By Robin G. Jordan
Like everyone else I have been awaiting the unveiling of the draft constitution and canons of the new Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). But after examining the documents that the Common Cause Partnership Council adopted at its meeting this past Wednesday, I must wonder whether the representatives of the Common Cause Partners meeting in Wheaton read what they adopted. Here is my analysis of the draft, now Provisional Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
The Provisional Constitution:
All the Common Cause Partners appear to have been grandfathered into the new province.
The new province is an exclusive club. Article II, Section 3 stipulates that "new dioceses, clusters or networks" may join only "by invitation of the Provincial Council."
The locus of power in the new province is the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee, which the Provisional Constitution establishes as a strong central authority. The Provincial Council is not completely elected. It appoints up to six of its own members. The Provincial Council govern the new province, establishes the budget and program of the new province, proposes constitutional amendments and canons, adopts constitutional amendments and canons, and elects its own officers. The Provincial Council determines the make-up of the Provincial Assembly. The chair and other officers of the Provincial Council determine the agenda of its meetings. The Provincial Council has an Executive Committee whose membership and duties are determined by the Provincial Council and MAY be formalized in canons proposed by the Provincial Council and ratified by the Provincial Assembly. The Provincial Council appoints the Provincial Tribunal.
This form of governance bears a striking resemblance to what was referred to as "democratic centralism" in the 1950s and 1960s. It was found in the Communist Parties of the Soviet bloc nations, as well as in their governments. It is still found in the Communist Party and government of the People’s Republic of China.
The only powers that the Provincial Assembly enjoys are to elect the remaining members of the Provincial Council and to ratify constitutional amendments and canons. The Provincial Council has no real check on its powers, and a church party dominating the Provincial Council controls the new province.
Article VIII, Section 1 appears to reserve residual powers to the constituent judicatories of the new province but whatever church party dominates the Provincial Council and the Provincial Assembly can prohibit certain powers to the constituent judicatories by amendment of the Constitution.
"The member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions shall each maintain 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."
The Constitution prohibits the adoption of a canon abridging the authority of the new provinces’ constituent judicatories with respect to their practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate. However, it contains no provision to prevent the amending of the Constitution to the same effect.
The Archbishop and Primate of the Province is elected by the College of Bishops. His office is independent like that of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church. Noting how the office of Presiding Bishop has developed in The Episcopal Church and how power is concentrated in the Provincial Council in the new province, the wisdom of this provision must be questioned.
The College of Bishops must confirm the election of the bishop of a constituent judicatory of the new province. The canons may delegate to the College of Bishops the selection of the bishop of a constituent judicatory of the new province provided that this selection is made from a slate of candidates nominated by the constituent judicatory.
Article XV, Section 2 contradicts Article VI, Section 2. Article XV, Section 2 states that "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." Article VI, Section 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."
Where those who drafted the different sections of the Provisional Constitution and Canons consulting with each other as they prepared these documents?
The use of "SHALL" in Article VI, Section 2 expresses command or obligation. It is commonly understood to mean "must." Under the provision of this section the Provisional Assembly has no choice but ratify whatever Constitutional amendments and Canons that the provincial Council submits to it. The Provincial Assembly is a rubber stamp for the Provincial Council!
Provisional Canons
In order to be recognized as an ACNA judicatory a diocese, cluster, or network must consist of at least 12 congregations with an Average Sunday Attendance, or ASA, of at least 50 each and a collective ASA of at least 1000. This effectively excludes a number of Continuing Anglican judicatories from the new province. Those wishing to join the ACNA must either amalgamate or merge with one or more other Continuing Anglican judicatories and request the Provincial Council to modify the requirement for ASA. Or they must amalgamate or merge with an existing judicatory presumably under the provisions of that judicatory’ constitution since the Provisional Constitution and Canons contain no provisions for amalgamations and mergers. This will mean the amalgamation or merger of judicatories that have no real affinity with each other and the potential for tension and conflict that comes with such amalgamations and mergers.
How many of the Common Cause Partners that were grandfathered into the new province meet this standard? As I recall the provisions of the proposed constitution of the Anglican Mission in America, only 10 churches, with no reference to ASA, were required for the formation of a new diocese or network in that body. I, however, have not been able to verify that number as the proposed AMiA constitution is no longer archived on the AMiA website. What I did find did not appear to be the complete proposed constitution. The original constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church required, I believe, a minimum of three or four churches to form a diocese. This was certainly the case when the Diocese of Kentucky was created in the 1832.
Canon 1 says that the new province has no room for small churches like those on Indian reservations, in rural or other sparsely populated areas, or in small towns. It has room only for larger churches in urban and suburban areas, those area where The Episcopal Church has always enjoyed a measure of success. . Despite all the talk of a new era of evangelism and missions the new province is turning its back on certain areas of North America and segments of its population.
Under the provisions of Canon 1, the church party dominating the Provincial Council could modify the requirements for recognition as an ACNA judicatory for dioceses, clusters, and networks that have theological affinity with the dominant church party while strictly enforcing the canonical requirements for bodies that do not have theological affinity with that party and withhold the requisite two-thirds vote. There is no provision for appeal to the Provincial Assembly or to the Provincial Tribunal.
Canon 2 requires that the Provincial Council must certify the number allowable delegates from each ACNA judicatory to the initial Provincial Assembly, concentrating even more power in the Provincial Council.
The language of Canon 3 conflicts with that of Article II, Section 3 of the provisional constitution that specifies that Provincial Council may "invite" new judicatories to join the new province. Canon 3 states that a judicatory may apply to the Provincial Council for temporary "in formation" status. Or are we to interpret this mean that the Provincial Council may invite a judicatory to apply for temporary "in formation" status? It is unclear.
If the application is approved by a majority vote of the Provincial Council, the Archbishop MAY appoint a Vicar General to assist in leading judicatory "in formation" to final qualification as a judicatory in the Province. The canon does not require him to appoint a Vicar General. The appointment of the Vicar General is discretionary.
Canon 3 states that the judicatory "in formation" shall be represented in the Provincial Assembly by the Vicar General and one clergy and one layperson. The canon is silent on what representation the judicatory might enjoy in the Provincial Assembly if the Archbishop fails to appoint a Vicar General for the Judicatory.
Canon 3 limits "in formation" status to five years but makes no provision as to what may happen if a judicatory does not achieve final qualification in five years. There is no provision for the judicatory to apply for an extension. There is nothing to suggest that a judicatory will be permitted more than one shot at becoming a judicatory in the new province.
Canon 4 gives established judicatories the choice of electing their own bishop and then submitting the name of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation or submitting the names of two or three candidates to the College of Bishops and letting the College of Bishops select the bishop for the judicatory. However, judicatories "in formation" have no choice. Selection of a bishop for a judicatory "in formation" by the College of Bishops from two or three candidates nominated by the judicatory "in formation" is the norm established by Canon 4.
If one church party comes to dominate the College of Bishops, it can prevent the election or selection of bishops who do not have theological affinity with that party or are not friendly to its cause. It can withhold confirmation of duly elected bishops and refuse to make a selection from duly nominated candidates. There is no limitation to the number of times that the College of Bishops may withhold confirmation or refuse to make a selection.
While Canon 4 requires the College of Bishops to inform a judicatory in writing if the College of Bishops rejects a bishop-elect or nominees, the canon does not require them to give the specific reason or reasons for their rejection of a bishop-elect or nominees.
From a Reformed-Evangelical perspective Canon 4 opens the way for the replication of the present situation in The Episcopal Church where it has become increasingly more difficult to elect a bishop opposed to the liberalism that dominates the denomination. For example, a largely Anglo-Catholic College of Bishops might deny a Reformed Evangelical bishop to a judicatory that is largely or exclusively Reformed Evangelical in doctrine and to impose upon the judicatory a bishop sympathetic to Anglo-Catholicism.
Both the provisional constitution and canons of the new province offer no safeguards to prevent one church party from dominating the new province and palming off its agenda upon the province. The compilers of these two documents appear to have learned nothing from the past 40 years, except perhaps how to consolidate power into the hands of one church party.
The protection that Canon 5 extends to congregational property is limited. It does not invalidate any trust claim over the real and personal property of a congregation favoring a judicatory (e.g., a diocese) at the time of its admission to the Province. This means that some congregations will own their property solely and exclusively and others will not.
Canon 6, while acknowledging the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and 1661 Ordinal as the new province’s received standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and the 1662 BCP, with the Books which preceded it, as province’s received standard for the Anglican tradition of worship, permits "all Books of Common Prayer and liturgies previously authorized by the originating jurisdictions." This includes several service books that do not conform to the new province’s received standards for Anglican doctrine and disciple and for the Anglican tradition of worship. These include the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and An Anglican Prayer Book (2008).
Canon 6 provides for the continuance of the Prayer Book and Common Worship Task Force of the Common Cause Partnership, as a standing committee of this Church with the task of developing a resource for Common Worship for Provincial events. This resource is to be commended for wider use throughout the Province.
Canon 6, however, makes no provision for judicatories developing their own liturgical resources in the event this "resource for Common Worship" is unacceptable to them nor any provision for judicatories "in formation" bringing into the new province Prayer Books and liturgies other than those presently authorized for use in the Common Cause Partners. The provisional constitution and canons offer no guarantees of "the use of extemporaneous or other prayer at suitable times" and "freedom in usage," as does the Anglican Mission in America’s Solemn Declaration of Principles. Nor do they require the theology of the "resource for Common Worship" or any other alternative liturgical texts and forms the Prayer Book and Common Worship Task Force develops to conform to the theology set forth in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 1661 Ordinal. They provide no safeguards against the Provincial Council, dominated by one church party, imposing a service book upon the new province that, while its theology is acceptable to that party does not adhere to the theology of the 1662 BCP and the 1661 Ordinal, and is unacceptable to the other theological schools of thought represented in the new province. There are already service books in use in the Common Cause Partnership that, while they may be acceptable to one theological school of thought, are not to another.
Canon 7 does not require an "unfeigned" subscription to the three catholic Creeds, the dogmatic definitions of the General Councils of the undivided Church, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England of 1571, in their literal and grammatical sense, The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and The Ordinal of 1661, and raises questions as to the real commitment of the new province to these doctrinal statements. From a Reformed-Evangelical perspective one of the major failings of The Episcopal Church was not to require adherence to the biblical and Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal from its clergy and other church leaders and not to enforce that adherence.
Canon 9 gives unspecified authority to the Executive Committee to carry out the work of the Province between meetings of the Provincial Council. Does anyone else feel like they have not left The Episcopal Church?
The Provisional Constitution and Canons contain no provisions that permit clergy and congregations to transfer from one judicatory in the new province to another. They contain no safeguards to protect those making such a transfer from penalty such as forfeiture of pension contributions or congregational property. However, such provisions are needed in these documents as clergy and congregations discover that they really have no affinity with the judicatory in which they find themselves.
The haste in which the Provisional Constitution and Canons were put together may account for some of their flaws and weaknesses. But the drafters of these documents do not appear to have learned from the serious theological disputes of the past 40 years or the equally as serious theological disputes that tore the Anglican Church in the nineteenth century. The establishment of non-geographic affinity based judicatories is the best way forward for the theologically disparate groups that form the Common Cause Partnership. But the Constitution and Canons need to incorporate more guarantees and safeguards.
As I suggested in my previous article, "A New Model for a New Province," on the Internet at: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9412 those developing the foundational documents for the new province might take a look at the Australian model which brought together a number of relatively independent dioceses and metropolitan sees. This model recognizes the relative autonomy of the constituent judicatories in such matters as liturgy, doctrinal and worship standards—subject to the Thirty-Nine Articles, 1662 BCP, and 1661 Ordinal as province-wide standards of doctrine and worship, the ordination of women, and the like. This autonomy would make room for the significant differences between the theological schools of thought represented in the province. The locus of power is a network of judicatory-to-judicatory relationships. A number of critical decisions of the provincial General Synod require the ratification of a majority of all the judicatories. Individual judicatories are given the liberty of choosing not to apply a provincial canon in a number of cases.
Right now the model that has been adopted for the new province is that of a business corporation with a weak annual stockholders meeting—the Provincial Assembly, a strong board of directors—the Provincial Council, an even stronger Executive Committee, and a chairman of the board and president of the corporation—the Archbishop and Primate of the new province, who is accountable to no one except God—an Anglican pope. The Provisional Constitution and Canons has no provisions for the preferment of charges, investigation, trial, suspension, and removal of bishops and other clergy, much less the Archbishop and Primate of the new Anglican Church in North America.
Is the American corporate model the right model for a Christian Church? Look at what has been happening in The Episcopal Church—it too is moving toward a centralized corporate model. Look at what has been happening in the large business corporations in the United States. These documents are, of course, provisional. However, if they form the basis of the permanent Constitution and Canons of the new province, then we have cause for a great deal of concern.
The Provisional Constitution is on the Internet at: http://www.canaconvocation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=267&Itemid=54
The Provisional Canons are on the Internet at: http://www.canaconvocation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=268&Itemid=54
Robin, Do you know anything about how we could find out what the Common Cause prayer book committee is working on, who is on the committee, and how to contact and engage this group? Thanks,
ReplyDeleteGreg Goebel
(Rector at Resurrection Anglican Church Woodstock, GA (AMiA) .
Hi Robin,
ReplyDeleteGenerally I think your comments well made. In one or two places I think you did let your perspective over rule your analysis.
I refer to the comment that a party other than your own "evangelical" one might seize control of one or two critical offices and dominate the whole. Equally, were I a conservative Anglo-catholic I would be concerned. This means I think that the constitution is a warn off for any such considering the new body.
There are those of us on the left who have long thought the head of this group saw himself in a nearly papal role. I think we underestimated him!
FWIW
jimB
I posted this response to a number of comments made in response to this article on VirtueOnline:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cennydd’s comment that my claim that the new province is turning its back on certain areas of North America and certain segments of the population is erroneous, I first have several questions for Cennydd. Where is his diocese planting new missions? What are the determining factors in the selection of particular locality for a new church? What are the demographics of the areas in which these new missions are being planted? What is the psychographics of the population segments at which these new missions are being targeted? Why is the Episcopal Church closing churches in Indian reservations? How can the present economic downturn be expected to affect church planting in North America?
The provisional constitution of the Anglican Church in North America is much more revealing about the mission priorities of the new province than Cennydd is willing to admit. In requiring an Average Sunday Attendance of at least 50 for the churches of judicatories in formation the new province is eliminating churches with less than 50 AVA, which comprises the larger number of Episcopal and Continuing Anglican churches. Where are these churches largely found? They are found in Indian reservations, rural and other sparsely populated areas, small towns—and, I would add, inner city neighborhoods.
Here in western Kentucky only two of the five Episcopal churches have an AVA of 50 or more. Neither of the two Continuing Anglican churches have an AVA of 25, much less of 50. The two Episcopal churches with an AVA of 50 or more are located in areas where the Episcopal Church generally does well—an urban area and a university town. Based upon the provisions of Canon 1, which of these churches would the ACNA welcome into a judicatory in formation? The five struggling churches or two larger churches?
Where are the Common Cause Partners planting new churches in Kentucky and Tennessee? They are certainly not planting them in Indian reservations, rural and other sparsely populated areas, small towns, and inner city neighborhoods. They are planting new churches in the urban and suburban areas where the Episcopal Church and other liturgical churches have historically enjoyed a measure of success. In these areas a new church can be expected to grow to the point of being self-supporting and self-gathering in a reasonable amount of time. Churches planted in Indian reservations, rural and other sparsely populated areas, small towns, and inner city neighborhoods historically have tended to remain small in size and dependent upon subsidies for their continued operation. Their ASA has generally been less than 50.
A church with an ASA of at least 50 generally has a congregation larger than 50 adult members. 50 people in attendance on Sunday morning usually include visitors. Research indicates that approximately two thirds or less of the members of a church are likely to attend on Sunday morning. Attendance of entire church membership is rare even on Christmas and Easter and at annual meetings.
The ASA of at least 50 clearly favors churches in urban and suburban areas where established and new churches with this ASA are largely found. Conversely, it does not favor churches in Indian reservations, rural and other sparsely populated areas, small towns, and inner city neighborhoods. It also does not favor networks of house churches that deliberately limit the size of their congregations and launches a new house church when an existing congregation grows too large and add the new congregation to the network.
The ASA of at least 50 works against the inclusion of small churches in the new province. Since small churches are largely found on Indian reservations, in rural and sparsely populated areas, small towns, and inner city neighborhoods, it works against these areas. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that in imposing this requirement, the new province is turning its back upon these areas.
Why write off these areas? The new province is made up largely of ex-Episcopalians. As I previously noted, the Episcopal Church has not historically done very well in these areas. They are not the areas that Episcopal and ex-Episcopal leaders would choose for a new church. They are also not areas that a number of non-Episcopal or non-Anglican leaders would select for a new church. They are not high growth areas. New church plants have a greater chance of success in high growth areas. Growth-minded denominational leaders are aware of this fact.
I have been involved in two Episcopal new church plants and four non-Episcopal church plants. Only one of these plants was located in a rural area. A more accurate description of the area would be “rurban”—an area that is rural geographically but urban socially—semi-rural, semi-urban. The area included a significant number of urban escapees seeking a rural atmosphere. It was located near a major metropolitan area in the rural-urban fringe. Five of these church plants were located in one of the fastest growing parishes, or counties, in the state of Louisiana. The sixth is located in a university town, on the campus of the university.
Affluent middle-class Episcopalians-turned-Anglicans are also likely to target people like themselves—affluent and middle class. While they may have left the Episcopal Church, they continue to think and act like Episcopalians. They have brought a lot of baggage with them from the Episcopal Church.
The ASA of at least 50 forces small churches to amalgamate or merge with established judicatories or judicatories in formation that meet the requirements of at least 12 churches with a minimum ASA of at least 50, judicatories with which they may have no affinity. Due to their size these judicatories are not likely to want them because they represent a potential financial burden upon the judicatory. This is the kind of thinking that one can reasonably expect ex-Episcopalians to bring with them from the Episcopal Church in which a major portion of a diocese’ budget is earmarked for subsidies for mission churches that are not self-supporting. The ASA of at least 50 in effect relegates small churches to second-class status. They are welcome, provided they accompany at least twelve congregations with an ASA of at least 50.
The ASA of at least 50 also discourages the planting of small churches. It says to those starting a new church that if they are not planning a large church, they should not expect the recognition or support of the new province. The new province is not interested in small churches. It also discourages the formation of networks of small churches to serve areas where only small churches may be practicable.
Behind the ASA of at least 50 is a desire for judicatories that are comprised of growing and vital churches. A minimum of 50 adult members is needed to plant a viable church according to researcher Lyle Schaller. This figure varies with the locality. Some churches can be launched with less members; others require more. A minimum of 100 adult members is needed if a church to move quickly to becoming self-supporting. The larger a church is when it is launched, the larger can be expected to grow. Churches that stay small generally stay small. A minimum of 200 adult members is need in order for a church to become self-gathering.
At the same time it must be recognized that churches have been launched with less than the ideal number of adult members and are thriving. Some churches have deliberately chosen to remain small and to grow by multiplication, planting daughter churches and forming with them a network of churches.
While the desire for judicatories composed of growing and vital churches is commendable, it ignores the realities on the ground. Demographics of an area and the psychographics of the population segments represented in the area do affect a new church’s potential for growth. Some areas are sparsely populated and settlements may be few in number and wide apart. In a remote community in Alaska or the Yukon 50 people in attendance on a typical Sunday morning may be unrealistic since the community has only 35 to 40 people.
It also fails to take into account that small churches have a place in the twenty-first century. All kinds and sizes of churches are needed to reach the lost.
In “The Place of the small Church in Today's World” Kenneth O. Gangel draws to our attention:
“But what is ‘small’ when that tag is applied to churches? Researcher Schaller identifies a figure of 175 worshipers on Sunday morning as an ideal. Allowing for a flexibility factor of 25 either way from that mean, one might say that a church of 150 or fewer worshipers on Sunday morning (or at its principal weekly service) is small. Of course, this is a relative designation since before the days of urbanization, industrialization, and centralization, that size would have been considered more than ample. When viewed against the backdrop of the current infatuation with size, ‘150’ and ‘small’ seem synonymous.”
However, for Episcopalians and Anglicans a church with a 150 to 175 in attendance on Sunday morning would be considered “large.”
Gangel goes on to draw to our attention that small church is not “a scaled-down version” of a larger church. The small church is different. It has unique dynamics of its own. Even though it may not have a large number of people in attendance on Sunday morning, a small church can be vital in its worship, its preaching, its education, its congregational life, and its evangelism.
In “Sphere of Influence” Jim Thomas recommends that rather than measuring the ministry effectiveness of a church by attendance, we should be measuring the amount of influence that a church has in a community. A small church often has greater impact in a rural area than a large church in an urban area.
The desire for robust judicatories also ignores the Great Commission. Jesus instructed the Church to go and make disciples of “all peoples.” Jesus did not qualify the Great Commission—“go and make disciples of people like yourselves, those who have a college education, work in the professions, and live in upscale neighborhoods.” “Go where you are most likely to gather large congregations and erect your first building in five years.” These people certainly need to hear the gospel. But so do the people who did not finish high school, work with their hands, and live in a trailer home off a gravel country road. We may gather only a small congregation where these people live and work but if that congregation makes a difference in their lives and a difference in the lives of those around them, then we are serving God faithfully where he has placed us.
A more equitable formula would be to establish for a judicatory in formation a minimum number of formed congregations and congregations in formation and a minimum number of priests and lay leaders capable of leading the congregations. The Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone contain these provisions:
3.2.2.2 The New Diocese should comply with the internal requirements for the formation of a new Diocese with the following guidelines:
3.2.2.2.1 The Diocese should have at least eight formed congregations and eight congregations in formation.
3.2.2.2.2 The Diocese should have at least eight priests and eight lay leaders capable of leading the congregations, all of them being legitimately licensed and having at least one year of residence and service in the area comprising the new Diocese.
3.2.2.2.4 The New Diocese should have adequate means of financial independence and administration.
3.3 Transitory Canon
In the specific case of Bolivia and by virtue of understanding of that entire land, the requirements 3.2.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2.2 shall not be applied, as there exist only three formed congregations and three presbyters and three lay leaders, who are properly licensed and counted with at least one year of residence and service in the named republic.
A more realistic minimum number of congregations for an ACNA judicatory in formation might be at least five formed congregations and five congregations in formation. A more realistic minimum number of priests and lay leaders might be at least five priests and at least five lay leaders capable of leading the congregations. The judicatory in formation would be overseen by an auxiliary bishop whose office would be created for that specific purpose. At the time of his appointment the judicatory would be formally recognized as a judicatory in formation.
In the 1830s only three or four congregations were required to form a diocese in the Episcopal Church and a bishop of the diocese was also the rector of one of these churches. The primary reason that congregations banded together in a diocese was to establish new congregations. They also desired to have their own local bishop to provide spiritual care, leadership, and supervision to the diocese; to recruit, examine, ordain and license new deacons and priests; and to carryout confirmations of believers in the diocese’s churches. As in the case of Bolivia, three or four congregations and an equal number of presbyters and lay leaders may still be a realistic number for a judicatory in formation. The provisional constitution of the ACNA appears to envision the bishop as a CEO of a large organization and not the shepherd of the flock envisioned in the 1661 Ordinal. This is a carryover from the Episcopal Church. We have all seen what the Episcopal bishops/CEOs have done to that denomination.
Since the establishment of the National Council, which later became the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, and a separate Office of Presiding Bishop, the Episcopal Church has been moving toward greater centralization. The proposed new disciplinary code, the actions and policies of the current Presiding Bishop, the involvement of National Church in lawsuits against breakaway parishes, and the proposed changes in episcopal election procedures all reflect that trend. The problem in the Episcopal Church is not the lack of a strong central authority—the Episcopal equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church’s curia—but the lack of an authoritative doctrinal statement and the will to require clergy to adhere to its teachings and to discipline them when they did not. Remember the Richter trial. What was the court’s ruling? Richter did not violate the doctrine of the Episcopal Church as the denomination has no doctrine for him to violate! The Protestant Episcopal Church adopted the Thirty-Nine Articles in 1801 but did not require clerical subscription to the Articles. Whether they adhered to the Articles was left to the conscience of the individual. Whatever school of thought has dominated the Episcopal Church at a particular juncture in history has decided what is doctrinally and morally acceptable in the denomination.
One thing is that is seriously lacking in the provisional constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America are checks and balances, guarantees and safeguards. The new province is moving in the same direction as the Episcopal Church—toward greater centralization. There is nothing to prevent the same kinds of abuses that occurred in the Episcopal Church. The provisional constitution guarantees congregational ownership of property to only some churches and not to all. It is very hazy on the issue of the ordination of women and offers no real protection to judicatories that do not accept women’s ordination. The judicatories forming the new provinces are for all intents and purposes subordinate to the Provincial Council. The Provincial Council can withhold powers from the judicatories. It should be the other way around. The Provincial Council should exercise only those powers expressly delegated by the judicatories to that body; all other powers should be reserved to the judicatories. The Provincial Council should be the subordinate body. In certain matters the Provincial Council should be required to obtain the consent of the judicatories. Certain canons would not apply to a judicatory if the judicatory did not agree to them.
We have all seen what has happened to the office of Presiding Bishop since it became separated from that of senior most Diocesan Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Each successive Presiding Bishop has expanded the power and prestige of the office. Schori is just doing what her predecessors did. Unless she is reined in, the next Presiding Bishop will follow in her footsteps. With the new Archbishop having been given a blank check to develop that office the new province is moving in the same direction.
The provisional constitution and canons have the appearance of documents that different groups put together without a lot of consultation with each other. One group drafted one section of the document; another group drafted another section and so on. Whatever group was responsible for editing the document and making sure that language was consistent throughout the document and one provision did not conflict with another did not do a good job presuming that there was such a group. The provisional constitution and canons have all the marks of something that was hastily thrown together so Robert Duncan could announce the formation of the new province last Wednesday. What troubles me is if it is actually used as the basis of the final constitution and canons for the new province.
We need to replace the Episcopal Church’s present model of church governance with a better one and not one that suffers from the same drawbacks as that of the Episcopal Church. It is naïve to believe that anything is an improvement over the Episcopal Church’s model. We cannot blame the Episcopal Church original constitution for what that denomination has become. Over the years Episcopal leaders have made changes in that constitution and reinterpreted its provisions. They have declared that they are ones to determine what it means and not those who drafted it. The Episcopal Church today is a far cry from the church that Bishop William White envisioned. Right now the evidence points to the strong probability of the new province winding up with a model of church governance that is just as bad as that of the Episcopal Church if not worse.
An all-male episcopate is essential to the unity of the new province. Unfortunately the provision for limiting the episcopate to males has been placed in the provisional canons where it is much easier to change than if it was placed in the provisional constitution. The new province not only brings together theologically disparate groups in the United States and Canada but also different global South Anglican provinces that have different positions on women’s ordination. The Anglican Mission in Americas exemplifies the predicament facing the new province. The US branch of the AMiA placed a moratorium upon the ordination of women to the priesthood but accepted women deacons. One segment of the US branch of the AMiA, however, has been agitating for the abolition of women deacons in the AMiA. On the other hand, the Canadian branch of the AMiA accepts both women deacons and priests as does the sponsoring province of the AMiA, the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Both branches of the AMiA are Common Cause Partners.
As long as the new province has an all-male episcopate, opponents and proponents of women’s ordination may be able to coexist in the new province albeit uneasily. The only thing that will prevent male clergy from functioning in all congregations of the new province is their willingness to work alongside women clergy in a judicatory that does accept the ordination of women and the willingness of the bishop of that judicatory to license them. Anglo-Catholics will, of course, not accept the sacramental ministry of women priests and most confessional evangelicals will not accept their teaching ministry. The small group of confessional evangelicals who do accept their ministry will do so because they are serving under the headship of a male bishop and the authority they exercise is not their own but the delegated authority of the bishop. Charismatic evangelicals can be expected to work with women clergy.
Women clergy, on the other hand, will be restricted to those judicatories that accept women’s ordination. Since the judicatories are not geographically based, this means they will be able to function wherever a judicatory that accepts women’s ordination has a church.
In a few years from now we should not be too surprised to discover three ACNA churches in the same community, one Anglo-Catholic with all-male clergy, one Reformed-Evangelical with an all-male clergy, and one charismatic with mixed clergy. What we hopefully will not find is a liberal ACNA church with openly gay or lesbian clergy. That is the niche that The Episcopal Church has staked out for itself. North American Anglicanism may no longer reflect our particular view of Anglicanism but it will reflect the face of global Anglicanism.
I do not foresee any agreement upon a common liturgy. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is not Catholic enough for Anglo-Catholics and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer is too Catholic and, I would add, too liberal for Reformed-Evangelicals. The language of both books is too distant from the vernacular for those who are accustomed to praying in a form of liturgical English closer to the language that they speak everyday. A large segment of the North American Anglicans forming the new province are also accustomed to a much greater use of extemporaneous prayer and much greater freedom of usage than previous generations of Anglicans. At most we can expect is reluctant agreement upon “a Resource for Common Worship” that is dusted off for the opening Eucharist of Provincial Assembly and Provincial Council meetings and then is shelved for the rest of the year.
The days of one Prayer Book are behind us. Any attempt to impose a common liturgy upon the new province would destroy the fragile partnership between Anglo-Catholics, charismatic evangelicals, and confessional evangelicals. What would be more realistic is to prepare a common liturgy for the use of those who wish to use it—a service book that has conservative contemporary English revisions of the orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, a selection of additional canticles, several alternative forms of morning and evening worship, a late evening service, a litany, a selection of occasional prayers, thanksgivings, blessings, and endings for use with the various services, several orders for the Holy Communion—a conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 Communion Service, a service of Holy Communion following the contemporary model but adhering to the biblical and Reformation theology of the 1662, a conservative contemporary English revision of the 1549 Communion Service, and, a service of Holy Communion following the contemporary model but closer to the 1549 in theology than the 1662, a selection of general intercessions for Sunday services, orders for Baptism embodying Catholic baptismal theology, orders for Baptism embodying Reformed-Evangelical baptismal theology, a contemporary English translation of the 1662 Catechism, a conservative contemporary English revision of the 1662 order of Confirmation—with provision for the bishop to give an address upon his understanding of Confirmation, conservative contemporary English revisions of the remaining rites of the 1662 BCP and the 1662 Ordinal. Such a service book would conform to the new province’s received doctrinal and worship standards as set forth in the Common Cause Theological Statement. At the same time judicatories should be free not use the common liturgy and to develop alternative rites of their own, as well as to continue to use the 1662 BCP, the 1928 BCP, and the 1962 Canadian BCP.