Why We Need A Confession

Introduction

On Nov. 27, 2006 Bishop Howard of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida defrocked several priests in his Diocese. Shortly thereafter, David Virtue asked me to write on the matter and I did so. The essay was then published on his web site (www.virtueonline.org) where it engendered several responses. I had claimed that we needed a confession as a norm for the Anglican Communion. Several responses on the Virtue web site questioned the need for a confession. They pointed out that we already have confessions, such things as the Articles of Religion as well as the Creeds. One of the respondents mentioned the Affirmation of St. Louis, claiming that we need nothing more. I read the Affirmation of St. Louis. It was a fine document, but failed in a critical aspect. It did not fully address the liberal position. The liberals accept the founding documents of Anglicanism, such things as Scripture and Creeds as affirmed by St. Louis. They simply interpret them from an alien theological perspective. For this reason, a liberal reading the Affirmation of St. Louis will consider it little more than conservative rhetoric. They will believe its authors have not taken account of science, recent results in the critical study of the Bible, and more generally, the perspective of the modern world. For a confession to be valid, it must address the fundamental issues raised by its opponents. That means, for Anglicanism, it must address, above all, the issues raised by science and the critical study of the Bible, as well as the theological issues that distinguish the liberal from the orthodox position. The Affirmation of St. Louis did not do that. Although my essay did not spell the matter out in detail, it did make the following statement,

This document like the Nicene Creed, the Anglican Articles of Religion, or the Barmen Confession needs to specifically deny the heresies involved. Among other things, it needs to affirm Scripture as the final norm and deny experience as a norm alongside Scripture. Further, theological norms for correct biblical interpretation need to be affirmed as the North American Episcopal revisionists claim the authority of Scripture but interpret it from a heretical theological perspective.

The significance of this section of my essay, however, needs to be amplified and I will do this in a further essay. On the other hand, the essay given below did show the need for a covenant, and this a number of reasons as will be apparent. My Essay follows.

Why We Need a Confession

On Nov. 27, 2006 Bishop Howard of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida deprived several priests of the "right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority conferred in ordination." The reason for this was that these priests had abandoned the "communion of this church." (Bishop's letter to those defrocked) I was one of those who were defrocked by the bishop. I and several others had asked for alternative Episcopal oversight. This was denied. We were first inhibited and then deprived of our spiritual authority.

As this process unfolded, we found other bishops in the Anglican Communion who accepted our ordinations and provided Episcopal oversight as we continued our priestly duties. These events raise several critical questions. First, what is meant by "communion?" Secondly, who decides when someone is in or out of communion and upon what grounds? Further, what happens if one bishop defrocks priests and other bishops, as is the case, affirm their priestly ministry? These are vital and pressing questions for it harms the body of Christ when the faithful see such conflicts played out in the press as is the present case.

To begin with, communion is communion with God the Father through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. The church exists as communion only in so far as she lives in vital relation to God through Christ. Jesus Christ is made known through Word and Sacrament. For a church to remain in communion with God, and for its members to be in communion with God and each other, she must faithfully preserve the integrity of the Word and Sacrament.

To do this requires discipline. Discipline is required because not all persons or churches faithfully preserve Word and Sacrament. Normally, discipline is exercised by bishops. In the case of Bishop Howard and those of us he has defrocked, this discipline has broken down because some bishops uphold our priestly authority whereas Bishop Howard has denied it. This is symptomatic of the conflict that now exists throughout the Anglican Communion.

Anglicanism is a reform movement within the wider stream of Western Christianity. As such, we hold to the faith and practice of the ancient church insofar as it is based on Scripture. In the church of the first few centuries, conflicts between bishops were decided by general counsels that resolved the conflicts and published written norms which preserved orthodox understanding. For example there were bishops on both sides of the Arian controversy on the deity of Christ. The council of Nicaea in 325 resolved the matter and published a Creed which defined the Arian position as a heresy. Something similar needs to happen today.

It is clear that the Episcopal Church no longer upholds the integrity of the Word and Sacrament. She has denied the Word because a number of her bishops do not believe that Jesus Christ the Word is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, the only way to the Father. She has also introduced heretical forms of biblical interpretation that undermine Scripture as the Word of God written. She has traduced the Sacrament in allowing heretics, immoral persons, and even persons of non&#