ACNA Governance Task Force and Executive Committee Propose Changes to Provincial Constitution and Canons

By Robin G. Jordan

On Monday May 9, 2011 I found the following proposals for changes in the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America on the ACNA website when I chanced to visit the “Governance” page of that website and found a link to the page on which they are posted. I also found a proposed resolution that I examine in the accompanying article, “Proposed Resolution Defines the Duties of ACNA Officers”). I had been aware that there had been a meeting of the ACNA Governance Task Force in November 2010. However, I had not in my search the Internet for articles and news leads come across any public statements about the meeting. This is not surprising because the ACNA leadership is not known for being particularly open and transparent. Their reticence and secretiveness appears to be motivated by a desire to control the outcome of what they are proposing to do and to prevent the development of opposition to it. This may seem to be a cynical view of how the ACNA leadership operates but events of the last two years appear to confirm its validity.

Posting the announcement of the proposed changes to the ACNA constitution and canons and the proposed resolution describing the duties of provincial officers on a page linked to the “Governance” page of the ACNA website is like tucking away a major announcement in a newspaper on the page that is read the least. How often do folks in the ACNA visit the “Governance” page on the ACNA website? I suspect that they rarely visit that page, if at all.

I found no article drawing attention to these proposals on the “Home” or “News” pages of the ACNA website, two of the more frequently visited pages on than website. I toured all the ACNA diocesan websites and examined all the ACNA diocesan newsletters on the Internet. None of them made any mention of the proposals. One would have expected the proposals to have received more coverage.

I do not know how long these proposals have been posted on the ACNA website. They may have been there since February when the Executive Committee approved them. Or they may have been there only a few days. They were not there when I last visited the website. I do periodically check the website for new developments.

In addition to the proposed changes, the page on which the proposals are posted has a comments form on which members of the Anglican Church in North America may submit their comments on the proposals. The deadline for submitting comments is this coming Friday May 13, 2011.

The PDF file containing the proposed changes is “secured.” This appears to be intended to prevent interested parties from copying the proposed changes and using them in an evaluation for wide distribution like the one in this article. There is no other reasonable explanation. None of the PDF files containing the provisional constitution and canons, the proposed constitution and canons, and the ratified constitution and canons have been “secured.” The PDF file containing the proposed resolution defining the duties of provincial officers is not “secured.” However, only the Provincial Council will be acting on the resolution, not the Provincial Assembly.

In my evaluation I weigh each proposed change and its possible implications. The Governance Task Force and the Executive Committee did not provide an explanation of why they are proposing each change. The reason for each proposed change is not always self-evident.

Proposed Changes to the Constitution

The proposed change to Article VII.1 would insert the words “to adopt canons and constitutional amendments for ratification by the Provincial Assembly and” after “…shall have authority.” This change is superfluous. Article V states:

The Provincial Council, subject to ratification by the Provincial Assembly, has power to make canons ordering our common life in respect to the following matters….

It goes on to list the matters upon which the Provincial Council may make canons.

Article VI.2 states:

The Provincial Assembly shall ratify Constitutional amendments and Canons adopted by the Provincial Council. The process of ratification is set forth by canon.

Article XV.2 states:

This Constitution may be amended by the Provincial Assembly by two-thirds of the members present and voting at any regular or special meeting called for that purpose. Any changes or amendments to the Constitution shall not become effective in less than ninety days following that meeting.

The existing provisions of Articles VII.1 do not conflict with the provisions of Article V but augment the provisions of that article. The proposed modification of Article VII.1 is unnecessary. As it is worded, it also effectively requires the Provincial Assembly to ratify the canons and constitutional amendments that Provincial Council adopts.

“AND OTHER COURTS” has been added to the title of Article XI and the existing provisions of the Article numbered Section 1. Three new sections have been added to the Article.

2. There shall be a Court for the Trial of a Bishop to function as provided by canon.

3. The Provincial Council may, by canon, create such additional courts, inferior to the Provincial Tribunal, as may be necessary or appropriate to determine matters of church discipline.

4. Each Diocese shall, by canon, establish its own ecclesiastical Trial Court for the trial of a deacon or a presbyter.

These provisions are redundant since Article V lists “clergy support and discipline” among those matters upon which the Provincial Council may make canons.

The foregoing proposed changes on the surface appear to be cosmetic. The ACNA Governance Task Force and the Executive Committee offer no rationale for these proposals. Adopting the proposed changes to Article VII.1 and Article XI, however, would open the way to dropping Article V and its important provisions specifying the matters upon which the Provincial Council may make canons. Striking out Article V would eliminate these limits on the Provincial Council’s canon-making powers and remove a critical safeguard against the Provincial Council’s abuse of its canon-making powers and its encroachment upon the autonomy of the dioceses and other groupings of churches forming the Anglican Church in North America.

Proposed changes to the ACNA Canons

I am going to skip the proposed changes to the Table of Contents since they are to bring the titles listed in the Table of Contents into conformity with the title changes made in the proposed changes to the canons in Titles I and III of the canons.

The proposed change in Canon I.1.1 would substitute the words,“ affirm such covenants entered into by the Archbishop or the College of Bishops…” for the words, “enter into covenants…” after the words, “The Council shall have power to…” in the third sentence of Canon I.1.1. This proposal would take away the power of the Provincial Council to negotiate agreements with other ecclesial bodies through representatives appointed by the Provincial Council and give that power to the Archbishop or the College of Bishops. Note the use of the weak term, “affirm” rather than the strong term “approve.” Note also that the proposed change does not require the Archbishop or the College of Bishops to consult with the Provincial Council in its negotiation of such agreements.

Under the existing provisions of Canon I.1.1 may delegate to the Archbishop or the College of Bishops the negotiation of agreements with other ecclesial bodies on a case by case basis. It may by resolution authorize the Archbishop or the College of Bishops to act more broadly on its behalf. It may include specific instructions in such authorization. It may, if it sees fit, take away that authorization.

The proposed modification to Canon I.1.1 would enlarge the role of the Archbishop and the College of Bishops in the area of agreements with other ecclesial bodies while greatly reducing the role of the Provincial Council. A bishop from every diocese is a member of the Provincial Council and these bishops may be expected to influence Council’s decisions on such matters. It would effectively turn the Council into a rubber stamp in this particular area of policy-making. It would be a continuance of the trend in the Anglican Church in North America to place too much power in too few hands.

The proposed change to Canon I.1.4 would add the following sentences to the provisions of Canon I.1.4.

Members of the Executive Committee shall serve three year staggered terms and cannot serve more than two terms consecutively. Officers of the Province shall serve as ex-officio members with voice but no vote.

This proposal would make it virtually impossible for the Provincial Council to elect a reform Executive Committee if one was needed. Once a particular church party or faction gained control of the Executive Committee, which is also the Board of Directors of the church corporation, it would be difficult to oust that church party or faction from power. The problems that have faced corporate shareholders in replacing board members and corporate executives in recent years illustrate a major weakness of the proposed change. The governing documents of the Anglican Church in North America contain no provision for the removal of members of the Executive Committee or the Provincial Officers and are otherwise lacking in critical safeguards.

The proposed change to Canon I.1.5 adds the following sentence to Canon I.1.5. and numbers the amended section Subsection 1.

The Archbishop may appoint a Provincial Dean in consultation with the College of Bishops to serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop until his successors is appointed and who may be authorized by the Archbishop to represent him in his absence.

A survey of the governing documents of a number of Anglican provinces—the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of Rwanda, the Church of Nigeria, and the Church of Uganda—reveals that provision for a Dean of the Province is typically made in the constitution, and not the canons. In the Anglican Church of Kenya the Dean of the Province is elected from among the diocesan bishops by the Standing Committee of the Provincial Synod from among the names recommended by the House of Bishops. In the Anglican Church of Rwanda the Provincial Dean is the Bishop with the longest tenure of service as Diocesan Bishop. The Church of Nigeria is divided into Provinces. Each Province has a Provincial Archbishop elected the Episcopal Synod from the Bishops having See in the Province. The Dean of the Church of Nigeria is the Provincial Archbishop, senior by presentation as Archbishop. In the Church of Uganda the Senior Bishop among the Diocesan Bishops becomes upon on the election of the election of the Archbishop of the Province and continues in office until the election of the next Archbishop.

The proposed change to Canon I.1.5 also adds a subsection 2. to Canon I.1.5, as follows:

2. The Terms of the Officers shall be as follows: The term of the Archbishop shall be as provided in Article IX of the Constitution. The terms of the remaining officers shall be:

• The term of the Deputy Chair should be at the pleasure of the Archbishop.
• The term of the Chancellor shall be at the pleasure of the Archbishop.
• The term of the Secretary shall be three years.
• The term of the Treasurer shall be three years.
• The term of the Registrar shall be three years.

A vacancy occurring in any office other than that of Archbishop shall be filled by the Executive Committee until the next meeting of the Provincial Council.

In the constitutions and canons of a number of Anglican provinces may be found precedence for an Archbishop appointing a Provincial Chancellor to be his principal legal adviser and to serve concomitantly with the Archbishop. The Provincial Synod typically has authority to terminate this appointment under circumstances prescribed by canon, as may the successor to the Archbishop upon his election. The Provincial Chancellor may also terminate the appointment by his resignation.

The deputy presiding officer of the Provincial Council, which is effectively the Anglican Church in North America’s Provincial Synod, serving at the whim of the Archbishop, however, is a questionable practice. This provision in the proposed change to Canon I.1.5 gives the appearance of being motivated by the fear that the Deputy Chair might become a rival to the Archbishop for the leadership of the Provincial Council and therefore the denomination. It also appears to be motivated by a desire to maintain the Archbishop’s control of the proceedings of the Council. The Archbishop is not only the presiding officer of the Council but he also determines its rules of procedure. The provision requiring the Deputy Chair to serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop appears to be designed to keep that officer subordinate to the Archbishop and to prevent him from becoming too independent or even from becoming a leader of any organized opposition to the Archbishop’s initiatives and policies.

It must be noted that the creation of the office of Dean of the Province makes the office of Deputy Chair redundant. In Anglican Provinces that have a Dean of the Province, the Provincial Dean typically serves as the presiding officer of the Provincial Synod in the absence of the Primate or at the request of the Primate. In the event of the prolonged absence or physical or mental incapacity of the Primate he becomes the Acting Primate. He may perform other duties prescribed by the provincial constitution and/or canons. In the absence of the Primate and the Provincial Dean, the senior bishop as determined by date of consecration typically serves as the presiding officer of the Provincial Synod.

The proposed change to Canon I.6.4 strikes out the present title and provisions of the section and replaces them with the following new title and provisions:

Section 4. Concerning the Calling and Licensing of Clergy and the Ending of a Ministry Relationship

1. It shall be the duty of Clergy and vestries to consult with the Bishop in the calling and ending of a ministry relationship.

2. Clergy who are not canonically resident in the diocese may not serve a congregation or institution in the diocese without being licensed by the bishop.

The proposed change to Canon I.6.4 is poorly worded. A vestry calls a minister, not a ministry relationship. The Governance Task Force and the Executive Committee tried to state too much in one sentence in Subsection 1. The provision requiring consultation with the Bishop in calling a minister should be separated from the provision requiring the rector or minister in charge of a congregation and the vestry consulting with the Bishop before terminating a ministerial relationship. Subsection 2 would also benefit from clearer language. For example, “clergy who have not been granted canonical residence by the bishop having jurisdiction in the diocese may not serve a congregation or institution in the diocese without license of the bishop having jurisdiction in the diocese.”

The proposed change to Canon I.6.7 substitutes the word, “congregations,” for the word, “churches.” While this proposed change appears to be motivated by a desire to have consistent language used throughout this section, the elimination of the word “church” does raise questions about the status of congregations in the Anglican Church in North America. Are they to be considered churches? Or is the diocese to be considered the church and the congregations only a subdivision of the diocese? Is the diocese the creature of the churches forming it or are the congregations forming the diocese the creatures of the diocese? This has important implications that should not be overlooked. The use of the term “church” interchangeably with the word “congregation” also made clear that what the section was referring to was churches, not congregations in a church. A church with two or more services has two or more congregations. With the amended wording the section is open to the interpretation that a church would have to obtain the permission of the bishop each time it launched a new service and with the launching of the new service started a new congregation. Was this the Governance Task Force and the Executive Committees’ intention?

The proposed change to Canon I.6.8 substitutes the word, “May” for the word “July.” The language requiring the Executive Committee to cause the preparation of a report on the status and growth of the Province and to submit the report to the Archbishop, rather than the Provincial Council, the governing body of the Province, remains unaltered. The canons continue to contain no provision to furnish members of the Provincial Council with copies of the report, leaving wholly to the discretion of the Archbishop to release to the Provincial Council what parts of the report that he sees fit. As the governing body of the Province the Provincial Council should have full access to the data contained in such report. The Council should be able to make its own evaluation of that data and not rely upon the Archbishop’s interpretation of the data.

The proposed changes to Canon I.7 are sweeping. The words “Affiliated Ministries and Religious Orders” are added to the present title of the canon. The title of Section 1 is changed to “Concerning Cooperation.” The current provisions of Section 1 are struck out and replaced with the following provisions:

Ministry Partners, Affiliated Ministries and Religious Orders work together with the Anglican Church in North America to extend the Kingdom of God. Those desiring admittance in one of these categories shall apply in writing to the Council to become associated with the Church. Applicants must subscribe without reservation to the Fundamental Declarations of the Church stated in Article I of the Constitution. The Council may admit the applicant upon terms deemed appropriate. Ministry Partners, Affiliated Ministries and Religious Orders may have representatives attend functions or gatherings of the Church upon the invitation of the Archbishop. Ministry Partners, Affiliated Ministries and Religious Orders may withdraw or have their status ended with or without cause.

The title of Section 2 is changed to “Concerning Ministry Partners.” The current provisions of Section 2 are struck out and replaced with the following provisions.

A Ministry Partner may be:

1. A founding entity of the Province as listed in Article II of the Constitution.

2. A jurisdiction or coalition deemed to a special relationship with the Province.

Delegates of Ministry Partners may have a voice and a seat at Provincial Assembly and Provincial Council as determined by the Archbishop.

The title of Section 3 is changed to “Concerning Affiliated Ministries.” The current provisions of section 3 are struck out and replaced with the following provisions.

An affiliated ministry may be an entity such as a seminary, mission agency, ministry organization, religious society or sodality. A diocese or other entity that is a part of a jurisdiction other than the Anglican Church in North America may also apply for affiliated ministry status, so long as the requirements of Section 1 of this canon are met.

The proposed changes retain the provision that effectively excludes from ministry partnership or ministry affiliation with the Anglican Church in North America churches and parachurch organizations that uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies, the English Reformers, and authentic historic Anglicanism, affirm the Jerusalem Declaration, and stand in the tradition of classical Anglican evangelicalism and therefore cannot in good conscience subscribe to the Fundamental Declarations’ stated position on the historic episcopate, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. They raise questions about the theological identity of any seminary that is affiliated with the ACNA and claims to be evangelical in the classical Anglican sense of the term. They fail to state who determines the terms upon which the Provincial Council admits applicants—the Council, the applicants, both? Since the Provincial Council is the governing body of the Anglican Church in North America and admits applicants for recognition as Ministry Partners, Affiliated Ministries and Religious Orders of the ACNA, the Council, not the Archbishop, should determine whether such organizations may send representatives to ACNA functions and gatherings and whether the delegates of Ministry Partners may have a voice and a seat in the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council.

The term sodality is most commonly used by groups in the Roman Catholic Church, where they are also referred to as confraternities. In Roman Catholic theology it refers to a specialized task oriented form of the “Universal Church” as opposed to its diocesan form, which is termed a modality. Protestants rarely use this term in the names of their mission organizations, societies, and specialized ministries, recognizing these organization for what they are—parachurch organizations.

The proposed changes to Canon 1.7 also add a fourth section, as follows.

Section 4. Concerning Vowed Communities and Religious Orders

1. A vowed community is a society of Anglican Christians who voluntarily commit themselves for life, or for a term, to live together in obedience to a Rule and Constitution. A religious order is a society of Anglican Christians who voluntarily commit themselves for life, or for a term of years, to celibate life in community, in obedience to their Rule and Constitution, holding their possessions in common.

2. A vowed community or religious order is a part of this Church in the same manner as any congregation that is, by recognition of and union with a Bishop and Diocese, within which it functions.

3. A vowed community or religious order may apply for recognition as an affiliated ministry of the Province at such time as there are professed members living in community in multiple dioceses.

4. Vows of any solitary religious may be received and recorded by any Diocesan Bishop having jurisdiction over the congregation of which the vowed individual is a part, at the discretion of the Bishop.

The proposed addition of this fourth section on vowed communities, religious orders, and solitary religious is a clear indication of the direction in which the Anglican Church in North America is moving. It certainly does not appear to be toward comprehending Anglicans who uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies, the English Reformers, and authentic historic Anglicanism, affirm the Jerusalem Declaration, and stand in the tradition of classical Anglican evangelicalism. It is questionable whether its provisions need to be included in the canons. Here again the Governance Task Force and the Executive Committee offer no rationale for the proposal.

The proposed change to Canon III.5.3.2 strikes out the current provisions and replaces them with these provisions.

If a person was ordained by a Bishop whose authority to convey such orders has not been recognized by this Church, ordain the person as a Deacon conditionally, and, in accordance with Canon III.3.3.2, ordain the person a Presbyter conditionally (if previously ordained a Presbyter), having previously baptized and confirmed the person conditionally if necessary.

This proposed change essentially removes the time limit imposed upon bishops before they may ordain a person as a presbyter conditionally. The use of the term “convey” in conjunction with “orders” is indicative of the sacramental view of orders implicit in the canons, a view that is at odds with the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which does not recognize orders as a sacrament. This would enable bishops to ordain a person as a presbyter conditionally without requiring him to undergo a probationary period as a deacon. It creates a fast track for the ordination of ministers whose orders are not recognized by the ACNA.

The proposed change to canon III.7 adds the following sentence.

As a canonical minimum, the consultation in Canon I.6.4 shall be required.

See the comments on the proposed change to Canon I.6.4.

A number of places in the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America that are in desperate need of revision were left untouched. The proposed changes do not represent major reforms in the organization and governance of the ACNA. A number of these changes, as I have noted are unnecessary and have the potential to do more harm than good.