*Correction: The original version of this article inaccurately quoted Archbishop Justin Welby as saying the AC NA “is not Anglican” during an interview with the Church of Ireland Gazette. The archbishop actually said, “The ACNA is a separate church. It’s not part of the Anglican Communion.” We apologize for the inaccuracy and have corrected the quote below.

In an interview with the New York Times on January 23, 2015, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury was asked “Do you see the Anglican Church in North America, which broke away from the Episcopal Church after Bishop Robinson’s election, as part of the Anglican Communion?”  He replied:

“ACNA is certainly a church of Anglican tradition. It is not currently part of the formal structures of the Anglican Communion. It’s recognized as a fellow Anglican church by many primates in the Anglican Communion, primates whose membership is probably more than half the Anglican Communion. And they’re doing a lot of good work.”

This is certainly a more positive statement than what he said on the eve of Archbishop Foley Beach’s investiture in October, that “the ACNA is a separate church. It’s not part of the Anglican Communion.” Welby’s statement does reflect the fact that the Archbishops of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Southern Cone, Jerusalem and the Middle East, and representatives of the Archbishops from Sudan and Congo, welcomed Archbishop Beach as “a fellow Primate in the Anglican Communion,” and by extension the ACNA that he leads. It does reflect the fact that these Primates represent certainly more than half of the membership of the Anglican Communion. So the Archbishop of Canterbury has indeed publically recognized some facts.

He has also stated that the ACNA is a church in the Anglican tradition. Of course, we don’t have any doubts about that! All one has to do is look at the Fundamental Declarations in Article I of our Constitution on what it means to be a Christian “in the Anglican Way,” the new texts we have produced for the Daily Office and Holy Communion, and our groundbreaking catechism “To be a Christian,” to recognize how Anglican we truly are. Compare these documents with those of the other Churches in the Anglican Communion and you will realize how very Anglican we are!

It’s also nice to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury knows we “are doing a lot of good work,”—in planting over 400 new churches, revitalizing and remissioning hundreds of others, growing Hispanic ministries, raising up a new generation of leaders, reaching younger “millenials” who are interested in the Anglican way, the work of our Anglican Relief and Development and other Global Mission partners… the list goes on.

But what is the significance, if any, of Archbishop Welby’s statement to the NY Times?  Is it merely a concession to facts on the ground, or a harbinger of things to come?

One of my favorite TV commercials from the 1980’s was the old lady who goes to the fast food restaurant, looks at the pathetic hamburger between two buns, and asks “where’s the beef??”  I remember it becoming a presidential campaign question. And it reminds me of so many of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statements, especially the one respecting the ACNA—“So where’s the beef??”

It’s nice to know that he thinks we are doing good works, and that we are a church in the Anglican tradition.  But where is the personal, public, first-hand investigation that would lead him to that conclusion?  Where is the public meeting with our College of Bishops, our clergy, our lay leaders and congregations, our church plants—the kinds of meetings he has undertaken in other Churches of the Anglican Communion, or perhaps even among “ecumenical partners”?

Here’s a thought.  What if the Archbishop of Canterbury looked into the past, looked into the precedent of the reception of the Church of South India and the other uniting churches of North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I’ve written previously about this: that it is, after all, the Primates (not the ACC) who have actually received Churches into the Anglican Communion—receiving them through recognition by their own Provinces among other things.  The Primates have always done this before Resolutions are brought to the Anglican Consultative Council to add a Church to the schedule of Churches in the Anglican Communion.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to look into the case of the reception of the Church of South India, he would find some remarkable similarities to the situation here in North America.  Like South India, he would find churches who were previously separated coming together as one, united, biblical and missionary Anglican church. He would find leaders who were more concerned with reaching those who do not yet know Jesus Christ than first becoming a part of the official structures of the Anglican Communion.

He would also find some helpful differences. The Church of South India was formally inaugurated in 1947 by the union of the South India United Church (an earlier union of churches in the Congregational and Presbyterian-Reformed traditions), the southern Anglican dioceses of the Church of India, Burma and Ceylon, and the Methodist Church in South India. The scheme by which the union took place was both innovative and controversial, given that, while the united Church was committed to the threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon, the ordained ministers of all the uniting churches were received into the united Church without re-ordination. At the inauguration service the Anglican bishops in the union ordained and consecrated several candidates from the non-episcopal churches to the episcopate per saltum, that is, without their first having been ordained to the diaconate and the presbyterate by bishops in historic succession. These new bishops, one of whom was the great missiologist and pastor Lesslie Newbigin, joined with the Anglican bishops to provide the episcopal oversight of the dioceses of the new church, no distinction being made between the formerly Anglican bishops and the newly-ordained bishops from other traditions. Protestant pastors and Anglican presbyters alike were recognized – without any reordinations.[1]  Despite all this, many of the Churches of the Anglican Communion recognized that this uniting, missional church was truly Anglican, reached out to them, engaged them, invited them to be observers at various meetings—and even included representatives of the Church of South India in the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council before they were added by Resolution to the ACC to the Schedule of Churches of the Anglican Communion.

The difference is that per saltum ordinations and consecrations are not present in the holy orders of the Anglican Church in North America. Whatever questions may lie with regards to ACNA ordinations and consecrations after our formation in 2009, they are of an entirely different dimension than those present, and overcome, in the reception of the Church of South India.

Here is another difference. The 1988 Lambeth Conference of Bishops formally invited the Church of South India into full membership—a little over 40 years from the date of their formation. It took the Church of England even less time than that— the General Synod described their relationship with the Church of South India as one of “communion” in 1972.  And this took place through careful investigation, dialogue and agreed upon statements by both churches together[2]. By contrast, it has taken less than five years for churches in the Anglican Communion representing the majority of the membership in the Anglican Communion to recognize the ACNA as full members of the Anglican Communion. These churches are not only inviting leaders of the ACNA to their meetings, they are doing mission together.

So if the Archbishop of Canterbury is serious, “where’s the beef?” What possibilities might this precedent open for him, and the Church he leads?

Meanwhile, we press on!

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey is CEO of the American Anglican Council.

p.s. The Rev. Matt Kennedy + on the Stand Firm blog critiqued my article. My response to his concerns is below. 

I am grateful for the response Matt Kennedy posted to my article “Where’s the beef?”  I’m thankful for his kind words personally, his affirmation of the work the American Anglican Council is doing publicly and behind the scenes, and especially for his endorsement of our video series on the 39 Articles. Likewise, it has been my pleasure to share in my travels, with Anglicans all over North America, Matt’s faithful leadership of his congregation, his standing firm in the face of abject heresy by the TEC bishop of Central New York, and the blessings God has showered upon the people he led out of Egypt and into the promised land (literally).  His story has been a source of comfort and inspiration to many leaders of the churches the American Anglican Council is helping to revitalize and remission within ACNA.

I believe my disagreement with Matt’s response is around strategy rather than values.  Like him, I agree that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said and done things that are contrary to clear gospel teaching. I have written about this elsewhere. As I wrote [above/in my article], we have no need for affirmation by Canterbury that we are already Anglican—all one has to do is look at our Fundamental Declarations, Catechism, etc. I am well aware that many of ACNA Anglicans at the grassroots level, and leaders at the highest levels, are dubious of any relationship with Canterbury, for all of the reasons Matt cites.

My mention of the precedent with South India is not intended to resemble “the teenage girl who desperately wants the quarterback to notice her.” It is to illustrate how one church can speak to another about the importance of Gospel truth and reaching lost people despite perceived structural barriers. It is also a challenge to Canterbury and an opportunity for him to change course.

The “beef” is not the recognition by Canterbury. The “beef” is the restoration of Anglicanism that is biblical, apostolic, Christ-centered, confessional, conciliar in its decision making, and focused on the Great Commission. The Archbishops of GAFCON and the Global South, gathered around ++Foley Beach at his investiture, are a harbinger of that restoration. I would never exchange any rancid substitute for that. Neither will the leadership of the ACNA. My hope is that Justin Welby will change course and take steps toward this restoration.

Why should we hope for this rather than fear that our resolve would be chipped away to the point of compromise? Because of the grace and faithfulness that I saw (often first-hand) the GAFCON Primates exhibit towards The Episcopal Church (TEC) and Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) in meetings orchestrated by theological revisionists. Even when they refused to take Communion with TEC and ACoC, they still met, engaged, wrote and implored them to repent. Their ecclesial expression of this extra-mile grace convicted me of my own, often less than graceful impatience.  They never surrendered the truth of the Gospel, thanks be to God.  But they were somehow able to communicate uncompromising gospel truth with a loving call to repentance.  Even when the hearts of TEC, ACoC and other revisionist leaders appeared so hardened and rebellious, they hoped for a change in their hearts through this ecclesial expression of extra-mile grace. Their example, not the leadership of the official Anglican instruments, shapes my hopes.

Meanwhile, we press on!