The ACNA Draft Canons: An Analysis of Their Provisions with Proposed Changes - Part I

By Robin G. Jordan

Introduction:

In this paper I examine Canons 1 through 10 of Title I and Canon 8 of Title III of the draft canons of the Anglican Church in North America, draw attention to a number of problem areas, and propose a number of changes in these canons. All of these canons affect the governance of the ACNA. The paper is divided into three sections—an introduction, an analysis of the provisions of the Canons 1 through 10 of Title I and Canon 8 of Title III with proposed changes, and a closing summary and recommendations. While the analysis section of the paper is lengthy, anyone who takes the time to read it will have a good idea of how and where these particular canons fall short and why they stand in need of major revision even before they are adopted. They will also have a fair idea of what can be done to rectify a number of their defective provisions. I hope that this paper will make a useful contribution to the development of canons for the governance of the Anglican Church in North America.

Analysis of the Provisions of the Title I Canons with Proposed Changes:

TITLE I

Organization and Administration of the Church

Definition of Certain Terms

ASA - “ASA” means the Average Sunday Attendance of a congregation or Diocese for the previous calendar year.

In the last 20 years an increasing number of churches have launched a service on late Saturday afternoon, early Saturday night, or a weeknight to accommodate individuals and families who cannot attend Sunday morning, afternoon, or evening service. Attendance at these services may be as large as or greater than the attendance at the church’s Sunday services. While in some cases those who attend the Saturday or weeknight service may also attend a Sunday service, in a large number of cases they only attend the Saturday or weeknight service. The Saturday or weekend service attracts a “crowd” and has a “congregation” of its own.

A number of churches also hold services on a day other than Sunday because they are using the facilities of a church of another denomination that use the facilities on Sunday. If “ASA,” or “Average Sunday Attendance,” is strictly interpreted, and is used solely for attendance at Sunday services, then what the Anglican Church in North America is using to gauge the “size” of a church is the total size of the “crowd” that its Sunday service or services attracts and not considering the size of the “crowd” that the church’s services attract on days other than Sunday.

By “crowd” I am employing a term that Rick Warren uses in his book, The Purpose Driven Church, to describe the group of people that a service attracts, as well as the over-all group of people that the church attracts. This group consists of seekers who may have not attended a church service in a number of years if at all, individuals and families who regularly circulate from church to church but never attend a church for any length of time, newcomers to the community who are shopping for a new church home, out-of-town friends and relatives of regular attenders who are visiting them, such groups as a visiting short-term mission team that may be assisting the church with a Vacation Bible School or other community outreach project, as well as regular attenders who form the service’s “congregation” and committed church members who form the “core” of that congregation and the church.

To accurately gauge the “size” of a twenty-first century church, using worship attendance, attendance at services on days other than Sundays must be considered in estimating the size of the “crowd” that a church’s combined services attract. It also must be noted that a growing number of twenty-first century churches have small groups. Individuals who attend one of a church’s small groups may not attend any of the church’s services. Even the average attendance at the church’s services does not accurately reflect the total size of the “crowd” that the church is attracting.

A number of twenty-first century churches consist of a cluster of small groups that may meet collectively for worship once or twice a month and then may not collectively meet for worship on a Sunday. To gauge the “size” of one of these non-traditional cell-churches or fellowship of house churches, one would have to measure the combined average attendance of the small groups forming the cell-church or house church fellowship over a period of time to gauge the size of the “crowd” that these groups were attracting.

This points to another problem of the draft canons. In a number of places they are written for churches that existed in the 1950s and not for churches that are dealing with the realities of the twenty-first century. They do not make allowances for twenty-first century conditions.

Assembly - “Assembly” means the Provincial Assembly of the Church.

Church - The term “Church” means the Anglican Church in North America. The terms “Church” and “Province” are synonymous herein.

Council - The term “Council” means the Provincial Council of the Church.

Diocese - The term “Diocese” includes a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based).

The term, “judicatory,” is preferable to “diocese.” “Judicatory” simply means a subdivision of a denomination, which may geographic like the Kentucky Baptist Association or non-geographic like the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Diocese, defined by the Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English as a “bishop’s district,” carries with it the implication of a relatively conterminous, compact geographic territory over which a bishop has jurisdiction. The Anglican Church in North America, however, is a confederation of autonomous ecclesiastical bodies, a number of which have several bishops who each is responsible for a diocese, district, network, or region. The term “diocese” does not accurately describe these ecclesiastical bodies that are parallel jurisdictions sharing the same geographic territory.

The Faith - “The Faith” is the faith once for all delivered to the saints of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, as set forth in Article I of the Constitution.

Article I of the provisional constitution does not contain a definitive statement of the core beliefs of the Christian faith. It contains eight “fundamental declarations” that it asserts contains eight elements that are characteristic of the “Anglican Way.” They include what may be described as position statements on episcopacy, the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and the Ordinal of 1661, and the Articles of Religion of 1562. All Anglicans do not agree on the positions expressed in the declarations on episcopacy, the Prayer Book, the Ordinal, and the Articles. The Anglican Church in North America is not as comprehensive as it might be when it comes to Biblically faithful Anglicans who stand in the Evangelical and Reformed tradition of Anglicanism.

Presbyter - The terms “Presbyter” and “Priest” are synonymous herein.

Canon 1 Of the Council

Section 1 - Concerning Governance

[(1)] The Provincial Council is the governing body of the Church and has the authority to establish the program and budget of the Church, including such organizational decisions as may facilitate the work of the Church.

This paragraph reiterates what is stated in the provisional constitution. It also goes beyond what the provisional constitution states, interpreting what the Council’s authority to establish the program and budget of the Church includes. It therefore rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution. It should be presented as a proposed amendment to Article VII, Section 1.

“The Provincial Council is the governing body for the Anglican Church in North America and shall have the authority to establish the program and budget of the Province, including making such organizational decisions as may facilitate the work of the Province.”

The provisions of a canon elaborate upon a specific provision of a constitution but they must remain within the purview of that provision. They flesh out the details. When they step outside the purview of the specific provision upon which they are elaborating, then an addition or alteration of the constitution is required if those provisions are desired. If it is not clear whether they are within the purview of a specific provision of the constitution, and they are deemed as desirable, then an amendment of the constitution is warranted.

In this particular instance, the canons should delineate the procedure that the Council will follow in developing the program of the Church, preparing the Church’s budget, and, if the provisional constitution is amended, making organizational decisions to facilitate the work of the Church.

[(2)] The Council shall deliberate upon matters affecting the interests of the Church, shall approve policy, and shall adopt canon law for ratification by majority vote of the Assembly.

Who is going to develop the policy that the Council approves? This should be stated in the paragraph. As a governing body the Council should be developing the policy and not approving the policy of another smaller group. With its description of the functions of the Provincial Council this paragraph rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution and should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to the constitution. Article VI, Section 2 states, “The process of ratification is set forth by canon,” presumably meaning that the procedure by which the Provincial Council will submit a canon to the Provincial Assembly for its assent and by which the Provincial Assembly will give or withhold its assent will be prescribed by canon. The provision in the last phrase of the paragraph specifying that ratification of a canon shall require a majority vote of the Provincial Assembly rightfully belongs in a canon delineating that procedure. But it must be noted that Article XI, Section 2 of the provisional constitution states,” This Constitution 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. Any changes or amendments to the Constitution shall not become effective in less than ninety days following
that meeting.” Any canon prescribing the vote by which the Provincial Assembly may ratify a canon adopted by the Provincial Council is subject to the provisions of Article XI, Section 2.

The term “canon law” refers to the whole body of jurisprudence that consists of the canons of a church and the various judicial interpretations of the appropriate bodies of that church of the meaning of particular canons and their application. It is incorrect to refer to the Provincial Council as “adopting canon law.” Rather the Provincial Council “makes canons,” “adopts canons,” etc.

[(3)] The Council shall have power to enter into covenants that define relationships with Anglicans internationally and with other Christian jurisdictions.

This paragraph gives to the Council a power that the provisional constitution does not assign to the Council. If the Governance Task Force desires that the Council should exercise this power, it should draft a proposed amendment to the provisional constitution giving this power to the Council.

The canons should delineate the procedures that the Council will follow in its dealings with other Anglican jurisdictions and other Christian ecclesiastical bodies. Article V, Section 6 gives the Council power to make canons “ordering our common life” in respect to “ecumenical and international relations.”

[(4)] The Council shall consider and report, with reasonable promptness, upon any matter that a Diocese or the Assembly or the Executive Committee may refer to the Council.

This paragraph also should be drafted as a proposed amendment to the provisional constitution. The canons should delineate the procedure that the Council would follow to ensure that it considers and responds with reasonable promptness to any matter a judicatory, the Assembly, or the Executive Council refers to it. The Governance Task Force in drafting this proposed amendment may wish to include the College of Bishops in the list of those to whose referrals it must consider and respond with reasonable promptness. The College of Bishops may wish to ensure that they do.

[(5)] The Executive Committee shall set the agenda for meetings of the Provincial Council.

Any provision of the canons setting forth who shall set the agenda for Council meetings is subject to Article VII, Section 9: “The Chair with the assistance of the other office bearers will be responsible for the agenda of each Provincial Council meeting.” Title I, Section 4, paragraph 2 states, “The members of the Executive Committee shall be the Archbishop, who shall be chairman, and twelve (12) other members, six (6) ordained and six (6) lay, elected by the Council from among its members.” Article VII, Section 6 of the provisional constitution states, “The Provincial Council may appoint a deputy chair, a secretary, a treasurer and such other
office bearers as it deems necessary.” By this definition of “office bearer”, the other twelve members of the Executive Committee do not qualify as “office bearers,” and on this basis this paragraph violates the terms of the provisional constitution. As we shall, this is not the only provision of the draft canons that violates the terms of the provisional constitution. Whoever drafted the canons under this title appears not to have paid close attention to the provisional constitution so that their provisions in a number of places violate the provisional constitution or infringe upon it.

If this paragraph had been constitutional, it should have been placed under whatever section or sections of the canons that established the membership and duties of the Executive Council.

[(6)]Any ten members of the Council may have an item of business placed on the agenda for consideration.

This paragraph violates Article VII, Section 9 of the provisional constitution: “Any member has a right to have items of business placed on the agenda for consideration.” This section of the provisional constitution recognizes the right of the individual member of the Council to have items of business placed on the agenda for consideration. The provisional constitution does not give the Council power and authority to fix the number of the members of the Council who may have items of business placed on the agenda of its meetings for consideration by canon. Rather it guarantees to each individual member of the Council the right to have items of business placed on the agenda for consideration. This provision not only is a violation of the provisional constitution but it represents what may be an attempt on the part of the Governance Task Force to arrogate more power and authority to the Council than that to which it is entitled under the terms of the provisional constitution.

What the Governance Task Force is doing in this section is rewriting the constitution. Most, if not all, of what was placed in this section should be presented as proposed amendments to the provisional constitution. If the Governance Task Force is not satisfied with the terms of the provisional constitution, it should prepare a number of additional proposed constitutional amendments for the consideration of the Inaugural Provincial Assembly.

Section 2 - Concerning Membership

[(1)]Each Diocese (i.e., diocese, cluster or network, whether regional or affinity-based, hereafter called a “Diocese”) shall select, by means not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Church, one (1) Bishop from the Diocese, one (1) member of the Clergy, and two (2) lay persons to be members of the Council.

This paragraph violates Article IV, Section 6 of the provisional constitution: “There shall be a Provincial Council elected by the Provincial Assembly.” It also violates Article VII, Section 3: Provincial Council members hold office for five years. The term of office ends at the close of the Provincial Assembly meeting which elects the successor.

This paragraph rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution. It should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to Article VII, Section 2. (I discuss the merits of this proposal and its implications in my “Summary and Recommendations” section of this paper.)

The provisions of this section as well as the provisions of Section 1 of this canon suggest reluctance on the part of the Governance Task Force to revise the provisional constitution that is desperately in need of major revision. The Governance Task Force has proposed only three amendments to the provisional constitution when it is clear from an analysis of the provisions of that document and an analysis of the draft canons that the provision constitution requires much more work.

[(2)] The Council may appoint up to six (6) persons of any order as full members.

This paragraph also rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution. It should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to Article VII, Section 5. For example:

“The Provincial Council may co-opt as full members with a seat and a vote in the Provincial Council up to six persons whose qualifications, terms of office, and manner of election or appointment shall be prescribed by Canon. A casual vacancy in the office of any co-opted member of the Provincial Council shall be filled as the Provincial Council shall by Canon prescribe.”

[(3)] Notwithstanding the forgoing, the initial Council shall be composed as provided in Article VII.2 of the Constitution. The term of office of a member of the Council shall be five (5) years.

This paragraph, as in the case of the foregoing paragraph, rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution. It should have been drafted as an amendment to the provisional constitution. It alters the provisions of Article VII, Sections 2 and 3.

It also makes no provision for what will happen at the expiration of the term of office of a member of the Provincial Council if his successor has not been selected. As this paragraph is worded, the member of the Provincial Council cannot continue in office until his successor is chosen. He must step down at the expiration of his five-year term, leaving the judicatory that he represents with less representation on the Provincial Council. It is possible that, if the judicatory has difficulties in selecting new Provincial Council members, it would have no representation on the Provincial Council and the Provincial Council and the Provincial Council could proceed to enact legislation without its delegation present.

[(4)] A retiring member of the Council is eligible for reelection for one additional term.

This paragraph alters the provisions of Article VII, Section 4 of the provisional constitution, and should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to that article

It also conflicts with the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of this section. The first paragraph states, “Each Diocese… shall select, by means not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Church…”. The second paragraph states, “The Council may appoint…”. Under the provisions of the first paragraph the Primatial Vicar of the AMiA can appoint, after consultation with the Primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and such other consultations as he may deem necessary, the members of the AMiA delegation to the Provincial Council. The General Synod of the Church of Nigeria can appoint the members of the CANA delegation to the Provincial Council. The General Committee or the General Council of the REC can appoint the members of the REC delegation to the Provincial Council. The provisions of the first paragraph permit all these methods of selection. Under the provisions of the second paragraph the co-opted members of the Provincial Council are appointed. The fourth paragraph presupposes that the members of the Provincial Council are elected “Re-election” refers to a specific form of selection, that is, choosing by vote of a body of electors. Its wording should have been chosen to be consistent with that of the first and second paragraphs. With constitutions and canons one cannot say, “they know what it means.” A constitution must be clear and exact in its wording. Canons must be even more strictly worded. In the case of this paragraph, the following wording would be consistent with the wording of the first and second paragraphs: “A retiring member of the Council is eligible to serve for one additional term of office.”

It must be noted that this section makes no provision for the filling of casual vacancies in the members of the Provincial Council. Such a provision as with the other provisions in this section rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution, and should be drafted as a proposed amendment to the provisional constitution.

Section 3 - Concerning Meetings of the Council

[(1)] The Council shall meet at least annually. Special meetings of the Council may be called by the Archbishop or by the request of one-third of the Council’s membership. A minimum of thirty (30) days notice must be given for each meeting in writing or by appropriate electronic means.

Article VII, Section 7 requires only a minimum of fifteen days’ notice. It makes no provision for giving notice in writing or by electronic means such a telephone call, fax, or email. This paragraph rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution. A proposed amendment to the provisional constitution should have been drafted.

The provision for the calling of special meetings of the Provincial Council is poorly worded both in the provisional constitution and in this paragraph. While one-third of the members of the Provincial Council may request a special meeting, they do not require the Archbishop to comply with that request. They do not make provision for occasions when he may fail to call the special meeting due to his protracted absence from North America, incapacity, or unwillingness on his part. They also do not make provision for occasions when the office of Archbishop is vacant due to his sudden death, resignation, or suspension or removal from office. Such provisions rightfully belong in the provisional constitution.

[(2)] Meetings of the Council shall be conducted under rules approved [change to “adopted”] by the Council.

A governing body should be able to adopt its own rules of procedure, appointing a committee or task force of its own members to draw up a proposed set of rules for its consideration. This helps to protect the governing body from manipulation and procedural maneuvering that is likely to occur when one faction draws up the rules and then exploits them to its advantage. As the foregoing paragraph is written, it opens the way for this possibility.

Section 4 - Concerning the Executive Committee

[(1)] The Council shall have an Executive Committee which shall be the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America, a non-profit corporation.

[(2)]The members of the Executive Committee shall be the Archbishop, who shall be chairman, and twelve (12) other members, six (6) ordained and six (6) lay, elected by the Council from among its members.

Both the first paragraph and the second paragraph of this section fall within the purview of Article VII, Section 10. It would be desirable to include an article in the provisional constitution relating to the incorporation of the Anglican Church in North America as a not-for-profit corporation and providing for the setting forth of the rules for government of that corporation and the management of its affairs in the canons of the Church.

[(3)]The Executive Committee shall have custody of documents and other property of the Church not vested in any other body or person.

It would be wise to vest any immovable property that Anglican Church in North America owns in a number of corporate trustees as the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia does. The number of these corporate trustees, their qualifications, the manner of their election or appointment, their term of office, and how they may be removed from office is prescribed by canons.

[(4)] Notwithstanding the forgoing, the initial Executive Committee shall be as provided in Article VII.10 of the Constitution and shall continue in office until its successors are elected.

Section 5 - Concerning Officers of the Church

The Archbishop shall be the Presiding Officer of the Church, and the Presiding Officer of the Council. The Council may appoint a Deputy Chair, a chancellor, a secretary, a treasurer, a registrar, and such other officers of the Church as it deems necessary. The Council shall define the duties of each officer of the Church.

Article V, Section 8 gives the Provincial Council power “to make canons ordering our common life in respect to…providing for the proper administration of the Province.” However, it is questionable whether this extends to prescribing additional duties or functions for the Archbishop such serving as presiding bishop of the Church and as president of the Provincial Council. The first sentence of this paragraph rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution under Article IX. It should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to that article along with provisions as to who would act in the capacity of presiding officer in the event of the Archbishop’s absence. For example: “The Archbishop shall be the President of the Provincial Assembly and the President of the College of Bishops. In the absence of the Archbishop the senior bishop of this church who is a bishop ordinary of a judicatory of the church and who is present, willing, and able to act shall be the President of the Provincial Assembly and the College of Bishops. Seniority in every case shall be determined by the date of consecration. The Archbishop or in his absence the Deputy President of the Provincial Council shall be the President of the Provincial Council. In the absence of both the Archbishop and the Deputy President the Provincial Council shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson of the meeting.”

The second sentence in this paragraph is superfluous. It reiterate the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 of the provisional constitution: “The Provincial Council may appoint a deputy chair, a secretary, a treasurer and such other office bearers as it deems necessary.” With the third sentence of this paragraph, “…the Council shall define the duties of each officer of the Church,” it does, however, draw attention to one of the numerous defects of the provisional constitution: its sections do not say enough when they need to. What is needed in the provisional constitution is a provision like the following: “There shall be a Deputy President of the Provincial Council (or a First Deputy President of the Provincial Council and a Second Deputy President of the Provincial Council) and such other officers of this Church as the Provincial Council (or the Provincial Assembly) shall be prescribe by canon. The qualifications of the aforesaid officers of the Church, their manner of election or appointment, their term of office, and their duties shall be prescribed by canon.” The canons would then establish the office of a particular officer, the manner of his election or appointment, his term of office, and his duties. For example:

“(1) There shall be a Chancellor of this Church who shall be appointed by the Executive Committee subject to the approval of the Provincial Council.

“(2) The Chancellor must be a practicing attorney of law of at least ten years experience…

“(3) The Chancellor shall hold office for a term of five years or until his successor is appointed. A retiring Chancellor shall be eligible for reappointment…

“(4) The Chancellor shall be the Legal Officer of this Church. The Chancellor shall…and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by these canons and any amendments, alterations, and additions thereto.”

Canon 2 - Of the Assembly

Section 1 - Concerning Mission

The chief work of the Assembly shall be strengthening the mission of the Church as defined in Article III of the Constitution.

This paragraph rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution and should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to Article VI, Section 1.

Section 1 - Concerning Governance

The Assembly shall function as a unicameral body. The role of the Assembly in the governance of the Church is to ratify the Constitution and Canons and any amendments adopted by the Council. Matters not ratified shall be returned to the Council for further consideration.

Article XV, Section 2 states, “This Constitution 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. Any changes or amendments to the Constitution shall not become effective in less than ninety days following that meeting.” This article gives the provincial Assembly power to amend the constitution on its own initiative, a fact that this section fails to recognize.”

As in the case of a number of previous sections of the draft canons, this section rightfully belongs in the provisional constitution and should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to Article VI, Section 2.

Section 3 - Concerning Membership

[(1)] The membership of the Assembly shall be composed of laity, Clergy and Bishops. Lay and Clergy delegates shall continue in office until their successors are chosen and certified.

Article VI, Section 4 of provisional constitution states that the number of representatives from each judicatory and the proportion of bishops, clerical delegates, and lay delegates are to be determined by canon. It does not give the Provincial Council power and authority to determine their qualifications, the manner of their election or appointment, their term of office, or the manner in which casual vacancies in the delegation from a judicatory may be filled. Under the provisions of Article VIII, Section 1 this power and authority rightfully belongs to the judicatory since nowhere does the constitution delegate this power and authority to the Province or prohibit the several judicatories from exercising this power. This paragraph represents an arrogation to the Provincial Council as the canon-making body of the Anglican Church in North America of power and authority that is rightfully that of the individual judicatory. If it is deemed desirable that the Provincial Council (or the Provincial Assembly) should have power and authority to prescribe qualifications of the representatives from the several judicatories, the manner of their election or appointment, their term of office, or the manner in which casual vacancies in the delegations from the several judicatories may be filled, then the Governance Task Force needs to draft a suitable proposed amendment to Article VI, Section 4 of the provisional constitution. In doing so the Governance Task Force may wish to revise the wording of the existing provisions of the same article.

[(2)] Each Diocese, at a minimum, shall be represented by its Bishop or Bishops and two (2) members of the Clergy and two (2) lay persons. One (1) additional lay person and one (1) additional member of the Clergy may be added for each additional full one thousand (1,000) ASA of the Diocese. All active members of the College of Bishops shall be members of the Assembly.

The foregoing paragraph could have been worded better. For example:

“Each judicatory shall be entitled to be represented in the Assembly by its bishop or bishops, two members of the clergy, and two lay persons. Each judicatory shall additionally be entitled to be represented in the Assembly by one additional member of the clergy and one additional lay person for each additional number of congregations with a total ASA of 1000 belonging to the judicatory.”

Under the terms of Article VI, Section 4 of the provisional constitution the Provincial Council only may determine by canon the number of bishops representing each judicatory. The provisional constitution does not delegate to the Provincial Council power and authority to prescribe by canon the qualifications of the bishops representing the several judicatories. If it is deemed desirable for the Provincial Council to do so, then the Governance Task Force needs to draft a proposed amendment to Article VI, Section 4 to that effect.

It must be also noted that the last sentence of the paragraph is redundant since the first sentence of the paragraph states that each judicatory shall be represented by its bishop or bishops.

[(3)] Each Diocese shall make application to the Executive Committee of the Council for certification of the allowable number of its delegates to the Assembly.

How does the Executive Committee determine the number of delegates to which a judicatory is entitled? Will the Executive Committee simply pluck the number out of the air? Or will it require each judicatory to certify, that is, to declare by certification, the total average Sunday attendance of its congregations for a specific period of time prescribed by canon and transmit this figure to the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee then will determine, on the basis of this figure, the number of delegates to which the judicatory is entitled? How often will each judicatory be required to do this and when? Whatever procedure is followed it should be delineated in the canons and not left to the discretion of the Executive Committee to change at whim.

Rather than making a judicatory apply to the Executive Committee for a determination of the number of delegates to which the judicatory is entitled, it makes more sense to provide in the canons for a judicatory to submit its average Sunday attendance totals at regular intervals to the Executive Committee and to further provide that number of delegates to which a judicatory is entitled should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of this section on or as at the date the Archbishop by written instrument summons the bishops of the judicatories to convene representatives to an ordinary session or a special session of the Provincial Assembly and should remain fixed until the next such date.

What is the rationale for the Executive Committee making this determination? Would not it be better to have a separate board or commission that is elected or appointed by the Provincial Council (or the Provincial Assembly) and that determines the number of delegates to which a judicatory is entitled at regular intervals that are prescribed in the canons? This board or commission might be charged with the task of routinely gathering, compiling, and analyzing statistics as well as periodically determining the number of delegates to which a judicatory is entitled. This would make the procedure much less political.

What would be the procedure for resolving any dispute between the Executive Committee (or board or commission) and a judicatory over the number of delegates to which the judicatory? Why is this procedure not delineated in the canons where it rightfully belongs?

[(4)] A Diocese shall report the names and contact information of its delegates, and an equal number of alternates, not later than sixty (60) days (thirty [30] days in the case of the initial Assembly) prior to a meeting of the Assembly.

This paragraph should have been placed after the paragraph that follows it. It must be noted that this paragraph does not indicate to whom a judicatory should report the names and contact information of its delegates and alternates. The Governance Task Force may wish to consider revising this paragraph. For example:


“The bishop of each judicatory shall certify and transmit to the Archbishop a list of names, mailing addresses, and other contact information of the clerical and lay delegates of the judicatory and of an equal number of alternatives at least sixty days before an ordinary session or a special session of the Assembly is convened. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions to the contrary, such list may be certified and transmitted to the Archbishop at least thirty days before the inaugural session of the Assembly is convened.”

[(5)] The Council shall certify to each Diocese its allowable number of delegates within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of such application. (After the initial meeting of the Assembly, the Council may delegate this responsibility to the Executive Committee.)

This paragraph belongs immediately after the third paragraph. Like the third paragraph it hints at a procedure but does not describe that procedure in detail. Canons are supposed to delineate the specific procedures by which an ecclesiastical body is going to operate and not hint at these procedures. Among the reasons that canons, like bylaws, ordinances, and regulations must be clear, specific, and detailed is so that everyone understands the procedures by which the ecclesiastical body, corporation, municipality, or agency is operating. An ecclesiastical body that operates like a group of children on a school playground making up the rules of the game that they are playing as they play it is heading for trouble. When the rules by which an organization governs its members and administers its affairs are not clear, specific, and detailed, it not only leads to misunderstanding but it also results in all kinds of abuses, especially of authority. The less clear, the less specific, and the less detailed the rules, the greater the likelihood of their misuse. Clarity, specificity, and detail in the provisions of the canons of a church are an important safeguard.

[(6)] A Diocese-in-Formation is entitled to membership in the Assembly under Canon I.5.5.

The representation to which a judicatory in formation is entitled should have been prescribed in the second paragraph of this section. Considering that draft canons have provisions that should be placed together scattered all over the canons, one must ask why the Governance Task Force in the case of judicatories in formation saw fit to put the provisions related to judicatories in formation in one canon. In any event the provisions prescribing the representation of autonomous judicatories and judicatories in the Provincial Assembly in formation rightfully belong in the same canon.

[(7)] Founding non-ecclesial organizations shall have representation through one (1) Bishop, one (1) member of the Clergy and one (1) lay person.

Article VI, Section 4 makes no provision for the representation of “founding non-ecclesiastical organizations” in the Provincial Assembly: “The Provincial Assembly shall be composed of representatives of all the dioceses, clusters, and networks (whether regional or affinity-based) in balance and in number from the laity, bishops and other clergy as from time-to-time determined by canon.” If it is desired that such organizations should have representation in the Provincial Assembly, a suitable proposed amendment to Article VI, Section 4 needs to be drafted, giving them representation in the Provincial Assembly.

The number of unconstitutional provisions or provisions of questionable constitutionality in the draft canons up to this point indicated that a much longer period of study is warranted than the seventeen days in which the draft canons have been made available for public comment before they are submitted to the Provincial Council for approval. They also point to the need for extensive revision of the provisional constitution. Both the provisional constitution and the draft canons require a great deal of additional work.

Section 4 - Concerning Youth Representation

Each Diocese may send one (1) youth representative to the Assembly for every one thousand (1,000) ASA, in addition to its other representation in the Assembly. Youth representatives must be at least sixteen (16) years of age, but not older than twenty-six (26) years of age, at the time of the convening of the Assembly.

In light of the very limited role that the Provincial Assembly plays in the ecclesiastical governance of the Anglican Church in North America I do not see the participation of youth representatives in that body as a positive experience for the youth concerned. If the Provincial Assembly was the governing body of the Church, then it might make sense for the Provincial Assembly to include youth representatives like a Diocesan Synod in the Anglican Church of Canada and a Diocesan Convention in The Episcopal Church.

Section 5 - Concerning Meetings

[(1)] The Assembly may meet as often as annually and shall meet not less than once every five years.

[(2)] Special meetings of the Assembly may be called by the Archbishop or by two-thirds of the Executive Committee upon not less than ninety (90) days notice to each member of the Assembly by written or appropriate electronic means.

[(3)] Meetings of the Assembly shall be conducted under rules adopted from time to time by the Assembly.

[(4)] Rules for conducting the inaugural meeting of the Assembly shall be determined by the Archbishop.

The right of a deliberative assembly to adopt its own rules is a right recognized in parliamentary law unless the constitution or bylaws of the organization otherwise prescribe. So the third paragraph is on reasonably firm ground but the fourth paragraph may not. In this particular instance what the organizing committee of the Inaugural Provincial Assembly may wish to do is draw up rules for the first session of that body and to make them the first order of the business on the agenda on the first day that the body meets.

Section 6 - Concerning the Presiding Officer

The presiding officer of the Assembly shall be the Archbishop or such other persons as he may designate from time to time.

Please see my comments on Title I, Canon 1, Section 5.

Canon 3 - Of the College of Bishops

[(1)] The membership and chief work of the College of Bishops is as provided in Article X of the Constitution.

This paragraph is unnecessary. What is stated in the paragraph is already stated in the provisional constitution and does not need to be reiterated in the canons.

[(2)] The College of Bishops shall order its life and develop such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for its life and work.

Canon 4 - Of Committees

Concerning Initial Committees

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the following Task Forces and Committees were operating: the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force, the Governance Task Force, the Admissions Committee, the Ecumenical Relations Task Force, the Education Committee, the Episcopate Task Force, the Financial Vision and Stewardship Task Force, the Mediation Panel and the Mission Committee. These Task Forces and Committees shall continue, as constituted, as Committees of the Church until further action of the Council, which shall have authority to end or alter the same and to appoint such other committees and task forces as deemed necessary.

Article V, Section 8 give the Provincial Council power to make canons ordering our common life in respect to “…providing for the proper administration of the Province.” Under the provisions of this section it is constitutional for the Provincial Council to extend the life of existing committees and task forces as they are presently constituted. If, however, the Provincial Council intends to change the composition of these committees and task forces and/or their duties, dissolve one of more of them, establish new committees and task forces, and so on, it needs to prescribe in the canons how it will go about doing this. It cannot just give itself blanket authorization to do so. Standing committees and task forces are normally established by canon with the composition of each committee or task force, the qualifications of its members, the manner of their election or appointment, their term of office, the manner by which casual vacancies in the committee or task force will be filled, the duties and functions of the committee or task force, and the like prescribed in the canon or section of the canon establishing the committee or task force. On the other hand, special committees and task forces may be established by resolution with the composition of each committee or task force, the qualifications of its members, the manner of their election or appointment, their term of office, the manner by which casual vacancies in the committee or task force will be filled, the duties and functions of the committee or task force, and the like prescribed in the resolution establishing the special committee or task force. In this way the several judicatories of the Anglican Church in North America and their congregations and clergy know who is doing what, the extent of their authority to do what they are doing and how long they are authorized to do it. Problems like too many committees and task forces doing the same thing or a committee or task force having no clear authorization for what it is doing or a committee or task force that has been assigned duties or functions that violate or infringe upon the constitution and canons of the Church are avoided.

Canon 5 - Of Dioceses

Section 1 - Concerning Structure

[(1)] A Diocese is a grouping of congregations gathered for mission under the oversight of a Bishop.

Please see my comments on the use of the term “diocese” under the definition of a “diocese” in the section titled “Definition of Certain Terms” at the beginning of Title I of the draft canons. At least one of the ecclesiastical bodies forming the Anglican Church in North America, that is, the Reformed Episcopal Church, has dioceses and missionary districts of its own, each under the oversight of a bishop. Another ecclesiastical body forming the ACNA, that is the Anglican Mission in Americas, has a number of networks of churches, each under the oversight of a regional bishop. “Diocese” does not accurately describe these ecclesiastical bodies. The term “diocese” also carries a lot of unhelpful baggage with it, including the notion that the ideal or default basis for organizing a judicatory is territory. For this reason I strongly recommend that substitution of the term “judicatory” for term “diocese.” I also strongly recommend the replacement of the foregoing paragraph with the following:

“A judicatory is group of local congregations and the clergy thereof organized for mission under the oversight of one or more bishops on the basis of theological affinity and/or territory. As used in these canons the term “theological affinity” refers to a common position on a number of key theological issues that a group of local congregations and the clergy thereof share with each other and the bishop or bishops overseeing them. As used in these canons the term “territory” refers to a conterminous geographic locality (or district) consisting of a province or part thereof in the Dominion of Canada, of a state or commonwealth or part thereof in the United States of America, or of a region consisting of two or more provinces or states or parts thereof, in which a group of local congregations are situated. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent two or more groups of congregations and the clergy thereof organizing for mission under separate bishops in the same territory.”

[(2) (a)]A Diocese is composed of a minimum of twelve (12) congregations with an ASA of at least fifty (50) each and a collective ASA of at least one thousand (1,000).

Please refer to my comments on the use of ASA to gauge the “size” of a congregation under the term “ASA” in the section titled “Definition of Certain Terms” at the beginning of Title I of the draft canons. What ASA gauges is the size of the Sunday “crowd” that a church is attracting. It does not gauge the size of the “crowd” that all its worship services and small groups are attracting. The use of ASA to gauge the “size” of a congregation may have been a reasonably accurate method in the 1950s when everyone who went to church went to a worship service on Sunday except Seven Day Adventists. But in the twenty-first century everyone who goes to church does not go to a worship service nor does everyone go on a Sunday. What is needed is a formula for gauging the “size” of a congregation that takes into consideration average weekly attendance at all small groups as well as all worship services, not just worship services on Sundays.

[(b)] The Council may modify these requirements on a case-by-case basis by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members.

This paragraph needs to specify what factors the Council will consider in a request to modify the requirements in the first paragraph. This will not only provide some guidelines for the Council but also any group of congregations seeking a modification of these requirements.

Section 2 - Concerning Governance

[(1)]Each Diocese may establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Church, except as hereinafter set forth.

[(2)] Dioceses may band together for common mission or as distinct jurisdictions within the Church.

This paragraph needs to be more specific about how judicatories may band together. It needs to delineate the procedure by which two or more judicatories may form a voluntary association for common mission or a distinct jurisdiction within the Church.

Section 3 - Concerning Standing Committees

[(1)]The governing body of each Diocese shall [add “by canon”] establish a Standing Committee or its equivalent.

[(2)]This committee shall be a council of advice to the Bishop and the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in the absence of a Bishop authorized to act.

This paragraph needs rewording to make it clearer: For example:

“The standing committee of a judicatory, by whatever name that body shall be designated, shall be a council of advice to the principal bishop of the judicatory, shall, in the absence of the principal bishop of the judicatory, be the ecclesiastical authority of the judicatory, and shall have such other authorities, duties, functions, and powers as the governing body of the judicatory shall by canon prescribe.”

[(3)] The other rights and duties of the committee shall be established by canon.

The suggested rewording of the second paragraph of this section eliminates the need for the third paragraph.

Section 4 – Concerning Oversight by Other Anglican Provinces

Dioceses gathered under the jurisdiction and oversight of another Province of the Anglican Communion at the time of the organization of the Anglican Church in North America may continue under the constitution and canons of the parent Province to the extent provided by specific covenants between all of the parties, periodically reviewed.

By whom will these specific covenants be reviewed—the parties to the specific covenants, the Provisional Council, or all of the foregoing? How will this review be conducted and with what frequency—every year, every five years, every ten years? A mechanism for the periodic review of the status of judicatories that are also extraterritorial jurisdictions of other provinces need to be included in the canons establishing a time frame in which these judicatories must determine where their future lies—with the Anglican Church in North America or with the province of which they are an extraterritorial jurisdiction. Those that wish to maintain a long-term relationship with their parent provinces might want to consider Mission Partner status.

Section 5 - Concerning Applying for Diocesan Status

[(1)] A group of congregations that meet the minimum standards for diocesan status may apply to the Council to be added to the Church as a Diocese.

[(2)] The application form shall prescribe, at a minimum, basic information concerning the history, mission and legal status of the group,
current rules of governance, its individual and collective ASA and Anglican affiliation, and any justification for a modification of applicable requirements.

[(3)]The application shall confirm that the rector has notified the current domestic Bishop or Bishops of the congregation’s intention to be a
part of the group making application.

This paragraph presumes that the congregation has a “rector” and “current domestic bishop or bishops.” What does a congregation do if it does not have either?

[(4)] The application shall contain the name of the recommended nominee or nominees for Bishop and shall contain the present and proposed group
budget, including the intended financial support of a Bishop. (Such form and the guidelines for such application are included herein as Appendix “A”)

This paragraph requires that the application contain “the name of the recommended nominee or nominees for bishop.” What does the group of congregations that are applying for “diocese status” do if it already has one or more bishops? The provision that the College of Bishops chooses the bishop of a group of congregations applying for “diocese status” is one of the most problematic provisions of the draft canons. In the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the Anglican Church of the Province of Southern Cone of America a new diocese elects its own bishop. The tradition of a diocese electing its own bishop goes back to a time in English church history when the canons of the cathedral of a vacant see by ancient custom elected the bishop of the diocese. On the other hand, the African practice of the House of Bishops of a province appointing the bishop of a diocese goes back to the nineteenth century when the Archbishop of Canterbury or his deputy appointed the bishop of a diocese in the British Empire’s African colonies. It is a hangover from colonialism. As I noted elsewhere in my paper related to the provisional constitution, “The ACNA Provisional Constitution: A Blue Print for Radical Innovation in Church Government,” the College of Bishop’s appointment of the bishop of a new ACNA diocese is in the historical context of North American Anglicanism, in the sphere of ecclesiastical governance, a radical innovation comparable to the theological and moral innovations of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the United States. New Anglican dioceses in North America have historically elected their own bishop.

The College of Bishop’s appointment of the bishops of a judicatory undermines the autonomy of the judicatory in an ecclesiastical body that is essentially a confederation of judicatories that are autonomous jurisdictions or extraterritorial jurisdictions of Anglican provinces outside North American. One of the reasons that the four Episcopal dioceses that form the Convocation of the Southern Cone broke away from The Episcopal Church was the national church’s infringement upon their autonomy. In The Episcopal Church we see a movement away from diocesan autonomy to greater centralization. With its constitutional and canonical provisions for the College’s of Bishop’s appointment of bishops, as well as its concentration of ecclesiastical authority in the Provincial Council, the Anglican Church in North America is moving in the same direction. North American Anglicans like myself value the autonomy of the diocese, the practice of the diocese electing its own bishop or bishops, and a synodical form of church government as well as Anglican orthodoxy—a biblically faithful, historically authentic Anglicanism. We view with equal concern this movement in The Episcopal Church and the new Anglican Church in North America toward an ecclesiastical authoritarianism reminiscent of that in the English Church during the reign of Charles I and the primacy of Archbishop Laud. This development provoked a civil war that led to the execution of both king and archbishop and the abolition of episcopacy and the Prayer Book.

The paragraph also presupposes that the bishop of the new judicatory will be full-time and salaried. In the present state of the economy a full-time, salaried bishop would be a hardship for less affluent groups of congregations, especially those in economically depressed areas of Canada and the United States. The paragraph excludes the option of the rector or senior pastor of a local congregation serving as the bishop of the new judicatory and the other local congregations in the judicatory paying his traveling expenses and the like. Greater flexibility in this area is called for in the canons, flexibility that takes into consideration conditions in the twenty-first century. In a number of places the provisions of the draft canons appear to have been written for churches in the 1950s and not for churches in the new millennium. They are out of touch with the realities of the twenty-first century.

Section 6 - Concerning Diocese-In-Formation Status

[(1)] A grouping of congregations that do not meet the minimum standards for diocesan status may apply to the Council for temporary Diocese-in-Formation status.

Does a group of congregations that does not meet the minimum standards for diocesan status first apply for diocesan status, requesting a modification of these requirements, and then apply for temporary diocese in formation status when is request for a modification of the requirements is denied? Or is a group of congregations that does not meet the minimum standards for diocesan status required to make a choice—either apply for diocesan status and request a modification of the requirements or apply for temporary diocese information status? The provisions of this section and the preceding section are not clear in regards to the options of a group of congregations seeking affiliation with the Anglican Church in North America. The Governance Task Force needs to delineate more fully the steps of the application procedure in the canons.

[2] With the [add “concurrence of a”] majority vote of the Council, the Archbishop may appoint a Vicar General to assist the group toward qualification as a Diocese of the Church.

Instead of a vicar general who is normally an experienced presbyter appointed to perform the administrative duties of the bishop ordinary of a diocese during a vacancy in the see of the diocese, an auxiliary bishop would be more appropriate to assist a group of congregations toward qualification as a judicatory. This has precedence in the North American Anglican practice of appointing a missionary bishop to oversee a missionary diocese. It is also the practice in the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America. Under the canons of that province one or more dioceses may designate part of their territory as a diocese in formation and then request the permission of the provincial executive council to create the office of auxiliary bishop who has specific oversight over the diocese in formation. Upon the appointment of the auxiliary bishop the specific geographic area that is to form the diocese in formation is formally recognized as a diocese in formation. Dioceses may also form autonomous dioceses from designated parts of their territory. An autonomous diocese elects its own bishop. When a diocese in formation becomes an autonomous diocese, it also elects its bishop.

Such a provision in the canons would help to create a class of bishops who are skilled in leading a judicatory in formation from its earliest stages to qualification from autonomous judicatory status. It would require an amendment to the provisional constitution establishing the mechanism by which the office of auxiliary bishop for a judicatory in formation would be created and by which such auxiliary bishops would be appointed. When a judicatory in formation met the qualifications to become an autonomous judicatory, it would elect its own bishop with the election supervised by one or more provincial bishops appointed by the executive body of the Provincial Synod. Upon the confirmation of the election of the bishop-elect by the College of Bishops and the Provincial Synod’s executive body and the consecration of the new bishop the judicatory in formation would be become a new autonomous judicatory.

A Diocese-in-Formation shall be represented in the Assembly by its Vicar General and one (1) member of the Clergy and one (1) lay person.

This paragraph rightfully belongs in Title I, Canon 2, Section 3.

[3] No Diocese-in-Formation shall be continued under this provision for more than five (5) years.

Both the provisional constitution and the draft canons suffer from a number of the same problems. In places the drafters try to say too much with too few words. In places they assume wrongly that the reader knows what they are saying, presuming that because they know what they are saying, the reader knows too. In places they say more than they need to say. In places they say what does not need to be said. In places they do not say enough. They leave the reader guessing what happens next. This paragraph is an example of the latter. In this particular instance the reader is left to guess what happens if, a diocese in formation fails to meet the minimum standards for diocesan status in a space of five years. Is it disbanded? Is it reorganized? Can the group of congregations forming the diocese in formation request a modification of the requirements so that it become a diocese? What happens next? The failure of the Governance Task Force to ask these kinds of questions and to answer them in sufficient detail is one of the reasons that both the provisional constitution and the draft canons to this point are defective.

Canon 6 - Of Congregations

Section 1 - Concerning Congregational Mission

The fundamental agency of the mission of the Church to extend the Kingdom of God is the local congregation. The chief agents of this mission are the people of God.

This paragraph is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary. It simply restates what is stated in the provisional constitution. It should be dropped from the draft canons. If it is desired that “to extend the Kingdom of God” should be added to Article IV, Section 1 of the provisional constitution, a suitable proposed amendment should be drafted. This and similar passages in the draft canons point to the need for extensive revision of both the provisional constitution and the draft canons.

Section 2 - Concerning Affiliation

Every congregation of the Church belongs to the Church by union with a Diocese of the Church or through a Diocese-in-Formation.

This paragraph needs to say more. For example

“All congregations that are or shall become affiliated with any autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation of this Church shall by virtue of their affiliation with such autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation be members of the Church. Congregation shall during the process of transferring from the jurisdiction of one judicatory to the jurisdiction of another judicatory retain membership in this Church irrespective of the status of the judicatories involved in the transfer.”

Section 3 - Concerning Organization

Every congregation shall be established in accordance with the laws of the State or jurisdiction where situated, shall handle its own finances, and shall carry insurance coverage in amounts specified by its Diocese, except in those Dioceses with constitutional or canonical provisions to the contrary.

To which of the clauses of this paragraph does the exception apply? To all three clauses of the paragraph or to the last clause of the paragraph? If it is just the last clause, then the paragraph needs to be rewritten. For example:

“Every congregation shall be incorporated in accordance with the applicable domestic laws for not-for-profit corporations of the country and the commonwealth, state, province, or territory in which the congregation is situated. Every congregation shall handle its own finances and control its own benevolences and, except in any judicatory the constitution or canons of which otherwise provides, shall carry insurance coverage in amounts specified by the judicatory with which the congregation is affiliated.”

If it applies to all three clauses, then this need to be made clearer.

Section 4 - Concerning Congregational Clergy

No congregational Clergy may serve without being licensed by the diocesan Bishop.

This is another example of a section of the draft canons that does not say enough. The following was adapted from the Constitution of the Diocese in Europe (1995):

(1) The principal bishop of a judicatory may grant his license as pastor within the judicatory to a person in priest’s orders. At his institution as pastor the priest shall take the oath of canonical obedience hereinafter provided and make the declaration of assent prescribed herein.

(2) The principal bishop of a judicatory may grant his license to a person in deacon's or priest's orders to preach or otherwise minister within the judicatory or to officiate as assistant pastor to a local congregation within the judicatory. At his licensing the deacon or priest shall take the oath of canonical obedience hereinafter provided and make the declaration of assent prescribed herein.

(3) The principal bishop of a judicatory may at his discretion license deaconesses and admit lay persons to the office of reader, catechist, evangelist, or lay worker and may license them to serve in the judicatory.

(4) The principal bishop of a judicatory may revoke any license granted by him to priests, deacons, deaconesses, readers, catechists, evangelists, and lay workers and if in any case a license is revoked summarily the person concerned may, within 30 days from the date on which he receives such notice of revocation, appeal to the Archbishop of the Province (or Provincial Tribunal) as hereinafter provided.

Section 5 - Concerning Vestries

[(1)] The vestry is the governing board of the congregation.

The term “vestry” is not uniformly used for the church board of a local congregation throughout the ecclesiastical organizations that form the Anglican Church in North America. Some local congregations have parish councils, others have church councils, and so on. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines the term “vestry” as “the ratepayers of the parish, their representatives, the room in which these meet.” In the Church of Ireland the vestry is the annual meeting of the members of the congregation and the select vestry elected by the vestry is the representative governing body of the local congregation. The term most often used in the literature for the governing body of a local congregation is “church board.” The exception is local congregations that have a congregationalist polity, in which case the congregation itself is the governing body of the local congregation.

The different names by which a church board is designated in the ecclesiastical organizations forming the Anglican Church in North America prompt me to ask whether this section needs to be included in the canons. The organization and administration of local congregations is rightfully a matter for the judicatory to decide as is the incorporation of local congregations and their indemnification. In Sections 2 and 3 of this canon the Governance Task Force is to a large extent meddling in the affairs of the several judicatories of the ACNA. This is also to some extent true for Section 4 except a uniform standard for licensing of clergy and licensed lay ministers is desirable, especially if the revocation of a license may be appealed to the Archbishop of the Province or the Provincial Tribunal. Sections 2 and 3 are an example of the drafters of the canons saying what does not need to be said.

The canons of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Church of Nigeria have no provisions on the organization and administration of local congregations. The Province of the Southern Cone incorporates a number of countries and the Church of Nigeria a number of ethnic, linguistic, and tribal groups in one of Africa’s largest nations. The canons of the Church of England have provisions related to churchwardens since churchwardens in the Church of England are officers of the bishop and they were historically a part of the ecclesiastical disciplinary structure of the diocese. However, they include no provisions to parish administration. Where we do find a preoccupation with the minutiae of parish administration, largely the maintenance of the fabric of the parish church, is the canons of the Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales, and the Scottish Episcopal Church, all of which are small provinces in small countries and have a substantial number of ancient church buildings in a poor state of repair.

[(2)] The vestry is chosen according to applicable laws, diocesan canons, and its own congregational by-laws.

[(3)] The Presbyter in charge of the congregation shall always be a member of the vestry and its presiding officer.

[(4)] The vestry is responsible for the temporalities of the congregation.

Section 6 - Concerning Property Ownership

[(1)]All congregational property, real and personal, owned by a member congregation is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by the congregation and shall not be subject to any trust or other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of the Church; neither may any Diocese assert any such claim over the property of any of its congregations without the express written consent of the congregation.

[(2)] Where property is held in a different manner by any Diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.

Article XII of the provisional constitution is restated in this section with the addition of the clause, “…neither may any Diocese assert any such claim over the property of any of its congregations without the express written consent of the congregation.” This is another example of how the drafters of the draft canons have tried to rewrite the provisional constitution in the canons without amending it. It is highly irregular if not unconstitutional to try to modify the provisional constitution in this way and it reflects poorly upon the Governance Task Force. If this addition to Article XII is deemed to be desirable, then it should be drafted as a proposed amendment to the provisional constitution.

In my paper, The ACNA Provisional Constitution: A Blueprint for Radical Innovation in Church Government I recommend a complete revision of Article XII:

“1. Legal title to all property utilized by local congregations shall be indefeasibly vested in the local congregation, or in a corporation owned and controlled by the local congregation, or in one or more trustees that are appointed or elected by the local congregation and hold the local church property in trust for the benefit of the local congregation. A local congregation may dispose of its property as it determines, subject to any self-accepted indebtedness or other self-accepted restrictions.

“2. Legal title to any local church property held in trust on behalf of a local congregation by a judicatory shall be transferred to the local congregation within one year of the adoption of this Constitution.

“3. Every local congregation shall have full power to take care of and administer its local church property and shall be bound to do so out of its own funds.

“4. Legal title to the undisposed property of a local congregation that disbands or ceases to exist shall pass to the judicatory of this church to which the local congregation belongs except when the local congregation has made other provisions consistent with Canadian or United States laws affecting not-for-profit corporations in its articles of incorporation, constitution, or bylaws.

“5. Nothing in this article shall be construed to abrogate or curtail the right of this church or a judicatory thereof to own, hold, manage, and convey property in its own name for the purpose of carrying out ecclesiastical programs.”

Section 7 - Concerning Church Planting

[(1)] A congregation, with the consent of the Bishop, should plant new churches whenever possible. In such case the congregation shall provide spiritual cover and temporal assistance to the newly planted congregation until it is self-sustaining.

[(2)] A newly planted congregation is self-sustaining when it is able to call and provide for its own Clergy and is acceptable to the Bishop.

As much as I value the importance of church plant, I question the need for this section in the draft canons. This is another example of the Governance Task Force meddling in the affairs of the several judicatories. The cause of church planting in the Anglican Church in North America is better served by a compact between the several judicatories in which they set specific goals and commit themselves to a particular course of action. In this section the Governance Task Force is seeking to arrogate to the Province power and authority that the provisional constitution reserves to the several judicatories. A judicatory should determine for itself whether a newly planted congregation is self-sustaining. The criteria should not be set in the national canons of the ACNA. In some parts of Canada and the United States for a local congregation to be expected to support one or more full-time stipendiary clergy is unrealistic. Yet in these areas a local congregation can borrow, construct, purchase, or rent a modest building and with the leadership of bi-vocational or non-stipendiary clergy and licensed readers and catechists can sustain an effective gospel ministry.

Section 8 - Concerning Annual Reports

On or before March 1 of each year the rector and wardens shall prepare and forward to the Bishop a report, in a form specified from time to time by the Council, reflecting the status and growth of the congregation in terms of ASA, tithes and offerings, baptisms, confirmations and receptions, marriages, burials, and other important categories of information concerning the preceding calendar year, including new initiatives for mission and ministry. The Bishop shall be responsible for preparing a composite report of all such reports received and forward the same to the Executive Secretary of the Province no later than July of each year. The Executive Secretary shall cause to be prepared a report to the Archbishop on the status and growth of the Province.

Why do the draft canons not contain a canon or a section of a canon establishing the office or post of Executive Secretary and prescribing how the Executive Secretary is selected, what the qualifications for the office or post of the Executive Secretary are, how long and under what conditions an individual may serve as Executive Secretary, and what the other duties and functions the Executive Secretary performs? In a number of places in the draft canons provisions that rightfully belong in the provisional constitution have been included in the canons. So have provisions that rightfully do not belong in the canons. But provisions that do rightfully belong in the canons have not been included.

Section 9 - Concerning Transfer or Withdrawal

[(1)] Congregations reserve the right to seek transfer between Dioceses of the Church with the permission of the Bishops involved.

[(2)] Congregations also reserve the right to disaffiliate from the Church after consultation with their Bishop.

[(3)] A congregation joining or transferring into a Diocese becomes subject to the constitution and canons of the Diocese.

Canon 7 - Of Ministry Partners

Section 1 - Concerning Partnership

Ministry Partners and the Church work together, supporting each other in ministry to extend the Kingdom of God.

Section 2 - Concerning Admittance

[(1)]An entity such as a seminary, monastic order or ministry organization, or a Diocese, congregation or other entity that is not a member of the Church, may apply in writing to the Council to become associated with the Church as a Ministry Partner.

[(2)] A Ministry Partner may belong to another denomination of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or be independent, so long as it subscribes without reservation to the Fundamental Declarations of the Church stated in Article I of the Constitution.

Under the provisions of this paragraph partnership in ministry with Anglican Church in North America is closed to non-ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical Anglican organizations that stand in the Evangelical and Reformed tradition in Anglicanism and do not subscribe to the ACNA partisan view of the historic episcopate as stated in Article I, Section 3 of the provisional constitution. If an Anglican organization “recognizes and adheres to episcopacy, not as of divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity,” and condemns and rejects such “strange and erroneous doctrines” as the existence of the Church of Christ only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity as “contrary to God’s Word,” one of the three major positions that Anglicans have historically held in regards to the historic episcopate (and until fairly recently the position of the Reformed Episcopal Church), then it would not be welcome as a Ministry Partner. This would include a number of conservative Evangelical Anglican organizations that have supported the formation of a new province in North America.

As I observed in “The ACNA Provisional Constitution: A Blueprint for Radical Innovation in Church Government,” the Anglican Church in North America needs to modify Article I, Section 3 of the provisional constitution or give up its aim to represent orthodox North American Anglicans. Anglicans who stand in the Evangelical and Reformed tradition in Anglicanism and do not subscribe to the ACNA partisan view of the historic episcopate are as biblically faithful and historically authentic in their Anglicanism as Anglicans who stand in the Catholic tradition. Just as the language of Sections 6 and 7 was modified to accommodate the views of Catholic Anglicans, the language of Section 3 needs to be modified to accommodate the views of all Evangelical and Reformed Anglicans.

[(3)] The Council may admit such applicant to Ministry Partner status upon terms deemed appropriate.

Section 3 - Concerning Fellowship

[(1)] Ministry Partners may have representatives attend functions or gatherings of the Church upon invitation of the Archbishop, and may attend functions and gatherings of any constituent jurisdiction of the Church upon the invitation of the Bishop with jurisdiction [change “bishop with jurisdiction” to “principal bishop thereof”].

[(2)] Representatives of Ministry Partners may have seat and voice [add “at such functions and gatherings of the Church or any judicatory thereof, as the case may be,”] as determined by the Archbishop or Bishop with jurisdiction [change “bishop with jurisdiction” to “principal bishop of the judicatory.

[(3)] Ministry Partners may withdraw from affiliation or have their affiliation ended with or without cause.

Abruptly severing ties with another ecclesiastical body without a word of explanation is not going to foster the “bonds of affection” between the Anglican Church in North America and other ecclesiastical bodies or strengthen those bonds. It is likely to earn for the ACNA the reputation of being something of a fair weather friend or capricious partner in missions. This paragraph definitely needs to be reworded.

Canon 8 - Of Visitors

The Archbishop may invite any person or group to observe functions of the Church, and such visitors shall be accorded seat and voice as determined by the Archbishop.

Canon 9 - Of Finances

Section 1 - Concerning the Tithe

The biblical tithe is the standard of giving to support the Mission of the Church, and should be taught and encouraged at every level in the Church.

Section 2 - Concerning Finance and Budget

[(1)] The Executive Committee, with the assistance of the Financial Vision and Stewardship Task Force, shall develop the program and budget of the Church based on commitments of the Dioceses and other monies raised.

[(2)] The program and budget shall be presented annually to the Council for adoption.

[(3)] The Financial Vision and Stewardship Task Force shall consult with any Diocese that is not able to meet the requested support of the Church.

Section 3 - Concerning Financial Responsibility and Accountability

[(1)] Financial responsibility and accountability are the obligations of the Church at every level.

[(2)] Dioceses shall provide [change to “establish”] standards for record keeping, audits, insurance, investments and the bonding of financial officers.

[(3)] The Executive Committee will provide the same for the Province.

Whatever standards the Executive Committee adopts for the Province should be approved by the Provincial Council. This is a safeguard against misappropriation of funds due to inadequate standards. Making the Executive Committee solely responsible setting these standards is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse:

“(1) The Executive Committee shall, subject to the approval of the Provincial Council, establish the standards for record keeping, audits, insurance, investments and the bonding of financial officers for the Province provided that the Executive Council shall review such standards every five years and may, with the approval of the Provincial Council, modify them.

(2) All such standards and any modifications thereto shall printed in manual form and a copy of the aforesaid manual containing the most current standards for the Province shall, upon written request of any member of this Church or legal counsel thereof, be made available by the Executive Secretary of the Church to such member of the Church or legal counsel thereof, within 45 days of the receipt of the aforesaid request. The cost of printing copies of the aforesaid manual shall be included in the budget of the Province.

(3) The Executive Secretary shall maintain copies of all previous standards for record keeping, audits, insurance, investments and the bonding of financial officers for the Province established by the Executive Committee with the approval of the Provincial Council and shall, upon written request of any member of this Church or legal counsel thereof, furnish to such member of the Church or legal counsel thereof a copy or copies of such previous standards as are specified in the aforesaid request within 45 days of the receipt of the such request.”

Canon 10 - Of the Laity

Section 1 - Concerning Ministry

The people of God are the chief agents of the Mission of the Church to extend the Kingdom of God by so presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to know Him as Lord and serve Him as King in the fellowship of the Church. The effective ministry of the Church is the responsibility of the laity no less that it is the responsibility of Bishops and other Clergy. It is incumbent for every lay member of the Church to become an effective minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, one who is spiritually qualified, gifted, called, and mature in the faith.

This statement rightfully belongs in Article III of the provisional constitution and should have been drafted as a proposed amendment to that article.

Section 2 - Concerning Rights and Responsibilities of the Laity

It shall be the duty of every member of the Church:

1. To worship God, the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, every Lord’s Day in a Church unless reasonably prevented;

2. To engage regularly in the reading and study of Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church;

3. To observe their baptismal vows, to lead an upright and sober life, and not give scandal to the Church;

4. To present their children and those they have led to the Lord for baptism and/or to the Bishop for confirmation;

5. To give regular financial support to the Church, with the biblical tithe as the standard of giving;

6. To practice forgiveness daily according to our Lord’s teaching;

7. To receive worthily the Sacrament of the Holy Communion as often as reasonable;

8. To observe the feasts and fasts of the Church set forth in the Anglican formularies;

9. To continue his or her instruction in the Faith so as to remain an effective minister for the Lord Jesus Christ;

10. To devote themselves to the ministry of Christ among those who do not know Him, utilizing the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives them, for the effective extension of Christ’s Kingdom.

The statements in this section rightfully belong in a Church Catechism or Office of Instruction, not the canons.

Section 3 - Concerning Membership in the Church

[(1)] Membership in the Church requires that a person has received the Sacrament of Baptism with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that such a person be accepted as a member of the Church by a congregation of this Church in compliance with the Constitution of the Church. Such a person is a baptized member of the Church.

“…and that such a person be accepted as a member of the Church by a congregation of this Church in compliance with the Constitution of the Church…” This clause is nonsense. An examination of the provisional constitution reveals no provisions relating to the church membership of individual persons.

[(2)] A confirmed member is a baptized member who has been confirmed or received by a Bishop of the Church.

Title III

Of Ministers, Their Recruitment, Preparation, Ordination,
Office, Practice and Transfer

Canon 8 - Of Bishops

Section 1 - Concerning Requirements for Bishop According to Holy Scripture

A Bishop is called by God and the Church to be a shepherd who feeds the flock entrusted to his care. A Bishop is an overseer of the flock and as such is called to propagate, to teach, and to uphold and defend the faith and order of the Church willingly and as God wants him to – not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to his care, but being a
wholesome example to the entire flock of Christ (1 Peter 5:2-3). These requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth in Canon 2 for Deacon (1 Timothy 3:8-10) and for Presbyter (1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:17; Titus 1:6-9).

Section 2 - Concerning the Ministry of Bishops

By the tradition of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the grace of the Holy Spirit given to them. They are chief missionaries and chief pastors, guardians and teachers of doctrine, and administrators of godly discipline and governance.

The first sentence of this section is a partisan view of apostolic succession that is not shared by all Anglicans. This sentence excludes from the Anglican Church in North America Anglicans in the Evangelical and Reformed tradition in Anglicanism who do not subscribe to this view of apostolic succession but hold that bishops are successors to the apostles only in so far as they preserve apostolic teaching, the position held by John Hooper, John Jewel, William Whitaker, John Philpot, and other English Reformers.

Section 3 - Concerning Criteria for the Episcopate

To be a suitable candidate for the episcopate, a person must:

1. Be a person of prayer and strong faith;
2. Be pious, have good morals and exhibit Godly character;
3. Have a zeal for souls;
4. Have demonstrated evidence of the fruit of the Holy Spirit;
5. Possess those gifts which equip him to fulfill the office;
6. Be held in good esteem by the faithful;
7. Be a male Presbyter at least 35 [change to “30”] years old;
8. Have demonstrated the ability to grow and lead the Church.

In requiring that a candidate for bishop of the Anglican Church in North America must be at least 35 years of age, this canon departs from a long tradition and offers no rationale for this departure. A survey of the canons of a number of Anglican provinces (Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Nigeria, Scotland, Southern Cone, United States, Wales) on the Internet reveals that all of them require a candidate for bishop to be no less than 30 years of age. This change in the minimum age for a candidate for bishop represents not only a radical innovation in the sphere of ecclesiastical governance in the historical context of North American Anglicanism but it would also appear to be the case in the historical context of global Anglicanism. Such a change is unwarranted.

Section 4 - Concerning the Election of Bishops

1. Bishops shall be chosen by a Diocese in conformance with the constitution and canons of the Diocese and consistent with the Constitution and Canons of this Church.

What this subsection does not say is that in some cases the Anglican province of which a “diocese” of the Anglican Church in North America is an extraterritorial jurisdiction will be choosing the bishops of the “diocese.” Under the provisions of the AMiA Canonical Charter the Primate of Rwanda designates the Primatial Vicar of the AMiA from among the Missionary Bishops of that organization. The Council of Missionary Bishops elects candidates for Missionary Bishop for consideration of the Provincial House of Bishops, that is the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Primatial Vicar presents the names of these candidates to the Primate and the Provincial House of Bishops. The Primatial Vicar has the power to withhold the name of a candidate. The canons of the Church of Nigeria state that the General Synod of that province shall appoint persons to administer its extraterritorial convocations and chaplaincies, of which CANA is one. In the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda the Provincial House of Bishops chooses the bishops of a diocese. Presumably the bishops of the Missionary Convocation of Uganda are chosen in the same manner. The manner in which the bishops of these ecclesiastical organizations are chosen raises serious questions not only about the autonomy of these ecclesiastical organizations but also about the autonomy of the ACNA.

2. An electing body from the Diocese shall certify the election of a Bishop for consent by the College of Bishops, or may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the Diocese. The latter practice is commended to all Dioceses in this Church.

Did the drafters of this subsection mean “an electing body for the Diocese”? To which “electing body” is this subsection referring—in the case of the AMIA the Provincial House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda or in the case of CANA the General Synod of the Church of Nigeria? Or is this the reason for the use of the word “from” in the phrase “An electing body from the Diocese”? In this way at least a pretence can be made that the “diocese” is actually choosing the bishop since a “electing body” or at least a “body” in the “diocese” itself and not a foreign house of bishops must certify and transmit the name of the bishop-elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation of the election. As this subsection is written, any person, as long as that person was within the “diocese” could act as “an electing body.” The draft canons do not define what is meant by “an electing body.” A “body” can mean one person or an aggregate of persons. The canons do not specify which. Under the provisions of this subsection, the Primatial Vicar of the AMIA or, in the case of the selection of a new Primatial Vicar of the AMiA upon the death of his predecessor, a Missionary Bishop of the AMiA, acting as the spokesman of the Primate and the Provincial House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and “electing body” of the AMiA, could certify and transmit the name of the “bishop-elect” to the College of Bishops for confirmation of the election. In fact, as this subsection is written, the outgoing ordinary of a “diocese” could choose his successor and certify and transmit the name of the “bishop-elect” to the College of Bishops for confirmation of the “election.”

To certify means to declare by certification. The subsection states that the “electing body,” whoever that may be, must declare by certification “the election of a bishop for the consent of the College of Bishops.” What this means is that in order to obtain the consent of the College of Bishops to the election of a bishop, the “electing body” must certify the election. The subsection does not state how soon after the election the “electing body” must certify the election and what it must do after it has certified the election. Several important steps leading up to the vote of the College of Bishops upon consent to the election are omitted and with them the safeguards that a clearly delineated procedure provides.

The Governance Task Force offers no rationale for not including the clergy and the laity from the procedure such as it is for confirming the election of bishops in the provisional constitution and the draft canons. The Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church have episcopal electoral procedures in which the provincial bishops must confirm the election of a diocesan bishop (Wales) or must approve the candidates for the office of diocesan bishop (Scotland) but these provinces have produced their share of liberal bishops. On the other hand, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America has an episcopal electoral procedure in which the Provincial Executive Council, as well as the provincial bishops, confirms the election of a diocesan bishop, and has produced its share of conservative bishops. Limiting the confirmation of the election of a diocesan bishop to the provincial bishops does not ensure that the bishop whose election is so confirmed will be orthodox any more than including the clergy and laity in the confirmation process guarantees that the bishop whose election is so confirmed will not be orthodox. In North American Anglicanism the confirmation process has historically involved the clergy and the laity. The Protestant Episcopal Church produced both conservative Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical bishops in the nineteenth century. The Episcopal Church produced the four conservative bishops who led their dioceses in breaking away from that province as well as the conservative bishop of South Carolina who has so far chosen to keep his diocese in the province. The problem is not the confirmation process, as the Governance Task Force appears to presuppose. From the perspective of a proponent of a synodical form of ecclesiastical governance in which the clergy and the laity share the governance of the church, the non-inclusion of the clergy and the laity in the confirmation process in the provisional constitution and the draft canons suggests an inclination toward authoritarianism on the part of the drafters of these documents. This does not bode well for North American Anglicans or North American Anglicanism.

The second clause of the first sentence of this subsection states, “…or may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the Diocese.” This clause is also problematic in a number of ways. What is says is “an electing body from the Diocese” may “certify two or three nominees…” . But what happens after the “electing body” has declared by certification two or three nominees. The subsection does not specify.

The clause goes on to say that from these two or three nominees “the College of Bishops may select one for the Diocese.” We are not told how the College of Bishops learns of these two or three nominees. Does the “electing body” transmit the name of the nominees to the Archbishop or does the Archbishop solicit the names of the nominees from the “electing body”? An important step in the procedure is omitted. The subsection also do not specify how much time may lapse between the day that the “electing body” declared by certification two or three nominees and the day that the College of Bishops may select “one for the Diocese.”

Nowhere in this clause is it stated for what the College of Bishops is selecting a nominee. It is taken for granted that the person reading the clause knows what the drafters of the clause had in mind when they wrote it. Those drafting the provisions of a canon cannot make that kind of assumption. They need to clearly state what they mean. A plain reading of this clause is that the College of Bishops may from the two or three nominees select one of the nominees on the behalf of the diocese (or in its place). It says nothing more. Only in Subsection 5 are we given an inkling of what the purpose of the nomination may be. However, nowhere in this subsection or the intervening subsections do we find a statement that connects the nomination to the choice of a bishop-elect by the College of Bishops. We are left to guess that is what the clause refers to solely from the larger context. This is not the way to write the provisions of a canon. They need to be clear and specific. Otherwise, they are open to misinterpretation and misuse.

Before moving on to the final sentence of this subsection, I must note that the clause states that the College of Bishops “may” select one of the judicatory’s nominees. The provisions of this subsection do not require the College of Bishops to select one of the nominees. The College of Bishops may reject all of them. Neither the provisional constitution nor the draft canons prohibit the College of Bishops from selecting its own nominee and electing him as bishop of the diocese.

In the final sentence of this subsection the Governance Task Force goes on to commend the practice of the College of Bishops selecting the bishops of a judicatory “to all Dioceses in this Church.” The Governance Task Force offers no rationale for this commendation. This practice represents a radical innovation in the sphere of ecclesiastical governance in the historical context of North American Anglicanism, which has a long tradition of dioceses being autonomous and electing their own bishops. The latter is derived from the Church of England practice of the members of the cathedral chapter of a vacant see by ancient custom electing the bishop of the diocese. As I noted earlier in this paper, the African practice of the Provincial House of Bishops electing the bishop of a diocese is of relatively recent origin and can be traced to the nineteenth century practice of the Archbishop of Canterbury appointing the bishop of an extraterritorial diocese in one of the British Empire’s African colonies. Traditional African society and the British class system have also played a role in its development. It has its own problems (See my paper, “The ACNA Provisional Constitution: A Blueprint for Radical Innovation in Church Government”). Its introduction greatly weakens the autonomy of the judicatories that form the ACNA. This autonomy is already compromised by the fact that a number of these judicatories are the exterritorial jurisdictions of Anglican provinces outside North America. As I noted earlier in this paper, diocesan autonomy is under attack in The Episcopal Church.
Diocesan autonomy was one of the issues that led a number of Episcopal dioceses to break away from The Episcopal Church. The introduction of this practice into the ACNA moves the ACNA in the same direction as The Episcopal Church—away from self-governing dioceses to a command and control system in which those at the top of a national church hierarchy dictate what happens at the diocesan and local level. This is the kind of system of ecclesiastical governance that the Governance Task Force is commending to the ecclesiastical organizations that form the ACNA. It is essentially an authoritarian system.

3. Where the originating body is newly formed, that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates, from whom the College of Bishops may select one.

This subsection suffers from the same problems as the preceding subsection. It is not clear or specific in its wording. It needs to say more than it does. It gives rise to a number of questions and offers no answers. What does this subsection mean by “newly-formed”? If it is to be the norm that the College of Bishops is to elect the bishops of new judicatories, what, if any are the exceptions? Will a new judicatory ever be able to elect its own bishops? Or will the College of Bishops always choose its bishops? And so on. The draft canons not only commend a radical mode of choosing bishops to the existing judicatories of the Anglican Church of North America, they impose this mode of choosing bishops upon all new judicatories. If a group of congregations and their clergy desire to become a judicatory of the ACNA, they must surrender their autonomy in choosing their own bishop. They may nominate two or three candidates from which the College of Bishops “may” choose their bishop. They, however, are offered no assurance that the candidate that the College of Bishops chooses will be one of the two or three that they nominated. This is the price of affiliation with the ACNA.

This subsection raises the question of what is going to happen if a number of congregations and their clergy are not happy with the bishop that the College of Bishops has picked for them. What recourse will they have? There is a great deal of potential for serious theological disputes in this mode of choosing bishops. It cannot be argued that since the judicatory nominated the bishop, its congregations and clergy should be satisfied with the College of Bishop’s choice. This subsection and the previous subsection do not go into any detail as to how the two or three candidates are to be nominated. This process is left to the judicatory and can be as fair or unfair as the judicatory chooses to make it, considering the desires and aspirations of all parties in the judicatory or the wishes of just one faction. As previously noted, the College of Bishops is not bound to choose one of the judicatory’s nominees.

4. Consent or choice and consent shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of the College of Bishops, which consent must be given within 60 days and in writing.

Consent to what? Choice of what? Two-thirds of all the members of the College of Bishops? At a regular meeting of the College of Bishops? At a special meeting? By certified mail? Phone? Email? Fax? Instance Message? To what consent does the last clause refer? Who puts it in writing? Then what happens? How soon after the College of Bishops has received a list of nominees from a judicatory must the College of Bishops make its choice? Then what happens? Like a number of sections and subsections of the draft canons, this subsection suffers from a paucity of details.

If the College of Bishops has chosen a bishop of a diocese, why must the College of Bishops then give its consent to its own choice? It has decided between nominees and implicit in that decision is agreement to the choice of nominee decided upon, otherwise known as “consent.”

5. Upon the consent or choice of a Bishop-elect by the College of Bishops, the Archbishop shall take order for the consecration and/or installation of such Bishop.

This subsection also suffers from a lack of important details.

All the canons of Anglican provinces that I have surveyed on the Internet require a bishop-elect to subscribe to some kind of declaration in which he affirms his faith in the beliefs of the Church and declares his acceptance of the constitution and/or canons of the Church and any amendments to the same before he may be consecrated and installed or installed if he has already consecrated as bishop.

6. In the event the Bishop-elect or the nominees are rejected by the College of Bishops, the College shall so inform the originating body in writing.

This subsection needs to say more. How soon after the College of Bishops has taken a vote upon the election of a bishop-elect or the nominees of a judicatory must the College of Bishops notify the judicatory of the rejection of its bishop-elect or its nominees? What happens next? Can the judicatory in the case of the rejection of its bishop-elect request that the College of Bishops reconsider its decision? Can the judicatory in the case of its nominees made further nominations?

Section 5 - Concerning Bishops for Special Missions

Bishops for Special Missions are Bishops elected by and serving directly under the College of Bishops for a specific missionary purpose.

Article X, Section 5 of the provisional constitution states, “The College of Bishops shall have authority in the election of bishops of the Province which may be: a) consent to an election from a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), or b) the actual choice and consent from among two or more nominees put forward by a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), in the manner set forward by canon.” The provisional constitution does not give the Provincial Council power and authority by canon to create the office of bishop for special missions nor does it give power and authority to the College of Bishops to elect such a bishop. In this section the Governance Task Force seeks to arrogate to the Provincial Council and the College of Bishops power and authority that the provisional constitution does not give to these two bodies. All the provisions of this section represent a violation or infringement of the provisional constitution. This is another example of the Governance Task Force attempting to rewrite the provisional constitution in the draft canons without amending it. If it deemed desirable to have bishops for special missions, then the Governance Task Force should have drafted one or more proposed amendments to the provisional constitution making provision for them.

The office of any Bishop for Special Missions shall be created in consultation with the Executive Committee.

Any male Presbyter of this Church qualified by these canons may be elected as a Bishop for Special Missions by the College of Bishops.

The College of Bishops shall certify two or three candidates, from whom one may be elected by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the College.

Section 6 - Concerning Suffragan Bishops

With the consent of the College of Bishops, a Diocese may commence the process of election of a Suffragan Bishop. Such election is subject to the approval of the College of Bishops as described in Section 4.

The provisional constitution does not give the College of Bishops power and authority to give permission to a judicatory to proceed with the election of a suffragan, auxiliary, or regional bishop. In this section, as in the previous section, Governance Task Force seeks to arrogate to the College of Bishops power and authority that the provisional constitution does not give to these two bodies. The provisions of this section, as in the case of the previous section, represent a violation or infringement of the provisional constitution. What we have here is another example of the Governance Task Force attempting to rewrite the provisional constitution in the draft canons without amending it. The provisional constitution gives the College of Bishops authority “in” the election of provincial bishops, not “over” their election. The provisional constitution then goes on to qualify the nature of that authority—“consent to an election from a diocese, cluster or network…” and “…the actual choice and consent from among two or more nominees put forward by a diocese, cluster or network, … in the manner set forward by canon”(Article X, Section 5). As I have noted elsewhere, to “set forward” means “to assist the progress of” such as to set forward a clock an hour. If it is desired that a judicatory obtain the consent of the College of Bishops before proceeding to elect a suffragan, auxiliary, or regional bishop, then a proposed amendment to the provisional constitution should have been drafted. However, it must be noted that the judicatories of the Anglican Church in North America are not ordinary diocese like the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church. A number of them contain dioceses, missionary dioceses, districts, networks, and other subdivisions under the oversight of a bishop or missionary bishop. In light of these circumstances I would recommend against making a judicatory seek permission from the College of Bishops every time that it needed an additional bishop for the advancement of its mission. This would also unduly restrict the autonomy of the several judicatories in this matter.

Summary and Conclusions:

In a number of places in Canons 1 through 10 of Title I and Canon 8 of Title III the Governance Task Force clearly appears to be trying to rewrite the provisional constitution, altering and adding to its provisions without actually amending the document. Large portions of these canons are restatements of sections of the provisional constitution with some additional provisions that should have been proposed as amendments to the provisional constitution instead of being incorporated into the draft canons with these restatements of the provisional constitution’s provisions. There is no need for these restatements of the provisional constitution’s provisions in the draft canons. They simply take the place of more substantive content. A number of other provisions of these canons that rightfully belong in the provisional constitution and should also have been proposed as amendments to the provisional constitution are incorporated into the draft canons. In a number of places the provisions of these canons violate the provisions of the provincial constitution. In a number of places the provisions of these canons arrogate to the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops, and/or the Archbishop authorities, duties, functions, and powers that the provisions of the provincial constitution do not assign to the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops, and/or the Archbishop. In a number of places their provisions infringe upon the authorities, duties, functions, and powers that the provisions of the provisional constitution reserve to the ecclesiastical organizations that form the Anglican Church in North America. In a number of places the provisions of these canons are superfluous and unnecessary. They do not belong in a set of canons. In a number of places the wording of these canons is unclear and the subsections of the canons do not provide essential details. Needed provisions are omitted.

The provisions of Canons 1 through 10 of Title I and Canon 8 of Title III introduce and even commend what from a historical perspective are radical innovations in ecclesiastical governance to North American Anglicanism. These innovations include raising the minimum age for a bishop from 30 to 35 years of age and giving authority to choose the bishops of the dioceses, as well as the primate of the province, to the College of Bishops. The provisions of these canons greatly reduce the autonomy of the diocese, do away with some of the best features of North American Anglicanism, and establish a much more authoritarian form of ecclesiastical governance than that to which North American Anglicans are accustomed.

I do see one positive development in the canons that I examined. It involved changes in the composition of the Provincial Council and the manner in which the members of the Provincial Council are chosen. Unfortunately these changes would be unconstitutional because the Governance Task Force failed to draft enough proposed amendments to the provisional constitution to permit the changes. The provisional constitution would benefit from a number of amendments but the Governance Task Force appears to be reluctant to revise the document by amending it.

The addition of one more clerical member and one more lay member from each judicatory would transform the Provincial Council into a Provincial Synod. Instead of summoning a Provincial Assembly to ratify the canons and constitutional amendments or to amend the constitution, as provided in the provisional constitution, procedures similar to those of Southern Cone could be adopted. For constitutional amendments member judicatories would send a proposed change to the Executive Committee which would circulate the proposal within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial Synod. If the proposed change were adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, the proposal would be sent to the governing body of each judicatory for its approval. The governing bodies of the judicatories would send written notice of their approval to the Archbishop who would then inform them of the results. If approved unanimously by the member judicatories, the approved proposed amendment would be put into force. For canons the proposed canon would also be circulated within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial Synod. If the proposed canon were adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, it would be submitted to each member judicatory for approval. Each member judicatory would send its decision in writing to the Archbishop who would inform the same of the results and, if approved by two-thirds vote of the member judicatories, it would take effect immediately. If the proposed canon is not approved, it may be submitted at the next Provincial Synod.

As for “strengthening the mission of the Church” periodic church-wide mission conferences like the AMiA Winter Conference could be convened at regular intervals. Provisions for such conferences would not need to be included in the constitution or the canons.

The Anglican Church in North America is in sore need of a new constitution and a new set of canons. The provisional constitution and the draft canons require extensive revision. The constitution of Southern Cone is an excellent model for a new constitution for the ACNA. It is limited to the absolute essentials – a preface, a statement of principal objectives, a fundamental declaration that is much simpler than the eight fundamental declarations of the ACNA and does not exclude Evangelical – Reformed Anglicans from Southern Cone, a membership section and a rules section that are as simple as the fundamental declaration section, and the procedure for the amendment of the constitution. The canons of Southern Cone are also an excellent model for a new set of canons for the ACNA, especially their provisions for the election of bishops.

The drafting of the new constitution and set of canons needs to be turned over to an entirely new task force comprised of representatives of the new judicatories of the ACNA and other interested persons in addition to representatives of the founding entities of the ACNA and charged with the task of developing a synodical form of ecclesiastical governance for the ACNA that preserves the autonomy of the judicatory and the long tradition in North American Anglicanism of the judicatory electing its own bishop or bishops. The task force needs to be given at least 12 months to complete this task during which time various drafts of the new constitution and canons would be subject to reasonable periods of public comment. The final drafts would be subject to at least a 90-day period of public comment after which the final drafts and any proposed amendments would be submitted to a Constituent Assembly consisting of delegates from each judicatory. This Constituent Assembly would adopt the constitution in its final form, which then would be submitted to the governing bodies of the ACNA judicatories for their approval.

In the intervening period the current provisional Provincial Council, Executive Committee, and Archbishop would continue their work under the provisions of an Interim Instrument of Governance. This Interim Instrument of Governance, or IIG, would provide for the continuation of all three. It would establish interim procedure for the formation of new judicatories, the admission of new judicatories to the ACNA, the supervision of their election of a bishop or bishops, and the confirmation of the election of their bishop or bishops elect. The IIG would establish the new Task Force on the Constitution and the Canons and set a time frame for it to complete its task. It would also include provisions related to the Constituent Assembly.