King Henry VIII became King of England in 1509. England enjoyed a period of prosperity upon Henry’s crowning.1 Henry continued mild persecution of Lollards and dissenters and worked towards peace with France.2 Henry VIII would quickly prove himself to be a dedicated Catholic. He maintained the positive relationship with the papacy that his father had before him. In 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of his Wittenberg Church, Henry VIII responded by spending the next few years preparing a detailed rebuttal of his teaching.

In 1521 King Henry VIII, with the assistance of Thomas More, published a theological treatise against Luther aptly titled Defense of the Seven Sacraments. His defense of holy orders is especially relevant. In the treatise, Henry viciously defends holy orders as a sacrament, the necessity of the episcopate for a valid church, and the doctrines of apostolic succession and the papacy. Contrasting Luther’s claim that holy orders were an accretion, he challenges Luther to identify a valid church without them. In this long treatise, Henry argues that holy orders were ordained by Christ with the apostles and passed down, and that they (along with allegiance to the pope) are the identifiers of a true church.3 He concludes his treatise with this biting statement: “How can it be unknown to the church, which is, and at all times has been, read through the universal church of Christ? By these things, it is manifest, that of all that Luther has railed out so confidently against Holy Orders, not one syllable is true, but all the mere lying inventions of his malice.”4 The debate over church authority had begun in Europe, and England was decidedly against Luther. Though, as we will see, this was just the beginning of a long, multi-faceted battle.

The Tide Begins to Turn

The period directly leading up to the 1534 Act of Supremacy saw England being influenced by the continental reformers while remaining staunchly committed to the papacy. The scholasticism that had dominated the church through the Late Middle Ages was starting to be challenged by the humanist movement, which sought a return to original sources such as the Greek New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers. At the head of this movement were figures such as Thomas More and Erasmus, both committed Catholics to their death. Another was William Tyndale, who was martyred for defending his English translation of the New Testament.

Oxford and Cambridge were epicenters of theological discussion during the period of the Reformation. In the 1520s, Luther’s writings were circulating throughout Europe, and many students and scholars alike were responding positively to him.5 Doctrines such as the final authority of Scripture, its perspicuity, and justification by faith alone were influencing England at the highest academic level.6 It was no longer just the Lollards acting as a fringe group. The Reformation had made its way into England, but the institutional church was just starting to feel its effects. Peter Marshall makes an important distinction that those seeking reformation saw themselves as proper Catholics precisely because “they had moved decisively away from the priorities of late medieval Catholicism,” which they saw as deviations from Scripture and tradition.7

Luther’s impact on England quickly grew from influence to action. Book burnings were led by English Catholics such as Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher throughout the 1520s. William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, described followers of Luther as “wayward sons who could privately be persuaded to recognize the error of their ways.”8 Still, dissenters such as Thomas Bilney and Robert Barnes pushed for reform, embracing justification by faith alone and rejecting the veneration of images in worship. Both of these men would be executed for failing to recant their beliefs.9 One of the most popular early English dissenters was William Tyndale, who produced an English translation of the New Testament with alleged Lutheran leanings.10 Tyndale was executed in 1536.

As is seen with the previously listed accounts, there were a number of Christians in England challenging the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Still, the Church of England as an institution remained committed to the pope. The influence of the Reformation was spreading quickly throughout Europe, however, with many calling for reform from within the Catholic Church.

The debate over church authority was not merely in England but had permeated throughout all of Europe. Change was seemingly inevitable, with increasing unrest that had often led to violence. As noted earlier, by now the Church of England had developed a distinct identity as a power player in the Catholic Church that was capable of functioning independently. Clergy and laity alike were debating the teachings of Luther and, while still a small minority, attempts to silence the budding evangelicals were not successful.11 Most importantly, as Peter Marshall notes, “The evangelicals were saying some things which the king himself was soon to find seductively persuasive.”12

Henry VIII Questions His Marriage to Catherine of Aragon

King Henry VIII’s quest for a divorce finds its way into virtually every discussion about the Anglican Church and is commonly attributed as the sole reason for the Church of England splitting from Rome. By 1526, King Henry VIII had expressed discontent with his marriage to Catherine and had begun the process of seeking an annulment. This is often attributed to their inability to produce a mail heir. The story goes that the otherwise-satisfied King Henry was hoping for the pope to grant him an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. When his request was denied, Henry VIII sternly proclaimed that the Church of England would no longer recognize the pope’s authority over them and instead, the English Monarch would be in charge. And just like that, England was Protestant. As noted previously, this anecdote does very little to explain both the flame that ignited the possibility for such an event to happen in England as well as the uncontrollable fire that fueled the English Reformation once it began. Henry seemingly expressed a genuine concern that his marriage to Catherine was in violation of Levitical law, and that his lack of a male heir was proof of God’s declaring the marriage invalid.

As Henry sought to annul his marriage with Catherine, he set his sights on her maid-of honor, Anne Boleyn.13 He would spend the next three years proposing a case for the annulment, none of which were convincing to Pope Clement VII. By 1529, Henry began to realize he was getting nowhere and called Parliament into session. It is in these sessions that the Church of England would yet again strongly declare a position on ecclesial authority, though now rejecting the papal supremacy of King Henry’s treatise just a decade before. Henry’s rejected annulment was not the sole purpose of separation, but rather the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Meanwhile, Archbishop of York Thomas Wolsey was unable to procure Henry’s annulment, and things were beginning to look grim. Things would begin to change when future Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, dropped a massive ecclesiological work on the king’s desk in the summer of 1530. Entitled collectanea satis copiosa (sufficiently abundant collections), the work provided a strong historical argument that the English monarch had always acted with supremacy over the Church of England, not the pope.14 Henry now had a theological precedent. England was not deviating from tradition by rejecting the pope’s authority in England, they were returning to it. Parliament presented the First Act of Annates in 1532, which heavily restricted a tax that English bishops paid to Rome prior to their consecration. The act included a provision allowing England to consecrate bishops without any papal approval.15

To King Henry VIII, this may have been all part of a master plan to marry Anne Boleyn and then peacefully return to normal. However, the stage had been set, the cries of the Reformation were only growing louder throughout England, and Parliament had just opened the door for the Church to act without fear of repercussion from Rome. The minority of Protestant thinkers in the Church of England were now given an opportunity to influence changes to what they saw as blatant abuses and heresies in the church. Henry and Anne Boleyn secretly married in 1533. When the pope found out, he threatened excommunication, but it was too late. It was time for action, and England responded with the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which formally pronounced that the English monarch, not the pope, was head of the Church of England. As historian David Newcombe puts it, “...the jurisdictional issues had been settled. Those powers which had once been seen as belonging exclusively to the Pope now rested in the king.”16

The 1534 Act of Supremacy

The Act of Supremacy reads “be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia.”17 It goes on to state:

...and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God.”18

The Church had spoken loud and clear.

There was no concept of separation of church and state in England. Bishops were active members of Parliament and participated in governing the country. This relationship between church and state would only strengthen with the Act of Supremacy. It was Thomas Cranmer who is credited for leading the Church into imperial kingship, which compared the English throne to that of Constantine, where the king commands “not only temporal but spiritual affairs in his realm.”19 To this point in history, the debate over ecclesiology between Rome and England had been almost exclusively over the question of papal authority within the jurisdiction of England. But now, with the Act of Supremacy, England could look internally to discuss matters of theology. With the Protestant Reformation in full swing, and quickly approaching Scotland, there was plenty to discuss.

*This is part 2 of a series. Click here to read part 1.

The story of the English Reformation often begins with a temperamental King Henry VIII seeking an annulment from his marriage in search of a male heir to the throne. While this was certainly a reality for the King, it does very little to paint the contextual picture for the causes of the English Reformation. Despite his many shortcomings, Henry VIII was both theologically brilliant and a violent opponent of the Protestant Reformation. His theological merit was so well known that he was awarded the title Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X in 1521. Henry VIII was also a staunch Catholic, an identity he never abandoned even as he denied the supremacy of the pope.1 This raises an important question: with such an avid commitment to Roman Catholicism, what led Henry to abandon the pope? Further, how did he square it with his Catholic faith? Was it solely his desire for an annulment that inspired him to split from Rome?

Some scholars, such as David G. Newcombe, maintain that the English Reformation was an entirely political affair, attributed primarily to King Henry VIII’s “dynastic and political priorities.”2 However, I don’t think this captures the whole story. While the annulment undoubtedly provided relief for Henry amidst the break from Rome, the causes of the English Reformation go far beyond a royal desire for power. While the annulment may have been the final spark to ignite the flame, the English Reformation came at the heels of more than a century of decentralizing power in Rome, England’s growing influence over the Catholic Church as a whole and, of course, the revolution of the Protestant movement in continental Europe. Without this context, it is hard to imagine Henry responding to the pope the way he ultimately did in 1534. To further address the root causes of England’s break from Rome, it is necessary to briefly discuss the identity of the Church of England prior to the Protestant Reformation.

Augustine Comes to Britain and Finds…Christians!

In 597 AD, Pope Gregory the Great sent a monk named Augustine, later Augustine of Canterbury, to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. This arrival was well received, and Augustine reported over ten-thousand conversions.3 However, Christianity existed in Britain before the arrival of Augustine, albeit with much less organization.4 The exact arrival of Christianity to Britain is unknown, though some claim as early as the 1st century AD. By the turn of the 4th century there was a notable presence of Christianity in Britain, and in 305 AD Britain documented her first recorded Christian Martyr in Saint Alban.5

Because England already had a church, Augustine did have some trouble getting all of the Celtic clergy on board to join the Roman Rite under the pope’s authority. In a famous letter to Pope Gregory, Augustine asked what he should do about the liturgical differences of the Christians in England. Gregory famously responded that “we ought not to love things for places, but places for things. Wherefore choose from each several Church such things as are pious, religious, and right.” Augustine died in 604 AD as the Archbishop of Canterbury, following the consecration of his successor, Laurence. A few decades later, conflict over the competing Roman and Celtic traditions would reach a breaking point.

These differences culminated at the Synod of Whitby in 664 AD. After a period of debate, King Oswiu of Northumbria ultimately sided with Rome, fully aligning England with the Roman rite: a relationship that would last nearly nine centuries. The church’s prior existence independent of Roman involvement would become quite significant to future arguments defending England’s rejection of papal authority during the English Reformation.

Two Churches Growing Apart

By the turn of the 14th century, the Church of England had two provinces, Canterbury and York, divided amongst seventeen dioceses.6 Despite some major disagreements over the centuries, England’s ecclesiology had become inseparable from communion with the Roman pontiff. As Kenneth Smith remarks, the papacy in England “had no serious rival” and “any criticism of the papacy must be seen in the perspective of this acceptance of its essential role on the part of most people.”7

A major sign of conflict between the papacy and the Church of England began around 1378, when the Western (Papal) Schism occurred. By this time, England’s respect for the office was already weakened by the moving of the papacy from Rome to Avignon earlier that century, at the feet of England’s enemy.8 Two decades prior, England had enacted the Statute of Praemunire, which prevented English courts from appealing to the pope to settle disputes.

The conflict strengthened when the newly crowned Italian Pope Urban VI was declared illegitimate, prompting the election of the French Pope Clement VII. This led to drastic conflict throughout Europe, with two competing popes, colleges of cardinals, and supporting factions all claiming to be the true representative of the Catholic Church.9 England rejected the French pope and embraced the Italian pontiff.10 In this decision, the Church of England had continued their trajectory of making independent ecclesial decisions with little consideration from outside authorities. Though, it is important to note, they were still holding allegiance to the papal office at this time: even if they weren’t too keen on submitting to its authority.

Around the same time of the Western Schism, John Wycliffe was promoting the supremacy of Scripture for matters of faith and practice and addressing errors in the institutional church. Wycliffe’s influence would result in the Lollard movement, who served as influential proto protestants leading up to the Reformation. While there is not a direct connection between these events and the 1534 Act of Supremacy, it is worth noting that ecclesial conflict and theological disruption were increasingly influencing England, along with the rest of Europe, during the century preceding the Protestant Reformation. However, despite the Western Schism and influence of the Lollards, England remained committed to the pope into the 15th century. In 1417, one-hundred years before Martin Luther would nail his ninety-five theses, the Western Schism ended with the deposition of now antipope John XXIII and the installment of Pope Martin V, with the notable aid of King Henry V of England.11

The Council of Constance concluded in 1418, an ecumenical council aimed at implementing reform in the church following the Western Schism. England was one of five national participants.12 Despite England’s growing influence as a national church, they maintained their allegiance to the papacy through the 15th century and into the period of the Tudors, which sits just at the eve of the Reformation. Under Henry VII, The Church of England continued to function rather independently of Rome, appointing their own bishops and passing measures with little papal involvement.13

Conclusion

King Henry VII served until his death in 1509. At the time of his death, England was still in communion with the pope. Though, England’s sense of independence had grown extensively through the influence of the Lollards, the schism, and lack of push-back from Rome. Peter Marshall notes that “Within England…the pope’s theoretical supremacy was diluted by a practical supremacy increasingly in the hands of the crown.”14 Likewise, Kenneth Smith remarks that despite only a select few calling for outright separation from the papacy, “people were beginning to think as never before of the English Church as a distinct institution.”15 A.G. Dickens comments that even though pre-Reformation England was committed to the pope, many clergymen “considered themselves Englishmen rather than subjects of the Roman Pontiff.”16 Still, the Church entered the 16th century wealthy, strong, and committed to the pope. With the death of King Henry VII, his son Henry VIII took over, and it seemed, for a while, things would continue just as they had for centuries. However, major changes were on the horizon, and England was about to begin a fight over the church’s authority that would last well over a century.

*This is part one of my series A Brief Anglican History.

Already the sweet smell of blessedness is upon you, O you who are being enlightened; already you are gathering invisible flowers for the weaving of heavenly crowns. Already the fragrant aroma of the Holy Spirit has breathed upon you. Already you have come to the entrance hall of the king’s palace. Let it be also that the king leads you inside. For now the buds of the trees are visible; let it be for the perfection of the fruit.1

These are the opening lines of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Procatechesis. These are the first words catechumens would hear inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as they began their forty-day preparation for baptism. St. Cyril’s beautiful language points us to a pinnacle of education that has largely been lost in our culture. The ultimate purpose of education, especially theological education, is the cultivation of Christ-like character. This is apparent in the first words of St. Cyril to his baptismal candidates and remains at the center throughout the entirety of his catechetical lectures. This view is not unique to Cyril, either, but represented time and again in the writings of the church fathers.

Theological Formation as Opposed to Mere Education

This aspect of Christian education was the topic of a recent discussion between Matthew Barrett and Bryan Hollon, Dean of Trinity Anglican Seminary. The podcast was titled “Seminary should be Sacramental.” In the episode, Hollon shares his journey into academia, ministry, and the Anglican tradition from his Disciples of Christ upbringing. Both reflect over how the liturgical and sacramental participation inherent in Anglican spirituality lends itself to a proper framework for theological formation.

“We’re not creating brains on sticks. We are forming hearts and minds”, says Hollon of Trinity’s model for seminary education. He continues, “We [Trinity] frame our days with morning and evening prayer. We have Eucharist on Wednesdays. We have common meals together. As faculty, staff and students, we celebrate every red-letter day.” Hollon is careful to use the phrase “theological formation”, as opposed to mere education. Just as St. Cyril so eloquently shared with his catechumens 1,600 years ago, the end of theological formation is that we become more like Christ as we participate in the life of the church. To be a student at Trinity Anglican Seminary is to be immersed into the life of the church, sacramentally and liturgically. Rigorous theological study cannot (or should not) be separated from the reform of our character.

My Experience at Trinity Anglican Seminary

Dean Hollon’s interview was timely for me, as I just returned home from a seminar for Trinity’s Doctor of Ministry in Catechesis and Discipleship cohort. For two weeks, I and nine other students discussed texts from St. Cyril and other church fathers for about eight hours each day. All of this study was framed within the liturgical pattern of life at Trinity. We began each day together in morning prayer before heading into our seminar. We started each class with the doxology and prayer. We did not break off into our own groups for lunch, but rather shared meals together in the cafeteria. We received the Eucharist together and finished each day of study back in the chapel for evening prayer.

For two weeks, I had the privilege of experiencing theological formation not just as Dean Hollon envisions it, but as the early church themselves practiced it. Despite spending hours immersed in primary texts, I was surprised to find that I felt renewed and inspired at the end of the seminar, not burnt out and defeated. I feel that I know God deeper, that I desire Christ more intensely. I was constantly reminded of the ultimate purpose of theological education through the pattern of life at Trinity and the witness of my professors and classmates. I was fed by the liturgy, encouraged by my brothers and sisters in common prayer, and nourished by Christ Himself in the Sacrament. I wasn’t just learning about the Church Fathers, I was becoming more like Christ. Let’s hope that trajectory continues now that I am back home!

Curiositas vs Studiositas

Historically, there were two words to describe the quest for knowledge: studiositas and curiositas. While studiositas represents a healthy hunger for knowledge that roots itself in the pursuit of ultimate truth (+ goodness and beauty), curiositas represents a distorted desire for knowledge rooted in negligence and/or excess. One leads to truth and flourishing, and the other leads to pride and ignorance.2

For Christians, studiositas must ultimately lead to sanctification (or theosis, etc). We do not pursue knowledge to build up our own resume, but rather to better understand God and become more like Christ. In other words, seminary, and all theological education, should be sacramental.

My intention here is not to say that only Trinity represents true theological education while all other seminaries represent a sinful pursuit of knowledge. I attended a Southern Baptist Seminary that very much emphasized the formation of the soul as inherent to theological study. I don’t mean to pit one school against another. Instead, I want to bring attention to a pillar of education assumed by the church fathers, but one I think has been lost in our post-enlightenment, individualist culture.

Anyone who has spent even a short amount of time studying theology in academic circles can see the marks of pride and excess, with truth and virtue often taking the backseat. The Fathers tell us such curiositas destroys the soul. What should be the sweet smell of blessedness drawing us in - the pursuit of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty - is often exchanged for the slow death that follows a gourmandizing appetite for self-achievement and notoriety. Our sinful flesh is drawn to the latter, but God calls us to something greater.3

Final Thoughts

The pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of Truth. Our posture and intention towards acquiring knowledge matters. As Christians, we believe God is the source of all truth4, and all deception comes from the enemy.5 As a result, our pursuit of knowledge is just as much spiritual as it is intellectual. The Fathers equated virtue with intellect so strongly that they would call it simply unreasonable to pursue one without the other. Knowledge has no value if it is not cultivating our character to become more like Christ. In such a scenario, it instead becomes a vice that deludes the intellect and corrupts the soul.

The buds of the trees are visible, my friend, let it be for the perfection of the fruit! Amen.

PS: This whole essay is inspired by insights received from my professors, fellow students, and lectures from the Anglican Formation Network conference that took place at Trinity Anglican Seminary this past week. If I were a more studious notetaker, I would have given more credit where it was due.

As my wife came home and told me this story, I couldn’t help but think of how deeply flawed this theology was. Obviously, Jesus is the spotless Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19, Heb. 4:15, Rev. 5:6).1 Likewise, we “celebrate Passover” every time we receive the Eucharist, where we eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6), or as St. Paul puts it, we “participate” in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:14-22).2 St. John Chrysostom illustrates this point beautifully: the only reason the lamb’s blood on the doorposts protected the Israelites is because it “prefigured the Master’s blood.”3 Just as the plagues passed over the doors marked by the lamb’s blood, “The devil flees when he sees the blood smeared on the mouth of the faithful.” It seemed to me the entire foundation of what this woman called a “true church” was rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christ, the New Covenant, and Holy Communion.

Now, I have not gone to look up this group to see what they are all about. Honestly, I have no strong desire to do so. The reason I bring this up is to point to a bigger issue of which this [seemingly] heretical group is a symptom: When we untether ourselves from the Great Tradition of the church, we place ourselves on an ecclesial island that invites foreign ideas to bombard us.

The Restorationist Heresy, Revisited.

This group is far from the first who have declared “traditional” Christians to be heretics following a corrupted gospel, identifying themselves as the true Christians who have recovered a lost gospel. The same claim was made by Charles Taze Russell when he founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Joseph Smith when he founded Mormonism, Mary Baker Eddy with the Church of Christian Science, and so on.

These heretical movements were all influenced by the Restorationist movement, spearheaded by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell in the 19th century. Disheartened by the lack of unity among Christians, Campbell created what he hoped to be the denomination to end all denominations: referred to as the Disciples of Christ.4 Campbell’s influence is commonly identified with the phrase “No Creed but Christ. No book but the Bible.”

The Stone-Campbell movement, alongside the influence of Second Great Awakening figures such as Charles Finney5, opened the floodgates for Christian churches deeply suspicious of anything that could be deemed traditional. However, the inclination goes back much further than 19th-century America. The Gnostics argued in the 2nd century that Christ gave special knowledge of the true gospel to a select group of people. In the 7th century, Muhammad claimed to be a prophet from God and centered a new religion around his supposed revelation.

Regardless of time or place, the argument is fairly uniform. The gospel was lost sometime around the death of the apostles, the church descended into heresy and chaos, and now God has sent a prophet or teacher to restore the church to its true form. The key to interpretation is that nothing handed down from the communion of saints is reliable. No creeds, no councils, no historical consensus. Instead, the only reliable teaching is that which comes from the person claiming to restore the truth that has been lost. For most of these groups, the Bible is claimed to be at the center, but only when interpreted by their specific prophet or teacher. Sometimes this is the creation of new Scripture (like the Book of Mormon), while many times it is a specific recorded interpretation of Scripture (such as the Jehovah’s Witness’ Watchtower).

A Word on the Reformation and Christian Disagreement

It is essential to note that this ethos of restoration is not equivalent to the goal of the Protestant Reformers. Likewise, disagreements among Christians over interpretation of Scripture are not equivalent to Restorationism.6 The Reformers were very clear in affirming that the gospel could never be lost (as Christ himself promised in Matthew 28). Likewise, all orthodox Christians affirm alongside St. Paul that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and Apostles, with Christ as its cornerstone.7 Jude 1:3 encourages us to hold to “the faith once delivered.” We trust in these promises from Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church and that the Holy Spirit will guide us through time.

All orthodox Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, affirm that the church is an institution that passes down the faith to each generation. This is why we affirm the early creeds and councils that outline the pillars of our faith. Scripture itself gives us this model with Paul passing down the faith to Timothy (and the entire book of Acts). The faith once delivered was handed down from the Apostles to saints such as Polycarp, and from him to Irenaeus of Lyons, and so on through today.

Christianity is necessarily a historical religion. This reality is promised in the Scriptures and proven through history. Restorationism rejects these promises and instead offers a Christianity deeply disconnected from the deposit of faith as it has been received. Such untethering becomes a breeding ground for heresy and erroneous interpretation with zero checks and balances.

Anglicanism and Catholic Christianity

I think this is an important issue to discuss because our individualistic society often tempts us towards restorationist tendencies. Christianity, and the church itself, is not something we can just create on our own. Even with the best intentions, if we approach Scripture with blatant disregard for the consensus of the faithful who came before us, we will almost certainly reach erroneous conclusions. As one of my seminary professors once noted, every Christian heretic starts out with good intentions.

In this article I do not mean to undermine the authority of Scripture, or even place tradition at equal weight with it, but instead I hope to show how taking a hyper-individualistic approach to Scripture actually takes us further from the text, not closer to it. We don’t interpret Scripture as individuals but instead read it communally as the church through time. This does not get rid of disagreement, but it does serve as a humble guardrail against making the Scriptures a wax nose that we fashion to fit our ideas of what the faith should be. So, what do Anglicans have to say about Restorationist impulses in the church? More than you might think!

The Jerusalem Declaration is very clear in what it means by Scripture being the highest authority for the church. Canon 2 states “The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.” Every word in that canon is important, and it reflects our historic impulse as Anglicans towards interpreting Scripture. As the church, we do not simply accept an argument from the Bible on the merit of how well someone presents it. Instead, we must constantly be ensuring that our conclusions are consistent with the historic and consensual reading of the church through time. As Anglicans, we place especially high value in the consensual teachings of the historic, undivided church of the first millennium.

Anglicans also affirm the historic episcopate in its duty to “equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world.”8 This means that we trust the office of bishop, in historic succession to the apostles, as a unique authority in the church that defends and defines the doctrine of Scripture. While we do believe bishops, and councils, can err, we nevertheless affirm their unique role as shepherds who safeguard and pass down the faith to each generation.

Conclusion

Restorationism is not only incompatible with Anglican ecclesiology, but also with historic Christianity, as it denies the promise made by Christ that the faith once delivered will prevail into eternity. The creeds, councils, and historic consensus of the communion of saints are not weeds choking out the roots of the gospel but rather branches of a beautiful tree rooted in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, which guide us as we apply the eternal truths of Scripture to every place and context.

As Anglicans, we also affirm the historic episcopate as the specific instrument by which the church is to be governed. Applied rightly, this strengthens our view of Scripture rather than diminishes it, because it offers perspective larger than ourselves and our particular contexts. Our church is not merely part of a regional community (though this is certainly important), or even a country, but is connected by a global communion of bishops and ecclesial leaders.

“No creed but the Bible” sounds noble, but it inevitably leads to “No creed but my interpretation of the Bible.” It rids us of the responsibility to read Scripture in communion with the global, historic church and places us in the driver’s seat. A reading of Scripture unchallenged by the voices of the saints who came before us does not lead to a purer reading of the text but rather adds unnecessary confusion. As Anglicans (along with all magisterial Protestants)9, we hold Scripture to be the final, infallible authority over the church. However, this does not mean we treat all interpretations of Scripture as equal.

To summarize my point: The church is a historical institution, founded by Christ, which has been proclaiming and preserving the gospel for two-thousand years. We look back to those who came before us to help navigate what lies ahead. We must necessarily read Scripture through the lens of the Great Tradition, according to the historical and consensual reading of the church - lest we take on the impossible and prideful task of placing that yoke upon ourselves.

For those in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), this statement may not seem like much of a change. The province has affirmed the Jerusalem Declaration since its founding in 2008. However, the Abuja Affirmation does mark a real ecclesial change for American Anglicans. This article seeks to serve two purposes. First, to explain why it matters that the Global Anglican Communion exists. Second, to provide some reasons why this is good news for high church Anglicans who may be skeptical of a communion described as “confessional”.

Why Does It Matter?

First, let’s talk about why the Global Anglican Communion matters. At first glance, this change may not seem so significant. The Jerusalem Declaration (JD) has existed since 2008, and the Anglican Church in North America has always endorsed it as a province. Before we get any further, I think it might be helpful to share the fourteen points that make up the JD. If you are already familiar, just skip to the next section:

1. The Gospel

   1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

2. The Scriptures

   1. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

3. The Creeds and Councils

   1. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. The Thirty-Nine Articles

   1. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

5. The Lordship and Atoning Death of Christ

   1. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

6. The Book of Common Prayer

   1. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

7. Apostolic Succession Via the Episcopate

   1. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

8. Biblical Anthropology

   1. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

9. The Great Commission

   1. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

10. Stewardship

    1. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

11. Church Unity

    1. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

12. Adiaphora Matters

    1. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

13. Apostate Churches

    1. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

14. The Second Coming of Christ

    1. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

For members of the ACNA, the significance of what occurred in Abuja is that they can now claim membership in a global communion. The ACNA has never been acknowledged as legitimate by Canterbury, which had historically been seen as an instrument of unity for the Anglican Communion. While Gafcon and the GSFA recognized the ACNA as a legitimate Anglican province, both of those groups were simply fellowships formed by Anglican churches, not instruments themselves.

For a church that claims to be catholic and apostolic, existing outside of a global communion is an unsustainable position to be in. This is no fault of the ACNA. They were formed from within the communion by legitimate provinces, and their existence was necessitated by the apostasy of The Episcopal Church. However, it became clear over time that Canterbury had no interest in recognizing the province as legitimate, despite a large number of other primates doing so. This negligence certainly contributed to Gafcon’s realization that the communion must be reset to represent the voice of the global church.

With the formation of the Global Anglican Communion, members of the ACNA are no longer stranded on an ecclesial island. We are no longer in limbo but now find real conciliar communion with the churches of Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Chile, among others. We can send actual delegates to future councils and participate in the ecumenical, episcopal process. In the Global Anglican Communion, our catholic and apostolic mission is expressed more fully. This leads into my second purpose for this article: high churchmen should be celebrating this move.

My Appeal to Anglo-Catholics

Look, I understand why The Abuja Affirmation is freaking out Anglo-Catholics. The GAC is describing itself as confessional. Primates at G26 were making much of the sole authority of Scripture, often without much qualification as to what they meant by that.1 The GAC also does not seem terribly interested in addressing the issue of women’s ordination any time soon. You have likely read the quip of one bishop that he did not realize he was a Presbyterian. However, if you will hear me out, I want to try and quell some of those concerns.

First, let’s talk about the authority of Scripture. The JD does not just blindly appeal to Scripture without any guidance for how to read it. Instead, it points to the authority of Scripture “in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.” This effectively describes what Anglicans often call Prima Scriptura. Of course, with a little eisegesis, someone can come up with a biblical defense for any belief or practice: and Anglicans should be pretty used to this abuse in our own circles. However, the JD builds in the guardrail that the interpretation of Scripture is something we receive, not something we re-evaluate in a vacuum every time the culture demands a change. The JD reminds us that our approach to Scripture is part of something bigger than us: we are reading in concert with the Great Tradition of the Catholic Church. Further, this is not a new teaching: This more serves as a paraphrase of Article 6.

Second, the GAC describes itself as confessional. What do they mean by that? I would like to argue that they do not mean this in the same way a Presbyterian or Lutheran does. There is no plan to hammer out a 200-question global catechism or develop a systematic theology to bind the church. While some of the bishops may have liked such a thing, there is also no requirement to receive a strictly Calvinistic reading of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

If you notice Canon 4 of the JD, the language seems intentionally vague (in good Anglican fashion). The Thirty-Nine Articles contain “the true doctrine of the Church” and are authoritative as such. As I understand it, there is not a stipulation restricting members from taking an Oxford Movement style approach to the articles. Clergy in the Church of England have long been required to subscribe to the Articles, which includes Newman and Pusey. The JD does not necessitate a particular reading of the Articles but just acknowledges their place as intrinsic to describing the Anglican Way. I know even this may be a step too far for some, though I would again note that the Oxford Movement not only survived within these same boundaries, but thrived.

Finally, while the GAC describes itself as confessional, it also describes itself as conciliar. Canons 3 and 7 must influence the way we read the JD. The ecumenical councils are affirmed as establishing the rule of faith for the Catholic Church, and the episcopate is affirmed as the means by which the church is governed. While many have pointed out Abuja seemed like a big win for Sydney, I would suggest that high churchmen also have reason to celebrate. The JD does not affirm a bene position of the episcopate. Our bishops are still viewed as real bishops. The JD affirms the Ordinal: which teaches that bishops are a distinct office and successors to the apostles, sharing this ministry via historic succession.2

Final Thoughts

In writing this, I do not mean to argue that the Abuja Affirmation is a high church document. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to say so. I do think Sydney and other low-church Anglicans have reason to be satisfied with the results of G26. However, I would not say it is a low-church document, either. Just an Anglican one.

My point is to say that classical, high-church Anglicanism is not threatened by the conferral of the Global Anglican Communion, but strengthened. The JD does not introduce new doctrine, and the GAC is not abandoning its catholic heritage. For members in the ACNA, the doctrinal standard has not shifted in any way following G26.

It is still perfectly possible and acceptable to be a Catholic Christian and fit comfortably as a member of the Global Anglican Communion.

Nearly half of the Anglican Communion has officially committed to “principled disengagement” with the failed Canterbury structures that once were considered the Anglican Church’s instruments of communion. This means these churches will not attend Lambeth conferences, ACC or Primates’ Meetings, and publicly reject communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Today, Anglican Unscripted released an interview with Bishop Paul Donison, General Secretary of the Global Anglican Council, where he laid out some details regarding the newly formed structure set to lead the Global Anglican Communion going forward. While just a handful of provinces so far have agreed to full disengagement with the Canterbury structures (a requirement for leadership on the Global Anglican Council), together their membership represents over 37 million of the 85 million Anglicans worldwide.

Who Makes Up the Global Anglican Council?

The first thing Bishop Donison shared was the current membership of the Global Anglican Council. This includes:

Primates

(Chairman) Archbishop Laurent Mbanda - Representing the Church of Rwanda

(Vice Chair) Archbishop Miguel Ochoa - Representing the Church of Brazil

Archbishop Henry Ndukuba - Representing the Church of Nigeria

Archbishop Stephen Kazimba - Representing the Church of Uganda

Archbishop Henry Lago - Representing the Church of Chile

Archbishop Siegfried Ngubane - Representing REACH-South Africa

Advisors

Archbishop Kanishka Raffel - Representing the Diocese of Sydney

Bishop Andy Lines - Representing the Anglican Network in Europe

Bishop Jay Behan - Representing the Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa/New Zealand

Bishop Glenn Davies - Representing the Diocese of the Southern Cross (Australia)

Bishop Yasser Eric - Representing the Diocese of Ekkios (Muslim Background Believers)

Lay Delegates (Guarantors)

Mr. Olayinka Fischer - Representing the Church of Nigeria

The Most Revd Dr Peter Jasper Akinola - Representing the Church of Nigeria

Mr. Emmanuel Andrew Kampouris - Representing the Anglican Church in North America

General Secretary

Bishop Paul Donison of the Anglican Church in North America

Who Is In The Global Anglican Communion?

While it is very exciting that Bishop Donison shared the current leaders on the Global Anglican Council, we have not yet gotten a full list of all member provinces and dioceses’ that make up the Global Anglican Communion. As Donison mentions in the interview, the process of bringing churches into this new structure, especially for those who wish to fully disengage with Canterbury, is an ongoing process that will take time. While The Abuja Affirmation makes it clear that signing to the Jerusalem Declaration is all that is required to be a part of the Communion, there will likely be an expectation for those who have signed it prior to Abuja to clarify their intention to be a part of the Global Anglican Communion.

This leads to the next aspect of the new structure from Abuja. There will exist, at least for some time, what I have come to calling “two-tiered membership” for the Global Anglican Communion.

First, there will be full-covenanted member churches who follow the process of principled disengagement with the Canterbury structures, which makes up the list of primates above. In this first tier, provinces will actually have representation in the Global Anglican Council.

Second, there will be tier-two members. These are the provinces, dioceses’, churches, and even individuals who have signed the Jerusalem Declaration, but have not completed the process of principled-disengagement required for full-covenanted membership. They can claim membership in the Global Anglican Communion, but can not have representation in the council. This situation could create a very interesting scenario for orthodox holdout churches such as the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida, but I digress.

Right now, we do not know who the tier-two members are, but we can take a guess (an, of course, I will). However, for now, let’s look at the list of churches who can confidently be considered part of the Global Anglican Communion:

Confirmed Churches in the Global Anglican Communion

1. The Church of Rwanda

2. The Church of Nigeria

3. The Church of Chile

4. The Church of Uganda

5. The Church of Brazil

6. The Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa

7. The Anglican Network in Europe

8. The Anglican Church in North America

9. Gafcon Ireland

10. Gafcon Australia

11. The Diocese of Sydney (Church of Australia)

12. The Diocese of Sunyani (Ghana)1

From what I have gathered from Bishop Donison’s interview, these are confirmed member churches (and dioceses’) of the Global Anglican Communion. As mentioned above, these churches alone make up over 37 million Anglicans. While not yet confirmed, we can make some educated guesses about churches who will be considered “tier-two” members of the Global Anglican Communion:

Possible Tier-Two Member Churches

1. The Church of Kenya2

   1. The Church of Kenya had episcopal representation at G26, and have been strong supporters of Gafcon for years now. I am surprised Archbishop Jackson Ole Sapit has not yet released a statement regarding the Abuja Affirmation, but I think it is a very safe bet to say much, if not all, of the Church of Kenya will be members of the Global Anglican Communion.

2. The Church of South Sudan

3. The Church of Sudan

4. The Church of the Congo

5. The Church of South America

6. The Church of Myanmar

7. The Church of Alexandria

8. The Church of the Indian Ocean

9. (Partial) The Church of Tanzania

   1. Currently 12 dioceses’ are members of Gafcon, but not the entire province.

All of these provinces had representation at G26, including some of their primates. They are also all Gafcon member provinces (with the exception of the Province of the Indian Ocean, though their Primate attended G26). These churches represent another ~13 million Anglicans.

Looking Ahead

The big thing I think we are all waiting for is a full list of who is in the Global Anglican Communion. In the interview, Bishop Donison did say there are website updates coming soon, which is exciting. However, the reality is that this whole process will take time. I am sure there are some Archbishops on the fence, with many discussions happening throughout the Anglican world right now. Time will tell what is in store for this exciting new chapter in the Anglican Communion.

For now, however, we do have some raw numbers. From Bishop Donison’s report, we can confirm 12 full member churches and dioceses of the Global Anglican Communion, including seven whole provinces, totaling over 37 million of the world’s 85 million Anglicans. There is good reason to expect another ~13 million Anglicans to join as tier-two members in the near future, though that is not set in stone. What we do see is that a major shift has already taken place since The Abuja Affirmation. Half of the Anglican Communion has formally rejected the old Canterbury-led structures and began the process of principled disengagement.

Today, Dame Sarah Mullally will be installed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury: A historic see that traces its origins back to Augustine of Canterbury’s mission to the British Isles in 597 AD. Many outlets have reported this historic moment, which it certainly is. However, there is one fact they continually get wrong. It goes something like this: “Dame Sarah Mullally is set to be installed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury serves as the spiritual leader to some 85-110 million Anglicans across 42 provinces.” The former is undoubtedly true. However, the latter is appealing to a reality that no longer exists, with hopes that nobody notices. This points to a response, or lack thereof, that has become quite typical of Canterbury for some time now: just ignore it and maybe it will go away.

Traditionally, the Archbishop of Canterbury has served as the “spiritual leader” for the Anglican Communion. Likewise, traditionally, the Anglican Communion was a fellowship of global Anglican churches all sharing communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop was often seen as the primus inter pares, or first among equals. Today, none of those things are true. Let me explain.

Most Anglicans Reject Canterbury’s Legitimacy

In 2023, two reform groups within the Anglican Communion released statements saying the same thing: They no longer recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as legitimate.1 These were the Global South Fellow of Anglicans (GSFA) and the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon). Together, these groups represent the majority of the Anglican Communion (and the vast majority of practicing Anglicans).

According to these groups, the continued tolerance of heresy across the communion, and the Church of England’s introduction of liturgical blessings for same-sex couples, effectually surrendered the See of Canterbury’s honorary status. At the time these statements were released, Justin Welby was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Following the announcement of Dame Sarah’s election as Welby’s successor, and in response to her support of these blessings, both groups released another statement to clarify that this rejection of Canterbury’s status remained in effect.2

So, just how many Anglicans are we talking here? Certainly, every church has its small group of dissenters who seek to turn everything upside down. And this is the image many who oppose the GSFA and Gafcon are trying to paint of their efforts. However, these groups represent somewhere between 56-60 million of Anglicans worldwide. As for the provinces who signed both statements rejecting the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they represent approximately 50 million Anglicans. This is roughly half of the Anglican Communion. And when we consider practicing Anglicans, as mentioned above, the disparity is much, much larger.

Here are all of the churches whose primates have rejected the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with their membership:

South Sudan: 3.5 million

Chile: 20,000

Indian Ocean: 600,000

Congo: 500,000

Myanmar: 70,000

Bangladesh: 22,000

Uganda: 16 million

Sudan: 1.1 million

Alexandria: 50,000

Melenasia: 400,000

Rwanda: 1.5 million

Nigeria: 20 million

Kenya: 6 million

Total 49.8 million

Crunching Numbers

Now, as I mentioned earlier, these are simply comparing raw numbers of baptized members. When comparing practicing members, using average Sunday attendance, estimates have Gafcon and the GSFA representing some 85% of the communion. For example, the two largest Anglican provinces are England (23 million) and Nigeria (20 million). The Church of England reported around 1 million “regular worshippers” in 2025 (4%)3, whereas some estimates have the Church of Nigeria’s average Sunday attendance as high as 95% (19 million).4 Global South provinces such as the Church of Kenya (6 million) and Uganda (13 million) also estimate attendance numbers nearly as high as their membership, by comparison.5

In comparison, the Church of Australia (3.7 million members) reported 118,000 churchgoers in 2024 (3%).6 The Church in Wales (1.1 million members) reported 26,000 churchgoers in 2018.7 The Episcopal Church USA (2 million members) reported less than 500,000 churchgoers in 2023 - and omitted membership numbers in their last report.8 This is the trend for nearly all western Anglican provinces aligned with Canterbury and opposed to the GSFA and Gafcon.

What Is The Point? The Anglican Communion Has Moved On

My point is not merely to dunk on the decline of progressive western Anglicanism, but rather to reveal a major disparity between what some may choose to report and the reality of global Anglicanism. Effectually, there are two Anglican Communions: one centered in the Global South and one in Canterbury. Upon her installation, Dame Mullally will serve as the spiritual leader for roughly 50 million baptized Anglicans - or half of the Anglicans worldwide. Of that 50 million, the vast majority have not entered an Anglican Church since they were infants, and might not even be aware of who their new spiritual leader is. Yet, the Anglican Communion still boasts 42 provinces and 85 million members underneath Canterbury’s care on its website, despite having three years to make corrections regarding the 13 provinces whose primates have specifically rejected communion with Canterbury.

The silence from Canterbury towards the loud cries for repentance from the Global South has become quite deafening. Despite being formed 18 years ago, Canterbury has only acknowledged Gafcon and the GSFA’s existence one time. After Gafcon announced their intention to form a rival structure for the communion in October of 2025, the Secretary General of the Canterbury Communion, Anthony Poggo, released a statement asking them to stay and help “reform and renew our life together.” All of a sudden, these groups were valuable and worth mentioning. This just further illustrates Canterbury’s strategy to ignore issues that cannot be ignored and orchestrate a photo op to continue the ruse of global communion.

In comparison, Gafcon (who represents some 46 million Anglicans) just concluded a council where they announced a new instrument of communion to replace the Canterbury structures: the Global Anglican Council. This council is set to lead the Global Anglican Communion - which is composed of Anglican churches who have moved on from the old, Canterbury-led structures in exchange for a communion centered around shared doctrine, as outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration. The chairman of this council is Archbishop Laurent Mbanda of Rwanda, who has served as a spiritual leader to many, if not most Anglicans, for a number of years now. The choice of an African primate as chairman also represents the reality that the vast majority of practicing Anglicans now reside in the Global South.

Final thoughts

If all goes well, I should have an article coming out soon on Anglican Compass explaining this move by Gafcon, going into more detail about what exactly the Global Anglican Communion sees itself as being. But today, I just wanted to share some thoughts about the contrast between the Anglican Communion Canterbury claims to be shepherding and the one that actually exists.

I know the tone of this article has been antagonistic, but I do not hate Archbishop Mullally, or the Church of England, or TEC, or any of the provinces who remain aligned to the Canterbury structures. I understand the pain that comes with schism, and I respect the well-intentioned Anglicans who are choosing to fight from within. I hope that the provinces and bishops who have abandoned orthodoxy repent, and I would love to see a path towards welcoming them into the Global Anglican Communion. My primary purpose in writing this is to speak about the 50+ million Anglicans who are not represented by the person being installed today. There are 85 million Anglicans out there, but a very small number of them are actually looking towards the Archbishop of Canterbury for anything.

In 1981, Tom Petty burst through our radios with a line that resonates well with Anglicans today: “The waiting is the hardest part.” October 16, 2025, GAFCON released a statement titled “The Future Has Arrived”, where they discussed their intention to gather all orthodox bishops in council to elect new instruments of communion, centered around the formularies and Jerusalem Declaration, to replace the current Canterbury-centered structure. We were left for weeks to wonder what exactly this means. GAFCON’s general secretary, Bishop Paul Donison, went on a media tour giving some added detail: though he admitted himself much of the confusion is intended to be settled in Abuja this March. One clarification he did offer was that the call to “remove all reference” to Canterbury and participation with its structures was not exactly mandatory due to how unrealistic that may be for poorer provinces who rely on the current structure for funds, etc. However, GAFCON was clear in the statement that they are not leaving the communion, but rather they are the communion.

While GAFCON-affiliated provinces generally lined up to support this plan, the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) remained silent. For those who don’t know, the GSFA is another renewal group within the Anglican Communion that shares many goals (and members) with GAFCON, but has generally taken a more conservative approach to reforming within the current Canterbury-centered structure. Again, conservative Anglicans waited to see if the long-anticipated merger between the two groups would come to fruition. The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a member of both the GSFA and GAFCON.

January 21, 2026, the GSFA finally broke their silence. They released a communique where they announced their plan to engage with the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (Canterbury’s proposal for re-structuring the communion) for the time being. While this may sound like a direct blow to GAFCON’s statement, it shouldn’t necessarily be seen as such. The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals suggest a re-structuring of the communion that does not mandate recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury as First Among Equals (both GAFCON and the GSFA have rejected Canterbury as holding that role). The proposals essentially suggest a communion where every province holds to their own doctrine and finds union through fellowship and shared history rather than shared belief, seemingly paving the way for alternate provinces (those planted by GAFCON but not recognized by Canterbury) to be grafted in. The GSFA has rejected the proposals as they currently stand, demanding doctrinal accountability for heterodox provinces. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will be meeting in Ireland this June to begin discussions on the proposals.

Where Are We Going?

Now that we are all caught up, let’s consider what this might mean for the future of the Anglican Communion. Canterbury envisions a future where all who claim to be Anglican are welcome at the table, with the only rule being you cannot tell any other province what to do. Both GAFCON and the GSFA have said time and again this will not work, demanding doctrinal standards centered around the formularies and a commitment to the Anglican Communion’s standard on Scripture and biblical sexuality.

On the surface, it seems that GAFCON has decided to take matters into their own hands, while the GSFA has decided to stand firm but play by the rules. However, as noted above, GAFCON has also suggested that those who do wish to play by the rules may still have a seat at their table as members of the Global Anglican Communion - so long as they assent to the Jerusalem Declaration. Let’s play through a few scenarios of what this may look like by the end of the year. Get your bingo cards ready.

Scenario One: Nothing [Really] Changes

I am an optimistic person, so I will say I do not think this will happen, but there seems to be a pretty good chance that it does. In this scenario, GAFCON has their meeting in March and elects new instruments of communion. Canterbury does what they do best and ignores it hoping that it will go away. Canterbury continues to invite GAFCON primates to Lambeth, and they continue to refuse. The GSFA continues promoting their own structures for reform, and things carry on as they have since 2008. The Nairobi-Cairo proposals go nowhere, but Canterbury and TEC pat themselves on the back for a successful meeting. Life goes on.

Scenario Two: A Formal Schism Occurs

In this scenario, GAFCON again has their meeting in March and elects new instruments of communion. The movement picks up steam, and a group of orthodox provinces (majority from the GSFA) join as well. Two real parallel structures rise (Canterbury and GAFCON) and grow apart until schism is undeniable. Canterbury excommunicates those in the GAFCON communion and the Anglican Communion is split in half.1 This is what we have seen with the formation of the Global Methodist Church in the last few years. I think some variation of this option is likely to happen, with the exception of Canterbury excommunicating anyone, but time will tell. What may be more likely in this scenario is an organic growing apart until there are two clear structures that can no longer pretend to be one.2

Scenario Three: Dual Citizenship

This scenario is essentially a combination of the first two. Here, GAFCON has their meeting. They attract a large number, if not all, of the GSFA provinces not already aligned with them. The difference comes in how the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals play out. The momentum of the GAFCON movement, and pressure from the GSFA, heavily influences how the proposals are implemented. Canterbury reaffirms their stances on Scripture and human sexuality (Lambeth I.10), and move leadership from Canterbury to a rotating chair of primates from across the communion (this is in the original proposal). Provinces who refuse to adhere to these standards may be left out of Lambeth invitations (a strategy implemented before with no real success), but are not formally excommunicated. The alternate provinces are grafted into the communion and recognized as full members. In this scenario, both the Episcopal Church and the ACNA would be considered legitimate provinces within the communion.

I think that some form of the third scenario is just as likely to happen as the second. Though this does not mean I necessarily think it is a good thing. The appeal of this scenario is that is plays to Canterbury’s goal of saving the communion from schism and GAFCON/GSFA’s insistence that they are not leaving the communion. In reality, it feels like schism with extra steps. GAFCON will recognize the authority of their structures, and Canterbury will insist on the authority of theirs, but will never actually do anything about the GAFCON communion that resides inside of it. Progressives in the Church of England and the The Episcopal Church will continue to fight for change in their direction, and will likely gain ground in achieving it. In many ways this scenario just sets the clock back to 1998, but now with much more open wounds.

Closing Thoughts

I want to make it clear that I embrace both GAFCON and the GSFA. I support Archbishop Mbanda and the GAFCON primates in their efforts to initiate real change and provide a formal home for orthodox Anglicans who have been living in limbo, like us in the ACNA. I also think the Abuja G26 Council is a brilliant idea and I look forward to following it in a few short weeks. Reform is hard, and we have seen every branch of Christianity break over liberalism throughout the past century. The Anglican Communion has lasted longer than all of them, and we should rejoice in that.3 But now, something needs to happen. As much as it would be nice to fast-forward until this issue is resolved, we are left to wait and be faithful in our own contexts.

If the goal is the preservation of an actual communion centered around shared beliefs, some form of trimming the fat needs to happen. Either GAFCON’s Global Anglican Communion draws hard lines over who is in and who is out, or the Canterbury-centered communion finally holds provinces accountable for abandoning the faith with excommunication. Not just disinviting heretical bishops to Lambeth, but rejecting their authority and excommunicating their provinces until they repent.4 GAFCON has come to the very reasonable conclusion that the latter option is a fantasy. The GSFA has chosen to give it more time, which is a noble and respectable decision. Consider this the fourth scenario. One I unfortunately think is very unlikely. However, if Canterbury, through God’s grace, develops courage and implements real reform with real consequences, the Anglican Communion can avoid schism and be restored to the glory it pledged to maintain before God at its formation in 1867.

One misconception that many have about Protestantism is that they view Scripture as the church’s only authority. This is often expressed with jokes about “pastor Jim” being the arbiter of truth, with the implication that sola scriptura does nothing but create countless mini-popes. However, this caricature of sola scriptura is foreign to the Protestant Reformers. There are Christians today who may repeat mantras such as “no creed but the Bible” or “I don’t need theology, just me and my Bible”, but these stances are tied to the Restorationist Movement of the 19th century, not the Protestant Reformation.1

The major traditions of the Reformation (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Baptist) all believed that the church carried authority to interpret Scripture and safeguard the faith once delivered. This is why they all developed different confessions, catechisms, and statements of faith. What they did not believe was that these authorities were infallible (incapable of error). In practice, this means that the church can revisit past positions and revise them if they do not hold up to scrutiny against the plain teaching from Scripture. However, it is essential to remember that this task is that of the church. An individual is indebted to their conscience, but Protestants within these bodies are still under the ecclesial authority of their confessions, catechisms, and ministers.

To a Roman Catholic reader, this may sound self-defeating. They might wonder what the purpose is of a fallible authority. I would like to suggest that the Catholic experience is not so different. For Roman Catholics, infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals that the church has dogmatically spoken on. What fits into this category of infallible doctrines is a bit of a mystery itself, as the Catholic Church has never produced a list of them. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium gives some guidelines for when a teaching is infallible. It states that a teaching has the charism of infallibility when it is:

1) Expressed by bishops in communion with the pope

2) It is a teaching on faith and morals

3) All bishops are in agreement that this position be held as definitive teaching2

Step one seems easy enough to measure. However, steps two and three begin to muddy the waters a bit. What is a teaching about if not faith and morals? Have all bishops ever been in unanimous agreement on anything? Even the canons of an ecumenical council may not be infallible in the Catholic perspective (indeed, there are some rejected by Rome), especially if they were not ratified by the pope.3 Further, the Pope can speak infallibly (ex cathedra), but it has only happened twice since the doctrine was codified at the First Vatican Council in the 19th century (both teachings were Marian Dogmas).

What most Catholic apologists will tell you, I suspect, is that the faithful are to respond to the teachings of the church with “religious assent” - as this authority is binding regardless if a teaching has been declared infallible. This generally is not a problem for Catholics, because they trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the church to lead them towards truth and salvation. And this is the point I am getting at here: this view of authority and divine guidance is not a unique tenet of Roman Catholicism. Protestants apply the same rationale when submitting to their ecclesial bodies.

Now, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to say there is not a certain stability in the Catholic system. They have a tangible college of bishops and ultimate authority in the pope which, at least in theory, makes teachings clear and perspicuous. In this article, I will actually appeal to that stability in my defense of the Anglican position on authority: which I believe finds a unique balance by being framed within the historic episcopate, but ultimately submissive to Scripture as the church’s sole, infallible authority.

Anglicans and Conciliarism

The first place to start when dissecting the Anglican view of authority is Articles 20 and 21 from the Thirty-Nine Articles

20. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

21. Of the Authority of General Councils.

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

These two articles paint a pretty standard portrait of the Magisterial Protestant position on church authority. Doctrine is not a free-for-all, with every individual left as their own pope. The church has authority to decree Rites and Ceremonies (see the previous article on Anglican sacraments), to settle doctrinal controversies, and ultimately holds the responsibility as a “witness and keeper of Holy Writ”. However, the church does not have the authority to enforce any doctrine “as necessary to salvation” that is not found in Scripture itself. This is what sola scriptura means in its Reformation context.

So far, the Anglican view seems identical to that of the Continental Reformers. But the differences arise when one considers the Anglican perspective on ecclesial authority. Article 21 permits the gathering of councils, while noting that they can at times get things wrong. This contrasts with the Roman Catholic position that ecumenical councils carry the charism of infallibility. Now, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Baptists were not (and are not) opposed to church councils. Many include doctrines from the ecumenical councils in their statements of faith. However, during the Reformation these traditions ultimately rejected a key component of the conciliar church model: bishops.

Conciliarism is a school of thought that sees church authority in its highest form expressed through councils. While many refer to Nicaea as the first ecumenical council, the model comes from the Jerusalem Council documented in Acts 15. Even prior to Nicaea, local councils were held by different regional churches to discuss matters of faith and practice.

Historically, church councils were a gathering of bishops from the different provinces around the world to define and defend biblical orthodoxy. The Church of England was actually instrumental in promoting this view at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which concluded that councils are higher in authority than even the pope. This model is affirmed in Article 21, and still serves as the model practiced by the Anglican Church today. While Anglicans believe councils can err, and so obviously are not equal in authority to Scripture, their allegiance to conciliarism reveals a diversion from their Protestant brethren.

Anglicans and Tradition

The Thirty-Nine Articles do not only endorse conciliarism, but also speak of the laity’s responsibility to submit to the traditions of the church. Article 34, On the Traditions of the Church, states:

Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

This is beginning to sound a lot like the call to religious assent, huh? We have been throwing around the word “tradition” when discussing church authority, and now is a good time to stop and define our terms. When one refers to “tradition” as an authority, they are talking about the faith and practice handed down over time - primarily through ecumenical councils but also through church practices - that the church has received as part of her spiritual life and doctrine. Another way to put it is that “tradition” refers to the authoritative teaching of the church handed down through time, dating back to Christ and the Apostles themselves.

As conciliarists, Anglicans are beholden to church tradition. However, they offer the important caveat that certain practices vary in time and place. Article 34 concludes with this statement: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” In the case of adiaphora practices, provinces have freedom to differ from each other without infringing upon one another. This concept is also known as autocephalousy: where each province (church) is self-headed, and does not submit to a singular authority like a pope. This is how the Anglican Communion is structured: a group of self-governing provinces united around the formularies and walking in communion with one another.

Middle “T” Tradition: A Fallible, Conciliar Magisterium.

If Anglicans are conciliarists, then where are the councils and who attends them? This points to the biggest distinction in authority between Anglicans and their Protestant siblings: the historic episcopate. Unlike virtually all other Protestant bodies, Anglicans retained the three-fold order of church polity of bishop, priest, and deacon.4 Every priest and deacon was ordained by a bishop, and every bishop can trace their own ordination back to the apostles themselves. This is also referred to as the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. This stance is taken most clearly in the Anglican Ordinal:

The Preface to the Ordinal

The Holy Scriptures and ancient authors teach that, from the Apostles’ time, these three orders of ministry have existed in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. From the earliest days of the Church, these offices were always held in such reverent estimation that no one might presume to execute any of them without being first called, tried, examined, and ascertained to have such qualities as are requisite. Candidates were approved and admitted to these offices by lawful authority, through public prayer and the imposition of hands by a Bishop. And therefore, to the end that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no one shall be accounted to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or allowed to execute any of the said functions, without first being called, tried, examined, and admitted to such office according to the form set forth in this book, or having received Episcopal Consecration or Ordination already5

Like Catholic and Orthodox Christians, Anglicans affirm the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. This offers a tangible definition of what Anglicans mean by “the church” and the authority held therein. It is bishops who gather in councils to define and defend the faith once delivered. Anglicans do not believe these bishops carry the charism of infallibility, as only Scripture does that, but they do believe a unique ecclesial authority lies within the historic episcopate.

Article 36 also affirms the historic episcopate where it says the ordinal contains:

“all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered”6

Catholic and Orthodox Christians claim that both Scripture and Tradition are infallible aspects of church authority. Protestants, of course, argue that Scripture is the sole, infallible authority for the church (sola scriptura). You could call this big “T” and little “t” tradition. This is why I refer to Anglicans as holding to a “Middle ‘T’ Tradition”. We do affirm that there is a special, divine authority entrusted in those consecrated and ordained in the historic episcopate. While their teachings contain the potential for error, the guidance of the church in matters of faith and practice through the order of the historic episcopate is seen as both right and necessary for proper church function.

Churches that untether themselves from episcopal order are not damned from the Anglican perspective, or even cast out of the church. Anglicans have not historically joined the Catholic and Orthodox in claiming non-episcopal churches are not churches at all. But these bodies do disconnect themselves from a magisterial body that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians deem valuable, if not essential, to the life of the church. In holding to a Middle “T” Tradition, Anglicans are affirming the unique authority grounded in the historic episcopate, but denying that this authority is equal to that of Scripture.

This position was reaffirmed by the Anglican Communion in 1886 with the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which affirms “The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples…” as inherent to unity within the church.

In 2008, GAFCON also reaffirmed this commitment: “We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.”7

The two statements above are examples of conciliarism at work in the Anglican Communion, as both were produced by a college of bishops meeting in councils. Global Anglican bishops have gathered every decade since the 19th century for the Lambeth Conference to discuss matters of faith and practice. The four instruments of communion for Anglicans have historically been the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference (bishops gathering), the Primates (Archbishops) Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council - which includes representation from bishops all the way to the laity.

Provinces hold their own conciliar gatherings as well, with dioceses’ generally coming together in synod every year. GAFCON itself serves as a college of bishops within the Anglican Communion working towards reform against progressive and heretical innovations in the church. In March of this year, GAFCON will be gathering bishops to initiate a plan for “resetting” the communion as a result of these innovations, with the goal of replacing the traditional instruments of communion with new representatives and bodies. Once you start to notice the conciliar model within the Anglican Church, it becomes impossible to avoid!

Conclusion

One thing not discussed in this article is the origin of this ecclesial model. Indeed, many Protestants are quick to note that the distinction between “bishop” and “presbyter/elder” did not take form until at least the 2nd century. A claim supported by historical analysis and one that St. Jerome himself seemed to endorse.8 Yet the Ordinal appears to suggest the episcopacy is the model set forth by Christ and the Apostles.

Further, one might ask if Scripture teaches that ordained ministry must be connected via an unbroken line of laying-on-of-hands going back to the Apostles. This will be the primary focus of the next distinctive on plene esse, the view that episcopal polity contributes to the fullest expression of the church, as a key to church unity.

For now, it will suffice to say that Anglicans, over time, have developed an ecclesiology that binds itself to the historical church by maintaining Apostolic Succession via the historic episcopate. At the same time, this model joins the voices of the Reformation in reminding the church that this authority itself must be in submission to Scripture: where we find the final, infallible word on matters of faith and practice.

During the Reformation, one of the challenges brought forth against the Church of Rome was to their claim that there are seven sacraments instituted by Jesus. The Reformers argued that Christ instituted only two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist (Communion). The other five (Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Unction), Protestants argued, may be useful practices and even have biblical roots, but do not qualify as sacraments - and were not considered as such by the early church. It may surprise some to know that England’s King Henry VIII was actually awarded the title Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X for his 1521 treatise entitled Defense of the Seven Sacraments, where he challenged Luther’s critique of Rome’s sacramental system. It is a worthwhile read for those interested in the debate from a Catholic perspective.

The claim of the Reformers was certainly not without warrant. The formal systematization of the seven sacraments is absent from the patristic era and really doesn’t take full form until the second millennium. Peter Lombard (1100-1160) is largely recognized as the first to formalize the system in his 4th Book of Sentences. Serious Catholics today would not argue that the system was officially defined before the 12th century, but they would argue that it had existed in some form since the time of Christ and the Apostles - and merely found its formal definition through Lombard via development of doctrine. And, to be fair to Rome, Lombard did not make up this system out of thin air, but rather was pulling from the tradition that came before him. Further, the Eastern Orthodox - who split from Rome in 1054 AD - affirm the same seven sacraments, albeit expressed somewhat differently.

The sacramental system was certainly a development, but the question is whether its development is rooted in the Apostolic Deposit1 or if it grew independently of Christ’s ordinance. Put plainly: have there always been seven sacraments instituted by Christ, or did the church develop five additional sacraments over time?

Scripture itself does not directly tell us of seven sacraments, but only of two. While some Catholics have argued that the Bible does in fact show Christ instituting all seven sacraments, the strongest argument from a Roman perspective appeals to the church’s authority to proclaim such a thing at all. If tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, as Catholics maintain, then it is simply not a problem that the New Testament seems to discuss only two sacraments. If, however, Scripture is superior to tradition in authority and foundational to church practice, then it creates a bigger problem for those claiming seven sacraments instituted by Christ. So, what do Anglicans have to say about all of this? As you may have guessed by now, the answer is a bit nuanced.

Carefully-Worded Articles

The Thirty-Nine Articles break the Anglican view of the sacraments into three parts.

Article 25 states:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Let’s go through each claim here before breaking down some of the nuance. The first paragraph defines a sacrament by what it is. Sacraments are not simply “badges” of our profession, meaning they are not merely symbols that represent our faith in God. Rather, they are an actual means of grace - something God uses to make His children more like Christ. This statement is borrowing from St. Augustine’s definition of a sacrament as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

The sacraments both strengthen and confirm our faith. They are a source of assurance to Christians that they are indeed God’s children and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. According to Article 25, only two sacraments were ordained by Christ: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Notice that the article uses the phrase “sacraments ordained by Christ” when discussing these two, because that will shed light on the nuance later.

The second paragraph goes into what a sacrament is not. The article rejects the latter five sacraments as “sacraments of the gospel” for two reasons. First, because they are in some way the result of corruption either in abuse of practice or dubious claims of their institution. An example of this corruption would be the mandate of auricular confession before a priest and acts of penance as a prerequisite both to forgiveness of sins and reception of the Eucharist. The second reason is that they do not share the sacramental marks of a “visible sign” and “ordination by God.” Christ gave the signs of water for Baptism and bread and wine for the Eucharist, but no such sign for the other five practices. For these reasons, Article 25 says they fail to meet the requirements of sacraments of the gospel.

The last paragraph addresses the Eucharist. The article states that the Eucharist was not intended to be “gazed upon” (worshipped), but to be consumed. Eucharistic adoration is condemned in the Articles. However, this does not mean Anglicans reject showing honor in the presence of the Eucharist. In fact, it is common to find a Sanctuary Lamp in Anglican churches to signify Christ’s real presence in the reserved host. However, Anglicans would make a distinction between revering the host (even praying before it) and worshipping it.

The 2+5 Distinction

In rejecting these 5 practices as sacraments of the gospel, the Anglican Church does not reject their value. As the article notes, they represent “states of life” allowed in the Scriptures, they are just not on the same sacramental level as Baptism and the Eucharist. In fact, the Prayer Book incorporates liturgies for all seven sacraments. So, if the church embraces and uses all seven sacraments, wouldn’t that mean they affirm seven sacraments? Does the Prayer Book contradict the Articles?

There are two terms used in Article 25 that provide some distinction in the conversation surrounding the sacraments. Baptism and the Eucharist are sacraments “of the Gospel” that are specifically “ordained by Christ”. These are practices commanded by Christ and are intrinsically connected to His Church and the salvation of His people. If there are sacraments “of the Gospel”, does that imply there are other types of lesser sacraments? Many Anglicans have argued this to be the case.

When referring to the five latter sacraments, Article 25 uses the language of “those commonly called sacraments.” This is sometimes interpreted as dismissive language to imply they are not sacraments at all, but many have argued this language was intended to be read more plainly. Instead of a sarcastic tone, this article is noting a distinction between the two sacraments of the Gospel that were ordained by Christ himself, and the five sacraments of the church that developed from church tradition. This 2+5 categorical distinction between sacraments is common within Anglicanism, if not the dominant view. Questions 123-125 of the ACNA Catechism address this distinction well:

123. What sacraments were ordained by Christ?

The two sacraments ordained by Christ that are “generally necessary to salvation” (1662 Catechism) are Baptism and Holy Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist). These are sometimes called “sacraments of the Gospel.” (Articles of Religion, 25; see also Matthew 28:19–20; Luke 22:14–20; John 6:52–58; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22)

124. Are there other sacraments?

Other rites and institutions commonly called sacraments include confirmation (2 Timothy 1:6–7; Hebrews 6:1–2), ordination (Numbers 8:9–14; 27:18–23; 1 Timothy 4:14), marriage (Genesis 2:18–24; Matthew 19:4–6; John 2:1–11), absolution ( John 20:21–23; Acts 2:37– 41), and the anointing of the sick (James 5:14). These are sometimes called “sacraments of the Church.” 2

125. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?

They were not ordained by Christ as necessary to salvation, but arose from the practices of the apostles and the Early Church, or were blessed by God in Scripture. God clearly uses them as means of grace. (Articles of Religion, 25)

The 2+5 distinction creates two categories: Sacraments of the Gospel and Sacraments of the Church. The sacraments of the gospel were those core sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, ordained by Christ. These sacraments are accompanied by a physical sign (bread, wine, water), and are generally necessary to salvation. Sacraments of the church, Anglicans argue, have biblical roots, but were practices developed by the church. They are for the Christian’s wellbeing, find roots in the ministry of Christ and the Apostles, and may even be means of grace - but they are not considered generally necessary to salvation.

One example would be Absolution. Anglicans believe that a priest has special authority to pronounce forgiveness over repentant sinners. In that ritual, a real grace is being administered to the recipient. This practice is certainly blessed by God and rooted in the Apostles’ ministry, but it is not a sacrament of the gospel because it has no physical sign and no command from Christ as necessary to salvation. Confession before a priest is wise, but not mandatory.

It should be noted that the catechism does not take a position itself regarding the 2+5 distinction, but merely presents the view as a legitimate position within the church. More evangelical-minded Anglicans tend to view these five practices as just that - rites of obedience and spiritual discipline - whereas high church Anglicans tend to use the language of “sacraments of the church.” Neither side rejects the liturgical use of all seven practices. Regardless of which side one falls on, the Anglican position does reject the Roman claim that all seven were instituted by Christ and carry equal sacramental weight.

Development of Doctrine in the Anglican Tradition

This distinction between sacraments of the gospel and those of the church makes more sense when one considers the Anglican view of church tradition. As I discussed in the previous articles, Anglicans do believe the church carries authority to defend and clarify doctrine. However, this authority submits to the ultimate, infallible authority of the Scriptures. While all traditional Protestants believe in the church’s real authority, Anglicans are unique among them in that they maintain the specific authority of councils and the historic episcopate. For Anglicans, tradition is not merely valuable, but holy and authoritative.

Anglicans rightly recognize the five sacraments of the church as good and biblical practices that developed out of the faithful tradition of the church. Of course, abuses occurred and they are addressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, but the system itself has been received positively and affirmed by the church.

In the same way it would be wrong to elevate the sacraments of the church to the same level of the two ordained by Christ, it would be equally improper to discard them altogether. The church, through her bishops and elders, carries a living authority over the people of God. Church tradition, while capable of error and corruption, is a gift that carries real authority and continuity with Christ’s church through time and place. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church and, while the church can make errors in their judgment at times, we can trust its authority as something given from and sustained by God.

The sacraments of the church are a gift from the church that are biblically rooted and have stood the test of time. In many ways, this distinction is similar to the Anglican view of the canon discussed in the second distinctive: The Received Canon of Scripture. Just as the church received the Deuterocanonical books and placed them in their “secondary canon” status, so the church has done with the five sacraments of the church. They are not to be put at the same level as Baptism and the Eucharist, but they are to be revered as something good and right that the church has developed and handed down to us over the centuries.

Conclusion

While Anglicans believe that Scripture is the church’s sole infallible authority, they hold a view of tradition that tends to yield much more authority to it than their Protestant brethren. Scripture is interpreted through the lens of tradition, and continuity with the historic church and the gifts she has handed down are key to the church’s function. More will be said on this in the next article, where I argue Anglicans hold a unique view of church tradition I refer to as “Middle ‘T’”.

For now, it will be enough to say that Anglicans revere the five sacraments of the church because they are practices that grew out of the faithful and authoritative life of the church itself, which carries a living authority over the people of God. It is not that the church “discovered” secret sacraments that Jesus kept hidden for a time, but rather through her faithfulness and guidance under the Holy Spirit, the church developed rites over time that guide the Christian through stages of life and increase their faithfulness and devotion to God. The sacraments of the church may not be essential to salvation, but they are good for the soul and connected to the heartbeat of the church.

For each person on the list, I wrote a small blurb explaining why they mean so much to me, as well as a link to something worth reading by/about them. I hope you find this interesting, but I cannot guarantee it. These are the Christians, by era, who have shaped my own thought and practice as a follower of Christ:

Church Fathers

Polycarp (69-155 AD)

• A disciple of the Apostle John, a martyr in the faith, and a true man of God. I thought of choosing an early “heavyweight” father, such as Irenaeus or Clement of Rome, for the first person on my list. However, it felt too polemical. I first learned of Polycarp my freshman year of college in a class taught by D.H. Williams entitled: “Persecution and Martyrdom of Christians in Antiquity and Today” (If you have met DH, you know he chose this title himself). It was there that I read the story of Polycarp’s martyrdom, and it has stuck with me since. Facing certain death, this friend of the Apostles stands firm in his faith with a quote that strikes me to my core every time: “Eighty-six years have I served him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king who saved me?” Amen, brother. May we all find the faith of St. Polycarp in our time of trial, by God’s grace. Read about his martyrdom here.

  • Bonus choice: Perpetua, because how cool would it be to guide the sword of your persecutor into your own throat because he was too chicken to do so himself. (Yes, this really happened!)

Athanasius (~296-373 AD)

• This seems like an obvious answer. Athanasius really has no misses. If you haven’t read On the Incarnation, stop wasting your time on my article and go read it now. In his writings, his Christology is beautifully defended and wonderfully orthodox. I was already a fan of the great defender of the Trinity before I found out just how much opposition he was facing from the Arians: as it turns out, he was facing quite a lot. His courageous struggle is memorialized today with the quote: “Athanasius against the world.” Athanasius also inspires me with his deep love of Scripture and constant call for the church to compare her doctrine to God’s Word. He was the first church father I really fell in love with, and the subject of the first icon I ever purchased. As a teacher and student minister, his witness inspires me to dive deep into and really study the Scriptures - all for the sake of Christ and His kingdom.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)

• I do not think you are allowed to make a list of favorite Christians without mentioning Augustine of Hippo. His Confessions is a masterpiece both literarily and in terms of humility. His theology is deep, but his love for God is much deeper. His conversion story inspires me, his brutal honesty breaks me (“Lord make me chaste, but not yet!”). And, because of him, I will never again look at pears the same. He is also the father of Western theology. More can be said on this great saint, but we have more names to get to!

Middle Ages

Gregory the Great (540-604 AD)

• I am a sucker for a good letter. Considering his name is literally “The Great”, it should be no surprise I have him on this list. Of course, as an Anglican, I have many reasons to like Gregory. From his statements that seem to contradict papal supremacy, his deep desire for evangelism, and, of course, his role in re-igniting life into the Church of England, they all draw me to him. Sure, he was brilliant, but I most admire him for his deep concern for the Great Commission. As I hinted at earlier in this paragraph, my favorite thing to read of Gregory’s is his series of letters to Augustine of Canterbury during his mission to England. Gregory the pastor shows through in his letters, and that is what I truly admire about this great pope and saint. Read some of his letters here.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

• Anselm is probably not on this list for the reason you think he is. I do like Anselm as an Anglican saint and Archbishop of Canterbury. However, my real appreciation for Anselm comes from his ontological argument for the existence of God. I first heard his argument (referred to as The Greatest Conceivable Being argument) in seminary - and it confused me greatly. Today, it still confuses me, but I like it… a lot. I love the unique, but logical approach to it. And I love that it has stumped even the most advanced philosophers in their attempts to debunk it. Philosophy is an area I am not great at and tend to stay away from, but Anselm’s argument both gets me interested and forces me to stop and think. For a philosopher to get me interested, I have no choice but to include them on this list! Follow this link for a good contemporary engagement with Anselm’s Ontological Argument.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)

• The Dumb Ox! Aquinas is another one that goes without saying. For those who don’t know his origin story: A young Aquinas was determined to become a Dominican monk, but his family wouldn’t have it. His brothers resorted to both kidnapping and hiring prostitutes in an attempt to dissuade him from joining the order, but all attempts failed. He is one of the greatest thinkers of all time; the Summa is truly a wonder of the world. His desire to serve Christ with his body, mind, and soul is beyond inspiring - and it is no accident Christians of all flavors turn to his life and writings for wisdom. I personally love his exposition on Augustine’s Just War Theory, as it has been crucial in the development of my own thoughts on war and violence.

Reformation and Early Modern Era

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

• Forgive me for skipping Luther and Calvin, but I only have so much space. The Book of Common Prayer is part of my pattern of life. A liturgical reformer and martyr for the faith, Thomas Cranmer led the Church of England out of their divorce from Rome as Archbishop of Canterbury. And, might I add, he led very well. His Thirty-Nine Articles set the guardrails of orthodoxy that Anglicans look to for guidance to this day. Every time I sit for Morning Prayer or join my church in a Holy Eucharist, I am appreciating the work done by this great liturgical reformer. And, of course, how cool is it to preface your martyrdom by sticking the hand used to recant your faith in the fire?

Richard Hooker (1554-1600)

• Every Anglican should read Richard Hooker. Hooker is my favorite Reformation theologian by far. Nothing made me more confident in my decision to become Anglican than reading through his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. His ability to categorize countless questions of theology, soteriology, and ecclesiology is truly remarkable. Hooker’s impact on the Anglican way is rivaled only by Cranmer himself. Along with John Jewel, Hooker really set the tone for the whats and whys of Anglican identity. His ecclesiology was also heavily borrowed in the Second Vatican Council- but that’s a conversation for another day. Once you have finished reading On the Incarnation, move on to the Laws. You won’t regret it. Here is a link to Book 7 of Hooker’s Laws (on bishops, episcopacy, and church government). This website also contains all 8 books of the Laws, if you find yourself so inclined.

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626)

• Like Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes made great strides in formalizing an identity for Anglicans. Living through the end of Elizabeth I’s reign, he was alive at a formative time for the Church of England (and a bishop for much of it). His ecclesiology is attractive to me and his summary of Anglican identity is reason enough to have him on my list: “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.” For many Anglicans, myself included, this summary serves as our starting point for “doing theology.” Andrewes was a great thinker, bishop, and reformer in the face of a divided Church of England. Here is a link to some of his sermons.

William Laud (1573-1645)

• This is one of the more controversial names on my list. While I do not appreciate Laud’s violent persecution of Puritans, I do appreciate his high-churchmanship and allegiance to the Anglican Way. I share his love for ritual, episcopal government, and uniformity as a church, even though I disapprove of his violent methods. Hooker, Andrewes, and Laud represent the trajectory of my own Anglican convictions, with Pusey and Wesley to help balance it out a bit later down the line. Laud was a much-needed voice in the fight against fracture and schism within a healing Church of England. Laud’s witness reminds us that the church is an institution with a historical foundation that must not be tossed about with the whims of each generation. Any high-churchman would love him, but all Anglicans should at least be familiar with him.

Matteo Ricci (1552-1610)

• This is probably the biggest outcast I have on this list. Ricci was an early missionary for the newly established Jesuit Order, an order created to combat Protestantism. He did great work in bringing the gospel to China as a missionary, an area he dedicated his life to serving after he arrived. I cannot say I love Ricci for his theology, since he flirted heavily with syncretism. Much of his work involved demonstrating to the Chinese people that Christianity is a logical and cohesive worldview. However, his desire to convert the Chinese people led him to approve many Buddhist practices as compatible with the Christian faith. Regardless, my appreciation for Ricci comes from what I see as a deep heart for the gospel. His love for Jesus shows through where he may have fallen short in other areas. When I read about his life and ministry, I see someone deeply in love with people who desires them to know Jesus. Ricci was also an early modern pioneer in developing strategies of inculturation in global missions. Here is a brief overview of his life and ministry.

Modern Era

John Wesley (1703-1791)

• If you were growing tired of seeing curmudgeon clerics holding too hard onto tradition, hopefully Wesley will be a breath of fresh air. John Wesley was brought up at a time of terrible complacency in the Church of England. However, Wesley was deeply concerned for the souls of the lost- and equally passionate about evangelizing to them. Where no church would be provided, Wesley took to the outdoors to preach. Where no bishop would send priests to America, Wesley commissioned evangelists to serve the new continental mission field. His calls for personal holiness were much needed in an English church that had grown old and fat. Wesley is beloved by low and high-churchmen alike, and while I am not fully in line with his theology, he is a great saint whose example I look to time and again for inspiration. Read a brief biography from the C.S. Lewis Institute here.

Edward Pusey (1800-1882)

• Pusey is my favorite figure from the Oxford Movement. Many Reformed Anglicans roll their eyes at this moment as nothing more than blatant revisionism, but I think that is a misguided view. Pusey reminded the church what Jewel, Hooker, and the Divines had been saying all along: Our church was not founded in the 16th century. We are Catholic Christians (Yes, big C - Rome does not own that title), and we are both indebted to the tradition of the church and keepers of it (by way of the historic episcopate). Further, Pusey revived the orthodox teaching of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist within the Church of England, which had been all but abandoned by far too many Anglicans in the 19th century. It takes real Christian bravery to risk your livelihood for what you believe is right. And, unlike Newman, Pusey’s convictions were fully Anglican through and through. Here is his sermon clarifying his initial sermon on the Eucharist, the latter of which got him banned from preaching at Oxford for two years.

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)

• You didn’t think I’d make it through this whole list without at least one Baptist, did you? Charles Spurgeon is one of the greatest preachers to ever live. His wisdom and wit make his Bible commentaries a must-have companion for any expositor of the Word. His love for his wife is admirable to any married man. And, above all, his deep commitment and love for Jesus Christ is something we can only hope and pray for in our own spiritual lives. Spurgeon is one of the best examples of how we can dedicate our talents and vocation to the glory and honor of God and his kingdom. Here is a link to Spurgeon’s sermons on a number of topics. Go nuts.

So, there you have it. These are my favorite Christian figures. Whether it be theological excellence, personal devotion, bravery, or examples of holiness, these are the saints I have found myself returning to time and again in my Christian walk. If you have made it this far, please share some of your “favorite Christians” in the comments!

Let’s visit Article Six to better understand this question on our second Anglican distinctive: The Received Canon of Scripture.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church…

And the other Books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Article Six offers clarification on how Anglicans are to view the Apocrypha [the “other books” in question], also known as the “Deuterocanon”, or “second canon”. Between the listing of these “other books” are two important quotes. First, the appeal “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” This points to an important reality about the Deuterocanon that is often overlooked in contemporary debate. Despite common claims by our Roman siblings, these books were far from universally accepted in the centuries leading up to the Reformation. In reality, there was never a time when the church had reached a universal consensus on the status of the deuterocanonical books. The closest exception could be Baruch, which seems to have had the most widespread support through time and place.

What is the Deuterocanon?

Before we discuss these books further, it may be helpful to explain what they are. The Deuterocanon, or Apocrypha, refers to the books written during the intertestamental period, which spanned roughly 420 BC to 30 AD. This was a period of prophetic silence between Malachi and John the Baptist. While God did not send any prophets between these two men, that does not mean faithful followers did not write Jewish and Messianic literature. The literature written during this time is what we call the deuterocanonical books, or the Apocrypha. While these intertestamental books were not accepted by the Jewish community as Scripture, they were included in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament from the 3rd century BC. Christians read them frequently in the early church, and some considered them to be part of the Old Testament. Despite this, their inclusion in the biblical canon was, and continues to be, debated.

Today, Roman Catholics accept seven of these books in their canon (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch). Orthodox Christians have varying views on the books that differ regionally, but many accept those seven along with a few others. Protestants reject the divine inspiration of all intertestamental books.

The term “Deuterocanon” itself (thought to be termed by 16th-century Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena) points to the hesitation of many even in the medieval era to view these texts with the same canonical confidence as the 66 books universally accepted by the church. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1445 Council of Florence that these books were formally recognized in an ecumenical council1, and it would be another century before they were authoritatively deemed as canonical by Rome at the Council of Trent in 1563. Alongside those calling for the canonization of these books were Christians who promoted their value and usefulness in the church, while not identifying them as God-breathed and inspired. This would be the position Anglicans upheld in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Article Six reflects the debate surrounding these books by acknowledging only those canonical books “whose authority was never any doubt in the church” as Holy Scripture. This brings us to the second important quote: “as they are commonly received.” This statement further clarifies the criteria for identifying the canon of Scripture. The canon is identified as those books that the church has universally received as such: unanimously and virtually without question. A common Protestant argument against the Deuterocanon points to the unsettled debate as evidence in itself that these books, while useful, are not inspired.

But what about Rome, Hippo, and Carthage?

One common argument made by Roman Catholics in defending their larger canon is to point to early councils that include deuterocanonical books in their canonical lists. Particularly, they point to the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (419 AD) as a method of settling the debate. Of particular importance would be the Council of Rome, since this is where Pope Damasus allegedly ratified the canon of Scripture. All three of these canon lists include deuterocanonical books and largely reflect (if not exactly) the 73-book canon affirmed at the Council of Trent. Why don’t Anglicans accept this smoking gun? Did we remove books from the Bible, as we are often accused? Let’s jump into the problems with this argument.

First, and this needs to be said time and again, the three synods listed here were local, not ecumenical. This is the elephant in the room that Catholic apologists tend to ignore when citing them. These local synods never held binding authority over the church - and never claimed to. Local councils were a regular aspect of life for the early church. If one went searching, it would be fairly easy to find an early synod to defend a plethora of views. In fact, Protestants often point to the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD, held twenty years prior to the Council of Rome, that affirms a canon almost identical to the 66-book Protestant one as a rebuttal in this debate.2 Not to mention the varying views of influential church fathers regarding these books that proponents of either side frequently cite.

Why accept Carthage but not Laodicea, other than personal preference? Even with Pope Damasus’ seal of approval, members of the Catholic Church are quick to remind Protestant critics that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. None of these early councils has been identified as binding or ecumenical by the Catholic Church. These early synods are helpful in that they give us an idea of how the early church worked towards identifying the canon of Scripture, but they do nothing in terms of giving us a definitive list. I would argue that they instead reveal to us the ongoing uncertainty of the deuterocanonical books that continued long after the 66-book canon was universally accepted. Under further scrutiny, the smoking gun fizzles out.

Acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was not uniform towards the end of the fourth century, either. Debate continued over the centuries, which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church holds varying views on them (including some very similar to the Protestant position) despite splitting from Rome in 1054 AD. As noted above, the Church of Rome grew more uniform in its view over time: identifying 7 of these books as Scripture at the Council of Florence, but even then, the matter would not be settled until Trent. One of the most prominent examples of this uncertainty would be Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), who rejected the Deuterocanon as inspired, relegating the books to the “second canon” status widely embraced by the Reformers, which is the position of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Claims that the Protestant Reformers took books out of the Bible are simply not rooted in history. The major Protestant traditions largely had the biblical canon question settled before even the Roman Catholic Church did.

Receptionism in the Anglican Tradition

I noted earlier the phrasing of Article Six, where it says we accept the Scriptures “as they are commonly received.” This points to an important reality about the canon, and church teaching in general, that is essential to Anglican thought and practice. There was no ecumenical council that settled the biblical canon. This is not cause for uncertainty or despair, but for celebration. While some New Testament books were questioned early on, all twenty-seven books were universally accepted by the mid-4th century at the latest. This is truly miraculous and highlights the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the church.

Remember, there was no internet in the ancient world. The work of the Apostles and those after them spread the gospel far and wide, across tribe and tongue. Still, the church came to recognize sixty-six books as God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is a great example of how receptionism (the church’s unanimous and consensual affirmation of orthodox teaching) gives us confidence and assurance in our doctrine as Christians.

The doctrine of the Trinity is another example of receptionism at work. It is thought that in the 4th century, there were more Arian bishops than orthodox. Over time, however, the Holy Spirit led God’s people not only to defend the true doctrine of God in writing, but to embrace it universally. Ultimately, the heresy of Arianism died out, and the truth revealed in Scripture prevailed. We ought to place great confidence in the teachings of the church handed down that have been embraced through time and place. In Catholic theology, this idea of the church’s ultimate embrace of true teaching is known as the sensus fidei, or sense of the faithful. We can trust that God’s children will be drawn to the truth revealed in His Word and repelled by heresy and the lies of the enemy.

Closing Thoughts

The question of the canon is one of the most common debates in Catholic-Protestant dialogue today. One of the problems that often arises out of this debate is a misunderstanding of the history surrounding the church’s recognition of what makes up the Bible. Despite what some Protestants may claim, Rome did not randomly add books to the Bible in the 16th century. There was a historical precedent for the Church of Rome to accept the seven deuterocanonical books that they did at Trent. However, it is equally untrue that Protestants removed books from the Bible at the time of the Reformation. Appeals to early local synods, even those overseen by the Pope, are often rooted in a misunderstanding of how the early church governed itself locally, and fail to make an authority distinction between local synods and ecumenical councils. I am convinced that, as the name suggests, the Deuterocanon historically finds itself in an elevated, but not inspired, status within the church. And if we are to appeal to history and the sensus fidei, I feel confident in saying the Anglican position on the Apocrypha most resembles an unchanged position regarding the canon of Scripture in the church.

“When sacramental Anglicans refer to ‘the universal practice of the undivided Church’ we aren’t swinging a club, we’re asking: ‘does what we hear from the scriptures agree with its earliest hearers?’ When things seem unclear or there appears to be some wiggle room, then we feel authorized to agree to disagree. But when our ideas disagree to the point of contradiction with the overwhelming witness of the early Church then we need to check our hearing.”1

A Big Tent?

Anglicanism, for better or worse, is known for its large variation of theological views. The common joke is if you ask ten Anglicans what their tradition stands for, you will get eleven different answers. This leads us to wonder what lies at the root of this theological confusion. Are Anglicans just blissfully unaware of what their church teaches? Are the teachings hard to access or interpret? Are there Anglican teachings at all, or does anything fly so long as one identifies as Anglican? Hopefully I can address these questions without adding to the confusion.

There are definitive Anglican doctrines, but maybe not in the way some Christians coming from other traditions may expect. Whereas many churches of the Reformation sought to provide as much doctrinal detail as possible, the Church of England saw it fit to affirm the essentials of the faith laid out in the period of the undivided church, while providing theological boundaries on issues outside of those essentials. Those boundaries, or guardrails, must not be crossed by faithful Anglicans. However, the Christian is free to wander within those boundaries and remain in good standing with the church. In many ways this is reflective of the Eastern Orthodox commitment to embracing the mystery of God.

Adiaphora in the Anglican Tradition

It is imperative that we affirm what Scripture affirms, but it would be un-Catholic (and against the model set by the early church) to demand allegiance to matters of mere opinion that fall under the umbrella of orthodoxy. The theological term for this is adiaphora, or other things, which refers to those issues neither commanded nor condemned in Scripture. For Anglicans, we have long valued theological disagreement in adiaphora matters. In fact, the Thirty-Nine Articles actually prevent the church from making dogmatic statements on such secondary issues.

This is expressed in Article 20, which reads:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.2

The Church of England did not experience the Reformation the same way continental Europe did. While much of the continental reformation was grassroots, the English Reformation was top-down and formal - all the way up to the king himself. Of course, English Christians had access to reformers’ writings. They also had the proto-Protestant Lollards who were following the tradition of John Wycliffe, an early proponent of Church reform under the rule of Scripture. However, England was largely satisfied as a Catholic nation. Whereas Luther and Calvin led organic ground-up revolutions, England was thrown into the Reformation when King Henry VIII was declared head of the Church of England in 1534, and thus experienced top-down reform. This is not to say England was opposed to reform, however. The move towards independence was pretty well-received considering the circumstances surrounding it.

Instead of writing a large theological treatise, England’s first major reformer, Thomas Cranmer, revised the church’s liturgy with the Book of Common Prayer. Instead of a catechism, the church produced the Thirty-Nine Articles (initially the Forty-Two Articles). This occurred around the same time Rome was addressing its own need to reform with the Council of Trent. This highlights one of the major differences between the continental and English reformations: the Church of England had merely claimed independence from the pope in 1534, not embraced Protestantism (that part would come later). This gave them both time and resources to guide reform on their terms. This also provided the church with a range of voices, from Protestant hopefuls to Catholic holdouts, all of which contributed to their next steps as a body. The Church of England wasn’t working with individuals (other than Henry), it was working with an institution.

The Thirty-Nine Articles reflect the diversity of opinion in England following the Act of Supremacy. They also show us the theological guardrails at work. For example, Article 28 discusses the topic of the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper.

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. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. 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. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.3

There is a clear teaching affirmed, namely that Christ truly is present in the Sacrament. And there are guardrails set in place, rejecting one extreme of memorialism (that the Eucharist is merely a symbol), and the other of transubstantiation (that the substance of the bread and wine disappear entirely, and are replaced by the carnal body and blood of Christ). Similarly, worshipping the Sacrament is forbidden, as it is meant to be consumed by the believer.4 This is the pattern set by the Articles in establishing theological guardrails.

Here’s a sketch of the model:

1) The church presents a clear teaching from Scripture.

2) The church presents the extremes on either end of that teaching that fall outside of orthodoxy.

3) Within those set boundaries, the Christian has liberty to hold different views on the doctrine in question.

Following the Model of the Early church

The theological guardrails are not only practical, but deeply rooted in catholic tradition. The early church provides us with a strong example of the theological guardrail model. In it, we see a conciliar model for protecting and defining church teaching. When an issue or controversy would arise in various churches, a local synod or council would be called where their bishops would gather to defend and promote the true teaching from Scripture and the Apostles. When there was a major controversy that affected large portions of the church, which generally had to do with a rejection of the doctrines of Christ and the Trinity, an ecumenical council would be organized to defend the orthodox teaching of the church.

The first ecumenical council was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD which defended both the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Both doctrines were being challenged at the time by various leaders in the church who had fallen victim to the heretical teaching of Arius, a bishop who taught that Christ was created. It is from this council that we also get the first rendition of the Nicene Creed. This pattern would become the standard for the church whenever a new heretical doctrine began to spread. By the end of the 8th century, the church had concluded the seven ecumenical councils that are at least partially accepted by all Catholic, Orthodox, and traditional Protestant churches today.5

What is important to note is that for the first millennium of the Christian church, only seven councils had risen to the level of ecumenical and authoritative teaching for the universal church.6 Local synods far outnumber ecumenical councils, both in antiquity and today. Surely the church, which had expanded rapidly into multiple continents, was not completely in agreement on every theological issue, though the church did not see it necessary to address every possible question in an ecumenical council (nor would such a thing be possible). Rather, they prioritized being clear where Scripture and tradition were clear, and allowed leniency where there was room for interpretation. The early church set the example of theological guardrails that the Anglican church embraced in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

Building Walls Around the Sandbox

Lancelot Andrewes, a prominent Anglican bishop in the early 17th century, eloquently described the church’s commitment to the guardrails with the quote: “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”7 The Thirty-Nine Articles serve as an attempt to be loyal to the catholic nature of the early church, boldly defending the tenets of the faith handed down, but promoting freedom where Scripture and tradition allowed.

An important aspect of the guardrails to recognize is that they do not represent the full extent of Anglican teaching. Just as the early church saw countless local councils that had geographic authority, the Anglican church continues that practice today. One way this is done is through annual diocesanal synods, something that dates back to Nicaea itself. As for large-scale councils, Articles 20 and 21 recognize the church’s authority to hold councils with binding authority. This will be discussed further in part 4. The main distinction to recognize is that, in contrast to Catholic scholasticism and the Reformed catechetical tradition, the Anglican church finds great value in the early church’s example of setting theological guardrails of orthodoxy for the church. Local councils, catechisms, and statements of faith are good things (and the Anglican church has had many over the centuries), but it is a mistake to elevate secondary issues to primary status, and doing so contributes to disunity in the one holy, catholic and apostolic church.

The Anglican Way is thoroughly orthodox, steeped in tradition, and a wonderful expression of Catholic Christianity.

*A short legend for going through this guide: I tried to make the list chronological, but where certain doctrines overlap, I grouped them together by category. For example, in areas where the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) reaffirms teachings from the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571), I simply included the JD reference in the section where the doctrine is laid out in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Which is why some canons are “missing” on the section of the Jerusalem Declaration, etc., to avoid redundancy. Also, I only included quotation marks where a) a quote is only a part of the statement or paragraph or b) when I am quoting something other than a formal canon.

What do Anglicans believe? A Categorical Guide

I: Holy Scripture

The doctrines regarding Scripture are covered heavily in the Thirty-Nine Articles. However, due to its chief importance to Anglican theology, I felt it helpful to include a section on its own.

In line with the Reformers and the church fathers, Scripture is the final, infallible authority in which the church relies upon. This is the traditional view known as sola scriptura, though contemporary deviations have led some to embrace the term prima scriptura instead for the sake of clarity. Both are appropriate when read in their historical context. Whereas the church may err at times, Scripture is both free from error (inerrant) and incapable of erring (infallible).1

• [JD 2] On Scripture. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

• [A6] Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

• [A20] Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

• [A21b] Of the Authority of General Councils. Wherefore things ordained by them (councils) as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

  ---

II: The Creeds

Apostles Creed

• I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Nicene Creed

• We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, visible and invisible. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],† who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Athanasian Creed

• Whosoever will be saved, * before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, * without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: * That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, Neither confounding the Persons, * nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, * and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, * the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, * and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, * and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, * and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, * and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, * but one eternal .

  As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, * but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, * and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, * but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, * and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, * but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, * and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, * but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity * to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, * to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, * neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, * not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, * neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; * one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; * none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together * and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, * the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

  He therefore that will be saved * must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation * that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, * that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; * and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, * of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; * and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who, although he be God and Man, * yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, * but by taking of the Manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, * but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, * so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, * descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, * from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies * and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; * and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, * which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

III: The Ecumenical Councils

After Constantine’s conversion to Christianity (312 AD), the Roman Empire would be led to reject paganism in favor of the emperor’s new faith. As the persecution of Christians came to an end, one of the major changes that took place within the church was a new ability to gather safely. Following the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, leaders in the church would gather over time in synods to discuss matters and controversies of the faith. However, these councils were largely localized by necessity. This would all change in 325 AD when Constantine summoned over 200 bishops from around the empire to gather in council to settle the Arian controversy. What resulted was the Council of Nicaea - which primarily defined and affirmed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. This was done through the canons (affirmations) of the council, the creed produced with its namesake, and the anathemas (denunciations) of non-Trinitarian doctrines. Nicaea would become the first ecumenical council for the church.

After Nicaea, local synods continued to happen, but when a major controversy arose the church would gather for an ecumenical council to settle it. While there is debate over how many ecumenical councils the church has had, the first four are commonly received as foundational to virtually all of Christendom, even through the Reformation.2 The Global Anglican position affirms the first four ecumenical councils as laying out the foundation of faith and practice for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

*for the sake of brevity, this will only include the teachings from these councils that touch on doctrinal stances and core teachings, as a number of the canons from these early councils deal with contextual issues of church practice (such as how long a lapsed Christian must wait before receiving communion) that, while helpful, are not generally understood as binding universal teaching. Canons regarding church practice are included where their theological intention surpasses a particular context/reflect widespread reception by the church.

The Council of Nicaea - 325

This council gathered to address the heretical teachings of Arius, a bishop who taught that Christ was created. At Nicaea, Christ’s deity was affirmed, the Trinity as taught in Scripture was defended, and non-Trinitarian teachings were condemned (chief among them being those of Arius).

Core teachings:3

• The Doctrine of the Trinity: One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.

• Choosing and Consecrating a Bishop: [Canon 3] A bishop should be chosen by all of the bishops in his province - and at least 3 bishops should preside over the consecration.

• Frequent Synods for Provinces: [Canon 5] The council actually orders provinces to hold synods twice annually, though this number varies today. The intention remains the same: “so that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, all such questions may be thoroughly examined by them.”

• Anointing of the Sick/Dying): [Canon 13] “As for those who are dying, the ancient church law is still to be maintained, i.e., that if any man is at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the most indispensable final Eucharist”

• Clergy Who Church-Hop: [Canon 15] “Because of the great disturbances and disagreements that have occurred of late, we decree that the custom which prevails in certain places must be totally done away with: neither bishop, priest, nor deacon shall move from city to city…”

• Who Should Administer the Eucharist: [Canon 18] The priest or bishop (at least when available) should be the ones administering the Eucharist - not a deacon or layperson

• The Nicene Creed (listed above)

Anathemas (condemnations) given:

• “[Against] those who say ‘there once was when he was not’, and "‘before he was begotten he was not’, and that ‘he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance,’ affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.”

Anathema against and condemnation of Arius as a heretic:

• "First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God, saying ‘he is from things that are not’, and ‘before he was begotten he was not’, and ‘there once was when he was not’, saying too that by his own power the Son of God is capable of evil and goodness, and calling him a creature and a work. Against all this the holy synod pronounced anathemas.”

The First Council of Constantinople - 381

Core Teachings:4

• Affirms Nicaea: [Canon 1] Reaffirms the Nicaea, its teachings and its anathemas.

• Affirms the Trinity as Expressed in the Nicene Creed: “You, we and all who are not bent on subverting the word of the true faith should give this creed our approval. It is the most ancient and is consistent with our baptism. It tells us how to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit: believing also, of course, that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit have a single Godhead and power and substance, a dignity deserving the same honor and a co-eternal sovereignty, in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons.”

• Geographical Boundaries for Bishops: [Canon 2] “Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches…Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business.”

The Council of Ephesus - 431

This council gathered primarily to address the heresy of Nestorianism, which the church feared challenged the biblical teaching of Christ’s two divine natures: fully human and fully God. This council would begin defining this teaching, the hypostatic union, which would be fully expressed at the Council of Chalcedon. The logical conclusion of this union was that Mary was not merely the bearer of Christ (christotokos), but the bearer of God (theotokos).

Core Teachings:5

• Condemns Nestorianism and Affirming the Hypostatic Union of Christ’s Human and Divine Natures: “We confess the Word to have been made one with the flesh hypostatically, and we adore one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ. We do not divide him into parts and separate man and God in him, as though the two natures were mutually united only through a unity of dignity and authority; that would be an empty expression and nothing more. Nor do we give the name Christ in one sense to the Word of God and in another to him who was born of woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own flesh.”

• Affirms Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer): Because Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is fully man and fully God, and whose natures cannot be separated, it is right to refer to her as the mother of God, or God-bearer (theotokos).

Anathemas:

• “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as “the Word became flesh”, and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone says that the Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, according to the scriptures, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of “with” must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as “the Word became flesh”, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.”

• “The divine scripture says Christ became “the high priest and apostle of our confession”; he offered himself to God the Father in an odour of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, therefore, says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice also for himself and not rather for us alone (for he who knew no sin needed no offering), let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides him, united with him in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let him be anathema.”

• “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.”

The Council of Chalcedon - 451

Core Teachings:6

• Affirms the Prior Three Councils and the Nicene Creed

• The “Chalcedonian Definition” Regarding the Two Natures of Christ: “Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.”

The Christological distinctions of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils:

*The Anglican Church in North America formally recognizes the Christological distinctions of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils.

The Second Council of Constantinople - 553 AD

• Reaffirms the hypostatic union with greater detail in 14 anathemas.

• Clarifies on what Authority the Church Makes Doctrinal Claims: “Such then are the assertions we confess. We have received them from: holy Scripture, from the teaching of the holy fathers, and from the definitions about the one and the same faith made by the aforesaid four holy synods.”7

The Third Council of Constantinople - 681 AD

• Affirms Two Wills of Christ (Dyothelitism): “And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will”8

The Second Council of Nicaea - 787 AD

• The Second Council of Nicaea condemned iconoclasm and permitted the use of images, especially those of Christ, in worship. “To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us…One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit.”9

  *This is particular to the Anglican Church in North America, which affirms “the Christological distinctions” from the latter three of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. This does not include the anathemas regarding worship with icons, which is considered an adiaphora (secondary) belief. However, worship with images is widespread within Anglicanism. Further, while prayers to saints is generally rejected in the Thirty-Nine Articles and mainstream Anglican practice, some Anglicans do ask saints in heaven to pray for them in private devotion which, while controversial, is largely treated as adiaphora as well.

IV: The Thirty-Nine Articles

In 1534, the Church of England formally ended her relationship with Rome. This opened the door for reform within the church independent of papal oversight. This led to a long period of reform that is commonly agreed to have lasted until 1662, following the English Civil Wars. During that time, Anglicans with both Catholic and Reformed leanings pushed for change according to their theological inclinations. This tension is possibly best expressed in the major conciliar document of the English Reformation: The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Ratified in 1571, the Thirty-Nine Articles serve as guardrails of orthodoxy for the church. Reformed and Anglo-Catholic alike have maintained healthy debate between these guardrails, preserving orthodoxy and promoting catholicity within the church.

1. Of the Trinity and the Gospel (Articles 1-5)

   • [A1] Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

   • [A2] Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man. The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

   • [A3] Of the going down of Christ into Hell. As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

   • [A4] Of the Resurrection of Christ. Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

   • [A5] Of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

2. Of Scripture and the Creeds (Articles 6-8, JD Canon 2)

   • [A6] Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

     1. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras (Ezra), The Second Book of Esdras (Nehemiah), The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the greater, Twelve Prophets the less. (This makes the 39 books of the ‘Protestant’ Old Testament canon).

     2. Position on the Deutero-canon (Apocrypha): And the other Books (as Hierome10 saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras The Fourth Book of Esdras The Book of Tobias The Book of Judith The rest of the Book of Esther The Book of Wisdom Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet The Song of the Three Children The Story of Susanna Of Bel and the Dragon The Prayer of Manasses The First Book of Maccabees The Second Book of Maccabees All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. (Sometimes called the Deutero-canonical [second-canon] books or Apocrypha).

   • [JD 2] We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

   • [A7] Of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

   • [A8] Of the Creeds. The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

3. On Sin and Salvation (Articles 9-18; JD Canon 1)

   • [JD 1] We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

   • [A9] Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, ,(which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

   • [A10] Of Free-Will. The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

   • [A11] Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

   • [A12] Of Good Works. Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

   • [A13] Of Works before Justification. Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

   • [A14] Of Works of Supererogation. Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

   • [A15] Of Christ alone without Sin. Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and horn again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

   • [A16] Of Sin after Baptism. Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

   • [A17] Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

   • [A18] Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ. They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

4. Of the Church, its authority, and polity (Articles 19-21; 23; 32; 34; 36, The Ordinal, JD 7)11

   • [A19] Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

   • [A20] Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

   • [A21] Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

   • [A23] Of Ministering in the Congregation. It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

   • [A32] Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

   • [A34] Of the Traditions of the Church. It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

   • [A36] Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

   • On Holy Orders (The Preface to the Ordinal): The Holy Scriptures and ancient authors teach that, from the Apostles’ time, these three orders of ministry have existed in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. From the earliest days of the Church, these offices were always held in such reverent estimation that no one might presume to execute any of them without being first called, tried, examined, and ascertained to have such qualities as are requisite. Candidates were approved and admitted to these offices by lawful authority, through public prayer and the imposition of hands by a Bishop. And therefore, to the end that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no one shall be accounted to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or allowed to execute any of the said functions, without first being called, tried, examined, and admitted to such office according to the form set forth in this book, or having received Episcopal Consecration or Ordination already.

   • [JD 7] On the Historic Episcopate. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

5. Worship in the Native Tongue (Article 24)

   • [A24] Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

6. Of the Sacraments (Articles 25-31)

   • [A25] Of the Sacraments. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

   • [A26] Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

   • [A27] Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

   • [A28] Of the Lord’s Supper. 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. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. 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. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

   • [A29] Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper. The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

   • [A30] Of both Kinds. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

   • [A31] Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

7. Of Church Discipline (Excommunication) (33)

   • [A33] Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided. That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

8. The Remaining Articles (22; 35; 37-39)

   • [A22] Of Purgatory. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

   • [A35] Of the Homilies. The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.12

   • [A37] Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates. The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.13

   • [A38] Of Christian Men’s Goods, which are not common. The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

   • [A39] Of a Christian Man’s Oath. As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching in justice, judgement, and truth.

V: The Book of Common Prayer

• The 1662 Prayer Book as the Church’s Official Liturgy

  • [JD 6] We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

  • The Great Litany is commonly used before the Holy Eucharist on the First Sunday of Advent and the First Sunday in Lent, and may be used on other Sundays as needed or as the Bishop directs. The Great Litany is especially appropriate for Rogation days, other days of fasting or thanksgiving, and occasions of solemn and comprehensive entreaty. It can be used as an independent rite, or at the conclusion of Morning or Evening Prayer.

  • The Holy Communion, commonly called the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist, is a chief means of grace for sustained and nurtured life in Christ. It is normally the principal service of Christian worship on the Lord’s Day and on other appointed Feasts and Holy Days. Mindful of the admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, participation in Holy Communion requires a penitent heart and lively faith.14

  • Holy Baptism is the initiatory rite of the Church, which seals adoption in Christ and is the means of grace for new life in him. Confirmation (or Reception) through the laying on of hands by a Bishop is the rite of public profession of faith that is expected of every adult member of the Church. In it the Holy Spirit gives grace to the believer for discipleship and ministry as a mature Christian.15

  • In addition to these liturgies and the other rites contained in this Book, the Minister, subject to the direction of the Ordinary (Diocesan Bishop), may use other forms of occasional service set forth by authority within this Church. Special devotions taken from Holy Scripture, and other services consistent with the Scriptures, may be authorized by the Bishop.16

  • The entire Congregation participates in the conduct of public worship. Laity, Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops fulfill the functions of their respective orders. Because divine service should give the Lord the worship due his Name, the Church expects proper training of all who lead in the liturgies of the Church.17

  • As pastoral need arises or local circumstance requires, all services may be translated into languages other than English for the sake of those gathered for worship.18

• The Daily Office

  • “Daily Morning Prayer and Daily Evening Prayer are the established rites (offices) by which, both corporately and individually, God’s people annually encounter the whole of the Holy Scriptures, daily confess their sins and praise Almighty God, and offer timely thanksgivings, petitions, and intercessions. The Prayer Book tradition has historically expected clergy to pray the Daily Office morning and evening each day.”19

VI: The Jerusalem Declaration

In 2008, orthodox Archbishops across the Anglican Communion gathered to address the issue of apostate bishops and provinces within the communion. This included deviations from teachings on anthropology and human sexuality, as well as rejection of long held gospel essentials. Below are the remaining canons of the Jerusalem Declaration not covered above.

• [JD 3] On the Creeds and Councils. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

• [JD 4] On the Thirty-Nine Articles. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

• [JD 5] The Unique and Universal Lordship of Jesus Christ. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

• [JD 8] Human Sexuality and Anthropology. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

• [JD 9] The Great Commission. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

• [JD 10] Our Dominion Over Creation. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

• [JD 11] On Ecumenism. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

• [JD 12] Regarding Adiaphora (secondary matters). We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

• [JD 13] On Heterodox and Apostate Churches. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

• [JD 14] Conclusion and our Hope in Christ to Build His Church. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

The communique wastes no time. After two decades of failed calls to repentance by GAFCON to provinces rejecting both the teaching of Scripture and the Anglican formularies, GAFCON Primates announced eight resolutions to “fulfill our mandate to reform the Anglican Communion.”

In this article I want to share the resolutions along with my own thoughts.

*GAFCON is a reform movement established in 2008 by orthodox archbishops (Primates) within the Anglican Communion committed to restoring the communion back to orthodoxy. The group represents the vast majority of global Anglicans.

The GAFCON Resolutions

1. We declare that the Anglican Communion will be reordered, with only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible, “translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading” (Jerusalem Declaration, Article II), which reflects Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion.

The first resolution appeals not only to the Jerusalem Declaration - which is the conciliar statement produced by the bishops at GAFCON 2008, representing 85% of the Anglican Communion - but also to the Thirty-Nine Articles. Scripture is the final, infallible authority for the Anglican Communion. This was a decision made when the Church of England rejected the Pope as the final, infallible authority over the church in the 16th century - and has been enshrined in our doctrine since.

One important thing to note is the wording of the Jerusalem Declaration. It is not simply Scripture as a vague platitude that we appeal to as an authority. If that were the case, the Church of England, TEC, and others have provided plenty of novel interpretations of the Word of God to suffice. However, it is Scripture “taught and obeyed in its plain canonical sense, respectful to the church’s historic and consensual reading.” While Scripture is open for all to read and profit from, it is not open for everyone to offer their own authoritative interpretation. That is the job of the church. And for the Anglican Communion, it is primarily the bishops who carry that responsibility.

Scripture is neither a moving target nor a wax nose, and when certain leaders in the church err in their interpretation and lead others astray, it is the responsibility of the church to hold them accountable and call them back to orthodoxy. This was the intention with the drafting of the Jerusalem Declaration, and it is the intention with the consequences outlined in this communique.

2. We reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.

This one speaks for itself. On its face, these structures seem like a thoughtful and effective way to provide representation of the communion, enabling the primates to perform their function as the doctrinal guide for the church. In practice, however, it hardly ever worked that way. What was never built into these instruments of communion was a feasible process of accountability for provinces who abandon church teaching within their own jurisdictions. There was never any authority built into these instruments, which became increasingly obvious once churches began ignoring resolutions drafted from their gatherings - and unavoidable once the Mother Church herself wandered down that path.

This led to the so called “instruments of communion” becoming nothing more than a social club for representatives to appear as a united front while the communion crumbled beneath them. Statements were curated, provinces were “sanctioned”, but no real discipline ever actually happened. The last decade saw a stark shift of the instruments of communion away from pursuing accountability and towards creating a path towards unity devoid of any real theological conviction. GAFCON itself is a result of the complete failure of the instruments to achieve their only objective.

3. We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority and overturned Resolution I.10, of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

This addresses the specific charge against the revisionist provinces. In 1998, the Lambeth Conference produced a theological standard on the topic of human sexuality. Resolution I. 10 states: “in view of the teaching of Scripture, [the conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.” It goes on to state that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Scripture.”1

Certain provinces have ignored this resolution in many ways: Such as clergy celebrating “marriages” for same-sex couples and appointing those living in same-sex couples to ecclesial offices as high as Archbishop. This blatant disregard started almost immediately after the resolution was passed: with the consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest living in a sex-same partnership, as bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire in (TEC) in 2003.

Not only are these provinces rejecting clear teaching from “the inerrant Word of God”, but they are formally standing as heretics against the teaching of the church. Twenty-three years later, and the so-called “Instruments of Communion” have done nothing to hold these provinces accountable - despite a minor slap on the wrist by Archbishop Rowan Williams that did more to show a province could do whatever they want than it did lead to any true reflection or repentance.2

4. Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.

This has been the promise of GAFCON since the first conference in 2008 - to re-structure the communion based on their historic commitments to Scripture and unity - as laid out in the Jerusalem Declaration.

*The Anglican Communion was established at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867.

5. Provinces of the Global Anglican Communion shall not participate in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the ACC, and shall not make any monetary contribution to the ACC, nor receive any monetary contribution from the ACC or its networks.

This resolution also speaks for itself. Orthodox provinces must formally reject the instruments of communion, both administratively and financially.

6. Provinces, which have yet to do so, are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England.

More of the same here - the See of Canterbury has consistently failed to repent and reform, and has surrendered its seat as primus inter pares (first among equals) for the Anglican Communion.

7. To be a member of the Global Anglican Communion, a province or a diocese must assent to the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, the contemporary standard for Anglican identity.

This resolution is key. As mentioned above, the Jerusalem Declaration is the conciliar statement drafted by global Anglican Bishops regarding Christian faith and practice, particularly in light of the aforementioned failure of certain provinces to uphold church teaching. Unlike statements put out by the former instruments of communion, these standards are not optional for those who wish to remain in the Anglican Communion.

8. We shall form a Council of Primates of all member provinces to elect a Chairman, as primus inter pares (‘first amongst equals’), to preside over the Council as it continues “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

The final resolution briefly addresses how the GAFCON Primates intend to reform the governing body over the Anglican Communion. The Jerusalem Declaration will serve as a binding theological document (along with the historic formularies: Thirty-Nine Articles, Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal) that the communion will be united around. The new primus inter pares will replace the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Council of Primates will replace the Primates Meeting and ACC.

“We have not left the Anglican Communion, we are the Anglican Communion”

One question that might be running through your head is: “Can GAFCON do this?”

And that is a fair question. When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre established the SSPX in response to the Second Vatican Council, it was clear who the schismatics were. It was irrelevant that the council introduced stark changes developments of doctrine because the great unifier for the Roman Church is not found primarily in doctrine, but through the office of the pope. And upon his excommunication, those in the SSPX may have looked and smelled Roman Catholic, but they were (and remain) Protestant nonetheless.

The same is not true for Anglicans. We do not claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the rock on which Christ planted the Church of England (I recently wrote an article about this topic). In fact, it was not until 1867 that the ancient office was declared to be an instrument of communion for Anglicans. Global Anglicanism’s unity has not historically been tied to a particular bishop, but rather centered around the formularies listed above. Provinces are autonomous (or autocephalous) and are not subject to the authority of a foreign jurisdiction.3

Because of the independence of our provinces, it is hardly possible for unity to be anchored in anything other than doctrine - as has been shown throughout the last few decades. Canterbury has recently attempted to position our unity as chiefly around our shared history instead of theological conviction, but a “unity” so vain and fragile is unity in-name-only. Further, the push itself is revisionist - as the Communion has made clear statements on doctrine in the past that have been abandoned by certain provinces for decades without repentance.

Our formularies are also clear that the church, particularly its bishops, have the authority and responsibility to defend the faith as “a witness and keeper of Holy Writ.” If the church has lost (or surrendered) its ability to authoritatively settle “controversies of faith” in council with one another, then it is the duty of our Primates to restore order to the Communion.4

So, the answer to the question as to whether the GAFCON Primates can impose these resolutions would be yes. That leads us to asking whether the Primates should impose them. I am convinced so, but you will have to make that decision for yourself.5

Canterbury [finally] Responds

Briefly, I want to discuss the responses from Canterbury to the statement from GAFCON. Anthony Poggo, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, released a pastoral letter on October 17th, the day after GAFCON’s statement. Incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, did the same shortly after. Both letters called for unity and further reflection over the recent Nairobi-Cairo Proposals - which is a document essentially calling for continued unity without discipline for heterodox provinces- a proposal which GAFCON has already rejected.

Putting aside the proposal, there is one particular thing that I noticed while reading these letters. These “pastoral letters” were the first time that GAFCON has been mentioned by name from Canterbury. Now, forgive me if I missed something. But I have spent hours combing through statements from Canterbury, the ACC, the Primates Council, and Lambeth documents - and there has not been a single instance of Canterbury identifying a group that represents the vast majority of the Communion’s members. GAFCON has existed since 2008, and Canterbury never saw it necessary to acknowledge their existence, much less consider what they had to say. That is, until those members threatened to stop sending money to Lambeth Palace.

At risk of saying something I will regret, I will just leave it at this: These letters were more offensive than they were unifying. They are too little too late.

What’s Next?

To echo the sentiment from the GAFCON Primates: the future has arrived. Of course, I hope and pray that this does not splinter off Anglicanism into countless small tribes - but as many have already pointed out: GAFCON has really just identified out loud what we have all been observing for years in silence.

I hope the Global South is able to join GAFCON alongside this movement, and together they can lead the 85% of global Anglicans who are committed to orthodox Christianity in the Anglican Way. My ultimate prayer is for the repentance of heterodox provinces and submission to both Scripture and our Anglican formularies. Regardless, I take comfort that the Primates within the Global Anglican Communion are taking seriously their duty to fight for and defend the faith once delivered to the saints.

On May 8, 2025, those words were proclaimed from the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City after a brief, two day conclave. The Latin phrase translates to “we have a pope.” This was surely an exciting time for Roman Catholics around the world as the See of Rome- whose occupant they believe to be St. Peter’s successor and universal bishop of Christ’s Church - was once again filled following the death of Pope Francis less than a month prior. The election of Pope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) dominated news cycles and ecclesial conversations in the days that followed.

For Anglicans, there soon came a critique of our own tradition in light of the short conclave: “Rome elected a new pope in less than a month. What is taking Canterbury so long?” Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announced his resignation back in November of 2024. His successor, Sarah Mullally, was not elected until October of 2025 - eleven months later.

Mullally checks all of the boxes that orthodox Anglicans expected out of this process: but hoped and prayed not to see. A liberal, progressive, female cleric who is deeply tied into the CofE bureaucracy that, in its best light, can only be described as wholly complacent. Many Roman Catholics have taken this opportunity to extend an invitation to their Anglican brothers and sisters to cross the Tiber. While I do think our Roman friends tend to grossly undersell their own struggle with progressivism, that is not the issue I want to talk about today. Instead, I want to get to the root of Anglican ecclesiology and what it can teach us about carrying on during a time such as this.

We have no pope (non habemus papam)

For Roman Catholics, when Pope Francis died, there was no pope (non habemus papam). Three weeks later, when Leo XIV was elected, white smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel and there was now a pope (habemus papam).

Let’s compare that to us Anglicans: When Justin Welby resigned eleven months ago, we had no pope. Last Friday, when Sarah Mullally was elected as Welby’s successor, we had no pope. And upon her forthcoming consecration, the Anglican Communion will still have no pope.

Why does this matter?

Now, I do not mean to downplay the historic role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Anglican Church. The office has long been seen as a sign of unity not only for the Church of England, but for the Anglican Communion itself.1 Losing the See of Canterbury to apostasy and progressivism hurts and it makes things difficult for us. However, losing the See of Canterbury does not mean losing the Anglican Communion. Again, we have no pope.

One common misunderstanding I see with Roman Catholics in their discourse towards Anglicans is this idea that if the Archbishop of Canterbury fails, so too does the Anglican Church. This misunderstanding makes sense, considering that is certainly true for them regarding the pope (though it should not be forgotten the Church of Rome spent nearly 40 years in the Middle Ages with numerous competing popes and no clue who the real one was).

For Anglicans, however, that is not the case. Our ecclesial foundation is not built upon a single bishop. Which raises the question: what, then, is our ecclesial foundation built upon?

A feature, not a bug

Article 19 reminds us that the church is “a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance.” Article 36 accompanies this definition to affirm episcopal ordination as the proper form of polity, noting that the Anglican Ordinal contains “all things necessary to such consecration and ordering” in the church. Together, Anglicans affirm with Ignatius of Antioch that where there is a bishop, there is the church. Of course, we add the qualifier that said bishop must be protecting the truth of the faith once delivered. If they apostatize, they surrender their authority.2

The Anglican church does not need the Archbishop of Canterbury in order to be the church. This is a feature, not a bug, because we believe the church can err. When Canterbury signs off on prayers of blessings for same sex couples, we do not need to conjure up a nuanced explanation for why the prayers aren’t technically blessing sin, or come up with categories in which the See of Canterbury can speak error and still maintain its infallibility.

We don’t need to explain how a complete reversal of church teaching on the death penalty is somehow just a clarification of what has always been taught.

We don’t need to argue that when a pope declares this at an ecumenical council:

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives…and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”3

That what he actually means is this:

“Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire...”4

We don’t need to make a distinction that while the Vatican is welcoming an LGBTQ+ pilgrimage to Rome this Jubilee year, it is not technically endorsed by the pope.5

We don’t need to flock to Byzantine and TLM parishes that allow us to evade and bend the clear teachings of an infallible council without technically being schismatics.

And we don’t need to justify why it is virtuous to pray a blessing over a block of ice.

We can call a spade a spade, and still be the church at the end of it.

A conciliar church

None of this is to say the the Anglican Church is a free-for-all of private interpretation - with every man fending for himself to discern orthodoxy. One of the benefits of a global communion is accountability from the other bishops. The denunciation of Canterbury is not merely a grassroots effort by disgruntled laypeople in the church. Instead, it is a conciliar effort from the primates within the communion that goes back much further than this point in time.6

Within ninety minutes of the election of Sarah Mullally, both the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans and GAFCON (which together make up over 85% of the global communion) released statements denouncing her election and rejecting the authority of the See of Canterbury due to apostasy. This is not do-it-yourself theology, this is conciliarism at work. The statement from GAFCON minces no words:

Anglicans believe that the church has been given authority by God to establish rites and ceremonies and to settle [doctrinal] controversy, “and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word” (Article XX). The church cannot bless or affirm what God has condemned (Numbers 23:8; 24:13). This, however, is precisely what Bishop Mullally has sought to allow.

Since the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture and “the Church’s historic and consensual” interpretation of it (Jerusalem Statement), she cannot provide leadership to the Anglican Communion. The leadership of the Anglican Communion will pass to those who uphold the truth of the gospel and the authority of Scripture in all areas of life.

The Archbishop of Uganda, The Most Rev. Dr. Stephen Samuel Kaziimba Mugalu, provides more clarity:

As we declared in our 2023 Gafcon statement from Kigali, we no longer recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as having global authority and the office is certainly no longer an “Instrument of Communion.” With this appointment, the Archbishop of Canterbury is reduced simply to the Primate of All England.

Two things you may notice in these statements are that:

1. The rejection of Canterbury’s authority was actually announced nearly two years ago, in 2023, not merely in the aftermath of Mullally’s election.

2. The mentioning of the Jerusalem Statement: which is a 2008 statement made by the global Anglican bishops affirming basic principles of orthodoxy that were being abandoned by some in the Anglican Communion (notably within the Episcopal Church and Church of England). GAFCON has also provided episcopal oversight to orthodox Anglicans in heterodox jurisdictions since 2008, ensuring an orthodox home to those in drifting provinces.

The church is here to stay

Orthodox Anglicans were not blindsided by the election of a progressive Archbishop of Canterbury. Our bishops had seen the writing on the wall for decades, and had taken steps to ensure Christians in regions where apostasy was a concern had support and oversight. This is the entire reason the Anglican Church in North America exists today. The fall of the See of Canterbury is upsetting, but it is in no way a death sentence for Anglicanism at large. The communion has filled the gaps where apostasy has run rampant. My diocese, bishop, and province are in submission to the Word of God and supported by global bishops with the same conviction. GAFCON also provides oversight for orthodox Anglicans in England (and elsewhere), which is more important now than ever before.

This is why conciliarism is so important. While some Anglican provinces are drifting into heresy, the Anglican Communion endures in its commitment to the authority of Scripture and the faith once delivered. If I were to take the advice of my Roman friends and swim the Tiber, I would lose this security and gain nothing that I do not already have in my own ecclesial home.

I see this time and again from traditional Catholics in the US seeking solace in places like the SSPX (which in itself is a form of Protestantism) or other alternative options to their local Novus Ordo parish. Read any of the leading scholars from the twenty-seven Jesuit universities across the US to get a taste of what is promoted in mainline Catholicism with no discipline whatsoever. I can only imagine the blasphemous homilies a faithful German Catholic must sit through each mass just to fulfill their obligation. I’m not sure how far I’d get into the Tiber before I found it indistinguishable from the Thames. My purpose here is not to disparage the Roman Church, but to offer my thoughts as to why the grass on that side may not be as green as advertised.

I am indebted to the leadership in the Anglican Communion who made homes for those who were losing theirs.

I am grateful for the clarity from GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration which ensure commitments to the authority of Scripture, the Anglican Way, and the faith once delivered to the saints.

And I am elated, for the sake of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that upon Dame Sarah Mullally’s installation as Archbishop of Canterbury in January, that we will still have no pope.

The Anglican Church is home to the third largest Christian communion in the world, behind the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Despite the size and rich history, doctrinal clarity is not a characteristic generally associated with Anglicanism. Instead, the Anglican tradition is often cited for its “big tent” that incorporates a wide-range of theological positions. While the big tent concept is certainly applicable, it would be a mistake to diminish the Anglican way as a free-for-all where simply anything goes. Or further: a tradition with no real identity of its own.

For those unfamiliar with Anglicanism entirely, the Anglican Communion as we see it today developed out of the Church of England following the Reformation.1 As the English Empire expanded in the centuries following the Reformation, so did the Church of England. During this expansion, it grew from a single national church to a global communion of churches. This global communion is what we call the Anglican Church, or Anglican Communion. Simply put: The Anglican Communion is a global union of regional [national] churches, or provinces. While each church is independent (or autocephalous), they are united together as one global communion, traditionally recognizing the Archbishop of Canterbury as its first among equals. While some Anglican provinces today are either not currently in communion with Canterbury or refuse to recognize the title for a multitude of reasons, communion with Canterbury has traditionally been a general mark of an Anglican province.2

For many Christian traditions, we often associate key theological distinctives that we think as being unique to them. Think of transubstantiation and the pope with Roman Catholics, theosis and iconography with Orthodoxy, or credo-baptism and religious liberty with Baptists. Of course, in this we don’t intend to minimize these traditions to a single idea, but these identifiers often work to point us to certain aspects of different traditions that draw people towards them. Considering that, what distinctives come to mind when you hear “Anglican”?

The Book of Common Prayer?

The Thirty-Nine Articles?

One term that is often used to characterize Anglicanism is via media, or middle way. Anglicans themselves debate what this middle way is supposed to be between (big tent, remember?), but colloquially the term suggests a balance between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. This is perhaps a helpful tip for someone planning to attend their first Anglican service, but it does little help in describing what sets Anglicanism apart from other Christian traditions. While I do think the Articles, Prayer Book, and the via media shed great light on Anglican distinctives, a plain reading of them may not turn up all that special to the average onlooker. It is important for us, then, as Anglicans to qualify what it is about our tradition that we hold so dear: what we would lose by swimming the Tiber or clinging to the Westminster Confession.

The question remains: what is unique about Anglicanism, and why would someone become Anglican over a seemingly more refined tradition like the Reformed or Roman Catholic? What are the Anglican distinctives? This question is what I hope to address in this series. Particularly, I am proposing seven distinctives of Anglicanism that are either unique to the tradition, originated within it, or are done far better in Anglicanism than anywhere else. My goal is that through this series we will better understand the unique character of a tradition that is represented by over 80 million Christians globally in over 40 provinces.

So, what of the “Via Media”?

As mentioned above, Anglicanism is often said to be represented by the via media, or middle way. This term addresses a tension within the Anglican Church that has roots going back to the English Reformation.3 Namely, tension between the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals.4

The Protestant/Evangelical movement finds its roots in the English Reformation. When the Church of England proclaimed her separation from Rome with the 1534 Act of Supremacy, many in England took that as an opportunity to help shape what the newly-independent church should look like. Among those thinkers were the Puritans (alongside separatists and non-conformists), whose goal was to “purify” the church from the medieval developments they saw as antithetical to Christianity and to return the church to its ancient, biblical roots. As Protestant theology made its way from continental Europe to the British Isles, more voices grew opposing practices such as prayers to saints, observing seven sacraments, bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and vestments for priests - while embracing the preaching of the Word as of primary importance. Some Puritans even went as far as rejecting the office of Bishop altogether as unbiblical and papist. As you may have guessed, not all of these oppositions were embraced by the church, though the movement proved to be an influential voice in the formation of Anglican thought and practice at the dawn of the English Reformation that has maintained a lasting impact.

Fast-forward to the Great Awakening of the 18th-century, and we find a resurgence of Evangelical thought within Anglicanism: led by figures such as John Wesley, who became disillusioned by the spiritual complacency of the church and strongly prioritized conversion of souls and care for the poor over ecclesiastical practices.5 It is from this movement that the Protestant/Evangelical stream of Anglicanism finds its strongest contemporary link.

The Anglo-Catholic movement also has roots in the English Reformation: notably with King Henry VIII himself, who saw England’s split from Rome as merely moving the church's head from Rome to England.6 To Henry, the Catholic Church in England would continue business-as-usual, but without oversight from the Bishop of Rome. There were many in 16th century England who saw things as Henry did and joined in objecting the Reformation at large.7 Of course, there were many in England who found themselves somewhere in the middle, calling for reform from within but cautious of some of the radical changes taking place in continental Europe.8 Over time, the Catholic voices opposing the Puritan demands for radical reform would also prove to be influential in the development of Anglican thought.

The 19th century brought a resurgence of Anglo-Catholic theology to the church through a period called the Oxford Movement (in many ways this movement was a response to the low church evangelicalism of the Great Awakening). This is also where the term “Anglo-Catholic” originated. Figures such as Edward Pusey, John Henry Newman, and John Keble, through a series of books and tracts, defended practices such as prayers to saints, seven sacraments, maintaining bishops in apostolic succession, and the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These figures were concerned with protecting the institutional church, which they saw the evangelicals as abandoning. Key to their defense was that their beliefs represented the spirit of early English reformers such as John Jewel and Richard Hooker. The Anglo-Catholics hoped for a return to the high sacramental theology and ecclesiology they saw as representative of traditional Anglicanism.

Today, influence from both parties can be found within the Anglican Communion: and it’s this tension that the term via media (usually) refers to. While I am not opposed to it, the term risks presenting Anglicanism as a mere result of historical accidents or compromise between two unrelenting foes (one can hardly read Hooker’s Laws and walk away thinking the Anglican Way is simply a result of keeping two extremes at bay in the name of unity). Rather, a more appropriate way to view this tension is by seeing that both parties have made positive contributions to the thoughtful developments of the church. The Evangelicals have influenced the church to be cautious of medieval accretions that find no home in Scripture or the Fathers, and the Catholics have influenced the church to keep the flame of sacred tradition burning amidst temptation to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” in pursuit of gospel simplicity.

What’s the point?

What amazes me about Anglicanism is its ability to remain united despite stark differences. At its best, the tension represents a catholic unity that prioritizes certain theological priorities over others: choosing to value communion over schism. At its worst, it results in an attempt to uphold contradictory beliefs and reject essential Anglican teaching in the name of unity.

All of this to say: there are right and wrong teachings within Anglicanism. The Church is a visible institution, not merely an invisible body made up of all Christians past and present. Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in the Eucharist. The historic episcopate is of primary importance, if not essential, to the church: while at the same time non-episcopal churches (by this I mean churches who do not maintain apostolic succession via the historic episcopate) mustn’t be de-churched for their error - and we can certainly affirm that members within those churches can still be saved. Scripture is the only infallible guide to which fallible bishops must turn when interpreting the faith. The Word must be preached regularly alongside the Eucharist, etc. Even so, the reality of the aforementioned tension remains and contributes to the balance that makes up the Anglican Communion.

As we venture through the seven distinctives (which are listed below), we will further examine how this tension contributes to the beauty and identity of the Anglican Communion.

The Seven Distinctives of Anglicanism:

1. Doctrine: Setting Theological Guardrails of Orthodoxy

2. Canon: Embracing the “Received Canon” of Scripture

3. Sacraments: The 2+5 Sacramental Distinction

4. Authority: Middle “T” Tradition and a Fallible Magisterium

5. Polity: “Plene Esse” as a Key to Church Unity

6. Ecumenism: Anglicanism as an Ecumenical Bridge to Other Churches

7. Liturgy: The Book of Common Prayer as a Way of Life

In addition to my admiration for Lansing’s particular style of iconography, the name of his project feels particularly Anglican to me. What does it mean when we say “Our church speaks”- and do we really mean it when we say it?

The Role of the Bishop

As Anglicans, we affirm the Protestant distinctive that the Bible is the sole, infallible authority to which the entire church is subject. However, we also believe - along with our Roman and Eastern siblings - that bishops have a special and apostolic role in interpreting, guarding, and handing down doctrine to each generation. For Anglicans, the Bible does have the final say, but it is the bishops who have been given the authority to speak the truth of Scripture on behalf (and for the benefit) of the church.

Every bishop that has been consecrated in the Anglican Church has to answer “yes” to these questions:

“Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach or maintain nothing as necessary to eternal salvation but that which may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures?”

“Will you then faithfully study the Holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of them, so that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince those who contradict it?”

“Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word, and both privately and publicly to call upon others and encourage them to do the same?”

The bishop has been given special authority, by Christ and His Church, to study, teach, and exhort the Scriptures. In addition, he must also combat heresy and all “strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word”, both publicly and privately. The bishop has special authority as a theologian to Christ’s church.

When bishops come together in council, the intended result is for authoritative teaching to spread beyond not just one bishop and his diocese, but throughout the entire church. Sometimes this is done on a smaller level within a geographic region (think: synod), and sometimes this is done at a large scale to address false teaching affecting the whole church (think: ecumenical council).

Now, schism has created an issue for a true “ecumenical” council to take place. However, these large councils do still happen. The most recent example of an Anglican council carrying ecumenical weight would be the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) - created and affirmed by the vast majority of global Anglican bishops. This declaration was the result of a council that was necessitated by rampant deviations within certain Anglican provinces from orthodox doctrine on a multitude of church teachings - with biblical sexual ethics being one of the most significant. This council also created a fellowship of the 85% of global Anglicans who affirm orthodox teaching, calling the minority 15% of bishops into repentance. The council that produced the Jerusalem declaration is a great example of the truth proclaimed in Lansing’s project: Our Church Speaks.

A Living Church

So why do I bring this up? The conciliar nature of the Anglican Church creates an environment where the bishop’s role is to faithfully respond to issues of their time with careful reflection upon both Sacred Tradition and (ultimately) the infallible anchor of Scripture. Most of the time, the bishop’s attention is given to problems within his jurisdiction, but some issues require a collected effort. Regardless, it is a ministry that is ongoing. This is an important reality that I fear many of us lose sight of in our skeptical, post-modern context. We might think “Sure, the church spoke authoritatively back then, but what is so special about us now?” We might even dismiss such suggestions as some dangerous form of charismatic Christianity.

We must resist the temptation to delegitimize the authority of the church that exists right now. An authority that was just as real 500 years ago as it is today. We do not say, for example, our church spoke. This is a temptation for the Reformed-leaning and Anglo-Catholic alike. The Reformed Anglican may wish to codify the 16th century as the true and full expression of Anglican (or Christian) doctrine.

In this view:

1. Everything from 597-1534 AD was a road to extrabiblical accretions.

2. 1534-1662 was the formation of true Anglicanism.

3. And everything from the Oxford Movement on is inauthentic and revisionist.

The Church of England, then, “got it right” during the Reformation (or at least those who aligned with Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley). And any deviation from a Reformed interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles is not authentically Anglican.

For the Anglo-Catholic, there is the temptation to erase the English Reformation entirely from Anglican history, or at least to re-interpret the Articles to an extent where they are completely detached from their original meaning. For this type of Anglo-Catholic: the Church of England got off track during the Reformation, “got it right” during the Oxford Movement, and its preceding three centuries were a mistake we must embarrassingly explain away - lest our Roman friends fail to take us seriously at the dinner table.1

I would like to suggest, however, that an authentically Anglican ecclesiology proposes that the church spoke both through the English Reformation and the Oxford Movement, and many more times over the last two-thousand years. The Holy Spirit was not “more present” during the drafting of the Thirty-Nine Articles than He was for the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral - or in the creation of the Jerusalem Declaration, for that matter.

Here is Article 20 (in contemporary English), On the Authority of the Church

“The church has authority to decree forms of worship and ceremonies and to decide in controversies concerning the faith. However, it is not lawful for the church to order anything contrary to God's written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to Holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation.”

If we take what the Ordinal (and Articles) says about authority seriously, we must affirm that we have a living church that speaks eternal truth to issues of its time. While it is possible for the church to err at times, the truth itself never changes - we just grow a deeper understanding of it. Sometimes the church speaks to particular contexts (like the Vestiarian Controversy) and sometimes to essential, timeless truths (Scripture containing all things necessary for salvation).

The Church’s Voice through Time

It is un-Anglican, then, to view the Thirty-Nine Articles as the entirety of Anglican doctrine. This would be to say the church spoke then, but not since, and certainly not now. It is just as un-Anglican to dismiss the articles as mere historical documents with no binding authority today. Instead, we are to incorporate them. There was a time in Church history, for example, where certain abuses made it unwise to use language of the Eucharist that risked mistaking it as something to be feared and worshipped rather than consumed for spiritual nourishment. It was a popular idea at the time of the Reformation that the priest re-sacrificed Christ during the mass.2 The Sacrament itself was feared by many and often received only once a year (and even then, only in one kind). Another example would be the multiple false teachings surrounding indulgences and a punitive purgatory in the medieval church. Because of these dangerous abuses, the church [rightfully] built theological guardrails (the Articles) to protect us from said abuses.

As those issues were mitigated following the Reformation, new ones emerged. Think of 18th century evangelicalism - and the impact of Puritanism and the Great Awakening. These movements led to a disregard of many Anglican distinctives, particularly of episcopal polity and Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. One of the primary examples of this is found in the creation of the Methodist denomination, which rejected the Anglican Church’s teaching that only a bishop has the authority to ordain priests and deacons.

Contrasting with the Reformation, the Oxford Movement led to corrections at the other extreme, re-emphasizing the catholic nature and doctrines of the church that it has always endorsed - doctrines reflected in the Articles and Anglican Divines themselves. It should not surprise us, then, that at this time many turned to the Articles with fresh eyes, leaning into the high church end of the guardrails and away from the low. The truth had not changed, but the context certainly had.

One of the great conciliar teachings that came from the Oxford Movement was the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: which reiterated our commitment to the three-fold order of church government. Now, it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the Anglo-Catholicism of the Oxford Movement is entirely representative of true Anglicanism. Just as more Puritan-minded Anglicans may take liberties with our theology to fit their narrative, some Anglo-Catholics attempt to do the same. All the more reason to remember the church is a living body that guides us away from false teaching and into truth - while allowing healthy debate within.

The church is a living organism. One reason many high church Anglicans reject the identity of “Protestant” is because of the connotations it brings forth in the modern day. Anglicans do not (or should not) see themselves as being created in 1534. Anglicans, like Luther and Calvin, see themselves as wholly Catholic. The gospel was not re-discovered during the Reformation any more than it was at the Council of Nicaea.

Whether hardline Reformed or Anglo-Catholic, it is a mistake when we elevate one portion of our history as authoritative over another. Our fullest understanding of Anglican teachings do not come when we pit them against each other, but when we read them in concert with one another. The Synod of Whitby spoke to the challenges surrounding an undivided, but fracturing church. The Council of Constance foreshadowed the conciliar stance we would take during the Reformation. The Thirty-Nine Articles reiterated a patristic commitment to Scripture as the source which we must constantly weigh our doctrines against. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral brought us back to our episcopal commitment to Apostolic Succession that had been abandoned during the Great Awakening.3 And today, the Jerusalem Declaration is not merely a statement on sexual ethics, but a reminder of our commitment to “the church’s historical and consensual reading” of Scripture.

This brings us to the anchor of Anglican episcopacy, which is where our ecclesiology departs from Rome and Constantinople. The Church may not dogmatize anything other than what is explicitly and clearly outlined in Scripture.4 The church does have the authority to define and enforce doctrine, but it does not have the authority to force adiaphora, or other things, upon the faithful. While this places limits on the authority of the church, it does not democratize it.

If there is such a thing as “true Anglicanism”, it looks like a church that respects its authoritative voice through time. Our church has not merely spoken, but rather our church speaks. And it will continue to do so until Christ’s return.

*This article was inspired in-part by this video from Deacon Jonah. Check out his Substack,

Cooper gives three primary reasons why he believes people choose Anglicanism over Lutheranism:

1. The appeal of Anglicanism’s “big tent”

2. America’s particular draw towards English heritage

3. The recent influx of young people to ACNA churches

As I neared the end of the video I found myself less surprised by the things he mentioned, but instead was scratching my head over the things he left out.

In this article I will offer my own thoughts on Cooper’s points and will then provide what I believe to be a more convincing thesis as to why, in the midst of the “trad movement”, evangelicals are choosing the Anglican Church over Lutheranism.

Dr. Cooper’s Thesis: Two Equal Options for Tradition-Lovers

Here is Dr. Cooper’s basic thesis offered at the beginning of his video:

Cooper notes that both Anglicanism and Lutheranism are “evangelical catholic” traditions that revere tradition in a way contemporary Protestantism does not. He says:

“Within the options of broader Protestantism when you are looking for something that is more historically rooted, you certainly have the Reformed or Presbyterian traditions that have a confessional tradition and a very simplified liturgy, but if you are looking for something that is more concerned with the history of the church and the retaining of the traditions of the church, you really have those two [Anglican and Lutheran] traditions.”

For Cooper, who references his own journey out of the evangelical/Reformed tradition, Anglicanism did not share the rich theological tradition of Lutheranism. This ultimately led him to choose the latter despite considering the former, something he gives more attention to in this video from a few years ago. His point seems clear enough: Lutherans have a rich theological history and a unified catechism - real concrete answers to questions. Whereas Anglicans have far less clarity on a multitude of doctrines, seemingly tolerating a plurality of differing views in the name of maintaining their “big tent.” Fair enough.

I would challenge this view, though, to say that the Anglican church has actually spoken a lot on doctrine - albeit their approach to theology is entirely different from a Scholastic or Reformed model. However, the point of this article is not to defend Anglican theology (or a lack thereof), but rather to engage with Cooper’s argument for why he thinks evangelicals are flooding to Canterbury over Wittenberg.

Digging into Dr. Cooper’s three points

Below are a summary of the three primary reasons Dr. Cooper suggests lead many to choose Anglicanism over Lutheranism - along with some thoughts of my own:

1. It’s easier.

   1. Cooper argues that Anglicanism lends itself to a bring-your-own-theology approach to newcomers. To Cooper, the Anglican Church is a place where people from various traditions can unite around a common liturgy without changing much (if any) of their theology.

      1. Cooper also brings up the allegiance to the catechism required by those becoming Lutheran, and points out the lack of such uniformity within Anglicanism to strengthen his point.

I do not think Cooper is far off base here, but I do think he somewhat misses the mark on the point he is trying to make. Now, I will be the first to say, Anglicanism does often function as an ecclesiological “safe space” for some, where Christians can sit-in as they sort their theology out. It is also true that the Anglican church has served as both a spiritual retreat for weary Catholics and a last stop for Protestants who aren’t quite ready to cross the Tiber. Further, our open communion table allows for guests to “try before you buy”, and they don’t even need to fill out a visitor card! But these minority instances do not make up the whole. Similarly, and to my point, there is a difference between trying out a church and getting confirmed in it.

Cooper suggests that those coming into Anglicanism need not give up their theology at the door. Whereas for Lutheranism, that is a requirement. However, I think Cooper is underestimating the change that precedes the moment a low-church evangelical receives the laying on of hands by a bishop. For many of us, this stuff is a big deal!

First, while it has nothing on Luther’s Small Catechism length-wise, to become an Anglican is, in many ways, to embrace the Thirty-Nine Articles. And despite whether your parish is embracing an Anglo-Catholic or Reformed reading of the Articles, its influence is virtually impossible to ignore. For a Christian from a Baptist or non-denominational background, joining a church that teaches Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration, and the office of bishop is a drastic change in theology. I won’t spend too much time on this, because I do ultimately think Cooper is right in that it takes more “I do’s” to become a Lutheran, but I’m not convinced think it takes any more conviction.

Anglicanism does have a big tent, and there is a wide range of theological views within it. Because of this, it is somewhat common to see converts holding onto theological convictions from their previous tradition. Sometimes this is a problem (when it goes against Anglican teaching), and sometimes it is harmless (because the Church allows diversity of opinion on many secondary matters). However, I would not go as far to say this makes it “easier” to become an Anglican - I would just say the convictions that lead a person to Anglicanism are different than that which lead to Lutheranism. The Anglican way of doing theology is not lazy (and to be fair, Cooper never said it was), it is just not Scholastic, but it is still an ethos that needs to be pondered seriously and accepted by those coming in.

2. Americans have a reverence for the English heritage as refined and sophisticated - a reverence that they do not hold for Lutheranism/German heritage

I personally thought this was Dr. Cooper’s weakest point. He notes the romanticizing of English heritage in America as a reason people are choosing Anglicanism over Lutheranism. While it is certainly true that America has more cultural ties to England than Germany, I do not think this accurately addresses what leads people into one tradition over the other. He adds to this point by noting the theological influence of the Reformed and Anglican traditions over American thought (and the absence of Lutheran influence). This claim, I will say, has more merit.

If the point he is trying to make is that Anglicanism is more popular than Lutheranism, or that Anglicanism is more comfortable, than I suppose he is right. Though if his point is that Christians are drawn to Anglicanism because it makes them feel more important than if they were Lutheran, I think he is underestimating the zeal of Anglican converts.1

Still, I feel that this reason, much like the first, is missing something. It is possibly a minor symptom, but fails to address the root of what separates the two traditions in the eyes of so many looking for a new ecclesial home. While I would argue that Anglican liturgy is the best that western Christendom has to offer, I do not think people are choosing Canterbury to rub elbows with elites or reconnect with their ancestry (though I can not say the latter is a bad reason to convert).

Finally, Cooper’s third point

3. Anglican churches have younger people in them

This is probably Dr. Cooper’s strongest point. As he notes in the video, the ACNA has done a fantastic job attracting young people. Many Anglican church plants are in urban areas, and swaths of families are coming into the church every Sunday. A recent report revealed three consecutive years of ACNA growth, with no signs of slowing down. It is the hot new thing to become Anglican, and young people have shown themselves to be a big part of that trend. I cannot say I have any critique of Cooper’s reasoning here. If you are torn between two churches, and one has more people your age, it is very likely you will choose that church.

My thoughts on Cooper’s reasoning

As I mentioned above, I do not think Dr. Cooper’s argument falls completely flat. Though, I do think he misses the point. Dr. Cooper undersells the commitment one is making when becoming Anglican and oversells the commitment to becoming Lutheran. For many Protestants, Lutheranism provides developed categories for things they already believe. The only exception to this I can think of is their doctrine of the Eucharist, but a strict real presence is required within Anglicanism as well. One who is looking to a new tradition is inherently going through changes in their beliefs. While Lutheranism provides more “final answers” to questions that Anglicans consider tertiary or adiaphora, I do not think it requires much more commitment to become Lutheran than Anglican, just more commitment to Lutheran theology. I would actually argue that for many Anglican converts, Lutheranism doesn’t go far enough!2

For his argument regarding English heritage, I think it has a marginal influence at best. I just don’t think there are that many Anglophiles leaving American evangelicalism to “come home”. However, it is possible that a subconscious affinity is driving that change more than I realize.

To his point about there being more young people in ACNA churches than Lutheran ones, I see that more as a result of people choosing Anglicanism than the driving factor behind why people are making that choice. Something had to draw the young people in, and we know they weren’t coming from TEC.

My proposal: Three Better Reasons why Evangelicals are Choosing Canterbury over Wittenberg

All that being said, I would like to provide three reasons why I think, when presented with two similar “evangelical catholic” options, people are choosing Anglicanism over Lutheranism.

1. Bishops

I was genuinely shocked that Cooper did not mention the episcopate in his video. After scrolling through the comments, I found I was not the only one surprised to see this absent from his list. One of the major differences between our two traditions is that Anglicans believe in a third ecclesial office of bishop, which is distinct from a priest or deacon. In his introduction, Cooper discussed the goal of both churches in preserving the best of Church tradition while trimming the fat of accretions. Lutherans ultimately decided that bishops and priests were one and the same, where Anglicans formalized the three-fold order into their doctrine.

I think it is reasonable to say the office of bishop is the primary reason evangelicals are choosing Anglicanism over Lutheranism. Many Anglican converts came because they were drawn to the Church Fathers. And many were surprised to find just how early the office of bishop was used in the church. For many coming into Anglicanism, much of the appeal comes from being convinced that Anglicans, unlike their Protestant brethren, maintain the true three-fold order of church polity.

This is a point Barret himself alludes to many times in his recent article discussing his entry into the ACNA:

“I had to ask myself, Why did the church fathers believe the New Testament naturally gave birth to bishops (of which we have elaborate records)? Are we consistent to cherry-pick, stealing away the doctrine of the creeds while rejecting the polity of the councils and the office of bishop so instrumental to implementing doctrinal accountability in the church?”

Unlike Luther’s Small Catechism, the Anglican Ordinal (one of the few things every single Anglican is bound to) not only affirms the historic episcopate, but affirms it as apostolic in origin - in line with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. This is the key difference between Anglicans and their Protestant siblings, and certainly something that is drawing a lot of Evangelicals in.

2. Councils

In keeping bishops, Anglicans have maintained the conciliar model of the historic church. The last two centuries have seen this primarily represented in the Lambeth Conference. More recently, Orthodox Anglican bishops gathered in council to produce statements of faith such as the Cairo Covenant and Jerusalem Declaration. Those seeking continuity with the undivided church can look to the Anglican tradition and see the same model in place that guided the church for two millennia. Barrett notes this as well in his article:

“But as I returned to the scriptures, I could not escape a very different, and far healthier model, one designed to keep leadership and laypeople alike accountable. After reading the book of Acts with fresh eyes, especially the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, it was conspicuous to me that most other traditions are far more consistent with the whole of Acts. Presbyterians have a presbytery and synods, and Anglicans prosper on a rich heritage of bishops and councils. After the apostolic age, episcopacy becomes the majority report in the pre-modern church ‘for good reason.’”

3. Anglicanism is a global communion

In maintaining bishops and the conciliar model of government, Anglicans have been able to preserve a global communion in a way other Protestant traditions have not. Episcopal polity allows for churches to be connected globally in a tangible way. When one reads of the unity within the early church (which, to be fair, is often over-exaggerated by our Roman friends), it can be a great joy to see that Anglicans have put forth much effort to preserve global ecclesial unity. This may lead some readers to point to the obvious problems within the Anglican Communion - and maybe even to accuse the ACNA of not being truly Anglican at all due to their schism with the Episcopal Church.

However, I want to briefly suggest that even the founding of the ACNA was a blessing of global church unity that was only possible due to episcopal polity. The ACNA was not a splinter group formed by disgruntled Episcopals, it was a church plant led by episcopal oversight of primarily African bishops. We were not created outside of and in protest to the Anglican Communion - we were planted, nurtured, and ultimately granted autocephalousy from within the communion. Even today, the ACNA (while not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury - which only became a requirement in the mid 19th century, by the way) maintains its connection to the global Anglican communion via GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans - two organizations within the communion.

In his article, Barrett shares two thoughtful quotes on this topic:

“What a comfort to tell our kids, ‘The way we are worshipping is how Christians have worshipped across history. It’s really, really old. You are participating in the church universal.’”

“Our kids were surprised to learn that Anglicanism is not only ancient but the largest Protestant tradition in the world today. It is a global communion.”

Conclusion

I do not think Dr. Cooper was entirely wrong in his assumptions, but I think he pointed mostly towards minor symptoms while missing the major driving factors that are bringing low church evangelicals into Anglicanism. Lutherans and Anglicans have a lot in common. We both revere tradition, which is reflected in our liturgy. We both held onto a lot of the “good stuff” from the Catholic tradition, while cutting out a lot of the bad. However, we are not merely two sides of the same coin.

Anglicans kept the episcopacy, while Lutherans (at least in the US) rejected three distinct offices in favor of two. Anglicans preserved the conciliar structure of church government, and continue to hold councils to define matters of faith and practice to this day - in line with the undivided church. And Anglicans have continued to value global communion as integral to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Further, we have maintained a continued effort to be in dialogue with bishops both in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches - seeking ways forward towards unity and reconciliation. Our open table proclaims a de facto unity with all baptized Christians who have placed their faith in Christ for their salvation.

To me, these reasons strike potential converts much stronger than those listed by Dr. Cooper.