The Archbishop's Cabinet

Following in the footsteps of Andrew Jackson

By Robin G. Jordan

I first came across a reference to the Archbishop’s Cabinet in an article relating to the Anglican Mission’s decision to become a Ministry Partner of the ACNA rather than fully integrating its congregations and fellowships into the ACNA. A Google search produced an additional article relating to the meeting of the Executive Committee in Phoenix in February of this year, in which the Archbishop’s Cabinet was mentioned. (At the meeting the Executive Committee adopted the proposed changes about which I wrote in my article, “The ACNA Governance Task Force and Executive Committee Proposes Changes to ACNA Constitution and Canons.” They, however, receive no mention in the article.) The same Google search produced a schedule of meetings of the Executive Committee, the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops, and the Provincial Assembly. With each entry on the schedule for an Executive Committee meeting was listed an Archbishop’s Cabinet meeting immediately preceding the Executive Committee meeting. This search revealed that a number of bishops of the ACNA were members of the Archbishop’s Cabinet in including REC Presiding Bishop Leonard Riches, Bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Spirit John Guernsey, CANA Bishop Martyn Mimms, and ANiC Bishop Don Harvey.

The search also generated a number of articles and website pages related to Archbishop’s Cabinets in various Roman Catholic Archdioceses throughout the United States. It, however, did not produce anything about Archbishop’s Cabinets in Anglican bodies, the exception being the ACNA.

In Roman Catholic Archdioceses the Archbishop’s Cabinet is made up of various Archdiocesan officials. Its purpose is to coordinate the running of the Archdiocese. It is primarily an administrative body.

Archbishop Bob Duncan’s Archbishop’s Cabinet, however, appears to operate as an unofficial council of advice, in which major decisions are made and major policies developed before they are presented to the Executive Committee. The Archbishop’s Cabinet members are Duncan’s closest advisers. They form the innermost circle of the top leadership of the ACNA. If any body is the center of power in the ACNA, it is the Archbishop’s Cabinet.

The Archbishop’s Cabinet has no official standing. The constitution and canons do not make provision for such a body. They also do not recognize the creation of such a body and the appointment of its members as inherent in the powers of the office of Archbishop.

The governing documents of the ACNA do not have any mechanisms to hold this body accountable for its decisions and policies. It is not officially a part of the organizational structure of the ACNA or its ecclesiastical or secular governance. It exists because the bishops and other leaders of the ACNA tolerate its existence. They do not question the authority of Archbishop Duncan to create such a body and appoint its members. Its existence is further evidence of the low regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law at the highest levels in the ACNA.

The ACNA is only now trying to regularize Archbishop Duncan's appointment of ANiC Bishop Don Harvey as Dean of the Province (see my articles, "The ACNA Governance Task Force and Executive Committee Proposes Changes to ACNA Constitution and Canons" and "Proposed Resolution Defines Duties of ACNA Officers"). The ACNA's governing documents make no provision for such an office. They also do not recognize the creation of the office of Provincial Dean and the appointment of its occupant as inherent in the powers of the office of Archbishop.

This sort of thing, if it had been done in The Episcopal Church, would have produced an outcry.

I am reminded of what happened during the presidency of General Andrew Jackson. Instead of consulting the members of the official Cabinet, Jackson sought the advice of a group of his political friends—the infamous “Kitchen Cabinet”—in making major policy decisions. Jackson’s practice became a major source of controversy.

An examination of the governing documents of the ACNA shows that they contain very few accountability mechanisms. They make no provision for the removal of the Archbishop even in the event that he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, which is a very real possibility considering Archbishop Duncan’s age. A number of Anglican provinces have involuntary retirement provisions in their canons. They also have provisions that empower the Provincial Synod to force the resignation of the Primate of the province.

Until members of the ACNA demand greater accountability from their leaders, the ACNA will continue to move in its present direction. ACNA members need to be considering what kind of legacy they wish to leave to their children and grandchildren. Do they wish to leave them a legacy of acquiescence to lawlessness? This is what they will be doing if they do not insist upon greater respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law in their bishops. This is a spiritual matter as much as anything else. Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people (Titus 2:14). He did not suffer death upon the cross so that we might persist in lawlessness. Bishops who show little regard for the canons and rules that have been agreed upon for the government and good order of the Church do not set a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ. Rather they act like men who are not governed by God’s Word and Spirit. The Holy Scriptures do not condone the lawless deeds of men. The Spirit of God is not a spirit of lawlessness.

Related articles:
The ACNA Governance Task Force and Executive Committee Proposes Changes to ACNA Constitution and Canons
Proposed Resolution Defines the Duties of ACNA Officers