It's next year already so soon?

In recent years I have not been writing much in the way of apologetics. I suppose that is because I consider the main battle to have been won years ago, that is, the battle against aggressive Roman Catholic missionaries who were posing as Anglicans to draw people away from the Continuing Church. Of course, their efforts were somewhat hindered by the fact that they were members of Continuing churches, and not Roman Catholics at all. To some degree they presented an interesting psychological study in the complexity of identity confusion. Nonetheless, after that time of strife I grew weary of apologetics and controversy. I prefer to write for the purpose of edification. In essence, I am a parish priest, a rector who lives to carry out pastoral care. So, I would rather write as what I really am: a Preacher.

The situation in which this blog was created, by Albion Land in 2005, was one of unhappy and even bitter division, mostly among bishops and clergy who paid more attention to jurisdictional distinctions than did most of the laity. The people of the Church have wanted something remarkably simple. They have wanted orthodox Anglican churches in which they can worship God, receive valid sacraments, hear sound preaching, and raise their children in the Faith. It did not help that some of the clergy failed where St. Paul had wisely succeeded: “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices (II Cor. 2:11).” Those early years of the Continuing churches remind me not only of the forty years in which Israel wandered in the wilderness, but also of the Book of Judges. Sometimes I find myself calling them the Wild West days of the Continuing Church. But they are over, and really have been over for more than seven years.

Yes, the “G-4” unity became official in 2017; but it was all really very much a reality beginning in 2011, right after the above mentioned non-Roman Catholic “Roman Catholic” Missionaries got out of the way, and took with them the confusion with which they had bullied and troubled the minds and consciences of faithful people. Once they were out of the way, a newer generation of Continuing Anglican bishops began to repair the breaches in unity, led by Archbishops who had themselves never created the division. They had inherited a divided church, and knew that their pastoral responsibility was to heal and correct that condition. This they have done. It is now a fact by the grace of God.

I imagine that some of the other jurisdictions, outside of the unity of the “G-4” bishops, will remain divided from this new unity. But, I pray that, in the long run, they will join with us as one united Continuing Church. In the case of the shrinking and dwindling Anglican Province of Christ the King, that will require new leadership. I would not want anyone to think that I fail to respect their archbishop’s office: But, when they have a new archbishop someday, I hope their exclusive “One True Church” attitude will vanish. Indeed, it is a matter of attitude, not doctrine. There are some good parishes, good priests and good people in that jurisdiction, and it is certainly orthodox in doctrine. But sheep without a shepherd cannot be led into unity. So, we wait and pray.

I appreciate the wisdom with which this unity is being restored. It is happening at a pace that does not cause confusion; that does not tear up existing dioceses and the relationship of bishops to parishes and clergy. But it is moving forward nonetheless. This may bring us to a time when some rearranging will take place, when dioceses in one united Continuing Church will exist over smaller geographical territory. In some ways that is a change I do not look forward to. I am comfortable and happy as things are in this diocese. But, I know that we are moving into the future, only in one direction as time travelers all. Because of the restored unity we move into that future as a church, not as lone individuals who have lost their way. Thanks be to God.

Copy and Paste

Readers of The Christian Challenge (and readers of this blog) got to read all about the fraud perpetrated from New York City. But, everyone else had only to read, reported as fact, the misinformation provided in the press releases from New York. The press releases had been copied and pasted as “News” from the beginning, all identical but for the by line. But, I am not a trained professional journalist, and I suppose that gave me the edge.

I am going to tell you a story, but this is not about the story; rather it is about what I learned about a lazy and irresponsible kind of journalism. In the year 2008 I was being prepared by the late Auburn Tracyk to take over editorial duties for a monthly publication that had lasted since the earliest days of the Continuing Anglican movement in the late 1970s, but was domed to fold as online publications were making this periodical a bit of a dinosaur. It was named The Christian Challenge. I did not enjoy the work, inasmuch as the religious news about the mainstream Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church took up most of my time, and my heart was not in it. What I really wanted, and eventually received, was a call to a parish as a priest (now in my tenth year at St. Benedict’s Anglican Catholic Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina where I am the rector).

Nonetheless, though having never been a professional journalist or reporter - or perhaps because I was not a trained “professional” in journalism – more than once in those days The Christian Challenge (and this blog) managed to scoop all the other religious news. In fact, I believe we published exclusives, but not because the news should have been exclusive. Indeed, it should have been reported everywhere, and certainly reported online much more quickly than we could get hard copy of The Christian Challenge to press. From that brief experience in the field of religious journalism, I learned about sloppy and misleading practice.

A Tale of Two Dioceses

The kind of news we were reporting was varied because the world of Anglicanism, then as now, was full of daily events that concerned many important issues of church order, of theology and doctrine, and of morality. Much of it was wholly unedifying, and just about all of it was carried on in the context of spiritual warfare and unrest. To earnest believers the matter involved eternal verities and the salvation of souls, and the turmoil was rightly about the most important things. Specialized as Anglican religious news might be, the very importance of such issues called for no less of an energetic and diligent reporting effort than any other kind of journalism.

So we came to a time when the Episcopal Church in the United States was losing whole dioceses as 2008 was drawing to a close, with some Diocesan Bishops and the vote of their Diocesan Conventions, realigning at that time within the official Anglican Communion as part of the Province of the Southern Cone (South America) under Archbishop Gregory Venables. One of those dioceses was the Diocese of San Joaquin in California. Under the leadership of their bishop near the end of that year, the late John David Schofield, the Diocese formally voted, legally and properly, to realign with the Southern Cone.

At that time in the history of the Episcopal Church, the properties were considered to have been legally owned by each local diocese (a rule explicitly rejected in the constitution of the Continuing churches), and for the first time ever it was something that could work in favor of the relatively more traditional and conservative (doctrinally speaking) ex-members of the Episcopal Church. But, at denominational headquarters in New York City, then Presiding “Bishop” Katherine Jefferts-Schori tried to interfere with the decision of the Diocese of San Joaquin, even though it had been carried out by due process, and with precedent dating back to the 1860s. Even though the diocese was still in the official Anglican Communion, she presumed to pronounce them as having been unfaithful “to this church.” The office in New York then proceeded to announce that they, in the office of the Presiding “Bishop,” had created a diocese made up of the churches that wanted to remain in the Episcopal Church, appointing a bishop named Jerry Lamm (imagine that, a Lamm in Sheep’s Clothing).

On the Episcopal Church’s official website they claimed to have retained more than twenty of the local churches. I saw, within hours, that several of the online news services had simply copied and pasted the official press release from Jefferts-Schori’s office in New York City, stating as fact that possibly more than half of the diocese was remaining in the Episcopal Church. As for me, never a trained, professional journalist, I had an advantage. I was skeptical, curious, and willing to do a bit of work.

I noticed that the Diocese of San Joaquin Southern Cone (SC) and the Diocese of San Joaquin of the Episcopal Church (TEC) both listed many of the same local churches, by name and town, on their respective websites. Clearly, that could not be correct. So I did a bit of research, parish by parish, mission by mission. I discovered that many of the churches, those with the same name and town on the respective websites, had disturbing information. The ones on the SC website had no disturbing information, however. They had websites with pictures of church buildings. They had service times, physical address, directions to get there, and local phone numbers. But, alas, the poor churches still loyal to Jefferts-Schori’s TEC, namely all of the churches with names and towns identical to many on the SC website listing, appeared to have nothing but P.O. Boxes. They had no buildings, no service times, and no directions to get anywhere. And, just about all of the clergy were women (of course). I can appreciate why they posted no directions to get to their locations: Somehow, I doubt that any of the Post Office Boxes, listed as the addresses to the loyal TEC churches, provided sufficient space for worship services.

Readers of The Christian Challenge (and readers of this blog) got to read all about the fraud perpetrated from New York City. But, everyone else had only to read, reported as fact, the misinformation provided in the press releases from New York. The press releases had been copied and pasted as “News” from the beginning, all identical but for the by line. But, I am not a trained professional journalist, and I suppose that gave me the edge. And, as I said, there were other such occasions in those months of my journalistic tenure.

Looking back

Ten years later I still reflect on that experience, especially when I look at “News” programming on the major news channels, or read the headlines and stories that, on the internet, appear hour by hour all during any given day. How much has any research been done? Does anyone investigate anything anymore? The most common format on news channels seems to be a program with a biased host, leaning one way or the other, who presents a line up of talking heads who express their own point of view. In effect, the programming relies on something very much like press releases, people speaking for their cause, or their political party, or a boss in the political world. Viewers hear from “both sides” the perspective of these spokespersons, and supposedly have been informed. Is it information? Is it misinformation? Is it partial information? Is it skewed?

Take it from someone who has seen the routine of the press release, copied and pasted, unchallenged and reported as “fact” much too often. Whether it is political news, economic news, social news, or, yes, religious news, a bit of skepticism, a touch of curiosity, and a bit of investigative work, give readers and viewers a more accurate perspective on affairs and issues that have everything to do with our real lives. Matters of war and potential war, issues of morality, questions of justice, as well as matters of important doctrine and order – all of these arise in any given news cycle. It may be too important to be left to the trained professionals.

About Church Growth

Before he was consecrated and made the Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity in the ACC-OP, The Right Reverend Stephen Scarlett wrote this article. It has been posted on Virtue Online ever since. At the time Bishop Scarlett was Father Scarlett, and was serving as rector of St. Matthew's Church and School in Newport Beach, California.

Church Growth and Evangelism in the Anglican Catholic Church

The Right Reverend Stephen C. Scarlett

Introduction. Archbishop Haverland has commissioned us to begin an American initiative to promote the growth of our churches and the planting of new churches. The intent is for this to complement our mission efforts in other countries.

The issue to be addressed. Some Anglican Catholic churches are growing and some have built churches. But a large, perhaps majority number of our parishes exist in a steady or declining state. The typical congregation is faithful but older. There is a struggle to replace those who die or move and an even greater struggle to begin Sunday schools and other programs aimed at youth.

Before we can look for answers, we need to reflect upon the cause of our current condition. One contributing factor is the non-evangelical nature of the Anglo Catholic tradition as we have received it in the ACC. This is not a characteristic of Anglo Catholicism per se. For example, one can read the book, Glorious Battle, by John Sheldon Reed to see the very evangelical nature of many post Oxford Movement Anglo Catholics.

What is meant by the word evangelical? The Affirmation of St. Louis calls us to an "evangelical witness." This refers to a concern for the salvation and welfare of the world outside of our parish walls. More particularly, it refers to a concern for conversion of hearts to faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to instruct believers in the faith–to "make disciples."

One reason we have not been evangelically oriented is that evangelism was not the primary cause for which the ACC was founded in events of 1977-78 in St. Louis and Denver. The primary concern at our inception was to maintain the Faith that had been abandoned by the Episcopal Church. There was great and necessary concern to define and guard the parameters of Orthodoxy.

Many of the founding clergy of the ACC had, for many years, fought the battle against both low church attacks on the fullness of the faith and heretical attacks on the essentials of the faith. They held on to and bequeathed to us a church, but it was not their vocation and gift to shift gears and evangelize in the new world the ACC faced.

Most of the clergy who gathered for the events of St. Louis and Denver (1977-1978) were raised in the 1940's-1970's, which was a vastly different religious world that we now face. It was a world in which mainline denominations were strong and people identified with them. It was a world in which many were raised in a church. It was a world in which a man could go to seminary for three years and then expect to find a job in the church upon graduation. The ACC has in many ways continued to train men for ministry in the church that was.

In the years immediately following the 1978 consecrations, two others things undermined evangelism. First, the response to the Continuing Church was less than anticipated. There was expectation that thousands would join in a wave of enthusiasm over the new, orthodox Anglican alternative. Instead, thousands stayed put or stayed home. Also, many who came brought conflict. The raging battle of their former church became the defining feature of their new parish.

Second, there were internal divisions and fights among the Anglicans at the beginning and in subsequent chapters of the history. Those who were present know that sometimes issues of principle were at stake. However, the prospective converts did not know this. In the Acts of the Apostle we are constantly told how the unity of the church was foundation for its growth. Evangelism is always undermined by disunifying conflict. It instills a contentious attitude in those parishes that are involved in the conflict. All parish energy is sapped by the conflict so that there is no energy left for ministry. The very issue itself, whatever it is, tends to instill a more inward focus.

The net effect of the things outlined above is that, while ACC parishes are typically confident about the faith they hold, the are also typically uncertain about how to share this faith in their community.

Towards an evangelical Anglo Catholicism. We must begin by putting all past disappointments and conflicts behind us. Few who would be members of our parishes care about our old battles. Even fewer care about how it was done in St. Swithins in 1955. As Archbishop Cahoon once said, "We don't have time to waste answering questions that no one is asking."

The good news is that we are also freed from these things. Because we have made our break with heresy and are clear about our theological positions, we do not have to be stuck fighting or rehashing old battles. We can present our faith to the world around us in positive terms, in terms of what it is in its fullness. This will take a conscious change. Some of our clergy and people are more comfortable fighting the old battles than doing the work of an evangelist.

Meanwhile, the world around us has moved on in at least some positive ways. The 60's-70's reaction against tradition has become a return to tradition in the 21st century. There are young people out there who will embrace the whole faith if it is presented to them in an evangelical way. One of the delightful ironies I have witnessed is watching a college age convert to Anglicanism bringing his evangelical church parents to the liturgy. The traditional Christian is now the rebel against the established church of the nondenominational seeker and the established religion of secularism.

The ACC is positioned to welcome converts looking for a return to tradition. However, people will not come simply because we are there. And if they do come they will not stay in a church that is content to be a museum dedicated to the preservation of period Anglicanism. We must realize that change is necessary–perhaps a revolution.

Essential aspects of parish evangelism. The following comments are not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of what to do. But the following points are central and may at least begin the discussion.

1. From maintenance to mission. The first change that must take place is a transformation from concern about church maintenance to concern about the mission of the church. Being satisfied that we rightly performed the liturgy, balanced the budget and paid all the bills for one more year is not good enough. We must want to make new disciples.

We must begin to ask questions like, What is our mission and ministry in this community? How will we go about the business of asking people to come? How will we go about welcoming them when they do? What is our program for teaching the faith to newcomers? When will we have our Bible Studies? Who will teach them? What other programs do we want to offer?

We must believe that a growing ministry can take place in our churches–that God can do remarkable things among us. Much of our ministry is undermined by an unspoken attitude that says, "This is all we can be." The beginning of evangelism among us is faith that God has called us to do something and boldness to do it in new challenging ways.

2. All genuine efforts at evangelism begin with prayer. Without a serious church-wide commitment to pray about God's will for the parish and for parish growth, all efforts will be wasted. We are saved by grace and not by works. Each parish that wants to change should identify a core group of members that is willing to address the issue. The newly formed "Missions Committee" should begin with a study of Acts 1 and 2. The early church began in the upper room praying for the Holy Spirit to come. The first thing the Christians did was to pray and wait. The first thing a parish should do is pray and wait.

At St. Matthews in the mid 1990's, we set aside Tuesday nights for prayer and discussion about evangelism. We had evening prayer with special intercessions for the growth of our parish. We asked people to fast habitually as they prayed. After prayer, we discussed things we might do. Some hair-brained and almost heretical ideas were surfaced and rejected, but a sense of common calling came out of the prayer and discussion over time. The beginning of evangelism is to begin to ask and pray about the question.

The essential question we discussed was: Since people will not understand the liturgy coming in off the streets, how can we open other doors of entry? We ended up doing various things. The Alpha Course, dinners with seasonal themes, periodic evensong and dinners and an inquirer's classes. Each parish can discern, by prayer and discussion, what things might work in its particular setting.

3. Evangelism must be rooted in personal invitation. The key to any evangelistic endeavor is invitation. You must invite people to come to your church. All church studies make it clear that in excess of 80% of all new church members joined because someone invited them. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME TALKING ABOUT ADS. Go ahead and put an advertisement in the paper and in the Yellow Pages. Put it in and forget about it. It will get you an occasional visitor. That is it.

In terms of bang for the buck, web sites are much more effective than traditional newspaper advertisements. Young people routinely shop for and find things on the internet. If you become serious about evangelism, you will also become serious about developing a first class, missions oriented website.

However, the fact remains, YOU MUST INVITE PEOPLE TO COME TO YOUR CHURCH. You encounter God at your church. Why wouldn't someone you know also find God there? (If you don't encounter God at your church, the first step is to remedy that.) Once church members become willing and prayerful about inviting people, God will provide opportunities.

4. Develop non liturgical doors of entry. As you invite, you must remember that the liturgy is not meant to convert those who do not believe. Hence, it is better to invite people to things that are more accessible as a way of introduction to the parish. When people do come to the liturgy, there should be notice given of the next inquirer's class. It should be made clear that no one is expected to understand the liturgy on their first visit, but it should also be clear that the church offers a pathway to understanding–that we want visitors to know what we know.

5. Your membership is your first mission field. The whole apparatus of the church must be oriented towards spiritual growth. The life of prayer, centered on the daily offices and the Bible lectionary, must be promoted and practiced by the clergy and leading lay people. Promote the prayer book as a rule of life, not as a quaint historical artifact. Let parish discussion center on a common dialogue about the lectionary and spiritual growth–and not about church politics.

Many people who consider themselves to be traditional or catholic are still in need of greater conversion of the heart. Many people in our churches know the outward form of our religion but not its power to change lives. Aim at internal transformation first.

For many parishes, the first step in evangelism is to look at what is going on in the parish. What is our church all about? What are we inviting people to join? How would a neutral observer assess what we are doing? Is our church the kind of church that someone can join so as to grow in faith? Or is our church majoring in the minor things? Self-assessment leading to change will be the necessary starting point for evangelism in many places

6. There must be emphasis on the Bible. The Bible must be the main source of the churches teaching and preaching, and both must be aimed at conversion of the heart. Personal Bible reading and study must be emphasized. All evangelism is Bible centered; what was worthy in the English Reformation was its biblical emphasis. One of the greatest problems with modern Christians is that they learn their patterns of thinking from the newspaper and pop-psychology and not the Bible.

7. The ministry of the church must be based on the spiritual gifts of the members. We have used the book, Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow, by Peter Wagner. It was recommended by Brother John Charles. It contains a spiritual gifts inventory that enables each member to discover his gifts. A gift-based ministry follows simple logic. By finding out what gifts God has placed in a certain church, we can find out what ministry God is calling that church to carry out.

For example, at St. Matthew's in the 1990's, our evangelism committee took the inventory. We discovered that no one had the gift for evangelism.–at least not in the sense of calling crowds of people to come to Jesus. But we discovered that many had gifts for hospitality and teaching. This has been the focus of our evangelism. A church can only know what God is calling it to do by knowing what kinds of gifts he has placed in it.

A gift-based ministry stands opposite of clericalism. If the task does not require a priest, find a gifted layman. The priest should encourage the ministries of others. The priest who micro-manages every aspect of the church hinders its growth.

8. Women should be also encouraged to exercise their gifts. We are clear that there are no women bishops, priests and deacons, but the Bible is clear that women have gifts that aid the body's growth, which include pastoral and teaching gifts. Ministry by women to women is especially important. Whether we like it or not, the fact in our culture is that the mother more often that not determines where the family goes to church.

9. Emphasize what is legitimately catholic. What is catholic is what has been believed everywhere always and by all. However, many churches hold as essential and catholic certain practices that were unknown in the church before the early to mid twentieth century. What is genuinely catholic will speak to people in a genuinely universal way. But the strange invention of 1952 that has become the litmus test of a catholic is a given parish will not speak to anyone but those already there. Consider getting rid of it.

This is sacred and controversial ground, but it must be tread upon in our discussion about mission. For example, I have seen parishes insist that their way of doing the liturgy is the most "catholic" way. But the only sure thing that could be said is this "catholic" liturgy is done that particular way NOWHERE ELSE IN ALL THE WORLD. When the most peculiar thing becomes the most catholic, we are worlds away from St. Vincent of Lerin–and from mission.

10. Get rid of programs that don't work. Do not continue with a particular program, schedule or event merely because "We have always done it this way." With regard to non-essentials, be willing to turn things upside down to promote healthy change–like Jesus did. It is very helpful for a church to have an annual or semi-annual leadership meeting to review what the church is doing.

11. Build the ministry of the church around the committed and willing and do not encourage or cater to the complainers. Find people in the parish who want to see evangelism and growth and who are willing to work, pray and give for it. Build the ministry around them. Put them in positions of leadership. Discourage those whose primary ministry seems to be that of criticism or ensuring no new thing is ever done. Do not cater to them nor put them in important positions. It is not good for them or the church.

12. Realize that evangelism in an Anglican context takes patience and perseverance. Our model will not be the doubling of a church every year. The commitment to pray for growth must be seen as a long term commitment. The conversation about evangelism must be ongoing. The horizon of answered prayer may be years. You will ask God to lead you in evangelism. God will ask you if you are serious by testing your perseverance.

13. We must put a significant emphasis on education. Our late Archbishop Stevens said that, in his experience, "a parish never rises above the educational level of its clergy." Clergy who have read for orders or have been educated in unaccredited Anglican houses of study should consider going back to school to pursue a master's level theological degree. The opportunities in each area differ, but most parts of the country have seminaries where classes can be taken in the evening and on line. Many of our clergy need more education in the areas of scripture, history and pastoral theology among other things. Many will not be effective in missions in our culture without more training.

In the first generation of the Continuing Church, many were hurried into ministry, with inadequate education, because it was thought that church needed someone "right now." In many places much damage was done. In other places, the lack of education limited the growth of the mission or church. In every case I am aware of, a better result would have been achieved by insisting that the person take the time to get the education. In our situation, the best model may be some program of Anglican Studies leading to ordination as deacon; and then an extended diaconate of several years while the man finishes an accredited master's degree. This policy is, of course, way beyond the concern of the missions committee. But we are kidding ourselves if we ignore the connection between clergy education and the potential of our parishes.

Lay education should also be stressed. There are educational opportunities for lay people in various seminaries. We should aim for active lay ministries.

Towards a method of implementation. I hope for input from others to greatly refine the comments made above and to expand the discussion into other areas with the goal of having a sort of how to book for the ACC.

It is probably necessary to have some regular gathering to focus on these things. However, the new form must not be the grab bag of ideas that characterized the old evangelism congresses. Rather, the new form must be presented by those who know what needs to be done and how to do it. Any new church-wide gathering would be preceded by a gathering of clergy and laity who would work out the form of training in advance. Or, it may be that the new form will be worked out in particular churches that are willing to do new things or in newly planted churches.

Some clergy may be hostile to the initiative for a while. That is okay. Nobody should be forced to do anything. However, by emphasis, this hostility should decrease and eventually disappear in ten to twenty years. The churches that are not interested may not be around that long anyway.

Concluding thoughts. The necessary revolution is not primarily about the faith or the liturgy. The revolution we need must deal with attitudes and habits of behavior that surround our practice of the faith and our worship. We must cease being content to be what we are for ourselves and realize that Christ has brought us into being to be the light of the world. The call to evangelism is a call to walk away from the mirror and to begin to look out the window at the world around us.

ACC Archbishop Mark Haverland's address to the ACNA

Evensong, Forward-in-Faith/North America

15 July 2015

Psalm cxxxiii, verse 3 - Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

I was trained to believe that sermons are not meant primarily to prove or to instruct, much less to argue.  Rather sermons are primarily meant to proclaim:  to proclaim the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection of our Lord.  I hope this idea animates my Sunday Mass sermons.  But Evensong or Evensong and Benediction are somewhat different from Sunday morning.  We read in a delightful miscellany on the Church and clergy by A.N. Wilson of a priest who for forty years ‘preached on a variety of themes at his morning Mass, but thought it inappropriate, at…Benediction, to preach on any subject other than the Empress Josephine.’ (A.N. Wilson, ed., 1992, p. 240)   I don’t plan to be quite that bad.  But when Bishop Ackerman invited me last year to this event I told him that I would have to address what seems to me the central problem with most of the efforts of Forward-in-Faith and its precursors and now also with the ACNA.  I was invited nonetheless, so here is something with a bit of polemic in it, as promised.  I will not say with Trevor Huddleston that I have naught for your comfort. But neither will I speak smooth things. 

The central problem of which I just spoke is a lack of theological clarity and consistency and, to be blunt, catholicity.  That is a rather provocative assertion.  Let me offer an initial qualification, if not apology.  I know that the religious world is filled with huge problems which are of much greater apparent importance than the intramural fusses of soi-disant Anglo-Catholics.  In a world of resurgent and violent Islam and a secularizing America, our intramural differences may seem minor.  I do not wish to indulge in the sadism of small differences.  But then I happen to think that Anglicanism is central to the fate of the West, and that the near collapse of orthodox Anglicanism since the mid-20^thcentury is at least indirectly tied to our wider troubles.  So, back to the question of theological clarity, which I do not think is in fact a minor problem.

The Anglican alternative to the paths taken by Forward-in-Faith and ACNA is Continuing Anglicanism.  Despite all of our checkered history and with all our failures, I think we Continuers have theological integrity.  That integrity is not a subjective or personal matter, but rests on an objective theological base, expressed clearly in the Affirmation of Saint Louis.  This foundation situates us irrevocably within the central Tradition of Catholic Christendom.  All Anglican formularies are seen by the Affirmation through the lens of the central Tradition.  Anglican formularies are not a kind of Occam’s razor to limit what is acceptable in Catholic tradition for Anglicans.  Rather the Catholic consensus and central Tradition are the lens through which we read and appropriate our Anglicanism.  This central Tradition is found in the Fathers and the Seven Councils and in the consensus of East and West, ancient and modern and living still.  For us, the central problem of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion is not Gene Robinson or an error concerning any particular person or issue.  Rather the fundamental problem was an implicit assertion, decades ago, that the central Tradition of Christendom is at the disposal of Episcopalian Conventions or Anglican Synods or Lambeth Conferences.  It is not.  The Affirmation and my own Church’s formularies firmly, decisively, and forever reject doctrinal ambiguity, comprehensiveness, or the attempt to make our peculiarities decisive and determinative.  We are not Anglicans first and Catholics second.  We are members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church first, and Anglicans second.  We will vigorously pursue unity with all others who share this central belief.  No unity, at least no full or Eucharistic communion, is possible or desirable with those who do not share this starting point. 

I congratulate the ACNA for leaving the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada.  Every one of you who made that change did a good thing and one, I hope, that you do not regret.  But that departure can only be a good first step.  For ACNA is really not a Church but a coalition of dioceses. The coalition is for some purposes only, and the communion of the dioceses is impaired and imperfect.  The ACNA has retained the central flaw of the recent Lambeth Communion because it permits member dioceses to ordain women to the three-fold ministry, and therefore implicitly claims that the central Tradition is not decisive and may be set aside.  ACNA is not a return to orthodox Anglicanism, but only a return to the impaired state of the Lambeth Communion that began in 1975 and 1976. 

Continued ambiguity or confusion about the central tradition and women’s ordination is very dangerous.  It is very dangerous because it encourages Catholic churchmen to compromise themselves in a variety of ways.  Perhaps just as bad, fine, bright, and consistent Catholics will perceive that there is no certain trumpet, no clear ecclesiology, and no real future in a world of such compromises – and so you will continue to suffer the death by a thousand cuts, as people go to Rome or Orthodoxy or the Continuing Church or just stay home. 

There are excellent reasons to be both Catholic and Anglican.  Anglo-Catholics enjoy the great strengths of the Anglican patrimony.  We have the Authorized Version of the Bible and the classical Book of Common Prayer.  Together these are not only compelling literary and cultural monuments, but also provide us with a well-balanced spirituality.  In some Christian bodies the Bible is loosed from tradition and from the praying Church.  Of these bodies Richard Hooker wrote:

"When they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them." (Laws, Preface, VIII.7)

The Prayer Book tradition in contrast provides an anchor, an objective interpretative lens, and a prayerful setting for traditional and orthodox interpretation of Scripture.  In other Christian bodies the sacraments have been loosed from Scripture and its constant fertilizing influence.  Scripture is neglected and the jewel of the Eucharist is pried loose from its golden setting in a round of offices centered on the systematic reading of Psalms and Scripture.  But for Anglican Catholics the sacraments are truly Scripture so prayed and read and presented as to be a large part of the very sacramental forms through which God pours forth his grace into our hearts.  In short, our tradition has an almost perfect balance of Bible and sacrament.  We begin with the Bible as presented in and with Common Prayer, but then add our Anglican patrimony of architecture, music, literature, spirituality, and theological method.  Those are formidable strengths.  How sad that so many neo-Anglicans have jettisoned the bulk of this patrimony by abandoning the classical Anglican liturgical tradition. 

Dear friends, if you compromise with the ordination of women, and if you abandon the largest part of our Anglican patrimony by adopting modernist liturgy rooted in the Novus Ordo or, worse, in the Anglo-Baptist ideas of Sydney, there is little to hold people.  Then you can only trust in a kind of slightly more decorous imitation of Charles Stanley or the already-fading mega-churches.  You’ve given up both your Anglican past and also any future that can be meaningfully described as Anglican. 

We must abandon all sectarian, provincial ideas that separate us from the central consensus of the Tradition of the great Churches.  We must take this duty seriously by systematically rooting our doctrine and practice in Catholic agreement.  Seven Councils, seven sacraments, invocation of the saints, objective sacramental efficacy, the Real Eucharistic Presence, clear moral teaching, male episcopate and priesthood and diaconate:  those are all matters of Catholic consensus.  That is what we must believe if we take seriously Archbishop Fisher’s assertion that we have no faith of our own. 

The Catholic Movement in the Church of England began as an attempt to call all Anglicans back to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.  The goal was nothing less than the wholesale conversion of the entire Church to the fullness of the Faith.  The partial success of the Movement may have been its downfall. When Anglo-Catholics became too successful to ignore or suppress, and were invited to the table to enjoy a share of the spoils – a percentage of the mitres and deaneries and professorships and plum parishes – Anglo-Catholics too often lowered their sights and quieted their voices.  From the conversion of the whole, we became satisfied with a slice of the pie, with a comfortable status as a recognized party.  But half-Catholic is as unreal as half-virgin. 

If you still are in the Episcopal Church:  get out.  Get out today.  Anything else threatens your soul’s state.  Dear friends in ACNA:  you must present a clear and unmistakable demand.  The ordination of women must end, soon and completely, for it is directly contrary to Catholic doctrine.  No grand-fathering – or grand-mothering is possible – because such compromise leaves intact the central, revolutionary, and false implication that the deposit of the faith is negotiable and at our disposal. 

Until there is such clarity, there will be no unity among those of us who like to think of ourselves as Catholic and Anglican Churchmen.  There will be no unity because you cannot be a pure cup of water in a dirty puddle.  That is the simple, basic message of the Continuing Church to the neo-Anglicans. You have gone a very long way down a very wrong path, and that is true even if all the time you were avoiding a still worse path.  You have a journey home to make, things to unlearn and to remember and recover.  We want to welcome you at home.  But there can be no restored communion with us without hard decisions and firm actions from you.   

Glory be to the Undivided Trinity.  Glory be to Jesus Christ on his throne of glory in heaven and in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.  All honor to the glorious and ever-Virgin Mother of our Lord. Peace be to the Holy Churches of God.  May God forgive us our sins, which are many and great.  May God give us wisdom to discern a safe path forward.  May God grant us true humility and unshakable fidelity and great love.  May God bring our Church to glorious days and may he bring us to unity with all his holy people, so that Jerusalem may be as a city that is at unity in itself.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

ACC Metropolitan’s Address to the Canadian Church Congress, Victoria, BC, 2011

Archbishop Haverland (pictured with the APCK's Archbishop James Provence) gave the keynote address

Address by the Most Reverend Mark Haverland

Your Grace Archbishop Provence, Your Grace Archbishop Robinson, My Lords Bishop, Venerable, Very Reverend, and Reverend Fathers, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We are not born Christian.  We are made Christian, by baptism.  I was made a Christian, the child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, in an Episcopal church in Niles, Ohio, when I was three months old.  I lived within the Church of my baptism until January 1, 1977, the effective date of decisions made by the 1976 Minneapolis General Convention.  By accepting a new liturgy radically different from any historic Book of Common Prayer the Episcopal Church proved itself to be sub-Anglican.  By claiming authority to alter Holy Orders by the so-called ordination of women as priests, the Episcopal Church proved itself to be sub-Catholic.  By adopting a pro-abortion policy the Episcopal Church proved itself indifferent to the natural law and to the lives of helpless unborn children.  

From this bundle of erroneous decisions flows everything that has since happened in the Episcopal Church.  All the recent errors are merely elaborations of principles established in 1976, of which the chief error, thefons et origo, is the implicit claim that Anglicans have authority to alter doctrine and moral teaching.  Anglicans quite correctly deny that the Bishop of Rome has authority to add doctrines.  But at least the Popes confine themselves to defining new developments of doctrine at the rate of about one per century.  The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church do not merely add new doctrines, but also change existing ones; and, far from limiting themselves to one per century, they seem to come up with a new enormity every year. 

In Canada, as most of you know better than I, the situation was not quite the same as in the U.S.  The Prayer Book was not abandoned in Canada so clearly or decisively as in the U.S.  General Synod’s embrace in 1975 of women’s ordination was not combined here with an all-fronts abandonment of Catholic faith, worship, and morality.  Nonetheless, for those with eyes to see – including notably Carmino de Catanzaro and Roland Palmer – 1975 was the Canadian point of no return.  

And so it was that in 1977 both Canadian and U.S. Churchmen gathered in St. Louis in a great Congress to affirm orthodox Anglican faith and practice, with particular emphasis on those points most in question at that time in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada:  namely, the male character of Holy Order – all Holy Order including the diaconate; the desirability of retaining the Prayer Book liturgical tradition; and the sanctity of unborn life and the importance of traditional Christian morality in general.  These principles were enshrined in the Affirmation of Saint Louis, which my own Church in turn has wisely embedded in its formularies and Constitution. 

I believe that the importance of the Affirmation of Saint Louis cannot easily be overstated.  In recent decades the decay of our former ecclesial homes has progressed so that more and more clergy and laymen have left them, by joining non-Anglican churches, by staying at home of a Sunday, or more recently by joining one of the soi-disant Anglican bodies which I call neo-Anglican.  The largest of the neo-Anglican bodies is the Anglican Church of North America, led by Archbishop Robert Duncan.  Others include the Anglican Mission in America, ‘AMiA’.  I cannot call such groups ‘Anglican’ simpliciter because they have in various ways accepted the central error of the 1970s:  the claim to authority to alter doctrine.  But my views on the neo-Anglicans are published and are readily available, and I will not repeat them now in detail.

What I would like to do today is to consider the importance of the Affirmation by examining a phrase near its end.  In the final section of the Affirmation the claim is made that, ‘We do nothing new.’  What does this phrase mean?  In what sense is it true?  In what sense might it be misleading?

As someone brought up in the Canterbury Communion and the Episcopal Church, I can say on the basis of personal experience that some things about the Anglican Catholic Church - and I might make bold to add also some things about the Province of Christ the King and the UECNA, with which the ACC is in full communion – some things about us all are certainly different.  What is different is that within our Churches there is great doctrinal seriousness and there is no tolerance for the rejection of basic creedal orthodoxy.  We have no party inclined towards what in Anglican history developed from Latitudinarianism into Church Deism, Modernism, and then the various theological pathologies of recent decades.  To put the difference briefly, the ‘Broad and Hazy’ party has been excluded from the Affirmation Churches.  Now some people might take the assertion that ‘we do nothing new’ to be falsified by the very fact that one important strand of Anglican tradition has been excised.  We note this possibility, are not moved by it, and so may proceed.

Another important sense in which the Affirmation has done something new is in its crystal clarity concerning a number matters which could once excite debate among Anglicans and which still can excite debate among some who profess and call themselves Anglican.  Consider, for example this simple assertion:  

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance and Unction of the Sick, [are] objective and effective signs of the presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among His people and [are] His covenanted means for conveying His Grace.  

Or, again, consider this assertion:  the ‘received Tradition of the Church’ is ‘especially…defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils’.  The clear, simple, unambiguous assertion of seven Sacraments and seven Councils is different, at least in the sense that it would have met contradiction or heavy qualification in many Anglican quarters prior to the Affirmation.  But for us ‘seven and seven’ are principles and premises to be celebrated, explored, taught, applied, and elaborated, and are not propositions for debate or for equivocation.  In short, while we enjoy classical Anglican generosity concerning matters indifferent, and seek to emphasize the common deposit of the Faith rather than multiply items to impose on tender consciences, nonetheless we define the essentials more carefully than many Anglicans once did.  We do not permit every opinion once tolerated among self-described Anglicans, but rather place ourselves squarely and firmly in the center of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom.  If asserting ‘seven and seven’ is in some sense an Anglican novelty, we are, again, not concerned.  ‘Seven and seven’ unites us to the great mass of Christians, East and West, living and dead, and we are not interested in recapitulating older intramural Anglican debates on these subjects.

It is at this point that we may move on from the sense in which we are somewhat different in look and feel and so come to the sense in which our heart is not new, but rather is the same as classical Anglicanism at its best.  On this point we may return to that phrase the ‘received Tradition of the Church’.  The Affirmation does nothing new in essence because its greater clarity and renovated orthodoxy are clear implications of the classical Anglican commitment to Scripture as the source of all necessary doctrine and to patristic tradition as the essential interpretive lens through which Scripture is to be read.  The Affirmation asserts that ‘all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted’ so as to be consistent with the Affirmation itself, including its assertions concerning seven Councils, seven Sacraments, the male character of Holy Orders, the three Creeds, and so forth.  That is to say, the Affirmation in effect provides, not a new body of doctrine, but rather an interpretive lens for viewing the doctrines of the Bible and of the Patristic corpus which all classical Anglicans affirm.  But where Hooker and Andrewes might speak of four Councils and tended to draw a kind of limit in the fifth century, the Affirmation effectively extends the Patristic consensus into the eighth century and the Second Council of Nicaea.  

In this broadening of the limits of the patristic era – or perhaps in this greater definition concerning those limits - the Affirmation is also itself a major ecumenical advance towards the great Churches of Rome and the East, as I have already suggested.  The Affirmation explicitly embraces Councils which Rome and the Orthodox also enthusiastically and explicitly accept as part of ‘the received Tradition of the Church’.  In a sense the Affirmation may extend and clarify of the content of the received Tradition, but it does so in a way that is entirely consistent with Anglican principles and with the living consensus of all the great Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  The classical Hookerian and Anglican principles of consensus and Patristic authority are more truly understood and applied by the Affirmation than by the older Anglican Churches, which all too often embraced doctrinal ambiguity and neglected the living Catholic consensus of East and West, which consensus does certainly extend to Nicaea II.

In brief, then, insofar as the Affirmation does something new, that something is consistent with basic and classic Anglican principles.  We have an orthodoxy and catholicity that are somewhat new in their authoritative clarity, while also being quite consistent with Anglican theological method and principles.  What is new provides an answer to the distortions that were at work in the official, Canterbury Communion in the 1970s.  What is new also brings us into a deeper unity of faith with the great Churches of the East and West.  And what is new does no violence to anything truly valuable in our tradition.

As my topic is the Affirmation I would like to conclude with a brief comment on an abuse of that document currently being made by some Anglo-Papalists.  At the beginning of its final section, the Affirmation says that we ‘should actively seek’ full communion ‘with all other Apostolic and Catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.’  This statement of aspiration has sophistically been read as justifying – as requiring, even - submission to Rome under the terms opened by Anglicanorum coetibus.  This reading erases the Affirmation’s reference to prior agreement in essentials.  And this reading is sophistry because nothing has changed in Roman Catholic ecclesiology or in Roman understanding of the Petrine Office, since 1977.  If James Orin Mote and Carmino de Catanzaro and Roland Palmer and Robert Sherwood Morse and those others who wrote and then approved the Affirmation could not simply become Roman Catholics in 1977, then there is no reason why they or any other person committed to the Continuing Church now should become Roman Catholic. 

The text from the Affirmation which I have just read to you does not refer particularly to Rome, but rather speaks of ‘other Apostolic and Catholic Churches’.  It refers to Churches in the plural and it refers to ‘other Apostolic and Catholic Churches’ so as clearly to assert that Continuing Anglicans now, and other Anglicans earlier, also belong to an Apostolic and Catholic Church.  But anyone who joins an Ordinariate under Anglicanorum coetibus must consent to the Roman position that Anglican orders are invalid, that our episcopal sacraments are null, and that we are not and never have been an Apostolic and Catholic Church.  While not requiring any admission of subjective fault, Rome does require all Anglican converts to accept that objectively they have belonged to a schismatic and defective ‘ecclesial body’.  The Affirmation text does not require conversion to Rome because there has been no movement by Rome towards agreement with us in the essentials of Faith and Order.  In fact the Affirmation also necessarily implies that no submission to Rome is permissible until Rome alters its rejection of our orders and of the fullness of our apostolicity and catholicity.  The attempt to convert the text of the thoroughly Anglican and non-papalist Affirmation into justification for the current batch of Anglo-Papalist conversions is so misleading and so contrary to the plain text itself as to seem disingenuous.  And that is yet another reason for us to admire the Affirmation and to rejoice in the sound foundation it provides us all.

Thank you very much for your attention. 

+Mark Haverland

The Most Reverend Mark Haverland, Ph.D. Archbishop and Metropolitan 

Anglican Catholic Church