How the Anglican Church in North America Is Creating Obstacles to Its Own Growth - Part 6
By Robin G. Jordan
Among the charges or accusations on which an archbishop or
bishop may be presented under the disciplinary canons of the Anglican Church in
North America is “violation of any provision of the Constitution of this
Church” and “Disobedience, or willful contravention of the Canons of this
Church or of the constitution or canons of the Diocese in which he holds
office” (Canon IV.2.8-9). On a number of occasions former Archbishop Robert
Duncan and the College of Bishops have flagrantly violated the provisions of
the constitution of the ACNA and disobeyed or willfully contravened its canons
and no one has protested, much less initiated disciplinary proceedings against
them.
This is attributable to a number of factors. Three are
prominent:
(1) Members of the ACNA have become so accustomed to their Archbishop
and bishops flouting the provisions of the constitution and canons with
impunity that they think nothing of it.
(2) They have somehow bought into the idea that the ACNA’s
episcopal bench is not bound by the denomination’s governing documents.
(3) The disciplinary canons are so written to make it
difficult to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Archbishop and other
members of the College of Bishops.
The first of these factors is a serious attitudinal problem
and does not bode well for the ACNA. Clergy and laity have become desensitized
to episcopal abuse of authority and value constitutionalism and the rule of law
too lightly.
The second of these factors points to an extremely distorted
view of bishops and episcopacy. This view is traceable to the nineteenth
century Catholic Revival and its influence.
In the nineteenth century a number of Church of England and
Episcopal bishops who were unreformed Catholic in their beliefs took the
position that they were above the law. Their conformity to the canons of their
respective churches at the provincial and diocesan levels was purely voluntary
on their part.
The same bishops insisted that the authority of the standing
committee or bishop’s council, the diocesan convention or synod, and other
diocesan organs was derived from them. As the source of these bodies’ authority
they could ignore the decisions of such bodies.
They took a similar attitude toward General Convention or
Convocation and in the case of the Church of England toward the Privy Council
and Parliament. They had a highly-inflated view of their own authority: one
bishop went as far as excommunicating the entire Church of England.
In England a series of important legal decisions established
that bishops like other clergy were subject to the law. In the United States,
however, these bishops were left unchecked and their view of bishops and
episcopacy was incorporated into the canons of their dioceses.
Among the reasons that conservative Episcopalians
experienced serious theological disputes with their bishops in the Episcopal
Church was that a number of the liberal bishops in that province held this view
of bishops and episcopacy. They saw disagreement with their theological views
as an infringement upon their authority as a bishop.
When outsiders see ACNA bishops openly disregarding the
provisions of its governing documents at will and without any ill-consequences,
they are left with an unfavorable impression of the denomination. While ACNA
members may accept the bishops’ rationalization of their misconduct, outsiders see
these rationalizations for what they are—attempts to justify bad behavior.
It is difficult to see how the Anglican Church in North
America can take the moral high ground in its disputes with the Episcopal
Church when the denomination tolerates this kind of behavior in its bishops.
The perceptive outsider notices this inconsistency.
The ACNA has nothing in its canons that resembles a
provision in the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church. `Canon 12 states: “No
person shall be ordained, licensed, instituted, or collated…without first
promising…to render due obedience to the Code of Canons and to what is lawfully
ordered thereunder.”
ACNA bishops at their investiture are not required to sign a
legal instrument in which they agree to abide by the constitution and canons of
the denomination. Neither is the Archbishop.
The third of these factors draws attention to the over-all
poor quality of the disciplinary canons. The Common Cause Governance Task Force
in drafting the disciplinary canons did not adequately think through their
provisions, omitting necessary safeguards and leaving out important details.
The poor quality of the disciplinary canons is attributable
to former Archbishop Robert Duncan’s insistence upon a stream-lined constitution
and set of canons. The Common Cause Governance Task Force appeared to have been
strongly influenced by Duncan’s views on what should go into these governing
documents and what should not.
Duncan’s views were largely an over-reaction to the emphasis
upon the authority of the constitution and canons in the Episcopal Church and
the use of these governing documents against conservative Episcopalians. His
views were shared by other leaders in the Common Cause Partnership.
The disciplinary canons were in need of a major overhaul even before they were adopted and ratified. The ACNA Governance Task Force has to
date shown no inclination to thoroughly examine the disciplinary canons and to
propose much needed changes.
If they take a close look at the disciplinary canons, clergy
and seminarians considering a ministry career in the ACNA will note a number of
problem areas. Any or all of these problem areas may prove a major sticking
point for them.
Among the charges or accusations listed in Canon IV.2 is “apostasy
from the Christian faith” and “heresy, false doctrine, or schism.” The disciplinary canons do not define these
terms.
Indeed the disciplinary canons do not define the nature of
any of the charges or accusations listed in Canon IV.2. They leave this
determination to those making the charges or accusations and to the bishop
reviewing the charges or accusations in the case of a presbyter or deacon or to
the board of inquiry in case of the Archbishop or another bishop.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.2 clergy who do not agree
with their doctrine may be prosecuted for not using the ACNA Catechism and the
ACNA Prayer Book. Bishops who do not agree with their doctrine are also liable
to prosecution for not enforcing their use.
If the Provincial Council does not adopt a canon authorizing
the use of the Catechism and the Prayer Book, the trial will finally draw much
needed attention to the constitutionality and canonicity of the College of
Bishops’ authorization of their use. One or more rulings of the Provincial
Tribunal may be required to resolve the matter.
In the case of charges or accusations made against a
presbyter or deacon, the bishop may dismiss the charges or accusations if he
considers them to be frivolous. Those making the charges or accusations have no
recourse if they disagree with the bishop’s decision.
The disciplinary canons contain no special provisions for
the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse, a major defect of the
disciplinary canons. Such provisions would mandate the investigation of all allegations
of child sexual abuse and the immediate referral of the allegations to the
state and county child protection services for investigation.
The disciplinary canons leave to the discretion of the
bishop whether the allegations of child sexual abuse should be investigated.
They put the bishop in the same position that the Roman Catholic Church’s lax
policies on child sexual abuse placed its bishops.
The disciplinary canons’ lack of special provisions for the
handling of allegations of child sexual abuse are a major scandal in the
making, opening the denomination, its judicatories, and its congregations to
costly litigation. No denomination, no judicatory, and no congregation is
immune to child sexual abuse.
A major child sexual abuse scandal would cause serious
damage to the public image of the ACNA. It would have the same impact on the
ACNA as similar scandals have had on the Roman Catholic Church and a number of
Anglican provinces and dioceses.
In all of these cases the denomination or the judicatory
failed to adequately protect the children in its churches and other
institutions. With so many church-related child sexual abuse cases receiving
public attention, it is both incomprehensible and inexcusable that the ACNA has
done nothing to address this major defect in its disciplinary canons.
Child safety is an important concern to parents. They are
not going to attend the churches of a denomination that shows little or no
concern for the safety of children nor are they going to send their children to
church schools, preschools, and daycare centers of that denomination.
Canon IV.3.2 contains this cryptic statement: “If it is
determined by the diocesan authority that a trial should occur, then a
presentment shall be prepared and procedures followed according to the norms of
ecclesiastical law. “ It does not identify to what diocesan authority it is
referring—the bishop, the standing committee, or some other official or body.
The same canon also does not identify to what ecclesiastical
law it is referring. These two examples are just two of a number of omissions
of necessary details in the provisions of the disciplinary canons.
The disciplinary canons make no provision for the
investigation of charges or accusations against clergy and the presentment and
trial of clergy during a vacancy in a see.
The disciplinary canons make the presentment of a bishop far
more difficult than the presentment of other clergy. At the same time they make
fairly easy the process by which a bishop may demand the investigation of rumors,
reports, or allegations affecting his personal or official character, which he
suspects may be circulating.
Charges or accusations against a bishop and rumors, reports,
and allegations circulating about a bishop are investigated by a Board of
Inquiry appointed by the Archbishop. The disciplinary canons provide no
alternative procedure for the appointment of a Board of Inquiry when the
Archbishop is the bishop against whom the charges or accusations have been made
or about whom rumors, reports, and allegations are suspected of being circulated.
Under the provisions of the disciplinary canons the
Archbishop appoints the legal advisor to the Court for the Trial of a Bishop
and the prosecutor for that court. The disciplinary canons provide no
alternative procedure for the appointment of the legal advisor and the
prosecutor when the Archbishop s the bishop who is appearing before the court.
They do not require the Archbishop’s appointees to excuse themselves from the
case due to actual or perceived conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
Under the provisions of the disciplinary canons the
Archbishop appoints the members of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction as
well as the legal advisor to that court and the prosecutor for the court. This
court tries the cases of clergy who are under the oversight of an ACNA bishop
but canonically attached to anther Anglican province or diocese or whose
diocese lacks a trial court of its own.
The disciplinary canons do not prohibit the Archbishop from
appointing legal advisors to these two courts and prosecutors for the same
courts on a case by case basis. These appointments may be used to influence how
a case proceeds and to determine its outcome.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.8.4 a bishop cannot revoke
or reduce the suspension of a presbyter or deacon without “the advice and consent of the
Archbishop,” acting “in consultation with the Executive Committee.” The College
of Bishops cannot revoke or reduce the suspension of a bishop except with the
Archbishop’s consent.
Both are unprecedented in Anglican canon law. It is a
principle of longstanding in Anglican ecclesiastical jurisprudence that the
sentencing authority, the bishop in the case of presbyters and deacons, and the
College of Bishops in the case of bishops, has the right to revoke or reduce a
sentence.
The only disciplinary canons in which I have found similar
provisions are those of the Anglican Church of Rwanda adopted in 2008. They are
the work of a former Roman Catholic AMiA priest and are based upon the Roman
Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and Roman Catholic ecclesiastical
jurisprudence.
The provisions in the ACNA disciplinary canons are based
upon the provisions in the Rwandan disciplinary canons. At the time the ACNA
disciplinary canons were drafted, the AMiA had representatives on the Common
Cause Governance Task Force.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.9.1 the Archbishop may
overrule a bishop’s inhibition of a presbyter or deacon. This is also unprecedented
in Anglican canon law.
Anglican bishops have historically enjoyed the right to
inhibit clergy who are accused or suspected of wrongdoing or who do not heed
their godly admonitions. The canons of a province may limit the power of its
bishops to inhibit to certain categories of offenses, set time limits on the
inhibition, and prescribe other safeguards.
Even in Anglican provinces in which the Archbishop is
recognized to be the metropolitan of the province in its constitution (in the
case of the Church of England, its canons) and likewise recognized to have
metropolitical authority over the other bishops, the ordinary of a diocese is
free from the interference of such an ecclesiastical superior in his exercise
of his power to inhibit. The Archbishop of the ACNA is not recognized to be the
metropolitan of the ACNA in its constitution nor is the Archbishop recognized
to have metropolitical authority over the other ACNA bishops in the
constitution. Yet the ACNA canons and model diocese governing documents grant
powers to the Archbishop that go well beyond those of a typical Anglican
metropolitan.
My examination of the problem areas in the disciplinary
canons’ provisions is not exhaustive. It does show how these provisions
threaten the growth of the Anglican Church in North America.
The disciplinary canons discourage the flow of fresh talent
into the ACNA from outside of the denomination, fresh talent that would enabled
the denomination to expand its population base and maintain healthy, long-term
growth.
The disciplinary canons offer no reassurance to parents that
ACNA churches are a safe environment for their children. Rather they suggest
that the ACNA does not take the safety of their children with the seriousness
that it deserves.
The disciplinary canons raise questions about the competency
and motives of those in positions of leadership in the ACNA involved in their
drafting, their promotion, and their approval. They play into the unchurched
population’s stereotypes of church leaders.
The disciplinary canons are bound to cause dissension in the
ACNA at some point and cost the denomination members. I would go as far as
saying that ACNA leaders may be sitting on a time bomb.
See also
An ACNA Church in Your Area? Maybe? Maybe Not!Episcopacy Out of Control in the Anglican Church in North America
3 comments:
Hi Robin,
I would like to correspond with you if that's possible. I too am a former resident of St Tammany Parish. (I was pastor at Faith Presbyterian in Covington, and as a child I was baptized at Trinity Episcopal in N.O.) I decided several years ago to move to the Anglican Church, but have had problems being received. Many of your observations about the troubles Reformed & Evangelical folk may have in so doing have been my actual experience.
I have sought in vain to find your email address.
If you have the time, please email me at james.a.olive@gmail.com. I think that I could really benefit from your wisdom.
Pax,
-Austin.
Oops... I sent you an email a few days ago but only now remembered your reply said that I should remind you when I sent it.
When you have time, please check your "heritageanglicans" email address. The subject line of my email is "Seeking your thoughts..."
Pax,
-Austin.
Well, this certainly was a prescient post. Thank you for sounding the warning long ago.
Post a Comment