How the Anglican
Church in North America Is Creating Obstacles to Its Own Growth – Part 4
By Robin G. Jordan
In addition to a Provincial Assembly and a Provincial
Council (see my previous article, "Introducing the ACNA's High Church Party"), the Anglican Church in North America has an
Executive Committee, an Archbishop, and a College of Bishops. The Executive
Committee is the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America’s
non-profit corporation.
The Executive Committee consists of six clergy directors and
six lay directors, elected by the Provincial Council from among its members.
Their term of office is three years.
No elected member of the Executive Committee may serve more
than two consecutive terms.
The staggering of its members’ terms of office precludes the
Executive Committee’s introducing any meaningful reform. It also enables one
faction or party to dominate the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee is chaired by the Archbishop. The
other denominational officers serve as ex officio non-voting members of the
Executive Committee. Among its responsibilities the Executive Committee sets
the agenda of the Provincial Council meetings.
Under the provisions of Article XIV of the ACNA constitution
the Executive Committee is charged with warning dioceses and sub-provinces of
the possibility of their expulsion from the Anglican Church in North America. (Unless
specified otherwise, my use of the terms diocese or diocese in this article
also includes affinity networks.) This gives muscle to a proposed canonical
change authorizing the Executive Committee to “open conversations” with
dioceses that in it estimation do not fit the criteria of sustainability.
The same proposal leaves the determination of these criteria
to the Executive Committee. Presumably these criteria will primarily consist of the diocese's ability to support the office of its bishop and its ability to pay its
share of the cost of operating the denomination.
This proposal enables the Executive Committee to pressure
dioceses into transferring their clergy and congregations to another diocese and
dissolving or merging with another diocese on the basis that they do not meet
its criteria for sustainability. It gives the Executive Committee leverage over
dioceses that refuse to pay their share of denominational operating costs in
protest of developments in the ACNA.
Another proposed canonical change would make recognition as
a new diocese of the ACNA contingent upon the recommendation of the Executive
Committee. A third proposal tightens the requirements for recognition.
These last two proposals raise the bar for groups of
congregations and their clergy seeking recognition as new ACNA dioceses and
encourage them to join existing ACNA dioceses.
All three proposals represent a major step to consolidate
ACNA churches into geographically contiguous dioceses and to abolish affinity
networks.
The ACNA has not posted on its website what proposed
constitutional and canonical changes were ratified by the 2014 Provincial
Assembly. Based upon past experience, I am assuming that none were rejected.
Article IX of the ACNA establishes the office of Archbishop,
his official designation, and the manner of his election. It sets his term of
office and delineates his duties and responsibilities. The latter consist of
convening the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and
College of Bishops, representing the denomination “in the Councils of the
Church,” and performing “such other duties and responsibilities as may be
provided by canon.”
Nowhere in Article IX or elsewhere in the constitution is
the Archbishop recognized as being the metropolitan of the Anglican Church in
North America or as having metropolitical authority over the other bishops of
the ACNA. Yet in the ACNA canons the Governance Task Force included a provision
requiring the other ACNA bishops to take an oath of obedience to the Archbishop
and in the canons and the model diocesan governing documents included
provisions that give to the Archbishop powers, not “duties and
responsibilities,” which exceed those of the typical Anglican metropolitan.
As I noted in my previous article the Governance Task Force
is a main locus of influence for the special interest group that may be
described as the High Church party in the ACNA.
Former Archbishop Duncan was not shy in claiming broad
reserve or discretionary powers for himself during his term of office—powers
that the constitution and canons did not grant the office of Archbishop or
recognizing as inherent in that office. Both the Governance Task Force and
former Archbishop Duncan sought to expand the role of Archbishop well beyond
the role contemplated by Article IX.
The constitution of Anglican Provinces in which the
Archbishop is a metropolitan formally recognize the Archbishop as being the metropolitan
of the province and having metropolitical authority over the other bishops of
the province. It is clearly stated in this governing document. The exception is
the Church of England, which does not have a written constitution and which formally recognizes
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as being metropolitans of their
respective provinces and having metropolitical authority over their respective provinces
in its canons.
A similar provision could be incorporated into the ACNA
constitution but for some reason the Governance Task Force has been reluctant
to propose such a provision. The task force has to date offered no explanation for its hesitance.
With the adoption of a solemn conclave to elect a new
Archbishop, modeled upon the conclave of the Roman Catholic Church's College of Cardinals used to choose a new Pope,
the aggrandizement of the Archbishop in the ACNA is getting out of hand.
The College of Bishops consists of all the bishops active in
episcopal ministry in the Anglican Church in North America. The College of
Bishops is another major locus of influence for the High Church party. The
influence of this special interest group is behind the College of Bishops’
claiming for itself decision-making powers that the constitution does not grant
to the College or recognize as belonging by nature to that body.
Article X.1 of ACNA constitution identifies the chief work of
the College of Bishops as propagating and defending the faith and order of the
Church” and serving as “the visible sign and expression of the unity of the
Church.” Article X.3 empowers the College of Bishops to elect an Archbishop
from the active bishops in the denomination and Article X.5 empowers the
College to confirm the election of a bishop elected by a diocese and in certain
cases to elect a bishop for a diocese from a slate of two or three candidates
nominated by the diocese. This is the extent of its powers.
Canon I.3.1 authorizes the College “to order its life and
develop such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for its life and
work.” Canon II.2.2 states:
“It is understood that there is a diversity of uses in the Province. In order to use these rich liturgies most advantageously, it is the responsibility of the Bishop with jurisdiction to ensure that the forms used in Public Worship and the Administration of the Sacraments be in accordance with Anglican Faith and Order and that nothing be established that is contrary to the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”
The provisions of Canon II.2.2 apply to the rites and
services presently in use in the denomination. They charge the ordinary of the
diocese with ensuring the rites and services used in his diocese are “in accordance with Anglican
faith and order” and their doctrine is agreeable “to the Word of God as
revealed in the Holy Scriptures,” an unfortunate choice of phrase as it
suggests that the Bible contains the Word of God, a liberal view of the Bible,
rather is the Word of God written, the view of the Articles of Religion.
A diligent search of the ACNA constitution and canons
reveals no provision granting the College of Bishops authority to delegate to
any commission, committee, or task force the development of rites and services
for the denomination, the establishment of guidelines for ordination in the
denomination, or the drafting of a catechism for the denomination. Nor does it
reveal any provision granting the College of Bishops authority to supervise the
work of such commissions, committees, and task forces, to approve the
end-products of that work, and to require the use of these end-products throughout
the denomination. The constitution, however, clearly and unequivocally grants
this authority to the Provincial Council (Article V).
In wrongfully taking the authority of the Provincial
Council, the College of Bishops is arguably liable for violation of the
provisions of the constitution and contravention of the canons. However, I do
not see the bishops making presentments against themselves any time in the
foreseeable future.
While the College of Bishops may claim that its decisions
have legal efficacy or force, they are not binding upon the denomination under
the provisions of its constitution and canons. To have that effect, they must
be incorporated into a canon and the canon approved by the Provincial Council
and ratified by the Provincial Assembly. Individual bishops may try to enforce
the decisions of the College of Bishops within their own jurisdiction but even
in their own diocese they are not on firm ground.
Nothing in the ACNA constitution and canons, however,
prevents a diocesan synod or its equivalent from incorporating a decision of
the College of Bishops into the governing documents of the diocese but this
action only makes that particular decision binding upon the diocese.
Members of the College of Bishops may appeal to the
precedent of the councils of the early Church. However, the College is not a
council of the early Church. It is subject to the constitution and canons of
the Anglican Church in North America and is legally
and morally bound by these governing
documents.
The College of Bishops cannot, like a conference of bishops
in the Roman Catholic Church, issue binding decrees. Even in the Roman Catholic
Church such decrees must be issued in accordance with canon law and require the
approval of the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church—the Pope.
What we have here is the reappearance of an old problem that
has beset the Anglican Church since the seventeenth century, bishops seeking to
aggrandize themselves at the expense of another duly-constituted body that has authority
over the Church. In the seventeenth century, that body was Parliament.
The Anglican Church in North America has two types of middle
judicatories—the diocese and the network. The ACNA originally had a third type
of middle judicatory—the cluster. Among the latest proposals for amending the
ACNA constitution was a proposal that eliminated this type of middle judicatory.
I am presuming that this proposal was adopted by the Provincial Council and
ratified by the Provincial Assembly this past June.
“A middle judicatory is an administrative structure or organization found in a religious denominations between the local congregation and the widest or highest national or international level. The term is meant to be neutral with regard to polity, though it derives from Presbyterianism where the local, regional and national bodies are themselves respectively higher courts.
Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication.”
Those who identify themselves as Anglicans have historically
been divided into two schools of thought on the relationship of middle
judicatories and local congregations in the Anglican Church. Those who are
unreformed Catholic in their beliefs hold that the local congregation derives
its existence from the diocese and is subordinate to the diocese.
In this view the local congregation is an extension of the
diocese and is ancillary to the diocese. In the latter role the local
congregation provides necessary support to the primary activities or operation
of the diocese.
The diocese itself is a particular district over which a
bishop exercises authority and provides oversight. The diocese derives its
existence from the bishop.
The ministry of the clergy in the diocese, in this view, is
an extension of the ministry of the bishop. They essentially function as his
assistants.
The bishop ultimately derives his authority from the
apostles to whom he is a successor, receiving this authority in the form of a
special anointing or gift of the Holy Spirit at his consecration through the
laying on hands by bishops who stand in an unbroken line of succession from the
apostles.
The High Church party in the Anglican Church in North
America to a large part holds this view or it has influenced their thinking.
This view, I would add, has no real Scriptural basis. It is
an example of what Tractarian-turned-Roman Catholic John Henry Newman described
as doctrinal development. Newman used this theory to justify unreformed
Catholic beliefs and practices that his critics dismissed as innovations or corruptions.
Those who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their
beliefs hold that a diocese is the creature of the local congregations forming
the diocese and is an instrument of these congregations. It is basically a
voluntary association of local congregations established for
commonly-agreed-upon purposes.
Among its primary functions is to support the ministry and mission of the local congregations constituting the diocese, to expand their ministry and mission, and thereby to enable the local congregations to be more effective and have greater impact.
Among its primary functions is to support the ministry and mission of the local congregations constituting the diocese, to expand their ministry and mission, and thereby to enable the local congregations to be more effective and have greater impact.
The role of the bishop is defined in the instruments of
governance adopted by the associated congregations. The bishop typically has
limited authority and his exercise of authority is subject to constitutional
and canonical restraints. He is not above the law but must operate within the
law.
Like the English Reformers those who hold this view find
nothing in Scripture mandating episcopacy or any other form of church
government. Like the benchmark Anglican divine Richard Hooker, they do not
believe that episcopacy belongs to “the essence of Christianity.” At the same
time they find nothing in the Scriptures that precludes the retention of
bishops.
Those who hold this view also find nothing in the Scriptures
mandating a particular way of aligning congregations within a denomination.
Indeed the concept of a denomination is not discernible in the Bible. Only
local congregations and loose associations of these congregations are mentioned
in the New Testament. On the other hand, the Bible does not prohibit the
organization of local congregations into denominations and middle judicatories.
What the Bible does mandate is proclaiming the gospel to all
humanity and making disciples of all people groups. What best enables local
congregations to fulfill this divine mandate is the guiding biblical principle
for organizing local congregations into larger groupings.
Dioceses in the Anglican Church in North America are
organized on the basis of territory. Each diocese comprises a particular region
of North America. Networks, on the other hand, are organized on the basis of
affinity—a pre-existing relationship between the local congregations forming
the network. The governing documents of the ACNA do not make provision for the
formation of networks on the basis of common vision and goals or particular
theological stands.
Within the Anglican Church in North America is a movement to
consolidate all local congregations into geographically contiguous dioceses, to
abolish existing affinity networks, and to discourage the formation of affinity
networks in the future. This is evident in the latest proposed changes to the
ACNA constitution and canons. Considering the role that the High Church party
is playing in spearheading this movement and the references to “catholicity” in
the arguments of those promoting its objectives, the motivation for seeking
these changes appears to primarily ecclesiological.
The special interest group that stands to benefit the most
from such changes is also the High Church party. Part of its agenda is to
impose a rigid doctrinal uniformity upon the ACNA and the reorganization of the
ACNA along these lines would go a long way toward helping it achieve this goal.
It would also strengthen the grip of the High Church party on the College of
Bishops and the Provincial Council. It would eliminate even remotest
possibility of opposition to its agenda developing in the Provincial Assembly.
Whether such reorganization would help the ACNA to plant
more biblically-orthodox, gospel-centered, outward-focused congregations and to
expand its population base is doubtful. On the contrary, it is likely to have
the opposite effect.
The elimination of existing and future affinity networks
would prevent local congregations and their clergy from pulling out of the
Anglican Church in North America together and would force them to leave
individually.
It is often argued that local congregations and their clergy
are free to leave the ACNA, taking their buildings and other property with
them, and the possibility of losing local congregations and their clergy acts
as a check upon those who are seeking to move the denomination further in a
particular direction that others do not welcome or accept.
To date this possibility has not served as the deterrent
that some claim that it is. The reorganization of the ACNA along exclusively
diocesan lines would further weaken its deterrent value.
The challenges of functioning as a completely independent
local congregation are daunting enough to act as a deterrent to local
congregations and their clergy leaving the ACNA.
It also should be noted that Article XII of the ACNA
constitution does not entirely prohibit a diocese from seizing the property of
a departing congregation.
“Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.”
Article IV.4 of the ACNA constitution permits the middle
judicatories of the Anglican Church in North America to band together for common
mission, or as distinct jurisdictions at the sub-Provincial level. The ACNA has
three such sub-provinces—the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), PEAR-USA,
and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).
A number of voices in various quarters of the ACNA are calling
for the dissolution of these sub-provinces and the full integration of their
congregations and clergy into the ACNA. Support for this change is not entirely
confined to the High Church party, which appears to be one of its leading
supporters.
Whether dissolution of these sub-provinces would help the
ACNA to plant more biblically-orthodox, gospel-centered, outward-focused
congregations and to expand its population base is also doubtful. It would,
however, discourage local congregations and their clergy from leaving the ACNA
over future developments in the denomination as well as further the agenda of
the High Church party.
Through its form of government, the actions of its
Archbishop and its College of Bishops and the acquiescence or active cooperation
of the Provincial Council in these actions the Anglican Church in North America
is hampering its ability to expand its population base and to maintain healthy,
long-term growth.
Prospective members of the ACNA who take the time to closely
examine the province-in-formation’s form of government and how operates are
likely to think twice about joining the ACNA if how a denomination is governed
matters to them. If they value constitutionalism and the rule of law and the
sharing of the governance of the Church by the whole Body of Christ, clergy and
laity together, they are likely to conclude that the ACNA is not the
denomination for them.
Those who join the ACNA without examining the
province-in-formation’s form of government and how it operates are likely to
draw the same conclusions over time. They may persuade themselves at first that
it does not matter. What matters is that the denomination is planting new
churches.
But eventually it will become clear to them that a
denomination which has a low regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law
and is unwilling to give to the laity a significant role in its governance really
does not value those that its churches are ostensibly seeking to evangelize and
disciple. They are primarily prospective giving units and pew occupants.
It will also become clear to those who join the ACNA without examining the denomination's form of government and its way of operating that the denomination does not value them either and sees them in the same light.
It will also become clear to those who join the ACNA without examining the denomination's form of government and its way of operating that the denomination does not value them either and sees them in the same light.
Prospective and existing members of the ACNA who take the
time to compare the province-in-formation’s form of government and how it
operates with the forms of government of other denominations and how they operate
cannot help but note the similarities between the way that the ACNA is governed and the way that the Roman Catholic Church is governed. As I have previously noted, the Roman
Catholic Church does not give its laity a significant role in the governance of
the denomination.
Since the revelation that the Roman Catholic Church’s
hierarchy deliberately concealed the wide-spread sexual abuse of children by
clergy of that denomination, concerned laity have called for a greater role for
the laity in the governance of the denomination at the parish, diocesan, and
archdiocesan levels.
Defenders of prelacy in the Roman Catholic Church have
responded by pointing to the Anglican Church and its problems and blaming these
problems on the role that the Anglican Church gives to the laity in
ecclesiastical governance. The Roman Catholic Church’s present form of church
government they argue has prevented these problems from occurring in the Roman Catholic
Church.
During the Common Cause Partnership phase of the Anglican
Church in North America members of the ACNA High Church party championing the
proposed constitution and canons also blamed the laity for developments in the
Episcopal Church. They either downplayed or ignored the substantial role that
the bishops and other clergy of the Episcopal Church had played in these
developments.
Liberal bishops violated the canons of that denomination and
ordained openly gay clergy and permitted the blessing of same sex liaisons in
their dioceses. The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops refused to discipline
them. Liberal seminary professors taught liberal theology to seminarians and
liberal clergy taught this theology to their parishioners.
What happened in the Episcopal Church points to the need not
for a prelatical form of church government but the teaching of biblical
doctrine, the subscription of clergy and other church leaders to historic
Anglican doctrinal standards, and the enforcement of church discipline. The
ACNA’s prelatical form of church government has to date failed to meet this
need.
As can be seen, the form of church government that the
Anglican Church in North America has adopted and how it operates is erecting a
number of barriers to the expansion of the denomination’s population base and
its maintenance of healthy, long-term growth. It discourages people from
becoming a part of the ACNA and if they are already a part of the ACNA from
remaining a part of the denomination.
The more the High Church party seeks to impose its agenda on
the ACNA, the greater the likelihood we will begin to see the wholesale exodus
of clergy and congregations. Such an exodus would draw attention to the
problems of the ACNA and would affect its public image.
Right now clergy and congregations no longer happy and
willing to support ACNA leaders and the direction in which they are taking the
denomination have nowhere to go. This could change with the creation of a
viable alternative to the ACNA, an alternative that makes ample room for
Anglicans who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their beliefs and
displays a genuine commitment to the Great Commission as well as is synodical
in its form of church government and values constitutionalism and the rule of
law and the sharing of the governance of the Church by the entire Body of
Christ.
See also
1 comment:
Yawn!
Let them be.
Use the BCP, or, at least 95% of it. The remaing 5% is arguable.
Avoid the Romewardizers, such as the ACNA canonists. Robin, u've done a good job previously showing the Romish canons. They've worked hard at that but without theological or confessional commitments publically.
Associate with the wider Reformed and Confessional community. Avoid the "enthusiasts" such as REC-hyperventilators. A new phenomenon amongst Neo-Tractarian RECers, to wit, hyper-Anglicans and opposed to all others.
Bob of Pittsburg and his Tracto-friendly operatives is unhealthy despite claims otherwise.
Bottomline: this is a micro-outfit of Manglicans. Or, mixturizers without a Confession.
Being "advanced," we move on.
Post a Comment