Updated: Archbishop Duncan’s Last Appointment Violates ACNA and West Anglicans Governing Documents

I have added some additional information concerning the illegality of Archbishop Duncan's appointment of Bishop Lyons as vicar-general for the Diocese of Western Anglicans under the provisions of ACNA constitution and canons. In making this appointment Duncan has once again claimed for the office of Archbishop powers that the ACNA governing documents do not vest in that office or recognize as inherent in the office.

By Robin G. Jordan

Bishop Frank Lyons’ explanation of why the College of Bishops postponed the selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of Western Anglicans suggests that the process of choosing a new Archbishop for the ACNA was more difficult than the bishops are willing to reveal. Lyons told the media that after choosing a new archbishop the bishops were too exhausted to precede to the selection of a new bishop for that diocese. “Fried” was the term that Lyons used.

Lyon’s description of the state of the bishops following their election of a new Archbishop may shed light on the College of Bishops’ claim that the bishops were unanimous in electing Foley Beach. It does suggest that Beach may have been a compromise candidate, nominated to break a deadlock. Since the election took place behind closed doors and under the veil of secrecy we can only speculate on what happened.

The development of a culture of secrecy in the College of Bishops is troubling. The College of Bishops has yet to fulfill its commitment to greater openness and transparency. The unwillingness of the bishops to adopt an open and transparent process for the election of a new archbishop does not suggest that their commitment was genuine. The College of Bishops operates on a need-to-know-basis. The bishops do not appear to regard stakeholders in the ACNA as needing to know.

Such an attitude brings to mind the secret tribunals of the Grand Inquisition and the Star Chamber—a page in Church history one would hope would not be repeated in the twenty-first century. It is not very different from the attitude of the Roman Catholic bishops who went to great lengths to cover up the repeated sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests. It reflects poorly on the bishops and the ACNA as a whole.

Episcopacy in the ACNA is prelatical in form. It is not the “primitive episcopacy” that Bishop George David Cummins who founded the Reformed Episcopal Church championed. In Prelacy in the Anglican Church in North America I examine six factors that have contributed to the emergence of prelacy as the form of episcopacy in the ACNA. It is not a positive development.

During the five years that Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan served as the Archbishop of the ACNA, the College of Bishops has usurped the role of the Provincial Council, the official governing body of the ACNA, in a number of key areas. The Governance Task Force has expanded the role of Archbishop in the ACNA through a series of canonical changes and model governing documents for dioceses and networks. Duncan himself expanded that role, arrogating to the office of Archbishop powers that the ACNA constitution and canons do not give to the office nor recognize as inherent in the office. Duncan created the Archbishop’s Cabinet, a body that has no official standing under the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons and is modeled upon an administrative body found in Roman Catholic archdioceses. He appointed a Provincial Dean and Provincial Canons. Both the College of Bishops and the Provincial Council acquiesced to Duncan’s expansion of the role of Archbishop and the Governance Task Force proposed canonical changes regularizing Duncan’s violations of the ACNA constitution and canons.

One of the key issues dividing the Anglican Church in North America is the manner in which bishops are elected. The ACNA constitution and canons make provisions for two methods for choosing bishops. The first method is by election by the diocese or network that the bishop is to serve. This method of episcopal election has a long history in the Christian Church. It is by far the oldest method for choosing a bishop. In his writings on church government Bishop William White who was for a large extent responsible for the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA correctly observes:

"The primitive churches were generally supplied by popular elections; even in the city of Rome, the privilege of electing the bishop continued with the people to the tenth or eleventh century, and near those times there are resolves of councils, that none should be promoted to ecclesiastical dignities, but by election of the clergy and people."

The ACNA governing documents do not prescribe how ACNA judicatories are to elect bishops, leaving the exact manner of election to the judicatory.

The Constitution and Canons and Governance Reports in the recent Provincial Meetings Journal included a proposal that would require an ACNA judicatory to obtain permission from the College of Bishops in order to elect a bishop. This proposal greatly limits the autonomy of the diocese or network as far as election of bishops is concerned. It has serious implications for the judicatories of the Anglican Church in North America. Under the provisions of this proposal the College of Bishops may refuse such permission to a diocese or network and pressure it into acquiescing to the College of Bishops’ selection of a bishop for the judicatory. The College of Bishops has displayed a willingness to ignore the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons. The College of Bishops is not likely to have any qualms about contravening the governing documents of an ACNA judicatory. As we shall see, outgoing Archbishop Duncan, the College of Bishops, and the Provincial Council in the case of the Diocese of Western Anglicans have already done so.

The second method is election by the College of Bishops from a slate of candidates nominated by the diocese or network. This slate is limited to at most three candidates. The College of Bishops is not under any constitutional or canonical constraint to elect any of the candidates nominated by the judicatory. The College of Bishops is not prohibited from nominating candidates of its own and electing one of them. The College of Bishops is not barred from indefinitely postponing its election of a bishop for a diocese or network. The ACNA canons commends this method of choosing a bishop to the judicatories that presently elect their own bishops and establishes it as the norm for new dioceses and networks.

The ACNA governing documents contain no provision authorizing the Archbishop to appoint a vicar general for a judicatory in the event the College of Bishops postpones the election of a bishop for the judicatory. The Archbishop is authorized to appoint a vicar general only for a diocese-in-formation (Canon I. 5.6). The Diocese of Western Anglicans for whom Archbishop Duncan appointed Bishop Lyons to be vicar-general is a founding diocese of the Anglican Church in North America, and not a diocese-in-formation of the ACNA, and therefore the provisions of Canon I.5.6 are not applicable to it.

The Diocese of Western Anglicans was formally recognized as a diocese of the ACNA by the provisional Provincial Council in April 2009. Its first bishop, William “Bill” Thompson” was elected by the provisional College of Bishops in June 2009.

The Archbishop is the Ecclesiastical Authority for dioceses-in-formation, but not for dioceses (Canon I.5.6). The Standing Committee of the diocese or its equivalent "is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese in the absence of a bishop authorized to act" (Canon I.5.3).

Nowhere in the ACNA constitution and canons is a provision that a diocese of the ACNA loses its status as recognized judicatory of the denomination due to a vacancy in the office of bishop of the diocese, the prolonged absence of the bishop from the diocese, or the mental or physical incapacity or incarceration of the bishop.

The ACNA constitution and canons contain no provisions recognizing the Archbishop to be the metropolitan of the ACNA and exercising metropolitical authority over the province. They also contain no provisions under which the Archbishop may take over a see until a new diocesan bishop is elected, consecrated, and enthroned if the see falls vacant as the result of the death, physical or mental incapacity or incarceration of the diocesan bishop.

Canon 4.02 of the Canons of the Diocese of Western Anglicans states:

As the governing body of the Diocese, the House of Delegates is the electing body in the election of the Bishop. Title III, Canon 8, Section 4 of the Canons of the Church provides: “The electing body of the diocese shall certify the election of a Bishop for consent by the College of Bishops, or may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the Diocese. The latter practice is commended to all Dioceses in this Church.” Accordingly, the norm for this Diocese is to forward two or three candidates to the College of Bishops from which it may elect one. However, notwithstanding the forgoing, the House of Delegates, by a two-thirds vote to override the commendation of that Canon of the Church in a particular case, may itself proceed to elect the Bishop, in which case the House of Delegates shall certify the candidate receiving the highest number of votes in such election as Bishop-elect of this Diocese for consent by the College of Bishops.

Under the provisions of this canon the Diocese of Western Anglicans could opt to elect its own bishop.

Article VIII.1 of the ACNA constitution states:

The member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions shall each retain all authority they do not yield to the Province by their own consent. The powers not delegated to the Province by this constitution nor prohibited by this Constitution to these dioceses or jurisdictions, are reserved to these dioceses or jurisdictions respectively.

Nowhere in the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Western Anglicans is a provision permitting the diocese or the House of Delegates or the Standing Committee of the diocese or its equivalent on behalf of the diocese to delegate to the Archbishop the authority to appoint a vicar general for the diocese in the event a delay occurs in the election of a bishop for the diocese under the provisions of the diocese’s governing documents. The absence of such a provision means that the House of Delegates or the Standing Committee of the diocese or its equivalent is not empowered to give such authorization. 

The College of Bishops’ postponement of the election of a new bishop for the Diocese of Western Anglicans is an indication of poor planning on its part. The bishops were aware that they had other business beside the election of a new Archbishop. They should have held a special meeting for that purpose. They could have then elected a new bishop for that diocese at their regular meeting before the meetings of the other ACNA denominational organs.

The second method of choosing a bishop in the ACNA is a later development than the first method. It is typical of the way that Eastern Orthodox Churches choose bishops. Variations of this method are found in a number of Anglican Provinces where it is usually provided as an alternative to election of a bishop by the diocesan synod or its equivalent or a diocesan electoral college or board of electors in the event a diocese is unsuccessful in choosing a bishop after repeated attempts or anticipates difficulty in reaching agreement on a new bishop.

Among the variations of this method found in Anglican Provinces is that under special circumstances defined in the provincial or diocesan governing documents a diocese may delegate the election of a bishop for the diocese to the bishops of the province or to a committee of provincial bishops and other persons designated by the diocesan synod or its equivalent of the diocese. The diocese may nominate candidates for the office of bishop and submit them to this electing body or may delegate the nomination of suitable candidates to the electing body, in which case the electing body appoints a nominating committee to consider and vet such candidates and submit a slate of nominees to the electing body. The diocese has the right to withdraw its delegation of its power to nominate and elect to the electing body and proceed with nomination of candidates and the election of a bishop under its normal procedures.

Only in a small number of African provinces is the second method the primary method of choosing a bishop. The African view of bishops has been strongly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church and traditional African society.

The second method for electing bishops in the ACNA suffers from a number of drawbacks. It turns the College of Bishops into a self-perpetuating body that vets and chooses its members, basing its choice on its own criteria for membership and not the judicatory’s particular needs in the way of a bishop. It permits one denominational faction or party to dominate the College of Bishops, electing only candidates that are members of the dominant faction or party or sympathize with the beliefs of that faction or party or are willing to work with it to achieve its goals. It not only reduces the autonomy of ACNA judicatories but also presents a serious obstacle to much needed, meaningful reform in the ACNA. The ACNA already shows a proclivity for elitism and exclusivity which greatly impaired the growth of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA and the Continuing Anglican Churches. The second method contributes to this tendency and may itself be a manifestation of the same proclivity.

The second method also points to the ACNA’s strong inclination toward authoritarianism. This is clearly evident in its form of governance at the denominational level. The authoritarian character of its form of church government is likely to prove a serious barrier to the denomination’s ability to expand its population base. At the present time the Anglican Church in North America is a small denomination with a small population base. In order to experience healthy growth, the ACNA must expand its population base. The larger that base grows, the more people the ACNA can reach with the gospel and enfold into new churches.

The argument that the second method is the more catholic of the two methods does not hold water in view of the great antiquity of the first method.

By a special protocol with the Anglican Church of Rwanda new members of the episcopate in PEAR-USA are nominated by the bishops of that body and elected by the Rwandan House of Bishops. The nominees must be approved by the ACNA College of Bishops, effectively giving it a measure of control over whom may serve as a bishop for PEAR-USA. This provision of the special protocol also enables the College of Bishops to screen out any nominee who in its estimation is not a good match with the existing bishops of the province.

Was outgoing Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Lyons as vicar-general for the Diocese of West Anglicans a flagrant violation of the ACNA constitution and canons and the Diocese of West Anglicans governing documents? Was the College of Bishops and the Provincial Council complicit in that violation? It certainly looks to be the case.

Such shameless disregard of constitutionalism and the rule of law in the Anglican Church in North America points to the very great need for reform in that denomination. ACNA members may overlook this violation as they have ignored past ones. But in time such violations and their own failure to press for meaningful reform is going to come back to haunt them. For those who may pass from the scene in a few years, it is a very poor legacy to leave behind them.