Author’s Note: The following essay is the conclusion to a three part series of articles that I wrote immediately following Abuja G26. These articles have gone through substantial revisions over the past two months reflecting not only the changing situation since the original draft, but also peer comments and editorial requirements for publication (particularly for Part 2).
To let you in under the hood for a moment. Parts 2 and 3 were originally written as one draft in mid-March and only separated to fit the narrower confines of editorial requirements. Some confusion about the thesis of Part 2 might be due to pulling it out of the larger original draft. Part 1 was drafted in early April and published soon thereafter.
Part 1: Anglican Trajectories
Part 2: Anglicans and the Abuja Contradiction
Part 3: Anglican Identity after Abuja
Anglicanism is not Confessional
As a priest in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), I have (until now) consistently heard it said that we are not a confessional church. This statement has been made by bishops, clergy, and laity from all corners of the ideological spectrum. What do people mean by this statement? Typically, they mean to distinguish Anglicanism from truly confessional denominations—those that have particular confessional statements as the basis for their life together.
The rejoinder to “not being confessional” is typically that we are “catholic.” After many years of hearing this, I began to say it myself. I’ve told it to confirmands, new members, old members, and everything in between. Anglicanism is not a confessional tradition; instead, we are a catholic tradition. In essence, we do not “confess” our particularities as Anglicans, but rather we only confess—and thereby regard as de fide (of the essence of the faith)—those things that are truly in keeping with the universal witness of the Church catholic (cf. the Vincentian Canon).
Within the ACNA, this distinction can clearly be seen in the Fundamental Declarations of our Province, a statement to which our own Canons and Constitutions refer as “the Doctrine of the Church.” The Fundamental Declarations “confess” four things: the Scriptures, the sacraments of the gospel, the episcopate, and the catholic creeds. In other words, we confess that which binds us to the “fullness and unity” of the catholic Tradition. We are confessional, to be sure—but only in the sense that together we adhere to the Scriptures, the sacraments, the episcopate, and the creeds; and in the sense that we have a shared commitment to the catholic tradition.
But being an Anglican is more than just these four Catholic realities. Within the Fundamental Declarations, we have nuanced statements on the seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, allowing for a generous, yet traditional application of pre-schism orthodoxy, which holds to the dogmas without the anathemas. Additionally, we “receive” two things: the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal as a standard for doctrine and discipline and the standard (with the preceding books) for worship. And we receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief. In short; we receive our Anglican tradition, and we confess the catholic faith. This does not make us confessional, it makes us catholic.
Anglicanism is not Institutionalist
Besides not being a confessional church, we also are not, so I have also been told (and so I have said myself), an institutionalist church. We do not have a pope who determines who is in or out. No matter how much the Archbishop of Canterbury may want to pretend to that role. For almost a century (1785–1867) “the Anglican Communion” was a family of churches united by a common liturgical tradition and a common inheritance of English Catholicism. This common inheritance was not only in those things that are de fide but also in matters of reception. The reception of the Thirty-Nine Articles in the Protestant Episcopal Church (USA) was different from that in the Church of England (they amended two articles and rejected one), and so too was their Book of Common Prayer different (particularly in the Eucharistic canon). There was no questioning, however, their common life that was bound up together in a communion of fellowship rather than in a communion of structure. They recognized each other’s common catholicity within the Anglican tradition rather than demanding formal admission to one and the same institution. Institutions are necessary for human organization, but they are not necessary for the sharing of communion.
What of Abuja?
From March 3–6, bishops from around the world gathered in Abuja, Nigeria, ostensibly to overthrow the hegemonic and symbolic power of the Archbishop of Canterbury by electing a new primus inter pares (first among equals) for the Global Anglican Communion. Instead of reorganizing the traditional authority structure within Anglicanism, however, they instead overthrew it, setting up their own institution with a corporate evangelical polity based in Protestant confessionalism, stating in “The Abuja Affirmation”:
True communion is confessional, rather than defined by a shared history or institutional structures.The Jerusalem Declaration, which includes the Reformation Formularies, expresses our common confession of the Biblical truth, shared faith, and communal conviction. We are in fellowship with all who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration…. There are not two Communions, but two incompatible definitions of communion – one confessional, the other institutional.1
And:
The Gafcon Primates Council [council of senior Archbishops] has been replaced by the Global Anglican Council. The newly constituted Global Anglican Council consists of Primates, Advisors, and Guarantors [lay and ordained] as voting members.2
So, are we confessional or not? Are we institutionalist or not? Instead of the old institution with a traditional catholic hierarchy and see (whether apostate or not), we now have a new institution, which has abdicated the episcopal office’s unique role of defending the faith and watered it down to a corporate board binding the faithful to a unifying confession of faith.
As a parish priest in the ACNA, this raises several red flags and a pressing question: “What is my confession?”
What is my Confession?
Traditionally, confessionalism—in the narrower, Protestant sense—is known as an exacting adherence to a clear, if rigid, magisterium. Take confessional Lutherans (any member of the International Lutheran Council of Churches), for example, and they will detail to you their confessional identity. This identity was hard-fought, both in defense against the covert influence of Calvinists infiltrating their seminaries in the sixteenth century and against official persecution under the Prussian King in the nineteenth century. If you have ever picked up a Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions) you will immediately note that it is exponentially longer than the Anglican Formularies. Every jot and tittle of Lutheran belief is spelled out, with the Augsburg Confession as the centerpiece and crown jewel. There is no spectrum, just the clarity of confessional Lutheran beliefs (and hundreds of pages on justification by faith alone).
The Anglican Formularies have the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as their centerpiece. Whereas Concordia is exacting, the Articles are known for providing breadth. Indeed, this is one of the reasons they have not traditionally been referred to as a confession. How can you have a breadth of interpretative views concerning a confession of faith? Or more clearly stated: is it just a matter of interpretive opinion whether Christ has two natures or one nature? Is it alright to claim, “I interpret the confession of faith in the Nicene Creed one way, but someone else might interpret it another way?”
Following Abuja, the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, which had previously been regarded as a standard or basis of fellowship, has now become the confession of faith for the Global Anglican Communion; but can it carry that weight? Within the Jerusalem Declaration there are a number of articles that might give various readers pause, but only one in particular is noteworthy for this discussion and my own concerns regarding confessionalism (for further reflections on the Jerusalem Declaration, I recommend the Global Anglican Commentary). Article 4 of the Declaration states: “We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.”3 Thus, Article 4 highlights three primary aspects about the Thirty-Nine Articles:
Contain True Doctrine
Agree with God’s Word
Authoritative
Within the world of Protestant confessionalism, there are two ways to understand subscription to a confession: There is a quia-subscription, which affirms that the individual holds to the confessional standards because (quia) the confession agrees with God’s Word rather than “in so far as” (quatenus) the confession agrees with God’s Word (which is known as a quatenus-subscription and which, as everyone knows, is not actually a confession in the typical sense of the term). The language of the Jerusalem Declaration—if nothing else—seems to assume that the type of “confession” or adherence to the Thirty-Nine Articles is now a quia-subscription. Which begs the question: can we hold to differing interpretations of the Thirty-Nine Articles? This is a pressing question because within Anglican circles there are a myriad of Articles without univocal consensus of interpretation (most acutely surrounding Eucharistic piety and practice). If the Thirty-Nine Articles are now “the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word,” then we must know the answer to this question. It seems that by making the Jerusalem Declaration into a confessional statement, Abuja has made the Thirty-Nine Articles into a confessional statement, functioning in the same strict fashion as the Westminster Standards do for Presbyterians or the Formula of Concord does for confessional Lutherans.
It ought to be noted that the word “contain” does a lot of work within JD Article 4. If—taking the most liberal reading of this word—it is granted that not all of the Articles are the true doctrine of the church agreeing with God’s word, but only some of them are; then how do we know which ones we need to confess together? Considering the brevity of the rest of the Jerusalem Declaration, this question is actually quite pressing if it is to serve as a confession of faith. The problem is, we have been given no way to know which ones contain the true doctrine of the church.
To demonstrate this dilemma, let us consider three examples from three different portions of the Articles. Even within the narrow ideological spectrum of the signers of Abuja, the authoritative nature of the Articles is far from settled:
One might uncontroversially assume that early articles which basically summarize the creed contain the true doctrine of the church agreeing with God’s Word and are authoritative for Anglicans today; however, as discussed in Anglican Trajectories REACH-SA (a signer of Abuja) rejects the phrasing and thereby the normative and traditional interpretation of Article III concerning the descent of Christ into Hell on Holy Saturday. So, does that mean that Article III does not agree with God’s word…
It almost goes without saying that the normative Anglican in the ACNA (another signer of Abuja) does not think the section on Eucharistic Theology fully contains the true doctrine of the church. For example, while a normative read of Article XXVIII proscribes the reservation of the Sacrament, that practice is now so common that it is actually presumed and commended in the Book of Common Prayer (2019).4 Does this mean the rest of the Sacramental theology of the Articles is not the true doctrine of the church...
As a final example, one of the most quoted articles, Article XX, ought to at least be authoritative especially when it states: “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” And yet, as noted in Anglicans and the Abuja Contradiction, those who now “confess” the Jerusalem Declaration have allowed signers to join which explicitly ordain that which is contrary to God’s Word written in the ordination of women; a practice which only comes about by expounding one place of Scripture so that it is repugnant to the rest of it. Does that mean Article XX is no longer authoritative for Anglicans today…
It seems that—at least in GAFCON—the jury is still out after 450 years about where in the Articles the true doctrine of the church resides.
But let’s assume for a moment that—regardless of the wording of the Jerusalem Declaration––the traditional Anglican consensus of allowing for multiple views on the Articles remains in place, what about the rest of the Jerusalem Declaration: can we hold to differing interpretations of it? In other words, can we just get along? Or, must we confess in solidarity?
Walking Together [apart] in Good [bad] Disagreement
The Abuja Affirmation explicitly states that it is a “lie” to “walk together despite deep disagreement with those who have abandoned biblical teaching.” Or, in essence, we must confess in solidarity. And yet, this brings me to the unholy contradiction at the root of Abuja’s fellowship which I discussed in Anglicans and the Abuja Contradiction. By triumphantly heralding a new day of confessional identity, the Bishops gathered at Abuja have decided that primary matters of faith, order, and theological anthropology—the ordination of women and their teaching authority in the church—can be held in good disagreement and it is only on matters of human sexuality where communion amidst difference can not be maintained.
The Jerusalem Declaration states that “the Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.” [Jerusalem Declaration, Art. 2] But the general secretary of the newly formed Global Anglican Council states that the ordination of women (or lack thereof) is “a secondary issue”[5] that Anglicans can agree to disagree on. GAFCON claims that it has reordered the Global Anglican Communion around a confessional identity, and yet on the second article of its confession—the plain and canonical authority of Scripture—it refuses to hold the line.6
As the keeper and witness of Holy Writ, the Church has the obligation and responsibility to do theological triage, and there are methods to do so (for example, see On God Given Diversity and Freedom in Secondary Matters7), but that work has simply not been done. Instead, GAFCON and the signers of Abuja have simply agreed to walk together in good disagreement over a primary question on scriptural teaching—there is, it would seem, no need to confess the faith in solidarity with each other. Therefore, the question still goes unanswered: How can we bless (ordain) what God forbids? Or, in the language of the Articles: is it now licit for the church to ordain that which is contrary to God’s Word written? (cf. Art. XX). Until this is answered, we are seemingly confessionalists without a meaningful confession.
The Catholic Religion
Joseph Ratzinger, before he was Pope, once said: “A strong Catholic potency has always remained within Anglicanism; [But] Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society, but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth.”8 In essence, Ratzinger implies that being a catholic is more than just subscribing to a catholic mindset in a pluralistic church, it means being the catholic church. Historically, down through the English Reformers, Anglicanism has always claimed to participate in the fullness of the catholic church; we truly belong to “the Catholic Church to which [Jesus] promised the fullness of truth.”
Indeed, as Kyle Clark advocates, the fruition of the Anglican establishment and their attending Articles of Religion following the long century of reformation was not one of confessional particularity, but rather of catholic continuity.9 Within the Anglican tradition, what has been maintained through the centuries is the catholic religion, purged of medieval excess and honed through its own internal process of rejecting heretical practices (such as the aberrant Eucharistic piety of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer). This tradition has breadth—the same breadth as the catholic faith. This breadth is not to be confused with anything-goes(ism) or “generous orthodoxy” but is rather grounded on the clear and consistent scriptural witness and the unambiguous teaching of Holy Mother Church, who is the “witness and keeper of Holy Writ” (Art. XX).
The English Reformation took over one hundred years to settle. A definitive consensus did not arise until after the tumult of civil war and regicide; let us pray nothing as serious occurs in our century. We are in a new Anglican Reformation, and Abuja is an important marker in that new century. The question during the first Anglican Reformation was whether we would keep the Catholic faith unstained by the abuse or its reform. That same question remains just as pertinent today. And the answer for faithful Anglicans must lie in a rejection of Abuja’s affirmations and a return to the faith and tradition we have received within the Anglican tradition: the Catholic Religion.
Note the practice of reservation in the Maundy Thursday/Good Friday liturgies, the Communion of the Sick, and the rubrics for a so-called “Deacon’s Mass.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 145