession. I certainly respect your perspectives. Jadix - for the record I do not consider your views an anomaly. If I have offended you in any of my comments, I can only ask for your forgiveness.

What I and some others have been trying to say is that there are different perspectives on these issues among orthodox Anglicans as represented by the Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic streams. Further, I believe that the ACNA CnCs should reflect the integrities of each of these three streams. By insisting that the Anglo-Catholic perspective is the only valid perspective you are making our case that we have every reason to be concerned with the current language in these fundamental declarations and how they may be used to put the squeeze on proponents of the evangelical stream.

We are simply asking that the language chosen to affirm the episcopate be language that respects the integrities of each of these streams. It seems like a fairly simple task. There is good strong, historical, Anglican language available which does so. We think the language from the ordinal of 1550 and the 4th point of the Lambeth Quadrilateral (please note: I am not talking about the additional language from the Chicago Quadrilateral which was only approved by the TEC HOB) fits the bill better than language that was drafted by the Common Cause Partnership in that very ancient year of 2006.

Can we live with the language as is? Certainly some can. Matt Kennedy, a very fine priest in the Anglican Reformed tradition, started this thread saying he could. Dr. Noll wrote on an earlier blog that he could, although he also expressed that he would have preferred that the GTF used less prescriptive language like what was used to affirm the episcopate in the Jerusalem Declaration. Bishop Rodgers can although he acknowledges that there are issues with the language and has suggested that we should sign on now and change it later.

However, until the language is approved I am trying to do my best to raise issues where I see them. My assumption is that all those who are making comments here, like yourselves, are similarly committed.  As Aidan has repeatedly pointed out we are making such comments out of love for our church. Moreover, we seek to get the language right because it will be these documents and not any private assurances that our church will be bound by.

Whether or not you think that there is any validity to the perspectives of evangelical and reformed Anglicans, I do not think that we are a minor group either. I have certainly been led to believe that ACNA was and will be a place where evangelical and reformed Anglicans have a respected place to stand.

To quote myself (please forgive me) from post #29 -

“Both the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic constituencies are important aren’t they?...Let’s appropriately apply subsidiarity and leave appropriate space on issues where legitimate orthodox Anglicans disagree. ”

And to quote myself (sorry, again) in 42 -

“I think there is an opportunity for both sides to show their commitment to ACNA and to their brothers in Christ by 1) acknowledging the issues and 2) creating a declaration that is historical, Anglican and not so prescriptive as to preclude any of the three streams. As Faramir said in LOTR this may be an “opportunity to show our quality.”

Something like what has been proposed by many including both evangelicals and anglo-catholics - “We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and people called by God into the unity of His Church.”

It’s from the 1550 Ordinal and the Lambeth Quadrilateral.  historical? - check, classically Anglican? - check, acceptable to Anglo-Catholics? - check, acceptable to evangelicals? - check, acceptable to charismatics - check. In line with the Jerusalem Declaration and our fathers in God who have sacrificed so much to stand with us? - check. Or use what Stephen Noll suggested, the JD statement on the episcopate - “We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.” Again, check, check, check, etc. Problemo Solved.

An additional benefit - a GTF that asked for feedback, received it and appropriately responded in a way that is charitable to all constituencies - awesome! Come Lord Jesus!

Let us all be so committed to loving one another and the respectful of one another’s integrities that absolutley none of us will be satisfied with fundamental declarations that do not respect the integrities of anglo-catholics, evangelicals and charismatics.

And the world will see our love for one another and our commitment to Christ and praise God!”

[comment deleted—off topic; please do not bring alternate topics into threads]

[comment deleted—off topic]

[comment deleted—off topic]

Here we see demonstrated once again the Central Limit Theorem of SFIF.

The distribution of comments tends toward Women’s Ordination, even when the distribution from which the average is computed is decidedly not about Women’s Ordination.

carl

Carl you are correct and I should not have taken the bait.

Phil,

RE: “the statement to which I was referring was the beginning of the Ordinal, responding to Aidan’s #120.”

Right—and that’s the statement at the beginning of the ordinal that Aidan and others have proposed “as a more comprehensive alternative.”

And it appears that there is an objection—by you—to making that statement the replacement statement that Anglicans have to agree to in the ACNA C&Cs;.

RE: “By the way: to answer Sarah’s objection, 1.3 doesn’t attempt to answer “why.” It’s purely descriptive.”

Well no—it’s *prescriptive* and does indeed attempt to answer why one has the three orders.

The question is not “should there be deacons, priests, and bishops.”  The question is should the ACNA C&Cs;come down on ONE SIDE as to *why* all Anglicans should have them.

The statement in question—“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”—clearly prescribes the answer as to why—because bishops are “inherent” and “integral.”

But many evangelical Anglicans believe—and have down through the centuries believed—that bishops are not “inherent” or “integral” but are rather very good things and in keeping with the tradition.

Why cannot the statement that prescribes why be replaced by this more descriptive one?
“We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s church – bishops, presbyters, and deacons and we affirm the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and people called by God into the unity of His Church.”

The early history of the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem, originally a shared Anglican/German Lutheran venture, may be of interest.  Its establishment was one of the factors that determined Newman’s move to Rome.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican-German_Bishopric_in_Jerusalem

“We are simply asking that the language chosen to affirm the episcopate be language that respects the integrities of each of these streams. “

I have taken no offense and have not meant to give it either.
What I see is not Anglican at all in the sense of holding the traditions of the Early Church above all else.  This is the font of authority.  Your claims simply cannot be demonstrated to come from this font .
Your logic here is the very same useed to justify a myriad of innovations.  “integrities” has nothing to do with anything.  In fact “Integrity” is the name of the Homosexual PAC in the Episcopal Church and having “integerities” is Griswoldian for we are all entitled to our subjective feelings.

Let me ask you this:
Does your faith allow for miracles?  Today or just during the lives of Christ and the Apostles?
Does your faith allow for Glossalia?  Then only or is it still a reality?
Does your faith allow for regeneration?  Early Church only or now as well?
Does your faith allow for healings?  Then only or now?
Do you believe in the Real Presence? or is it simply a memorial?
By what is the action these things are imparted if they are real?

There is no one part you can cut out.  You speak to personal ‘integrities” but you are really looking for elasticity and the permission to cut way the integrity of the Faith as it was delivered.  This is the quintessential contemporary Episcopalian ethos and you are claiming to start a ‘new thing’ and importing al the same errors and the only thing you have assuredly proven is the right to VGR’s ordination (lower case intended).  To repeat contemporary history and ignore the example and teachings and authority of the Early Church do so ensures failure.  If you are simply backing the car down the road from the tree only to stomp the execrator you are guaranteed the same result my friend.

Do you believe in the Real Presence? or is it simply a memorial?

Way to throw out a bunch of false dichotimies.

What I see is not Anglican at all in the sense of holding the traditions of the Early Church above all else.  This is the font of authority.

It is interesting how threads like this demonstrate that even among “conservatives” there seems to be lack of any coherent agreement about what the “Anglican Way” really is.  It is almost certain that someone will respond to this with Sola Scriptura.

Sarah and AA, I have no problem with the language of the Ordinal being used.  That’s fine.  But, I also see nothing wrong with 1.3.  And, going back to AA’s #30, what I see underlying this is nastiness toward Anglo-Catholics, not a substantive objection to the text (it doesn’t use the word “succession,” it doesn’t say anything about transmitting the grace of ordination or, I don’t know, many other things that would have clearly gone where you don’t want to go).  Fine, go with the Ordinal - but the larger concern for me is that our opponents have been right all along, and that ACNA is going to blow itself up over minor things like this once it doesn’t have a common enemy.  I would dearly love to prove them wrong, and then we get this kind of thread.

RE: “. . . and that ACNA is going to blow itself up over minor things like this once it doesn’t have a common enemy.”

Well I’ve certainly expressed my opinions on the ACNA issues before—but one comfort, it seems to me, is that all of this is being discussed on the front end rather than after everybody joins.

At least, Phil, we all know that nobody interested in being a part of the ACNA is shallow and uncaring!  And that these matters are important.  And that people take these things seriously.

I think that’s a good and encouraging thing.

The last thing you want people doing is signing up with merry oblivion and disregard to what they are signing on to.

Friends,

Just a preemptive caution. The topic of this thread is specifically article 1.3 of the ACNA constitution.

I do very much agree with you on that, Sarah.

[comment deleted—off topic;  there have been numerous and extensive opportunities to discuss your particular topic, and this is not one of them; commenter is warned]

Fr. Matthew,

I am sorry that you cannot accept our position on the nature of the Apostolic Succession and authority in faith and morals, but I hope you see what ACNA is up against now.

In Christ,
John+

Phil [142],
In my surfing the Internet, looking for articles for my blog, Anglicans Ablaze, I have over the past several years come across statements from various Common Cause leaders, now ACNA leaders, which showed that a constant thought at the back of their mind was that Anglo-Catholics might take offense if they were not accommodated on a particular issue and withdraw from the present alliance between Anglo-Catholics, charismatics, and evangelicals. I do not believe that these particular leaders would have become so sensitive to the feelings and attitudes of their Anglo-Catholic counterparts if there had not been occasions where the latter had taken offense because they were not accommodated on a particular issue. An alternative explanation is that the Common Cause or ACNA leader in question was exploiting the fear of a negative Anglo-Catholic reaction to counteract resistance or opposition to a proposal.

A number of rumors have also been circulating over the Internet of Anglo-Catholic leaders threatening to leave the ACNA and to end a not so united front against liberalism and revisionism in North America. I have also encountered posters on the Internet who have argued that Anglo-Catholics should not stay in a church in which the other theological streams do not defer to their doctrinal views or that those who do not subscribe to Anglo-Catholic doctrinal views do not belong in the ACNA. Weariness is not an abnormal reaction to the foregoing; it is quite natural.

To be fair to all Anglo-Catholics, I have also encountered posters who are quite reasonable and pragmatic , who understand the practical difficulties and real dangers of being dogmatic, and who are committed to a vision of a new province in which all three orthodox theological streams in North American Anglicanism have ample room to flourish.

The particular view of episcopacy under discussion in this thread is not a minor matter. It is a major underpinning of the Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology, and in turn affects the Anglo-Catholic theology of sacraments and ordination. It therefore has bearing upon the ecclesiology of the ACNA constitution and canons and their theology of sacraments and ordination.

As a conservative Anglican with a very real invested interest in the success of ACNA, I have been very distressed at how some (particularly those of “evangelical” sect) have carried on this discussion and are now censoring those who disagree with them. Sad to see supposed allies adopting the tactics of those whom we so vigorously criticize for their willingness to manipulate and censor.

I would also add that it has bearing upon the structure and governance of the ACNA and the prominent role given to bishops in that ecclesial body.

[128] AnglicansAblaze

I have never liked the idea of writing intentional ambiguities into agreements, but if the intent is the live with ambiguity, then it seems pretty much any words can suffice.  You can intentionally choose to interpret any words in any manner you like.  Do ‘inherent’ and ‘integral’ offend you?  Then interpret the offense away.  Wasn’t that the whole point from the beginning?  To create ambiguity so that both sides could be happy?  In truth, you don’t need ambiguous words.  You really only need individuals who choose to read a document differently.

There seems to be some fear of coercion behind these objections.  The specter of Anglo-Catholic hegemony hangs over the conversation.  What I do not understand is how a few words in a document will ever stop this from occurring if this was in fact the true intent of Anglo-Catholics from the beginning.  Assuming they have both the power and the will, they will enforce their own understanding no matter what the words actually say.  This is the lesson of TEC.

But what if their intent was simply to live in peace?  Let them have the words, and move on.  What difference does it make when the attendant definitions are always within your power?  Or do you not trust them?  Do you fear they will use those words to coerce ACNA into an Anglo-Catholic entity in much the same way liberals have formed TEC into apostasy?  In which case, why are you suggesting an ambiguous agreement?  Why are you suggesting any unity at all?  If what you fear is true, ACNA must inevitably devolve into yet one more power struggle between worldviews for dominance - no matter what the words say. 

carl

I have been following this blog, and decided to look again for information on the web for a book written by a gr-gr-gr-gr grandfather: “Tydings on Succession” by Richard Tydings, a circut preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church. What I found more interesting than the subject, was in an appendix: A Sketch of the Author’s Life. His sacrifice and passion to spread the Gospel should put us all to shame. It begins on page 286 of the book. Who among us knows anyone, including clergy, who we believe would give so much of himself in the service of our Lord?
Read and be humbled. http://www.archive.org/stream/refutationofdo00tydi#page/n8/mode/1up
mms

Carl [128]
Carl,
First, if you reread my posts, you will discover that I do not advocate an ambiguous statement in place of Article 1, Section 3. I advocate a statement that is not partisan and on which all three orthodox theological streams can agree. To have such agreement does not require an ambiguous statement, only a statement that contains one or two points on which these three schools of thought actually agree. I also advocate replacing the existing seven-point Fundamental Declarations with a much shorter and more general Fundamental Declaration like the one in the Southern Cone constitution or dispensing with a Fundamental Declaration altogether as does the Nigerian constitution. In the ACNA constitution the Fundamental Declarations serve as a definition of Anglican orthodoxy. Consequently it is imperative that everything is says is agreeable to all three orthodox theological streams. 

As I note in my article, “Where Does the ACNA Really Stand on GAFCON?” the Jerusalem Declaration is also a definition of Anglican orthodoxy.  The ACNA Fundamental Declarations differs with the Jerusalem Statement on several key issues. They are also silent on a number of key issues addressed in the Jerusalem Declaration—salvation by grace through faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, “the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the atonement, the sanctity of marriage, the Great Commission, the stewardship of creation, recognition of “the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice,” “freedom in secondary matters,” working together “to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us;” and Christ’s second coming. The relegation of the ACNA affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement to the Preface in the finalized version of the ACNA constitution makes the Fundamental Declarations the more authoritative definition of Anglican orthodoxy for the ACNA.

Stephen Noll, when he took issue with this change, favoring as he does the Jerusalem Declaration to the ACNA Fundamental Declarations, was told that the seven points of the latter were of greater antiquity than the Jerusalem Declaration. Dr. Noll apparently accepts this explanation. The Fundamental Declaration, however, are for the most part a series of partisan doctrinal statements that take the particular views of one theological stream and make them the defining beliefs of Anglican orthodoxy in the ACNA. 

Like same sex blessings in TEC, the language of the third Fundamental Declaration is a symptom of a much deeper and more complex problem, which has at its heart the violation of the understanding between the three orthodox theological streams that the new province would be a church in which no one theological stream would be dominant. All three theological streams would have ample room to flourish.

Second, if we apply to the events of the last few years the kinds of arguments that you make in your post and follow them to their logical conclusion, there would be no need for a new orthodox North American Anglican province. We should all troop back to TEC and pretend “all is well,” nothing is wrong.

Just in case we all forgot what it said since it is so far back up the page.

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.

Anyone remember John Dominic Crossan?  You know the jelly bean guy from the Jesus Seminar that Phillip Jenkins smoked in his book “how the Historic Search For Jesus Lost it’s Way”  or something to that effect.

How many of you have heard the technical term “myth” used by liberals regarding Scripture and felt your mother had just been insulted?  Well in a sense she had, because this is used of the Blessed Virgin St. Mary by feminists.

The meaning of one word was enough to split East and West as we all well know.

Consider JDC’s jelly bean search for the “historic” Jesus.  Consider the position of the “Anglo Catholic” regarding the word “historic”.  What exactly does it connotate?  To some it may mean the same as succession.  To some this is all secondary.  But to others it will be an open door to interpret a word outside of it’s everyday menaing and thus used as a wedge against those who cannot and will not except any definition less than that outlined quite adequately by Anglicans Ablaze #148. 

The “historic” search for Jesus meant that Jesus was simply an historic man.  To me the word historic as used above MAY mean exactly the same thing.  It reduces what I see, not because I studied the sacerdotal system, but because I read the Bible, into a graceless management system akin to a corporation or other leadership structure.  I cannot accept anything regarding this Faith without considering the Incarnation and the work of the Holy Ghost and this word reduces the AS to an argument with jelly beans tossed across the table not by the Apostles or the Fathers of the Early Church but by anyone who FEELS they have a right to conform the deposit of Revelation, (and yes DOGMA, a good word) to a contemporary secular definition.  Now you may say “John you are being paranoid” but one province, Sydney has done precisely that.  Unfortunately, we live in a world where everyone is a doctor of the Church and unilateral-ism rules.  This is anathema to many of us.

I cannot accept that there are three ‘integrities’ as by definition integrity (the state of being whole and undivided) cannot have three forms. This is a face saving device not an intellectually honest assessment or settlement of what is a foundational issue for many, what Scripture teaches albeit implied (as is the Trinity and as is Justification by faith alone) and what the Fathers have said or how they acted accordng to “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us”. 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6 .  Some of us take this passage very seriously.

Have a Blessed Trinity Sunday.

[153] AnglicansAblaze

a much deeper and more complex problem, which has at its heart the violation of the understanding between the three orthodox theological streams that the new province would be a church in which no one theological stream would be dominant. All three theological streams would have ample room to flourish.

I don’t understand what you are concerned about, because it’s couched in non-specific language.  So help me understand by connecting the dots between the words at the heart of this thread, and future actions in real time and space.  You talk about having “ample room to flourish.”  What specific actions do you fear will be taken because of these words that will deny Evangelicals “ample room to flourish?”  You sound like you fear coercion.  Are you in fact concerned that Anglo-Catholics have an agenda to turn ACNA into an Anglo-Catholic organization?  You either trust Anglo-Catholics or you don’t.  If you trust them, then what are you worried about?  If you don’t trust them, then why do you want an agreement with them?

carl

Forgive this diversion:
Back from a robustly evangelical and very Catholic Trinity Sunday.  Yesterday, we traditional Prayer Book Catholics took to the streets in some down home evangelism at a local festival handing out tracts and speaking the Word.  We do this at least three times a year (the number of Sundays we say the Athanasian Creed;-))  We are going to several others this summer and we will handout hundreds of prayer cards and Gospel tracts and speak of Jesus Christ and how He has transformed us and the world. One cannot be complete if they are only Catholic, only Evangelical, only Charismatic, one must be all three to be complete, so consider being three in one and one in three. And, while our debate here is edifying, thoughtful, temper it with action.

If you did not read the Athanasian Creed today I offer the link.
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/athanasian.html
I think if you apply the logic in this creed to the notion of three streams and three theologies you will understand how three theologies cannot exist there is only one because there is only One God- Three in one and One in Three. Not three separate theologies but one, not three separate streams but one.  Therefore there cannot be three separate theologies. We are not polytheistic, therefore polytheology is error. 

God reigns past, present and future, indivisibly and the word “history” conveys only past.  The Faith is alive; yesterday, today and forever- all of it, we need to grant that reality to each other.

It is Trinity Sunday.
Contra Mundum!

Carl,
I see no need to repeat myself or to further explain what I mean. I am not going to be drawn into “either/or” discussions in which you argue that there are only a limited range of choices and the party with whom you are arguing must chose between one of two options.

Jadax,
Subtle arguments is not a solution to the problems that partisan doctrinal statements in the ACNA constitution and code of canons create. Whatever you may say, the ACNA constitution does not need to include a series of dogmatic statements similar to the Statements of Faith in the constitutions of Lutheran Churches. Their inclusion creates unnecessary dissension in a church in which three orthodox schools of thought are represented and which, while they may agree on some things, do not not agree on others. How would Anglo-Catholics react if the Fundamental Declarations contained a statement denying the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? How would charismatics react if the Fundamental Declarations contained a statement denying the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit beyond apostolic times? For the Fundamental Declaration section of the ACNA constitution a statement like Canon A5 of the Church of England would suffice.

A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

Or the Preface to the Declaration of Assent in Canon C15 of the Church of England’s canons:

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

Anglicansablaze,

How would charismatics react if the Fundamental Declarations contained a statement denying the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit beyond apostolic times?

A denial of the A.S. as merely “historic” is a denial of the continued work of the Holy Ghost- you are actually reinforcing my arguments with this exampale.

So it may better to restate this: How would “Anglo-Catholics” react if the Fundamental Declarations contained a statement denying the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit beyond apostolic times?

Well- it does, they have and they do; that is why the resistance.

It is because it is the Holy Ghost the Apostles received from Christ and the gifts and authority therein passed on to those succeeding them and it is the Holy Ghost that is operative in any sacrament or right authority. In this there is no differnece with the Charismatic other than a failure to acknowledge to full scope of the work of the Holy Ghost.  It is not the AC who tries to fit God in a little box here, it is the Evangelical and Charismatic that has issues with the extent of the work of the Holy Ghost in His Church.  This is why the Ananbaptists denied the Holy Ghost and said the Church had failed and why the English Reformers refused such an incredible notion going against the direct words of Christ.

No more ‘soft church’ weasel language for me.  People are sick of ‘soft church’, that is why all the mainline denoms are losing ground. 
Let them (ACNA) do as they please, everyman their own pope. I suspect this means continued division and confusion.

[157] AnglicansAblaze

I see no need to repeat myself or to further explain what I mean.

I don’t know.  You have repeated some form of the phrase “ample room to flourish” no less than seven times on this thread.  Once each in [30], [38], [115], [148], [153], and twice in [128].  The phrase sits on the table like a nondescript sculpture; a lump of soft clay that coyly entreats each man to apply his own interpretation.  I am simply asking for a specific definition of the phrase that sits at the heart of your argument.

carl

I thank Carl – no Anglo-Catholic – for getting to the heart of the matter in #151 and #155.  I think it should be clear, first, from AnglicanAblaze’s repeated inability to answer simple questions (when and where has Anglicanism ever not featured the episcopate, how will the sentence given in 1.3 have any impact on the “flourishing” of AA’s “theological stream” (which increasingly appears to be some variant of Free Church Pentecostalism), do you actually fear the Anglo-Catholics have an agenda such that you can’t even trust them to be in your church) and, second, from his lame dodges (“I am not going to be drawn into ‘either/or’ discussions, “I decline to be drawn into such arguments”) that he is most likely to be the keeper of the agenda.

Phil,
I am not going to be baited into a discussion in which I and not the decidely partisan doctrinal statement of Article I, Section 3, of the ACNA Constitution is the focus of discussion.

In an earlier post I stated that the constitution of the Church of Nigeria has no Fundamental Declarations section, which is correct. However, the Church of Nigeria’s canons do have such a section, which I have reproduced below.

1. The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) hereinafter called “The Church of Nigeria” or “This Church” shall be in full communion with all Anglican Churches Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as the Lord has commanded in His holy word and as the same are received as taught in the Book of Common Prayer and the ordinal of 1662and in the Thirty-Nine Article of Religion.

.2. The Church of Nigeria has power so to order its discipline as to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines which are contrary to God’s word as understood and interpreted in the aforementioned formularies.

3. In the interpretation of the aforementioned formularies and in all questions of Faith, Doctrine and Discipline, the decisions of the ecclesiastical tribunals of the Church of Nigeria shall be final.

4. The Church of Nigeria holds as its standard of worship and authorizes for general use the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England and the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Nigeria.

5. The Church of Nigeria has power to make and authorize such changes and additions or alternatives to the forms of service provided in the said books and such new forms and service as may be required to meet the needs of this Church and are neither contrary to the doctrinal standards named in these Declarations nor indicative of any departure from them.

6. This Church holds that each of the three Orders of the Ministry - Bishops, Priests and Deacons - has particular duties in the Church and that this distribution of duties may rightly be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Bishops have a special responsibility and authority for the preservation of the truth of the doctrine of the Church for the purity of its life, and the worthiness of its worship; the Priests, in co-operation with and under the guidance of the Bishops have a special responsibility for preaching the word of God and administering the Holy Sacraments and generally for the cure of souls, and the
Deacons have a special responsibility for the care of the poor and distressed, for the instruction of the young and the ignorant, and for giving assistance to the Priests in Divine Service.

7. No fundamental amendment to the foregoing Declarations may be made unless the proposed amendment is first provisionally approved by the General Synod, is subsequently submitted to each Diocese of the Church of Nigeria for consideration and receives the approval of not less than two-thirds of the Dioceses and is finally confirmed by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the General Synod. The amendment shall thereafter be communicated to all the Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion.

Note that the Fundamental Declarations section of the Nigerian canons contains nothing like Article I, Section 3. Canon 1, Section 6 states that the distribution of the duties among the three orders of ministry in the Church may be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

The Fndamental Declarations of the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia has nothing like Article I, Section 3.

1. The Anglican Church of Australia,  being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.

2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.

3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.

The Preamble and Declaration of the constitution of the Church of Ireland also contains nothing like Article I, Section 3.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen: Whereas it hath been determined by the Legislature that on and after the 1st day of January, 1871, the Church of Ireland shall cease to be established by law; and that the ecclesiastical law of Ireland shall cease to exist as law save as provided in the “Irish Church Act, 1869”, and it hath thus become necessary that the Church of Ireland should provide for its own regulation:

We, the archbishops and bishops of this the Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church of Ireland, together with the representatives of the clergy and laity of the same, in General Convention assembled in Dublin in the year of our Lord God one thousand eight hundred and seventy, before entering on this work, do solemnly declare as follows:

I
1. The Church of Ireland doth, as heretofore, accept and unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as given by inspiration of God, and containing all things necessary to salvation; and doth continue to profess the faith of Christ as professed by the Primitive Church.

2. The Church of Ireland will continue to minister the doctrine, and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded; and will maintain inviolate the three orders of bishops, priests or presbyters, and deacons in the sacred ministry.

3. The Church of Ireland, as a reformed and Protestant Church, doth hereby reaffirm its constant witness against all those innovations in doctrine and worship, whereby the Primitive Faith hath been from time to time defaced or overlaid, and which at the Reformation this Church did disown and reject.

II
The Church of Ireland doth receive and approve The Book of the Articles of Religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, received and approved by the archbishops and bishops and the rest of the clergy of Ireland in the synod holden in Dublin, A.D. 1634; also, The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of Ireland; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as approved and adopted by the synod holden in Dublin, A.D. 1662, and hitherto in use in this Church. And this Church will continue to use the same, subject to such alterations only as may be made therein from time to time by the lawful authority of the Church.

III
The Church of Ireland will maintain communion with the sister Church of England, and with all other Christian Churches agreeing in the principles of this Declaration; and will set forward, so far as in it lieth, quietness, peace, and love, among all christian people.

IV
The Church of Ireland, deriving its authority from Christ, Who is the Head over all things to the Church, doth declare that a General Synod of the Church of Ireland, consisting of the archbishops and bishops, and of representatives of the clergy and laity, shall have chief legislative power therein, and such administrative power as may be necessary for the Church, and consistent with its episcopal constitution.

Nor does the Fundamental Declaration of the constitution of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America

1. FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATION
The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone is established as a Province of the Anglican Communion, a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which professes the historic Faith and Order as contained in the Holy Scriptures, to conserve the Doctrine, Sacraments, Ministry and Discipline of the Anglican Church and as observed in the Book of Common Prayer and the administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies, in the form and manner of Consecration, Ordination or Institution of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons and the Articles of Religion maintains the ecclesiastical unity of the Dioceses and Provinces legitimately established and that are in communion with the See of Canterbury.

Likewise the Fundamental Principles of the constitution of the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda, as reflected in Article 4 of the constitution of Diocese of West Ankole.

ARTICLE 4: THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH (Doctrine, Faith and Worship)

The basic principles of the Church of the Diocese of West Ankole are the Doctrine and Faith as originating from the Anglican Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures.

(a) The Church of Uganda being in full communion with the Church of England and with the Anglican Communion throughout the world receives the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith, given by inspiration of God, and containing all things necessary for salvation.

(b) This holds the Faith of Christ as preached by the Apostles, summed up in the Creeds and confirmed by the undisputed General Councils of the Holy Catholic Church.

(c) It maintains this faith as embodied in the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of the Church as they have been handed down by the Church of England and as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal and in the Articles of Religion commonly called the 39 Articles. It accepts the prayer and disclaims any right to depart from the standards of Faith and Order of the Principles of worship set forth in the said Formularies of the Church of England.

(d) The Diocesan Bishop shall have power to make such changes in the services provided for Public Worship and to authorize such Common Prayer as may in his judgement be desirable to meet the pastoral needs of God’s people, provided that such series do not depart from the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Uganda service.

(e) The jurisdiction to determine any matter concerning Faith, Doctrine and Worship is hereby vested in the House of Bishops constituted in accordance with this Constitution.

I have been led to believe from a reliable source that the equivalent of the Fundamental Declarations of the L’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda are adapted from the Preface of Canon C15 of the Church of England, which I posted earlier.

The only Anglican province that I have come across that has anything that approximates Article I, Section 3 is the liberal Scottish Episcopal Church:

CANON ONE - OF PRESERVING THE EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION AND THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY

1. The Scottish Church, being a branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, retains inviolate in the sacred ministry the three orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as of Divine Institution. The right to consecrate and ordain Bishops, Priests and Deacons belongs to the Order of Bishops only. In accordance with the law and custom of the ancient Church, Bishops shall be consecrated by not fewer than three Bishops in all ordinary cases, and Priests and Deacons shall be ordained by one Bishop. In the ordination of Priests, the Priests present shall join in the laying on of hands.

2. No person under the age of thirty years shall be consecrated a Bishop of this Church.

Historically the Scottish Episcopal Church is not known for its comprehensiveness, being High Church and Anglo-Catholic for most of its history and liberal since the the second half of the twentieth century. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century English evangelicals formed their own “qualified” chapels in Scotland rather than use the Scottish prayer book or accept the oversight of Scottish bishops. During the nineteenth century the Oxford Movement sought to make the Scottish church a showcase of Anglo-Catholic doctrine and practice.

Interestingly the Scottish bishops vet all candidates for the office of bishop and only those they approve may stand for election to the episcopate. The Scottish bishops also elect the Scottish primate. This illustrates how the institution of episcopacy is not in itself a safeguard of orthodoxy.

Like the Anglican Church of South Africa the Scottish Episcopal Church is an example of how a predominantly Anglo-Catholic province can become liberal.

As I have pointed out on this thread and elsewhere the inclusion of decidely partisan doctrinal statements like Article I, Section 3 in the constitution and code of canons of the ACNA is both unnecessary and divisive.

[161] AnglicansAblaze

I am not going to be baited into a discussion in which I and not the decidely partisan doctrinal statement of Article I, Section 3, of the ACNA Constitution is the focus of discussion.

So ... asking you to define a phrase that you have used repeatedly to carry your argument now constitutes being bated?  It’s your phrase.  You use it all the time.  You obviously mean something by it.  In fact, it’s not possible to understand your argument unless you define it.  Why can’t you tell us what it means? 

You remind me of a story I once heard long ago from a friend of mine.  He was writing some software to interface to an NSA crypto device.  NSA had to review the code for security, and upon completing the review, told my friend “It’s wrong.  Fix it.”  My friend naturally asked “What’s wrong with it?”  NSA responded “I can’t tell you.  But it’s wrong.  Fix it.”

carl

Carl,
I believe what I have said so far is sufficient and I do not need to go into further explanations.

AnglicansAblaze, you haven’t said anything: your “argument” amounts to cutting and pasting random material from the web.  Which I’m not sure you’re even reading; none of the constitutional material you’ve posted above is inconsistent with 1.3 in any way.  The exception is the canon from the Scottish Episcopal Church, which, in an apparent blunder on your part, goes a long way in showing how anodyne is the ACNA 1.3.

As Carl has said, you’ve been making pretty strong statements (strangely, always with the exact same wording) about “decidely partisan doctrinal statements” and “permitted to flourish,” but you seem to be either unable or unwilling to back them up.  You’ve now undermined by way of comparison, by actually posting a fairly partisan doctrinal statement, your apparent position on 1.3, and you’ve made no coherent attempt to explain how you are not going to be “permitted to flourish” by it.

Look, if you can’t defend your position - whatever it is - just say so, but at least stop imputing sinister motives to Anglo-Catholics.  Maybe it would be best to just do your cutting and pasting with no commentary?