Thursday, August 19, 2010

Openness + Transparency = Trust + Confidence


By Robin G. Jordan

This article was prompted by the comments of one of my readers in response to a previous article, “A view of the emerging Anglican Church in North America.” It spurred me to better articulate my concerns related to the College of Bishops’ reception of Bishop Derek Jones.

There are a number of issues involved in Bishop Jones’ reception. His orders are not the only issue. They are the presenting problem that points to a whole complex of interrelated problems that are much more serious than the presenting problem itself.

Among these issues is how the College of Bishops came to their decision, what the bishops considered in the decision, and what they did not. Both people inside and outside the ACNA would like to know more about the College's decision-making process and in particular the way in which this decision was reached.

These issues include that the Anglican Church in North America’s canons establish certain requirements for the reception of deacons and presbyters but do not apply these requirements to the reception of bishops. Why was this loophole left in the canons? Why are not the same requirements being applied to all three ministries? This particular loophole points to other defects in the canons. The canons were a flawed document from the outset. They were available for public scrutiny and debate for a very brief period—too short of a period for people to examine and weight their provisions. They were also rushed through the inaugural Provincial Assembly.

One of the issues is the lack of real accountability mechanisms in the canons. This issue is further complicated by the unwillingness of the ACNA members to require accountability from their leaders at a formative stage in the development of the ACNA when such accountability is critical. What is being established is a precedent that is going to haunt the ACNA in the not too distant future and create all kinds of problems for the denomination. We have seen what happened in The Episcopal Church when it failed to require accountability from its leaders.

The ACNA is not immune to the problems that have beset TEC. Indeed I would suggest that the ACNA was infected with these problems before it was born. Indeed they are a part of its very DNA. They have already begun to manifest themselves. This is evident in how certain leaders show a disregard for the provisions of the denomination’s constitution and canons, for constitutionalism, and the rule of law, and treat these documents as a mandate for them to do whatever is right in their eyes, to use a biblical expression.

A very important issue is the direction in which the leaders of the ACNA are taking the denomination. This may not concern Anglo-Catholics and Convergentists, the two groups that dominate the ACNA. It does concern Anglicans like myself who value the Protestant heritage of the reformed Church of England, who recognize in the Thirty-Nine Articles not just a venerable formulary but an important means of safeguarding the truth of the gospel, and who believe that The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 in its main substance and chief parts contains the true doctrine of Christ. We share with the Global Anglican Future Conference the belief that acceptance of the Articles, as understood in their plain, natural, and intended sense, is essential to Anglican identity. We affirm with the Jerusalem Declaration that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is “a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer,” “a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 47).

An issue that is closely related to the direction in which the ACNA leaders are taking the denomination is the extent of consultations between the ACNA leaders and the global South Anglican bishops regarding proposed decisions that would affect not only the ACNA but also the entire global South Anglican community. The failure of TEC to consult with other Anglican Communion members and its willingness to act unilateral to pursue its own agenda provoked the crisis that led to the need for a new North American Anglican province. The leadership of the ACNA is evidencing the tendency toward the same kind of unilateralism. It is lower key than that of TEC but it is discernable.

I gather from various sources that the supporters of the ACNA in Africa, Australia, South America, Southeast Asia, and the United Kingdom do not have an accurate picture of the ACNA. They see the ACNA as a strong supporter of GAFCON, indeed as GAFCON in North America, but the ACNA is in reality not as strong in its support of GAFCON as they imagine. This is evidenced from its constitution and canons, the statements of ACNA leaders, and the comments of ACNA members. The commitment of the ACNA to a number of the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration (e.g. 4 and 6) goes near the margin. GAFCON recognition and support of the ACNA is tied to this belief; and the ACNA at the present time needs GAFCON recognition and support. However, if the ACNA leaders continue to take the denomination in its present direction, I foresee a parting of the ways between the ACNA and GAFCON looming in the future, as the ACNA leaders increasingly create situations that try the patience of the GAFCON bishops. Americans are accustomed to holding positions of leadership in whatever international organizations to which they belong and the ACNA can be expected to seek hegemony in GAFCON. The concept of manifest destiny is evident in Convergentist thought, in the view that the Holy Spirit is bringing the three theological streams—Catholic, evangelical, and Orthodox/Pentecostal—together in Anglicanism and in particular in the ACNA.

There has emerged in the ACNA what may be described as a culture of denial. This culture does not encourage leaders and members of the ACNA to face up to negative developments and problem areas and deal with them. It is the kind of culture that is found in unhealthy family systems. In a healthy family problems are recognized and solved and the family is strengthened through the process. In an unhealthy family those who draw attention to a problem or a set of problems are seen as “the problem.” They are calling attention to the family that it does not welcome, particularly the family member or members who are making the largest contribution to the family’s difficulties. The family may view as acceptable or normal what outsiders see as problematic or unacceptable. There is an unwillingness to admit that the family is experiencing difficulties, much less that each family member is contributing to these difficulties.

In some ways the ACNA is reminiscent of ancient Jerusalem. The city was surrounded by the enemy who was raising siege ramps against the city walls. Yet there were those within the city who kept saying “Peace, peace.” The people of the city listened to them and not to God’s prophet Jeremiah. They were unwilling to accept the reality of their situation.

The emergence of this culture of denial is not surprising. A large segment of the ACNA, clergy and laity, came out of The Episcopal Church, and they brought elements of its unhealthy family system with them. They fled the toxic environment of TEC. However, they absorbed a lot of its toxicity before they fled. This toxicity is poisoning the ACNA.

Those who fled TEC also misdiagnosed a number of the problems of TEC. What they see as preventive measures against these perceived problems are perpetuating in the ACNA the very real problems that exist in TEC.

The result is an unhealthy organizational culture. The culture of an organization influences how it operates, how it relates to outsiders, how it relates to its own members, how the leaders of the organization are in actuality selected, how decisions are actually made, what factors are given consideration in the decision-making process, and so forth.

The problems of the ACNA are not going to disappear. It is much easier to address problems in their early stages—nip them in the bud, than it is later on, especially when they have increased in complexity as well as number, and are all demanding immediate attention.

Rather than responding with denial to problems, the ACNA needs to size them up, identify a range of solutions, choose what is the best solution under the circumstances, and to apply it. After giving it an opportunity to work, the ACNA needs to evaluate whether it is working. If it is not, the ACNA needs to try something else.

Whatever the ACNA does, the denomination needs to do it out in the open and not behind closed doors. Greater openness and transparency on the part of leaders engenders greater trust and confidence in their leadership. It is a very simple equation. Openness + Transparency = Trust + Confidence.

6 comments:

RMBruton said...

Robin,
You could not state your case more clearly. I fear it falls on the deaf ears of those who have circled their wagons to support ac/na right or wrong. I have heard it said that if "you mess with one trailer, you mess with the whole trailer park". They have exhibited no openness nor transparency, therefore I have no trust or confidence in these people.

Chris Larimer said...

Robin,

One of the pressing issues in GAFCON recognizing AC-NA is that "everybody comes in together." They had already dealt with the evangelicals as separatists (REC) and the Anglo-Catholics as separatists (APCK, ACA, UECNA, etc.). The condition for recognizing AC-NA was that it truly was a province-wide force of unity for a comprehensive Christianity in the Anglican Tradition.

That meant that evangelicals wouldn't get everything they want (and they aren't the only real Anglicans). That meant anglocatholics wouldn't get everything they want (and they aren't the only real Anglicans).

What would be the case is that everyone who would hold this ancient order, and keep unfeignedly the catholic faith of the creeds, and see their source in the English Reformation (beginning with 1549) would have a place at the table. No African province is wholly evangelical, wholly Anglocatholic, or wholly charismatic. Each of them has all three strings on the fiddle, even if one gets more play time than others. The same is true of the ACNA.

I know this is distressing to purist evangelicals. It's distressing to purist Anglocatholics, too. (The Charismatics are just happy to be here - even if some of them think that confirmation doesn't happen without glossolalia!) But the simple matter of fact is that, historically and theologically, no one of these is comprehensively ANGLICAN. Only when all are together under orthodox Christian belief and catholic order and evangelical fervor can we find out how Anglicanism is to be used of God for the 21st Century.

Reformation said...

Chris:

Your categories--evangelical, anglocatholic, pentecostalists--lacks definition and depth. Would be write on the nature of each type.

For Robin, with respect to your formula, a State Department official who studied foreign governments--especially Third World countries--had a formula something like your's.

Broad discretionary powers -accountability = corruption.

Reformation said...

Typo, for Chris.

"Would be write on the nature of each type" should be "Would you write on the nature of each type?"
.

Chris Larimer said...

Why take my definition. Read pp. 95-103 of the above-linked Being Faithful statement from the FCA / GAFCON. It explicitly mentions the convergence of these three streams of Anglican witness and describes them within our global context.

Robin G. Jordan said...

Chris,

I see your points. But I think that we are talking about two sets of issues. What I am endeavouring to draw to people's attention is that global South Anglicans' perceptions of the AC-NA do not jive with the reality on the ground. If the AC-NA was such a strong supporter of GAFCON. it would have dispensed with the Common Cause Theological Statement as having served a useful purpose but as no longer being needed and fully embraced the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration as the Church of Nigeria has done. However, it has not made that kind of commitment to GAFCON. The truth is the US Anglo-Catholic bishops who attended GAFCON were not happy with the declaration. (The English Anglo-Catholic bishops did not to my knowledge attend GAFCON.) They have resisted any effort in the Provincial Council to amend the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement. Support to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration in the AC-NA are tied to the AC-NA need for some kind of recognition from members of the Anglican Communion. Take away that recognition and its support for GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration would quickly evaporate.

Conservative Evangelicals were not adequately represented in the Common Cause Partnership Roundtable that drafted the Common Cause Theological Statement, if they were represented at all. They had better representation at GAFCON in the drafting of the Jerusalem Declaration. However, as the Church Society in the UK has pointed out, the declaration is weak in certain areas from a Conservative Evangelical perspective.

The AC-NA is a revival of the old Anglo-Catholic-Broad Church coalition that dominated the PECUSA in the early 20th century with the Convergentists--today's Broad Church people--replacing the old Broad Church folks. Covergentists are not a homogenous group as also the case with Anglo-Catholics but this does not prevent the observer from discerning characteristics in each group. What you have is two or more expressions of Anglicanism represented in these two groups. But of the expressions of Anglicanism represented in the AC-NA, the expression of Anglicanism stand the most in continuity with the English Reformation, the reformed Church of England and its formularies and its Protestant faith, and classical Anglicanism is not strongly represented. Indeed the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into the AC-NA constitution and the theological positions expressed in the AC-NA canons exclude that group, the group most representative of historical Anglicanism--the "Protestant Reformed Religion" of the 1688 Coronation Oath Act.