The Rt. Rev. David J. Bena, District of Virginia, from the Convocation of North American Anglicans (CANA), wrote an article for “Why Anglicanism?
He oddly refers us to Wikipedia as a source…a catchy joke of sorts?
He speaks of the love-hate relationship between Rome and Ecclesia Anglicana, the Church of England. OK, that has a long history. For example, the Celtic Church finally acquiesced to Rome at the Synod of Whitby in the 7th century.
Then, the chasm with Rome in the English Reformation is noted. Today, we are told about 38 autonomous Anglican communions exist worldwide.
Bishop Bena claims these Anglican distinctives and we quote:
1. The Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and as the final authority.
2. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, locally adapted.
This document is as close to a “Confession” as we get and it’s found in the Prayer Book.
3. The historic creeds. You say the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed regularly. The third, the Athanasian Creed, is not as well known.
4. Common worship. We all use a Book of Common Prayer styled from the 1662 English Book of Common Prayer, with some adaptations.
5. Sacramental Life. We practice use of the two Gospel Sacraments—Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, as well as five sacramental acts—Healing, Confession, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders (Ordination).
6. The Apostolic Succession, whereby all our deacons, priests, and bishops are in the Apostolic line dating back from the original Apostles.”
The Bishop concludes tendentiously and errantly, if not a tad sophomorically:
“Those similarities are what hold Anglicans together, and that’s why we are in such an Anglican uproar today. Some Anglican Churches want to move away from those historic moorings and still claim to be Anglican. That’s a problem, folks. `We either is or we ain’t.’”
There are very elemental truths here, but a few observations are in order. We must correct the Bishop and his readers:
1. #2 above re: the 39 Articles, “locally adapted?” This begs for an explanation. For example, “Yes, we don’t yield to Article 37 and the King’s rule in the land.” Of course, we’ve locally adapted the Articles and the Prayer Book for a few centuries.
2 There is a sad, dismissive, and incompetent tone in #2 above re: Confessional Churchmanship. It is most unhelpful, unfortunate, and is potentially misleading. This tone allows for wiggle room for Anglo-catholic and gibberizing (charismatic) “innovations.” Anglicanism’s failure has been its century-long refusal to be “Confessional” and “subscriptionistic. ”
Subscriptionism fell on hard times in the 19th century Church of England. The Americans have always been worse. American Anglicans have been dysfunctional on this point. Furthermore, while you talk about the Articles, Bishop, you know they are not functional. ACNA and AMiA talk only. Bp. Bena is blowing smoke here.
Subscriptionism fell on hard times in the 19th century Church of England. The Americans have always been worse. American Anglicans have been dysfunctional on this point. Furthermore, while you talk about the Articles, Bishop, you know they are not functional. ACNA and AMiA talk only. Bp. Bena is blowing smoke here.
3. #4 above is regrettable, at best. It is false. No one in America, despite your claim, Bishop Bena, or ACNA for that matter, uses the 1662 Book of Common Prayer or an updated version. Most use the oddballish and apostate 1979 BCP with its Pelagian, atavistic, and erroneous catechism. Sell the sandbags to others, but not this Marine. The 1979 BCP was crafted by liberals and retained in Bishop Bena’s new Anglican Church in America. Cranmer nor the English Reformers would ever have accepted the catechism in the 1979 BCP. It’s just that aweful.
4. #5 above is flat wrong. Historic Anglicanism disregards healing, confession, confirmation, matrimony and holy orders as sacraments. There are two sacraments in the 39 Articles. Mr. Bena gratuitously introduces new sacraments where they’ve been previously denied for centuries.
5. Apostolic succession, as presented by Mr. Bena, is an Anglo-Catholic orientation of late vintage. Bena doesn’t tell his readers that, but it’s true. His view is not that of the English Reformers. Lutheran, Reformed and other Churchmen, seeking admission to Anglican orders, were not “re-ordained” when received into the Church of England. Archbishop Duncan requires that, however.
The bishop then asks, “Asleep yet? Wake up.” Thank you, Sir. Glad the Bishop said that because he was putting me to sleep with the few errors that were noted. But, we appreciate the Bishop’s effort at humour. It helps. We like that.
Bishop Bena puts forward a few chatty quips that are helpful (but should be extended as we’ll suggest). The Bishops says and we quote:
“If you view Holy Scripture as just an old history book `which we wrote and we can change,’ you have left Anglicanism.”
“If you say something to the effect that Anglicanism rests on a three-legged stool with legs of equal authority—Scripture, tradition, reason—you have left Anglicanism after misinterpreting Richard Hooker, who put Scripture first and interpreted tradition and reason in light of Scripture.”
“If you say something to the effect that Jesus was a good guy but not the way to salvation, you have left Anglicanism because you have denied the historic creeds.”
These are nice, quippy and effective, but not helpful. However, the Bishop, if consistent, should have added these to his list:
If you are not a subscriptionist, you’ve left classical Anglicanism.
If you are a charismatic with gibberashionism, tongues and wildcat enthusiasms, while using a Prayer Book, you’ve left Anglicanism (AMiA).
If you are a soteriological semi-Pelagian, Arminian, Wesleyan or Charismatic, you’ve left Anglicanism (ACNA, AMiA).
If you deny the covenant and infant baptism, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you believe in free will, you’ve left Anglicanism (ACNA, AMiA).
If justification by faith alone is not central and dominant, you’ve left Anglicanism, like Archbishop Robert Duncan. Robert never talks about JBFA, but, like Romanism, the “transformative love of Jesus.” (ACNA)
If you invoke saints during prayers, like Anglo-Catholics, you’ve left Anglicanism. The ACNA and AMiA leaders tolerate this while claiming to hold to the Articles and Prayer Book (ACNA, AMiA).
If you believe that Churchmen can prescribe liturgy consonant with and not repugnant to Sacred Writ, yet use Missals, saint invocations, and Capernaitic views of the Table, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you deny predestination and election, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you permit belief in purgatory, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you count confirmation, penance or confession, orders, matrimony and extreme unction as 5 other sacraments beyond the 2 of the NT, you’ve left Anglicanism (ANCA, Bp. Bena).
If you hold to Apostolic Succession in the Anglo-Catholic sense, you’ve left Anglicanism (Bp. Bena, ACNA).
If you do not regularly teach the Homilies, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you discount these matters while claiming to hold to the Thirty-nine Articles, you’ve left Anglicanism.
If you affirm Tract XC of John Newman as Bishop Iker has done, you’ve left Anglicanism (ACNA, Bp. Iker of Fort Worth).
The Bishop concludes most oddly:
“I didn’t know much about Anglicanism growing up. Ninety percent of my village was Roman Catholic and I was one of them. I did date an Episcopalian and she was fun to be with. It was before Vatican Two, so we were still using Latin in the Mass. Barbara told me that Episcopalians were just Catholics who flunked Latin. She tried to describe what went on in her church on Sunday morning, and by golly, it sounded a lot like what went on in my church, except in English rather than Latin. And then I got a new, Catholic girlfriend and didn’t think about it anymore.”
Odd, chummy, and irrelevant. A curious and nice start. But, Bishop Bena needs correction. With wisdom and reading, we correct him and his readers. Odd, but not surprising from American Bishops either...given their training.
No comments:
Post a Comment