Archbishop Hepworth Isn't A 39-Articles Anglican, I Assume,

although that raises the question of what kind of an Anglican he is. Ms Gyapong correctly asks someone in the TAC to clarify where the Thirty-Nine Articles now stand in that denomination's ecclesiology, because I'm not sure where they've ever stood. In the 1979 US Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, they're listed among "Historical Documents of the Church", and as an Episcopal priest whom I respect puts it, that's what they are, they're a historical document. The TAC, which with other "continuing Anglicans" has a peculiar fetishistic relationship to the 1928 prayer book, doesn't have this escape clause, although I'd say it's a point in the 1979 prayer book's favor.

The Wikipedia entry on Anglo-Catholicism, although apparently written by informed contributors, never quite gets around to resolving the problem the Thirty-Nine Articles have always raised. Specifically, it's possible to say Archbishop Hepworth, or Fred Farplethwaite for that matter, is not a "39 Articles Anglican", but that raises the question of what kind of an Anglican he is -- and this isn't trivial. In the 2012 court cases regarding who was in charge at St Mary of the Angels, the ACA's attorneys argued that the ACA hierarchy were the experts on the "Anglo-Catholic" faith.

Because both sides in the case agreed that facts were not in dispute, no witnesses were called or cross-examined, and this may have been a mistake. I think a better step would have been to call either Canon Morello or Bishop Strawn as witnesees and ask them specifically what statement of belief they ascribed to in order to call themselves "Anglo-Catholic". In their proceedings against Fr Kelley, for instance, they referred to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Did that mean they ascribed to all of the Thirty-Nine Articles? In that case, how could they be "Anglo-Catholic"? I wouldn't put much stock in the ability of either Strawn or Morello to sort this out on the witness stand -- Hepworth either, for that matter. Fr Smuts will be wise if he ducks Ms Gyapong's invitation, too. Recalling the truism that Anglicanism is "the thinking man's religion", I certainly would except the "continuing" variety in any case.

On the other hand, for the bishops and other clergy who signed the Catholic Catechism as part of the Portsmouth Petition process, exactly which of the Thirty-Nine Articles did they abjure thereby? Did this imply a change in whatever statement of belief bound the entire TAC? Apparently not -- and by purging Hepworth and Moyer at minimum, the ACA House of Bishops and the TAC College of Bishops (many of whom signed the Portsmouth Letter) were asserting that Anglo-Catholicism apparently doesn't mean they're specifically Catholic, either, except they don't really ascribe to all the Thirty-Nine Articles, or maybe or maybe not. Or maybe they just believe that all you need is love.

I suspect that the bottom line is that the TAC believes whatever anyone can get away with saying it believes right then, subject to being purged down the road. I'd go a bit farther than Ms Gyapong -- besides asking which of the Thirty-Nine Articles the TAC does or does not ascribe to, I'd ask how the College of Bishops differs from the Politburo, or for that matter The Episcopal Church. Why do we need more than one Anglican denomination if they all work the same way? True, I may not like the TEC or TAC stance on women priests or gay bishops one day (take your choice), but wait a week or two, and someone will bully in a different version, and maybe I'll be happier with that one. TAC, TEC, what's to choose?