“The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look” article series now on Heritage Anglicans

http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-new-acna-catechism-closer-look.html

“The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look” article series now on Heritage Anglicans 

I have gathered all the articles I have written to date in “The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look” series and posted them on the main page of the Heritage Anglicans web journal with two earlier related articles. I use a different template for Heritage Anglicans. Some Anglicans Ablaze readers may find the black print on a white background easier to read. I plan to post all additional articles in the series on Heritage Anglicans

Articles now on Heritage Anglicans :

What does the new ACNA catechism teach about Christian ministry?
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 6)
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 5)
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 4)
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 3)
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 2)
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 1) What does the new ACNA catechism mean for Anglicans in North America? outside of North America?
What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the Holy Spirit?
How Reliable Is the New ACNA Catechism?
Does the New ACNA Catechism Teach a Synergistic Arminian View of God and Salvation?
The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look
Tada! New ACNA Catechism Finally Online
An Ancient Future Catechumenate in the Anglican Church in North America?
The Office for Making a Catechumen

Revd' Adam Young Gives It Another Go & Effort: ACNA Catechism (Pt. 2)

by Mr. (Revd') Adam Young

The ACNA Catechism: Part Two

In my previous post I looked at the new ACNA Catechism which has been released for commenting upon before a final version is reached.  I considered  the fact that in many ways it is a truly great Christian resource ,yet in two significant areas is not 'Anglican.'  These are that it takes an Arminian view of election which is clearly contra the Articles, and it calls things other than the Lord's Supper and Baptism 'Sacraments.'  

"As Anglicans we believe that there are only two Sacraments, whilst other things may often called such they are not and it is unhelpful and confusing to call them Sacraments."

When writing that post I uummd and aaahd over whether or not to include a section on the Homilies - after all I had previously pointed out that they give the most authoritative account of the theology and interpretation of the 39 Articles and BCP etc.  In the end, for the sake of brevity (at the best of times I am not well known in either writing or preaching to understand the concept of brevity!), I decided not to include reflection on the Homilies.  Having spoken to some people though I do feel comment needs to be made for, whilst I think they completely support what I said, they are in themselves a very important resource on the matter.  The Homily in question is the "Homily That Common Prayer and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue"  from the Second Book of Homilies.   There is one section which deals with meaning and number of Sacraments.  For the sake of simplicity, I will copy out this section below. 

For the rest, see:

http://1nc-again.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-acna-catechism-part-two.html

Mr. (Rev. Dr.) Joel Scrandrett on New ACNA Catechism

B.B. Warfield: Pelagianism & Augustinianism

Augustine & The Pelagian Controversy

by B. B. Warfield

 
Table of Contents
Part I: The Origin & Nature of Pelgagianism
Part II; The External History of the Pelagian Controversy
Part III: Augustine's Part in The Controversy
Part IV: The Theology of Grace
 
Part I: The Origin & Nature of Pelgagianism
It was inevitable that the energy of the Church in intellectually realizing and defining its doctrines in relation to one another, should first be directed towards the objective side of Christian truth. The chief controversies of the first four centuries and the resulting definitions of doctrine, concerned the nature of God and the person of Christ; and it was not until these theological and Christological questions were well upon their way to final settlement, that the Church could turn its attention to the more subjective side of truth. Meanwhile she bore in her bosom a full recognition, side by side, of the freedom of the will, the evil consequences of the fall, and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Individual writers, or even the several sections of the Church, might exhibit a tendency to throw emphasis on one or another of the elements that made up this deposit of faith that was the common inheritance of all. The East, for instance, laid especial stress on free will: and the West dwelt more pointedly on the ruin of the human race and the absolute need of God's grace for salvation. But neither did the Eastern theologians forget the universal sinfulness and need of redemption, or the necessity, for the realization of that redemption, of God's gracious influences; nor did those of the West deny the self-determination or accountability of men. All the elements of the composite doctrine of man were everywhere confessed; but they were variously emphasized, according to the temper of the writers or the controversial demands of the times. Such a state of affairs, however, was an invitation to heresy, and a prophecy of controversy; just as the simultaneous confession of the unity of God and the Deity of Christ, or of the Deity and the humanity of Christ, inevitably carried in its train a series of heresies and controversies, until the definitions of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person of Christ were complete. In like manner, it was inevitable that sooner or later some one should arise who would so one-sidedly emphasize one element or the other of the Church's teaching as to salvation, as to throw himself into heresy, and drive the Church, through controversy with him, into a precise definition of the doctrines of free will and grace in their mutual relations.


This new heresiarch came, at the opening of the fifth century, in the person of the British monk, Pelagius. The novelty of the doctrine which he taught is repeatedly asserted by Augustine,2 and is evident to the historian; but it consisted not in the emphasis that he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace. This was not only new in Christianity; it was even anti-Christian. Jerome, as well as Augustine, saw this at the time, and speaks of Pelagianism as the 'heresy of Pythagoras and Zeno';3 and modern writers of the various schools have more or less fully recognized it. Thus Dean Milman thinks that 'the greater part' of Pelagius' letter to Demetrias 'might have been written by an ancient academic';4 and Bishop Hefele openly declares that their fundamental doctrine, 'that man is virtuous entirely of his own merit, not of the gift of grace,' seems to him 'to be a rehabilitation of the general heathen view of the world,' and compares with it Cicero's words:5 'For gold, lands, and all the blessings of life, we have to return thanks to the Gods; but no one ever returned thanks to God for virtue.'6 The struggle with Pelagianism was thus in reality a struggle for the very foundations of Christianity; and even more dangerously than in the previous theological and Christological controversies, here the practical substance of Christianity was in jeopardy. The real question at issue was whether there was any need for Christianity at all; whether by his own power man might not attain eternal felicity; whether the function of Christianity was to save, or only to render an eternity of happiness more easily attainable by man.7


Genetically speaking, Pelagianism was the daughter of legalism; but when it itself conceived, it brought forth an essential deism. It is not without significance that its originators were 'a certain sort of monks;' that is, laymen of ascetic life. From this point of view the Divine law is looked upon as a collection of separate commandments, moral perfection as a simple complex of separate virtues, and a distinct value as a meritorious demand on Divine approbation is ascribed to each good work or attainment in the exercises of piety. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man's powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity — nay, that he could even assert it to be possible for a man to do more than was required of him. But this involved an essentially deistic conception of man's relations to his Maker. God had endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action, and it was for him to use it. Man was thus a machine, which, just because it was well made, needed no Divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.


At this point we have touched the central and formative principle of Pelagianism. It lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of man; his ability to do all that righteousness can demand — to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection. This is the core of the whole theory; and all the other postulates not only depend upon it, but arise out of it. Both chronologically and logically this is the root of the system.


When we first hear of Pelagius, he is already advanced in years, living in Rome in the odour of sanctity,8 and enjoying a well-deserved reputation for zeal in exhorting others to a good life, which grew especially warm against those who endeavoured to shelter themselves, when charged with their sins, behind the weakness of nature.9 He was outraged by the universal excuses on such occasions — 'It is hard!' 'it is difficult!' 'we are not able!' 'we are men!' — 'Oh, blind madness!' he cried: 'we accuse God of a twofold ignorance — that He does not seem to know what He has made, nor what He has commanded — as if forgetting the human weakness of which He is Himself the Author, He has imposed laws on man which He cannot endure.'10 He himself tells us11 to that it was his custom, therefore, whenever he had to speak on moral improvement and the conduct of a holy life, to begin by pointing out the power and quality of human nature, and by showing what it was capable of doing. For (he says) he esteemed it of small use to exhort men to what they deemed impossible: hope must rather be our companion, and all longing and effort die when we despair of attaining. So exceedingly ardent an advocate was he of man's unaided ability to do all that God commanded, that when Augustine's noble and entirely scriptural prayer — 'Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt' — was repeated in his hearing, he was unable to endure it; and somewhat inconsistently contradicted it with such violence as almost to become involved in a strife.12 The powers of man, he held, were gifts of God; and it was, therefore, a reproach against Him as if He had made man ill or evil, to believe that they were insufficient for the keeping of His law. Nay, do what we will, we cannot rid ourselves of their sufficiency: 'whether we will, or whether we will not, we have the capacity of not sinning.'13 'I say,' he says, 'that man is able to be without sin, and that he is able to keep the commandments of God;' and this sufficiently direct statement of human ability is in reality the hinge of his whole system.


There were three specially important corollaries which flowed from this assertion of human ability, and Augustine himself recognized these as the chief elements of the system.14 It would be inexplicable on such an assumption, if no man had ever used his ability in keeping God's law; and Pelagius consistently asserted not only that all might be sinless if they chose, but also that many saints, even before Christ, had actually lived free from sin. Again, it follows from man's inalienable ability to be free from sin, that each man comes into the world without entailment of sin or moral weakness from the past acts of men; and Pelagius consistently denied the whole doctrine of original sin. And still again, it follows from the same assumption of ability that man has no need of supernatural assistance in his striving to obey righteousness; and Pelagius consistently denied both the need and reality of divine grace in the sense of an inward help (and especially of a prevenient help) to man's weakness.


It was upon this last point that the greatest stress was laid in the controversy, and Augustine was most of all disturbed that thus God's grace was denied and opposed. No doubt the Pelagians spoke constantly of 'grace,' but they meant by this the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ's holy example.15 Anything further than this external help they utterly denied; and they denied that this external help itself was absolutely necessary, affirming that it only rendered it easier for man to do what otherwise he had plenary ability for doing. Chronologically, this contention seems to have preceded the assertion which must logically lie at its base, of the freedom of man from any taint, corruption, or weakness due to sin. It was in order that they might deny that man needed help, that they denied that Adam's sin had any further effect on his posterity than might arise from his bad example. 'Before the action of his own proper will,' said Pelagius plainly, 'that only is in man which God made.'16 'As we are procreated without virtue,' he said, 'so also without vice.'17 In a word, 'Nothing that is good and evil, on account of which we are either praiseworthy or blameworthy, is born with us — it is rather done by us; for we are born with capacity for either, but provided with neither.'18 So his later follower, Julian, plainly asserts his 'faith that God creates men obnoxious to no sin, but full of natural innocence, and with capacity for voluntary virtues.'19 So intrenched is free will in nature, that, according to Julian, it is 'just as complete after sins as it was before sins;'20 and what this means may be gathered from Pelagius' definition in the 'Confession of Faith,' that he sent to Innocent: 'We say that man is always able both to sin and not to sin, so as that we may confess that we have free will.' That sin in such circumstances was so common as to be well-nigh universal, was accounted for by the bad example of Adam and the power of habit, the latter being simply the result of imitation of the former. 'Nothing makes well-doing so hard,' writes Pelagius to Demetrias, 'as the long custom of sins which begins from childhood and gradually brings us more and more under its power until it seems to have in some degree the force of nature (vim naturae).' He is even ready to allow for the force of habit in a broad way, on the world at large; and so divides all history into progressive periods, marked by God's (external) grace. At first the light of nature was so strong that men by it alone could live in holiness. And it was only when men's manners became corrupt and tarnished nature began to be insufficient for holy living, that by God's grace the Law was given as an addition to mere nature; and by it 'the original lustre was restored to nature after its blush had been impaired.' And so again, after the habit of sinning once more prevailed among men, and 'the law became unequal to the task of curing it,'21 Christ was given, furnishing men with forgiveness of sins, exhortations to imitation of the example and the holy example itself.22 But though thus a progressive deterioration was confessed, and such a deterioration as rendered desirable at least two supernatural interpositions (in the giving of the law and the coming of Christ), yet no corruption of nature, even by growing habit, is really allowed. It was only an ever-increasing facility in imitating vice which arose from so long a schooling in evil; and all that was needed to rescue men from it was a new explanation of what was right (in the law), or, at the most, the encouragement of forgiveness for what was already done, and a holy example (in Christ) for imitation. Pelagius still asserted our continuous possession of 'a free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning;' and Julian, that 'our free will is just as full after sins as it was before sins;' although Augustine does not fail to twit him with a charge of inconsistency.23


The peculiar individualism of the Pelagian view of the world comes out strongly in their failure to perceive the effect of habit on nature itself. Just as they conceived of virtue as a complex of virtuous acts, so they conceived of sin exclusively as an act, or series of disconnected acts. They appear not to have risen above the essentially heathen view which had no notion of holiness apart from a series of acts of holiness, or of sin apart from a like series of sinful acts.24 Thus the will was isolated from its acts, and the acts from each other, and all organic connection or continuity of life was not only overlooked but denied.25 After each act of the will, man stood exactly where he did before: indeed, this conception scarcely allows for the existence of a 'man' — only a willing machine is left, at each click of the action of which the spring regains its original position, and is equally ready as before to reperform its function. In such a conception there was no place for character: freedom of will was all. Thus it was not an unnatural mistake which they made, when they forgot the man altogether, and attributed to the faculty of free will, under the name of 'possibilitas' or 'posse,' the ability that belonged rather to the man whose faculty it is, and who is properly responsible for the use he makes of it. Here lies the essential error of their doctrine of free will: they looked upon freedom in its form only, and not in its matter; and, keeping man in perpetual and hopeless equilibrium between good and evil, they permitted no growth of character and no advantage to himself to be gained by man in his successive choices of good. It need not surprise us that the type of thought which thus dissolved the organism of the man into a congeries of disconnected voluntary acts, failed to comprehend the solidarity of the race. To the Pelagian, Adam was a man, nothing more; and it was simply unthinkable that any act of his that left his own subsequent acts uncommitted, could entail sin and guilt upon other men. The same alembic that dissolved the individual into a succession of voluntary acts, could not fail to separate the race into a heap of unconnected units. If sin, as Julian declared, is nothing but will, and the will itself remained intact after each act, how could the individual act of an individual will condition the acts of men as yet unborn? By 'imitation' of his act alone could (under such a conception) other men be affected. And this carried with it the corresponding view of man's relation to Christ. He could forgive us the sins we had committed; He could teach us the true way; He could set us a holy example; and He could exhort us to its imitation. But He could not touch us to enable us to will the good, without destroying the absolute equilibrium of the will between good and evil; and to destroy this was to destroy its freedom, which was the crowning good of our divinely created nature. Surely the Pelagians forgot that man was not made for will, but will for man.
In defending their theory, as we are told by Augustine, there were five claims that they especially made for it.26 It allowed them to praise as was their due, the creature that God had made, the marriage that He had instituted, the law that He had given, the free will which was His greatest endowment to man, and the saints who had followed His counsels. By this they meant that they proclaimed the sinless perfection of human nature in every man as he was brought into the world, and opposed this to the doctrine of original sin; the purity and holiness of marriage and the sexual appetites, and opposed this to the doctrine of the transmission of sin; the ability of the law, as well as and apart from the gospel, to bring men into eternal life, and opposed this to the necessity of inner grace; the integrity of free will to choose the good, and opposed this to the necessity of divine aid; and the perfection of the lives of the saints, and opposed this to the doctrine of universal sinfulness. Other questions, concerning the origin of souls, the necessity of baptism for infants, the original immortality of Adam, lay more on the skirts of the controversy, and were rather consequences of their teaching than parts of it. As it was an obvious fact that all men died, they could not admit that Adam's death was a consequence of sin lest they should be forced to confess that his sin had injured all men; they therefore asserted that physical death belonged to the very nature of man, and that Adam would have died even had he not sinned.27 So, as it was impossible to deny that the Church everywhere baptized infants, they could not refuse them baptism without confessing themselves innovators in doctrine; and therefore they contended that infants were not baptized for forgiveness of sins, but in order to attain a higher state of salvation. Finally, they conceived that if it was admitted that souls were directly created by God for each birth, it could not be asserted that they came into the world soiled by sin and under condemnation; and therefore they loudly championed this theory of the origin of souls.


The teachings of the Pelagians, it will be readily seen, easily welded themselves into a system, the essential and formative elements of which were entirely new in the Christian Church; and this startlingly new reading of man's condition, powers, and dependence for salvation, it was, that broke like a thunderbolt upon the Western Church at the opening of the fifth century, and forced her to reconsider, from the foundations, her whole teaching as to man and his salvation.


For the rest, see:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/augpel.html

ACNA Catechism (Pt. 5): Arminian Soteriology/TFO-Sacramentology

Robin Jordan


What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 5)

By Robin G. Jordan

In this examination of questions 120 – 123 and the answers to these four questions in Part II of Being a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, we will be looking at what the new ACNA catechism teaches about absolution, and ordination.

120. What is absolution?

After repenting and confessing my sins to God in the presence of a priest, the priest declares God’s forgiveness to me with authority given by God. (John 20:22-23; James 5:15-16)

In the answer to question 120 we find a description of the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic practices of auricular confession and priestly absolution. See Fredrick Meyrick’s article, “Absolution,” in A Protestant Dictionary.

Also see “Chapter VII: The Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick,” (p. 101), “Chapter VIII: Auricular Confession,” (p. 115) and “Appendix – Bishop Wilberforce and Dr. Pusey on Private Confession” (p. 215) in Dyson Hague’s The Protestantism of the Prayer Book and “The Voice of the Church of England on Auricular Confession” and Joseph Bardley’s “Confession and Forgiveness of Sins” in the Church Association Tracts (Vol. 1).

As we have seen in our examination of the four previous questions and answers in this section of the new ACNA catechism, the catechism takes the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic position that absolution is a sacrament. While the new ACNA catechism avoids the use of the term “penance,” which the Thirty-Nine Articles identify as “a corrupt following of the Apostles,” and endeavors to avoid other language that is associated with the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic teaching on penance, it is quite clear that the new ACNA catechism is referring to what Thirty-Nine Articles and the Catechism of the Catholic Church call “penance.”

In support of the answer to question 120 the new ACNA catechism cites John 20:22-23 and James 5: 15-16. Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics interpret John 20:22-23 as supporting their teaching on auricular confession and priestly confession. Anglicans have historically divided over the meaning of this passage. See Fredrick Meyrick’s article, “Absolution,” in A Protestant Dictionary.

In order to cite James 5: 15-16 in support of the practices of auricular confession and priestly aboution, one must ignore the plain meaning of the text, which encourages believers to confess their sins to one another and not to a priest.
Bishop Charles P. McIlvaine, a leading nineteenth century Evangelical in then Protestant Episcopal Church and author of Oxford divinity compared with that of the Romish and Anglican churches, pointed to the attention of a group of confirmands that, while the clergy of their church may have taught them to confess their sins to a priest, the same clergy should be confessing their own sins to the confirmands.

121. What grace does God give to you in absolution?

In absolution, God conveys to me his pardon through the cross, thus declaring to me reconciliation and peace with him, and bestowing upon me the assurance of his grace and salvation.

In the answer to question 121, the new ACNA describes the sacramental grace that it purports is conferred by priestly absolution. Compare this answer with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

I. What is This Sacrament Called?

1423 It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father from whom one has strayed by sin.

It is called the sacrament of Penance, since it consecrates the Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion, penance, and satisfaction.

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."

It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God." He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."

For the rest, see:
 http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-does-new-acna-catechism-teach_25.html
 

The New ACNA Catechism – A Closer Look (Part 1)

By Robin G. Jordan

In the Introduction to To Be a Christian: An AnglicanCatechism J. I. Packer refers to three guidelines that he maintains the writing team followed in drafting the document. These guidelines are:

1. Everything taught should be compatible with, and acceptable to, all recognized schools of Anglican thought, so that all may be able confidently to use all the material.

2. Everything taught should be expressed as briefly as possible, in terms that are clear and correspond to today’s use of language. There should be as little repetition as possible, though some overlap is inevitable. 

3. All the answers and questions should be as easy to explain and to remember as possible.

But as we shall see, everything taught in the catechism is not compatible with and acceptable to all recognized schools of Anglican thought. Indeed the catechism favors the doctrinal views of one particular school of Anglican thought over the views of the other schools of thought. Everything taught in the catechism is not explained in clear terms. At times the use of language is awkward and clumsy. All the answers and questions are not easy to explain and remember. The catechism also suffers from a number of other defects.

The version of the catechism that we will be examining is the extended version, which includes, in addition to the Introduction, the Letter of Commendation of the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, and Parts I-IV of the catechism, five appendices. Among these appendices are Toward an Anglican Catechumenate: Guiding Principles for Catechesis Task Force, Anglican Church in North America, June 2010 and Vision Paper for Catechesis in the Anglican Church in North America.

We will be looking at key sections of this document. They exemplify the particular weaknesses of the catechism and show that all recognized schools of Anglican thought are not able to use all the material in the catechism with confidence.

In the ACNA College of Bishops’ Letter of Commendation a reference is made to the Articles of Religion of 1563 as “the doctrinal norm for Anglicans around the world.” However, historic Anglicanism’ s confession of faith is the Articles of Religion of the 1571, not the Articles of Religion of 1563. Under Archbishop Matthew Parker, during the reign of Elizabeth I, Thomas Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles were revised. These revised Articles were submitted to Convocation, which reduced them to thirty-nine. Only thirty-eight were published in 1563: one was apparently omitted by the Queen herself.  Between 1563 and 1571 the Articles would be revised again. They would be strengthened in a Protestant direction.

For the rest, see:

http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-new-acna-catechism-closer-look-part.html

ACNA: Posting for the Record: "Anti-Reformation Catechism"

Posted for the record lest the article be deleted or adjusted.  

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18192#.Um7WtYzD9jo

NAIROBI: ACNA Gets New Catechism
By Michael Heidt
VOL Special Correspondentwww.virtueonline.org
October 26, 2013

After 5 years of deliberation, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is on the verge of getting a catechism geared towards bringing non-believers to traditional Christian faith.

The new catechism, which is in draft form, is divided into three sections; on the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments. Following a question and answer format, the catechism is primarily addressed towards adults, or "pagans coming into the church," as Fr. Lee Nelson, a member of the Catechism Task Force (CTF), told Virtueonline (VOL). The framers of the catechism have focused on Christian formation and discipleship.

"We want it to be very useful to a catechist," said Fr. Lee Nelson, "This catechism is far more ordered towards discipleship than previous catechisms. It's focused on building an understanding of what Christian life would look like."

Accordingly, the new catechism addresses 21st century concerns, such as abortion, euthanasia and modern materialism. It also makes pains to define religious terms that can no longer be taken for granted, in readily accessible language.

With that in mind, Fr. Lee Nelson stressed that the Catechism Task Force did not want the new catechism to be a dumbed down version of Christianity. "We don't want it to be a lowest common denominator, but to spell out the fullness of the Faith," stated Nelson, who added that an annotated catechism is being produced which will reference the Church Fathers as well as Anglican Divines.

When asked by VOL if the proposed catechism is a "catholic document," Nelson replied that it was and felt that it represented a coming together of Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic teaching. "We are witnessing a vast amount of convergence. For example, I talked to an ACNA bishop who identifies himself as an Evangelical. For him, the Eucharist was central."

As a reflection of this perceived convergence between different schools of traditional Anglicanism, evangelical and catholic, Nelson thought the new catechism "intentionally avoided Rerformation era arguments." However, this isn't at the expense of doctrine, claimed Nelson. "The weakness of previous versions (of the catechism) was a neglect of doctrinal content. We worked hard to shore that up."

The end result, said Nelson, was "classical Anglicanism for 21st Century pagans, focused not only on information but formation, teaching a Christian way of life."

The draft catechism has gone to ACNA's College of Bishops for approval when they meet in January, 2014.

END

New ACNA Catechism: "Intentionally Avoiding the Reformation" (Dumbing-It-Down)

NAIROBI: ACNA Gets New CatechismBy Michael Heidt
VOL Special Correspondentwww.virtueonline.org
October 26, 2013

After 5 years of deliberation, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is on the verge of getting a catechism geared towards bringing non-believers to traditional Christian faith.

The new catechism, which is in draft form, is divided into three sections; on the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments. Following a question and answer format, the catechism is primarily addressed towards adults, or "pagans coming into the church," as Fr. Lee Nelson, a member of the Catechism Task Force (CTF), told Virtueonline (VOL). The framers of the catechism have focused on Christian formation and discipleship.

"We want it to be very useful to a catechist," said Fr. Lee Nelson, "This catechism is far more ordered towards discipleship than previous catechisms. It's focused on building an understanding of what Christian life would look like."

Accordingly, the new catechism addresses 21st century concerns, such as abortion, euthanasia and modern materialism. It also makes pains to define religious terms that can no longer be taken for granted, in readily accessible language.

With that in mind, Fr. Lee Nelson stressed that the Catechism Task Force did not want the new catechism to be a dumbed down version of Christianity. "We don't want it to be a lowest common denominator, but to spell out the fullness of the Faith," stated Nelson, who added that an annotated catechism is being produced which will reference the Church Fathers as well as Anglican Divines.

When asked by VOL if the proposed catechism is a "catholic document," Nelson replied that it was and felt that it represented a coming together of Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic teaching. "We are witnessing a vast amount of convergence. For example, I talked to an ACNA bishop who identifies himself as an Evangelical. For him, the Eucharist was central."

As a reflection of this perceived convergence between different schools of traditional Anglicanism, evangelical and catholic, Nelson thought the new catechism "intentionally avoided Reformation era arguments." However, this isn't at the expense of doctrine, claimed Nelson. "The weakness of previous versions (of the catechism) was a neglect of doctrinal content. We worked hard to shore that up."

The end result, said Nelson, was "classical Anglicanism for 21st Century pagans, focused not only on information but formation, teaching a Christian way of life."

The draft catechism has gone to ACNA's College of Bishops for approval when they meet in January, 2014.

END