The reality is that the Common Cause Theological Statement has outlived its usefulness. What is needed is a new doctrinal statement, one which is not only more comprehensive in its recognition of divergent opinions among orthodox Anglicans but also displays greater solidarity with the Anglican entities that have supported the establishment of a new orthodox province in North America and extend their recognition to the ACNA as that province in formation. Such a statement need not be complicated””just a few well-chosen words””around which all orthodox Anglicans can in good conscience come together in the cause of the gospel.
There are plenty of problems and only one Lord Jesus Christ. There is a battle for truth within the Church. Such has been the consistant case since the beginning. “Charismatics are theologically lazy”, “Liturgical types are spiritually lazy”, “Evangelicals are Scripturally lazy”; all these work because there is some truth in them, but only if we can keep these people fighting and praying together will they all gain the true strengths so desired by our Lord and His second desire that they be one.
Jesus ask those who followed Him, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not those things that I have commanded. Now is the time for all Christians to step up to the altar rail and say, “Lord, teach me to obey”.
Don
Having failed to sabatoge the ACNA founding assembly, despite his feverish efforts to do so, Mr. Jordan now pontificates on the need to discard the two-week-old Constitution and Canons in favor of a new one reflecting his ultra-Calvinist and anti-Anglo-Catholic theology. Now is the time to rally around ACNA, not spend more time trying to nail down precise theological language to destroy a compromise acceptable to every group with any serious intention of actually joining ACNA. Who is this non-ACNA outsider to declare that “the Provincial Council needs to revisit the Fundamental Declarations in the very near future and to modify their language or even to replace them altogether”? Where is the groundswell of evangelicals unable to join ACNA because of the C & C’s?
I find it interesting and illuminating that among the comments the groundwork for a purge of Anglo-Catholics has already begun. I foresaw this nearly nine years ago when AMiA was organized and soon made it clear that its Evangelical bias would dominate any church choosing to affiliate with it.
The desire to embrace the 39 Articles and give them a standing approaching the Creeds also puzzles me. When I read, “General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture”, I am led to ask what is the assurance that the assembly of men who created the Articles actually took them out of Scripture. Their word? Unfortunately, their own Article has caused me to doubt the basis for the assertion.
Though I much appreciated what was done in Bedford at the Provincial Assembly, I am fully prepared for the day when the purge begins.
1..
Sounds you are asking folks to give something up.
Neither Mr. Jordan nor the rabid anti-Anglo-Catholics his blog attracts represent AMiA. Indeed they could never join the Anglo-Catholic “contaminated” ACNA. AMiA on the other hand accepted the Fundamental Declarations and I strongly doubt they want, at least at this time, to open the can of worms that rewriting the C & C’s would represent. Despite his gradiose opinings I doubt Mr. Jordan represents anything more than a fringe group of Anglican-leaning ultra-Calvinists…
4. centexn wrote:
1..
“Sounds you are asking folks to give something up.”
I’m asking no one to give up anything that Jesus Christ wants held on to.
Don
5 Dear Anonymous: I agree with you completely.
And the Continuum is a good place to find Mr. Jordan’s opposite counterparts on the Anglo-Catholic side. ACNA is probably much better off without the puritanical assistance from either extreme — as were our predecessors were when both extremes left, either for Geneva or Rome. And if you want to know how the Puritans ended up, just visit any UCC parish, where God is apparently “still talking” and saying all kinds of new things! In this case Newman and his colleagues may have done a bit better.
Does the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement that was incorporated into Article I of the ACNA constitution represent a compromise that everyone accepts? Before the inaugural Provincial Assembly at Bedford, Texas several groups within the ACNA submitted observations to the Governance Task Force pointing to its attention the unnecessarily partisan language of that statement and calling for changes that would have made the statement more comprehensive in its recognition of divergent opinions among orthodox Anglicans and not aligned with a particular theological grouping in the ACNA. These groups did not represent either an “ultra-Calvinist” or “anti-Anglo-Catholic” element in the ACNA. They had bought into the vision of the ACNA about which the ACNA leadership is often heard to speak, a vision of a church that was comprehensive in its enfolding of all three conservative theological streams–Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical–but had discovered that the ACNA constitution and canons did not embody this vision. Rather the two documents’ doctrinal provisions represented the theological views of one stream or were acceptable to that stream. The question of the unnecessarily partisan language of the statement was raised at the Provincial Council meeting before the Bedford gathering. However, those who favored making no changes in its language blocked any modification of the statement beyond a correction of the number of points from eight to seven, which had been overlooked when the Provincial Council adopted the finalized version of the constitution.
During the sessions of the Provincial Assembly at which the documents were ratified, the delegates were divided into two groups–those who wanted ratify the documents as they were presented to them and those who wanted to examine their provisions, discuss their merits, and consider changes. The first group, however, prevailed. There was not a great deal of discussion. Whatever amendments that were adopt had been vetted and approved ahead of time. There were no amendments from the floor. Bishop Duncan was very insistent that the delegates accept an article or canon or send it back to the Council and not make changes of their own. He also insisted that the Assembly complete its ratification of the documents by the end of the day.It was reported after the Assembly that, while a number of delegates had reservations about the constitution and canons, they voted for ratification of the two documents because they were concerned that without a constitution and canons there would be no ACNA–a point that Bishop Rodgers had made in an article published before the gathering in which he urged evangelicals to ratify the documents despite their reservations. In that article he acknowledged evangelical concerns over the language of the doctrinal provisions of the constitution.
In the Internet debate over the language of these provisions before the Bedford gathering Stephen Noll expressed preference for the language of the Jerusalem Declaration over that of the Fundamental Declarations in Article I. He pointed out that the Jerusalem Declaration was “historical-descriptive” but the Fundamental Declarations were “historical-prescriptive.” They required a particular interpretation, understanding, and application of the matter upon which each declaration touched. He pointed out that he had questioned the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from the Fundamental Declarations and its placement in the Preface to the ACNA constitution. Several ACNA leaders to whom he had written had assured him that this was done because the “ancientness” of the provisions of the Fundamental Declarations. He appeared to be satisfied with this explanation although some involved in the debate were not.
As those who are anticipating a purge of Anglo-Catholics from the ACNA, they may have a long wait if they are basing their prognostications upon the AMiA. The AMiA has in its Solemn Declaration of Principles provisions that recognize Anglo-Catholic eucharistic devotional practices such as benediction. The AMiA USA has banned the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the episcopate. The AMiA has produced two service books that are fairly Anglo-Catholic in their tone, incorporating material from the 1928 proposed English Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, as well as the 1928 American Prayer Book . The AMiA clerical representative on the Governance Task Force was an Anglo-Catholic with decidedly conservative Anglo-Catholic views. The canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda under which the AMiA is operating are Anglo-Catholic in their doctrine. The AMiA canonical charter is itself Catholic in its form of ecclesiastical structure and governance. Add to these considerations that a number of the ACNA bishops are Anglo-Catholics. FIFNA has its own jurisdiction within the ACNA; and the ACNA canons forbid women bishops, any fears that Anglo-Catholics might be entertaining of being purged from the ACNA are unfounded. Anglo-Catholics fare much better than charismatics and evangelicals under the provisions of the ACNA constitution.
The AMiA delegates to the Provincial Assembly were appointed and not elected. The AMiA was divided into “clusters” specifically for that purpose. The AMiA has nothing either jurisdiction-wide or at the “cluster” level that is the equivalent of a synod of clerical and lay persons. The AMiA primatial vicar governs the AMiA with the assistance of a Council of Missionary Bishops. The leaders of the AMiA to my knowledge picked the delegates. Whether their vote in support of ratification can be said to represent to the view of AMiA clergy and members at large is questionable.
Theologically I am far from “an ultra-Calvinist.” I subscribe to the Biblical and Reformation doctrines of the Anglican formularies–Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal, which makes me moderately Reformed in my theological outlook.