Bigger Is Better. Or Is It?

By Robin G. Jordan

A recent article drawing attention to the size of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) in comparison to a number of liberal provinces such as the Church in Wales points to the ACNA leadership’s preoccupation with bigness. Wales, it should be noted, is a small country and has never had a large Anglican population. This preoccupation also helps to explain why the ACNA provisional canons require that a group of congregations seeking admission to the ACNA as a cluster, diocese, or network of churches must consist of at least 12 churches each with an average Sunday attendance of at least 50 people and a total average Sunday attendance of 1000 people. These are unusual requirements when they are compared with similar requirements in the canons of The Episcopal Church and other Anglican church bodies in and outside of North America. The Episcopal Church only requires the minimum of six parishes and six clergy for the formation of a new diocese in that denomination. An Episcopal parish may range in size from a minimum of 25 to 100 members, depending upon the diocese and the region in which it is located. In largely rural dioceses the minimum size of a parish tends to be smaller than in predominantly urban dioceses. The explanation for the ACNA’s particular requirements is the very American and human desire to be seen as successful. In the United States bigness is equated with success.

The typical Continuing Anglican jurisdiction is composed of a small number of dioceses that in turn are composed of a small number of congregations. The congregations that compose each diocese are themselves small. These jurisdictions, dioceses and congregations do not fit the American idea of success. They are not big.

The Episcopal Church is steadily loosing members. Its dioceses are shrinking in terms of number of congregations as well as number of members. The Episcopal Church also does not fit the American idea of success. It is small and it is declining.

ACNA leaders can point at the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions and The Episcopal Church and then at the ACNA and assure themselves that they are doing something right. The ACNA is big and successful. These Anglican church bodies are not.

While the ACNA leaders have been critical of The Episcopal Church’s accommodation of contemporary culture, they themselves are not entirely free from the influence. Like the executives of a number of American corporations before the latest recession they want to project an image of bigness and therefore of success for the ACNA.

The ACNA leadership’s preoccupation with bigness explains its use of average Sunday attendance as one of the admission requirements for new ACNA judicatories. Average Sunday attendance, or ASA, measures the size of the worship gathering on Sunday mornings. It does not measure the size of the church’s worship gathering if it is held on another day beside Sunday such as a Saturday evening or weeknight. It does not measure the size of the congregation. ASA can make a church appear big when the actual size of the congregation is more modest. A worship gathering of a church include all kinds of people—seekers visiting a church for the first time, church shoppers who go from church to church, friends and relatives visiting a regular attendee, visitors from another church, guest musicians and preachers, as well as the regular attendees who form the congregation of the church.

An explanation that proponents of the ACNA offer for the high admission requirements as an ACNA judicatory is that they discourage bishops of tiny Continuing Anglican jurisdictions from apply for admission of their jurisdiction as an ACNA judicatory and becoming a member of ACNA hierarchy. The ACNA leadership, it appears, does not want its ranks swollen with vagrante bishops of dubious succession in charge of very small if not non-existent jurisdictions. They have a decided preference for bishops who are overseeing large, thriving jurisdictions, bishops who fit the image that they want to project for the ACNA—big and successful.

This reluctance to share leadership with bishops of tiny Continuing Anglican jurisdictions also appears motivated by the fear that these bishops may prove an obstacle to the growth of the ACNA. They have not shown themselves dynamic leaders of their respective jurisdictions. They have not demonstrated a mission mindset. Their jurisdictions have evidenced little if any gospel and numerical growth. Under their leadership the Continuum has further fragmented. Indeed a number of them have been personally responsible for the splintering of the Continuum.

It must be noted, however, very few bishops of Continuing Anglican jurisdictions showed interest in joining Common Cause before the ACNA was formed and the provisional canons and their requirements for the admission of new ACNA judicatories were adopted. Big fish in small ponds prefer to remain big fish in small ponds. While proponents of the ACNA might like to see these requirements as deterring an undesirable situation, it is unlikely that this situation would have developed if the requirements had not been adopted. Just as a number of people do not want to remain under the umbrella of The Episcopal Church, a number of people do not want to come under the umbrella of the ACNA. They do not see a lot of difference between the two church bodies. They also see the ACNA as tainted by the Episcopal background of its members who are largely former Episcopalians.

The ACNA leadership’s preoccupation with bigness comes at a price. The high admission requirements for new ACNA judicatories discourage the formation of ACNA judicatories from small-membership churches. Small-membership churches have different concerns and needs from larger churches. Organizations composed of small-membership churches are more likely to be responsive to these needs than organizations that are composed of small-membership churches and large churches and in which large churches dominate the organization.

The ACNA provisional constitution and canons contain no provisions for the formation of judicatories on the basis of church size as a common denominator—only geographic proximity and theological affinity. While the provisional canons permit the waiving of the admission requirements for new judicatories and their provisional acceptance as new ACNA judicatories in formation, the provisional canons require a judicatory in formation to meet the admission requirements in a space of five years. They make no provision for the extension of this period of formation in event the judicatory in formation does not meet these requirements as, for example, a judicatory in formation composed of a group of congregations in a rural or sparsely-populated area is likely to do. They do not make any provision for the admission of a judicatory composed of a smaller group of congregations than 12, each with an ASA of less than 50 people, or of a larger group of congregations than 12, each also with an ASA of less than 50. There is no room for networks of small-membership churches, small or large, in the ACNA. What are valued in the ACNA are the large church and the large judicatory. Small-membership churches and small-membership church networks do not fit the image that the ACNA leadership wants to project for the denomination—big and successful. Small membership churches will at best be tolerated as a transitional stage to something larger.

In Canada and the United States there are rural and sparsely populated areas where a network of small-membership churches is the only realistic option. But it would appear that these areas are not the concern of the ACNA leadership. They appear to be interested only in those areas that will support large churches and large judicatories. The ACNA admission requirements for new judicatories rule out networks exclusively composed of cell churches, home fellowships, and other alternative churches. This seems very short sighted at a time when economic conditions, zoning laws, and generational attitudes call for other options beside the traditional parish church. We have also entered a post Christian era. Christians in western countries are increasingly finding themselves the object of persecution.

The ACNA leadership’s preoccupation with bigness also affects the role of the bishop in the ACNA. The role of bishop in the ACNA is a continuation of the role of bishop in The Episcopal Church. The provisional constitution and canons of the ACNA appear to envision ACNA bishops primarily as administrators, corporate executives, prelates, and policy-makers. The role of bishop as a shepherd of a flock and a teacher and guardian of the faithful is missing from that vision. A bishop overseeing a large judicatory will not have the time or the skills to carryout this role. This is one of the disadvantages of large judicatories. They require an administrator/corporate executive and not a pastor/teacher. Smaller judicatories are required in order for a bishop to perform the latter role.

The ACNA leadership’s preoccupation with bigness is bound to have other unforeseen effects upon the ACNA. ACNA stakeholders need to ask themselves whether they are willing to pay the price of maintaining the image of big and successful that the ACNA leadership wishes to project for the ACNA? What is in it for them? What is the downside?

In my next article in this series I examine the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council and their roles in the ACNA and a number of weaknesses in the form of ecclesiastical government established by the ACNA provisional constitution.

A proposal for an alternative constitution for the ACNA modeled on that of the Anglican Church of Australia and the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas is on the Internet with an introduction explaining its features and a commentary on two sections needing further revision at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/01/proposed-constitution-of-anglican.html