Why is J.I. Packer Anglican?

[Albion]

Well, if you care about the evangelical/protestant face of Anglicanism, there are many churches in the Anglican Church in North America out there. However, if you care about the Catholic face, there are of course many Continuing Anglo-Catholic Churches who hold onto their 1928 BCP. Many Anglo-Catholic Churches are in ACNA, though it remains to be seen if they stay. I like both, but my core is Evangelical.

Hi, David.

Not without reason, ACNA has been described as quasi-Anglican; and it's quite in turmoil in addition. And I'm not an Anglo-Catholic (which is more like wannabe Roman Catholic than Anglican), so the choice for me is fairly easy.

 

[Arcangl86]

(which is more like wannabe Roman Catholic than Anglican)

Hey!

 

[Paidiske]

I know nothing about Packer, so I'm going to stay out of that one, and just say, welcome @David Goforth to this little Anglican corner of CF.

 

[David Goforth]

Hi, David.

Not without reason, ACNA has been described as quasi-Anglican; and it's quite in turmoil in addition. And I'm not an Anglo-Catholic (which is more like wannabe Roman Catholic than Anglican), so the choice for me is fairly easy.

Why do you think ACNA is in turmoil? A Chaplain on Fort Bragg (ACNA Priest) is going to be at an ordination ceremony for 20 Army Chaplains (occurs 18 Sep 19) who are switching to Anglican. This occurs 2x a year. Numbers like this aren't occurring for other denominations. I get the impression that ACNA is growing. Most seem proud of our new province.

What do you mean by, "quasi-Anglican?" I personally prefer a parish to be more "high church" in style but low church is fine. If they are both using the same liturgy and hold to the same theological beliefs as defined by the 39 Articles, than style and substance is not really important. What's taught in the Bible is important to most people in ACNA. People anywhere/everywhere can believe and practice whatever you want. But in reference to the 7 basic theological positions on the ACNA's website, they very solid. Before I came to the Anglican denomination,
I searched all of the founding type documents like the 39 Articles, 1662 BCP. Seemed very Protestant to me...(example, Article 11, Justification). I will admit though, it's weird for me to hear (or read on the internet), Anglicans feel like they have to shun that word (Protestant).

Only on the internet and in a few parishes out there do you get people thinking there are huge problems/differences (hence your post). Yes, there is a tension with Anglo-Catholics (that's mostly on the internet). And nothing against them. They can hold onto their more Catholic (Roman influenced) 1928 BCP if they want to. For a few clergy / laity out there, ACNA is their dress rehearsal for moving to Rome. However, it seems to me (being in the Army and visiting many different churches while on temporary duty throughout the country / visiting churches while on vacation), that most Anglican clergy in ACNA are under the rubric of sola scriptura/sola fide as expressed in the 39 Articles.

 

[David Goforth]

I know nothing about Packer, so I'm going to stay out of that one, and just say, welcome @David Goforth to this little Anglican corner of CF.

@Paidiske thank you!

J.I. Packer is a theologian from Canada. He's Anglican and joined the Anglican Church in North America. ACNA is mostly a US province, but it has parishes from Canada and Mexico in it. One thing about Packer, he's solidly reformed in theology (which I believe is within actual original Anglican theology 39 Articles, Homilies, 1662 BCP). However, he doesn't advertise he's Anglican in many of his books. So some Baptists (to include Baptist pastors who think Anglicans are no different than Roman Catholics) read him. When they find out he's Anglican, some of them are stunned...like "wow, Anglicans are Christian too? No way!"

 

[bèlla]

What does the Protestant side of the Anglican faith look like? Especially in the U.S.

 

[Albion]

Why do you think ACNA is in turmoil? A Chaplain on Fort Bragg (ACNA Priest) is going to be at an ordination ceremony for 20 Army Chaplains (occurs 18 Sep 19) who are switching to Anglican. This occurs 2x a year. Numbers like this aren't occurring for other denominations. I get the impression that ACNA is growing. Most seem proud of our new province.

Like many organizations, ACNA has its strengths and also its weaknesses. You asked about the weaknesses I made reference to and these are some.

First, after almost a decade of existence, it has yet to merge the six (6?) jurisdictions that went together on the project of creating a new church. Although ACNA always talks as though it is a singular, united, church body, it really is still a federation of separate ones, apparently unable to create organic unity.

Second, it has never been able to agree on the most obvious issues, such as a Book of Common Prayer. Unlike the Continuing Anglican churches which broke from The Episcopal Church partly because the latter created a new one--the 1979 edition--which has a significantly different theology from the historic BCPs right up to the 1928 American edition. The defective 1979 book is authorized in ACNA...as is the 1928...or some other, as dioceses choose; and now ACNA has created one of its own. There is nothing common about "common" prayer there, and yet that was one of Anglicanism great accomplishments.

Third, the matter of women priests has never been resolved in ACNA, and this was the second of the great reasons for the Continuers to have left TEC. So in ACNA, there are women priests--or not, depending on which diocese you happen be in--along with contemporary liturgies--or traditional ones, etc.

Fourth, ACNA claims, explicitly, to be a charismatic church, calling Scripture, Tradition, and Charismatic expressions the "three streams" of historic Christianity, which is a pure fabrication.

Fifth, ACNA has received many clergy from other Protestant denominations, many of whom seem quite obviously to have retained a lot of their former orientation and an unfamiliarity with Anglican ways and values.

Sixth, ACNA has exaggerated its membership figures from the start as well as constantly making the claim that it is part of the Anglican Communion, which it is not. The Anglican Communion has issued corrective statements about that, but to no avail.

The Anglican Church in North America is essentially The Episcopal Church which it left except for the one issue that caused the ACNA to be founded in the first place--opposition to the homosexual agenda.

What do you mean by, "quasi-Anglican?" I personally prefer a parish to be more "high church" in style but low church is fine. If they are both using the same liturgy and hold to the same theological beliefs as defined by the 39 Articles, than style and substance is not really important.

Well, that's just it. The 39 Articles are rejected by Anglo-Catholics. The Articles are accepted, it is sometimes maintained, but not affirmed as representative of the beliefs of the church or individuals.

Typically, the Articles are described (as The Episcopal Church does) as an historical document that is retained as part of our Anglican heritage, but the statements themselves merely show how the church responded to the issues current in the 16th century (and, by implication, are not particularly relevant to the present day).

 

[Paidiske]

I think assent to the 39 Articles is something Anglo-Catholics find themselves in creative tension over. Some find it easier than others. That said, in Australia clergy are still required to assent to the Articles on oath, which I understand is no longer the practice in TEC. I must admit I found that deeply shocking when I learned that here on CF.

When I was at college - which was a distinctly Anglo-Catholic leaning college - there were often debates about the number of sacraments (was marriage a sacrament? Was confession?) and so on. About the standing of the apocryphal books (should we read them in chapel?) About purgatory (I recall one classmate telling me that he knew how great a sinner he was, and how much he needed purgatory). About whether the requirement to have liturgy in such a tongue as the people understandeth precluded us from the use of Latin anthems and the like.

That was about it. I don't recall ever getting into any debate about justification, predestination, etc. In fact I've only ever really encountered those debates online; my observation is that they are particularly American issues, although I don't really quite understand why American Christians seem so invested in them.

(I recall one lecturer telling us an anecdote about some bishop in England who declared that he assented to the 39 Articles in the same sense as he assented to London Bridge; he acknowledged its existence and had no immediate plans for its removal!)

 

[JM]

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for awhile, with no luck. I know it sounds like a strange question, but having read and listened to a decent amount of Packer at this point, it's clear he's very Reformed theologically. It seems strange to me that he would choose to be Anglican over Presbyterian or continental Reformed. Anyone know what his reasons are for being Anglican?

Yes, he was a Canadian Anglican, Reformed in theology adhering to the 39 Articles of Religion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[David Goforth]

That was about it. I don't recall ever getting into any debate about justification, predestination, etc. In fact I've only ever really encountered those debates online; my observation is that they are particularly American issues, although I don't really quite understand why American Christians seem so invested in them.

(I recall one lecturer telling us an anecdote about some bishop in England who declared that he assented to the 39 Articles in the same sense as he assented to London Bridge; he acknowledged its existence and had no immediate plans for its removal!)

Very interesting. In America, ACNA does practice all of the "sacraments" but only Baptism / Lord's Supper are considered as instituted by God. The other's are permitted.

Maybe Justification is just American. It's definitely important to me. That and Sola Scriptura are the 2 most important issues of the Reformation. Justification as one issue is what makes Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Baptists not Roman Catholic and to have more in common theologically than they realize. After all, salvation is obviously the reason to become a Christian in the first place. My wife is Southern Baptist and is able to cope with Anglican worship because salvation is the same exact beliefs in her raising as it is in Anglican (because it's Biblical). But many so called Protestants have forgotten about Justification and are sliding towards some kind of pseudo works based salvation message. I couldn't imagine Purgatory ever being discussed in America at all outside of the Roman Catholic Church proper.

 

[Paidiske]

See, I find that interesting, because I took classes with Catholics and I didn't have any sense that we particularly differed on soteriology/justification. But nor did I see their theology as holding to a works-based salvation message.

 

[David Goforth]

Like many organizations, ACNA has its strengths and also its weaknesses. You asked about the weaknesses I made reference to and these are some.

First, after almost a decade of existence, it has yet to merge the six (6?) jurisdictions

Second, it has never been able to agree on the most obvious issues, such as a Book of Common Prayer.

Third, the matter of women priests has never been resolved in ACNA,

Fourth, ACNA claims, explicitly, to be a charismatic church, calling Scripture, Tradition, and Charismatic expressions the "three streams" of historic Christianity, which is a pure fabrication.

Fifth, ACNA has received many clergy from other Protestant denominations, many of whom seem quite obviously to have retained a lot of their former orientation and an unfamiliarity with Anglican ways and values.

Sixth, ACNA has exaggerated its membership figure..

The Anglican Church in North America is essentially The Episcopal Church which it left except for the one issue that caused the ACNA to be founded in the first place--opposition to the homosexual agenda.


Well, that's just it. The 39 Articles are rejected by Anglo-Catholics. The Articles are accepted, it is sometimes maintained, but not affirmed as representative of the beliefs of the church or individuals.

Typically, the Articles are described (as The Episcopal Church does) as an historical document that is retained as part of our Anglican heritage, but the statements themselves merely show how the church responded to the issues current in the 16th century (and, by implication, are not particularly relevant to the present day).

Haven't figured out how to retain quote sections yet.
#1 I don't think so. Recently the CANA thing was resolved.

Like many organizations, ACNA has its strengths and also its weaknesses. You asked about the weaknesses I made reference to and these are some.

First, after almost a decade of existence, it has yet to merge the six (6?) jurisdictions that went together on the project of creating a new church. Although ACNA always talks as though it is a singular, united, church body, it really is still a federation of separate ones, apparently unable to create organic unity.

Second, it has never been able to agree on the most obvious issues, such as a Book of Common Prayer. Unlike the Continuing Anglican churches which broke from The Episcopal Church partly because the latter created a new one--the 1979 edition--which has a significantly different theology from the historic BCPs right up to the 1928 American edition. The defective 1979 book is authorized in ACNA...as is the 1928...or some other, as dioceses choose; and now ACNA has created one of its own. There is nothing common about "common" prayer there, and yet that was one of Anglicanism great accomplishments.

Third, the matter of women priests has never been resolved in ACNA, and this was the second of the great reasons for the Continuers to have left TEC. So in ACNA, there are women priests--or not, depending on which diocese you happen be in--along with contemporary liturgies--or traditional ones, etc.

Fourth, ACNA claims, explicitly, to be a charismatic church, calling Scripture, Tradition, and Charismatic expressions the "three streams" of historic Christianity, which is a pure fabrication.

Fifth, ACNA has received many clergy from other Protestant denominations, many of whom seem quite obviously to have retained a lot of their former orientation and an unfamiliarity with Anglican ways and values.

Sixth, ACNA has exaggerated its membership figures from the start as well as constantly making the claim that it is part of the Anglican Communion, which it is not. The Anglican Communion has issued corrective statements about that, but to no avail.

The Anglican Church in North America is essentially The Episcopal Church which it left except for the one issue that caused the ACNA to be founded in the first place--opposition to the homosexual agenda.


Well, that's just it. The 39 Articles are rejected by Anglo-Catholics. The Articles are accepted, it is sometimes maintained, but not affirmed as representative of the beliefs of the church or individuals.

Typically, the Articles are described (as The Episcopal Church does) as an historical document that is retained as part of our Anglican heritage, but the statements themselves merely show how the church responded to the issues current in the 16th century (and, by implication, are not particularly relevant to the present day).

I haven't fully figured out the quote cut and paste thing yet. You have made some good points which we probably should have been discussing in a diff thread, but nonetheless will respond and try to be short.

#1 ACNA is only 10 years old. You can't expect a perfect situation already. And of the 6 provinces who joined, I think at least the CANA situation has now been resolved. Things are working out. Hardly a turmoil issue.

#2 I think the 1928 BCP was part of the problem anyways, resulting from the Oxford Movement and debates about Roman Catholic theology that worked their way in. In England, they retained the more reformed 1662 BCP. The 1979 book is just as defective as the 1928 because the 28' let in too much Roman Catholic stuff like prayers for the dead (you can't pray a dead person into heaven, it's too late and Purgatory is not Biblical). The Reformed Episcopal Church began in the late 1880s as a reaction to the Roman Catholic movements inside TEC (due to the Oxford Movement). But overall I agree with your point. Over time, the 2019 BCP will become the most common. My church hasn't yet received our copies. The priest told me we are switching to it once it arrives and we have them in our pew. Also, the Common Prayer thing was never meant to be a requirement across the entire country anyways. It says in Article 34 (39 Articles) "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one..." meaning minor things aren't a huge issue.

#3 WO is not really an issue. Mostly its an internet issue. ACNA struck a nice balance. No one is really very concerned about it. People who are concerned about it aren't in ACNA or will probably not join us. Aren't most of the Continuing Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic variety anyways?

#4 You got the 3 streams wrong and a lot of ACNA clergy disagree with that anyways. None of that is official anything. The 3 streams is Catholic, Evangelical, and Charismatic. Not Scripture, Tradition, and Charismatic. Besides, Scripture is never on the same level as Tradition. It's supreme. I'd agree with you and many Bishops inside ACNA would not permit your version of 3 streams to be "official" anything.

#5 Ok, great. ACNA is permitting many clergy from other Protestant denominations. I'm happy that it isn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. If they adhere to the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP as "fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief" than there isn't really a problem. Anglican ways and values aren't some mysterious "way" like we are in a Free Masons fraternity. We are Christian. Conducting a service using the 2019 BCP isn't rocket science.

#6 I don't know the whole story regarding numbers. I haven't gotten the impression of exaggerated membership. I know we are small. I once read an article by a TEC person regarding ACNA numbers. They kept trying to count ACNA's numbers without the Diocese of South Carolina. Made no sense to me since you can't count them as being a part of TEC. What do you think is the "Anglican Communion" anyways. I think it really the provinces in GAFCON and I'm certain they aren't "correcting" ACNA.

Perhaps ACNA is the new TEC. But, ACNA began for far more reasons than gay marriage. That's just the tip of the iceberg. TEC Bishops were denying the deity of Jesus Christ!

Lastly, if someone rejects the 39 Articles, than they are what I would call Anglican-In-Name-Only. It's like saying you are a Christian while simultaneously saying you don't think the trinity is important today, it was just important during the time of 33-381 AD. Rejecting core principles like Sola Scripture (Article 6 of the 39) is what lead to the formation of ACNA in the first place.

 

[David Goforth]

See, I find that interesting, because I took classes with Catholics and I didn't have any sense that we particularly differed on soteriology/justification. But nor did I see their theology as holding to a works-based salvation message.

There are many Justification debates on youtube between theologians representing Reformed Theology of Justification vs Roman Catholic. Also, you may consider a video by RC Sproul on youtube regarding Justification (or one of his books). If you haven't read any theology books regarding Justification, than you may consider a book by N.T. Wright or James White. I've read a Justification book by them and will be reading a survey book on the 39 Articles called, "Essential Truths for Christians: A commentary on the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles and an Introduction to Systematic Theology." by John Rodgers.

 

[Paidiske]

No, the Anglican Communion is not the provinces in GAFCON.

GAFCON now crosses denominational lines and has involvement from people within the global Anglican communion (those in communion with Canterbury) and outside it.

 

[Paidiske]

I've read plenty. Mostly, from what I can see, people who claim Catholics practice a works-based salvation have misunderstood the Catholic position.

And Anglicans are not required to be fully Calvinist in our understanding, either.

 

[David Goforth]

See, I find that interesting, because I took classes with Catholics and I didn't have any sense that we particularly differed on soteriology/justification. But nor did I see their theology as holding to a works-based salvation message.

Just like not all Anglicans hold to their official denomination's beliefs, many Catholics also do not.

If you watch this video, ignore the commentators (people out there are ridiculous on the internet). Just enjoy the lecture on Reformed era Justification (Sola Fide). This guy does a good job of explaining Luther and the Reformers.

 

[David Goforth]

No, the Anglican Communion is not the provinces in GAFCON.

GAFCON now crosses denominational lines and has involvement from people within the global Anglican communion (those in communion with Canterbury) and outside it.

Yes technically true. But in the long run GAFCON could become the de facto Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church in North America (which is in communion with the provinces within GAFCON) is technically not in communion with Canterbury also. I don't know what you mean by saying that GAFCON crosses denominational lines. I think they are all Anglican Provinces (or at least self-proclaimed).

 

[David Goforth]

I've read plenty. Mostly, from what I can see, people who claim Catholics practice a works-based salvation have misunderstood the Catholic position.

And Anglicans are not required to be fully Calvinist in our understanding, either.

No one is required to personally believe in Article 11 of the 39 Articles (Justification of man) which is the Anglican version of Sola Fide. I personally could not belong to a parish or Diocese were the clergy preaching something different than that. For me, that would be a deal breaker as it would for my wife. I think it would be a deal breaker for a lot of people in America.

 

[David Goforth]

No, the Anglican Communion is not the provinces in GAFCON.

GAFCON now crosses denominational lines and has involvement from people within the global Anglican communion (those in communion with Canterbury) and outside it.

the US Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) are technically in the "Anglican Communion," but I think there is going to be a realignment in the long run towards GAFCON. Remains to be seen.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes technically true. But in the long run GAFCON could become the de facto Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church in North America (which is in communion with the provinces within GAFCON) is technically not in communion with Canterbury also. I don't know what you mean by saying that GAFCON crosses denominational lines. I think they are all Anglican Provinces (or at least self-proclaimed).

No. They're not all provinces of the Anglican communion. They're either in communion with Canterbury, and part of the Anglican communion, or they've broken off from Canterbury and are new denominations (completely separate bodies) claiming an Anglican identity and heritage.

GAFCON has no official standing as anything. They mostly seem to be out to undermine the structures of the communion in order to advance their own agenda.

I completely agree with article 11 of the 39 Articles, I just don't think Catholics disagree with it. They also believe that we are accounted righteous because of Christ, and not because of our own works.