Synod, ACNA and the FCE - A narrowly-avoided theological misstep

 In its Synod Wednesday (2/10/10), the Church of England (CofE) voted to "recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) to remain within the Anglican family."  I am encouraged by the fact that the language used here is "Anglican Family," which is novel and rather vague, and may simply mean people who use a BCP and drink Sherry.  However, I'm not sure that the members of Synod understand how close they came to a theological misstep by considering full communion by ACNA.  This misstep revolves around an incomplete understanding of just who ACNA is, which is apparent from the motion itself.  In the first resolve, the synod states that they are, "aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada."  The implication here is that ACNA is made up completely of former members of the The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada who have left recently over issues of human sexuality.  This is a false implication.  Some of the member churches of ACNA have been separated from the Anglican Communion for decades over issues having nothing to do with human sexuality.  Many members and clergy of ACNA congregations have NEVER been members of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada.  Creating a state of full communion would have endorsed groups whose theology could have created problems for the CofE.

A primary example is the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).  The REC was formed in 1873 by the Assistant Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky, George David Cummins (I wrote a blog entry on this last year). Its theology denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration.  The REC is a founding member church in ACNA, existing alongside the ultra Anglo-Catholic former TEC Diocese of Fort Worth.  Speculations on how that can possibly work is outside the pale of this post. But that's an American problem, right?  Well, it might be, if the REC had not joined into full communion with a disaffected splinter of the CofE in 1927, the Free Church of England (FCE).  The REC performed a “boundary crossing” and intruded into the sphere of the CofE by consecrating FCE bishops into Apostolic Succession.

Now, Ecumenical agreements do not necessarily extend to other partners, so it is not correct to say that if the Synod of the CofE extended full communion to ACNA, they would be extending full communion automatically to FCE.  However, by entering into full communion with ACNA, they would be signaling that the major theological differences with mainstream Anglicanism that has kept the REC apart from TEC for over a hundred years are negligable to them.  These differences are major enough and the separation long enough that TEC was in an ecumenical dialogue with REC until the formation of ACNA – each considered the other a separate denomination.  If the CofE endorsed REC theology, it would be implicitly endorsing FCE theology.  (Confused?  Enough abbreviations yet?)

How could this be overlooked?  Probably because many members of Synod consider this an "American problem" and don't understand the history of Anglicanism in America well enough.  Many more are probably unaware of the ACNA-REC-FCE connection. In any case, it is good that synod declined to act on full communion until they had more information.  I hope that this issue can be brought to light. The idea that ACNA is made up completely of Episcopalians who have recently left the church is simply a convenient untruth. 

David+

Comments

[Pete Broadbent]

Given that the Church of England does not require belief in "the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration", and these doctrines are probably held by only a minority of our clergy and laity, this is scarcely a killer argument.

[Jim Beyer]

I was unaware of the REC - FCE connection. The problems with the resolution are many. AMiA was explicitly disavowed by both Dr. Williams and Lord Carey when its founding bishops were consecrated during the period of transition as Lord Carey retired.

The issues were a whole lot more complex than the proponents suggested. The synod acted wisely in not going very far down the road.

FWIW
jimB
http://essaysbyjim.blogspot.com

[FrSimmons]

The Real Presence of Christ (not Transubstantiation) in the eucharist is a central Anglican doctrine. I would be very surprised if only a minority of those who actually thought about such things held it.

In any case, the theological differences between CofE and CFE are enough that reunification seems less likely than with the Methodists. A measure that seemed to grant them full communion would have created some very interesting ripples.

[Fr. Chris Larimer]

Fr. Simmons, I find that statement very broad and a real stretch.

The British, being a good bit more careful about how they use the Queen's English, have left some interesting clues in the opening words of the resolution:
"That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada..."

1) First, note that they express that the division is within Anglican Churches. This implies that the churches who have left TEC and ACoC are Anglican.

"recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;"

2) REMAIN is the key. We cannot be members of TEC or ACoC, but we can be members of the wider family or Communion. However, only the Istruments / Primates can speak for the whole communion. (Any idea where the majority of the primates come down on this issue?) Thus, it is a matter of remaining in unbroken communion with the whole family - acknowledging that there can be no full communion with those geographically closest to us.

3) This is a continuance of previous relationships. Far from your notion of wild-eyed half-breed Anglicans, it asserts that we continue a valid and more-or-less lawful expression of Anglican worship, polity, theology, etc.

Far from kicking the can down the road, they are acting responsibly with regard to what needs to happen formally, while informally expressing the validity of this change.

(You could even say the same about the blind eye turned to TEC bad behavior like uncanonical ordinations of women to the presbyterate.)

[PamBG]

"The Real Presence of Christ (not Transubstantiation) in the eucharist is a central Anglican doctrine."

Well, that's interesting because I actually left the Church of England as a lay person because I disagreed with the parish I belonged to on this matter. It was/is a Calvinistic conservative evangelical congregation and it declared that there was only one Right View of the Lord's Supper which is that it is a memorial meal and nothing else.

One of the reasons that many British Methodists (which I now am) object to union with the Church of England is that we (Methodists) are liberal evangelical Arminians and many of the evangelicals in the C of E (although not all) are conservative Calvinists.

I'm fairly certain that real presence is not mandatory in the C of E. Common Worship has a wonderfully line-walking Eucharistic liturgy that omits an epiclesis and speak of the celebration as "making a memorial to Christ our Lord".

[FrSimmons]

Fr. Chris,

I think my point is made in your analysis. The implication of their statement is that the group they are talking about (ACNA) is made up of those who have left TEC and ACoC over recent developments, which is inherently untrue. They simply do not understand the various histories of the groups that make up ACNA, which was something ACNA's reps were not eager to trumpet. The resolution really does nothing, as even Matt Kennedy (Whom I almost never agree with) notes here: http://bit.ly/9ImUUD

Pam,

Article 26 of the 1662 BCP,

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

I'm not a big fan of the Articles (I agree with William Reed Huntington), but you can us them to pin down the low-church nadir of Anglican theology. Even this rather low-church definition affirms (a certain reading) of Real Presence. While i'm sure some individual Anglicans and parishes may hold memorialist positions, I doubt the CofE could enter into full communion with a group that explicitly espouses such theology - at least without a lot of theological work. It would effectively be the same as entering into instant communion with Presyterians.

The point is, full communion with ACNA could have been interpreted as accepting such theology without any dialogue - a sticky ecumenical wicket.

David+

[Stephen Link]

The REC may or may not have denied the Real Presence when they were first formed but they appear to affirm it these days.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=11186