http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/5/28/san-joaquin-bishops-reflect-on-depositions
[The Living Church] 30 May 2009--The 36 priests and 16 deacons deposed by Bishop Lamb on May 22 and May 26 were not inhibited until October and November 2008, meaning that as of the special reorganizing convention at which Bishop Lamb was elected in March 2008, there was an insufficient number of clergy present to hold a convention. According to report published shortly after the reorganizing convention by Episcopal News Service, there were 21 clergy present. According to canon 3.01 of the Episcopal diocese, “A quorum shall consist of one-third of all the clergy entitled to seats and votes...If a quorum be not present at any convention, no business shall be transacted except that of adjournment from time to time until a quorum shall be present.”
Additionally, the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, told The Living Church that several of the clergy certified to vote at the special reorganizing convention did not meet the canonical requirement of having been resident in the diocese for at least 90 days prior to the start of that convention.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Anglican Catholic Church Primate Declines Invitation to attend ACNA Provincial Assembly
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11215#more-11215
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22nd to 25th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.
Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22nd to 25th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.
Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.
Greetings to the Anglican Church in North America from the Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11252
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--The Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship includes in its membership lay people, clergy and bishops in the Church of Ireland. Our committee, meeting on 28th May 2009, unanimously resolved that we should write to encourage you in the formation of the Anglican Church in North America.
We have followed with sadness the unfolding developments in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. We know that many of you have suffered great loss (personal, parochial and diocesan) for upholding the orthodox faith in the face of radical innovation, and we want you to know that you have our full support.
[Anglican Mainstream] 30 May 2009--The Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship includes in its membership lay people, clergy and bishops in the Church of Ireland. Our committee, meeting on 28th May 2009, unanimously resolved that we should write to encourage you in the formation of the Anglican Church in North America.
We have followed with sadness the unfolding developments in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. We know that many of you have suffered great loss (personal, parochial and diocesan) for upholding the orthodox faith in the face of radical innovation, and we want you to know that you have our full support.
The water of death
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/theology/the_symbolism_of_baptism/
[sydneyanglicans.net] 30 May 2009--Water is the symbol of life and death.
Some symbols are hard to understand, some are arbitrary but this symbol has immediate and obvious impact - especially to a dry continent like Australia. It works as a symbol because it creates the reality that it symbolises.
Without water our country slowly dies in drought. And yet when the rains come, the rivers swell and the lakes turn from saltpans into inland seas. In next to no time the desert springs to life with luscious green vegetation, the lakes team with fish and the birds come from seemingly nowhere to nest in huge numbers.
But it is more than the countryside that needs water. We humans depend upon it for our very lives. We drink it to live. It is a constituent of all that we drink. Without it our thirst is painful and killing. With it we slake our thirst and revive our body.
Water is the symbol not only of life but also of cleanliness. For it is in water that we wash the grime of life off our bodies. So when we need to purify the defilement of our lives - water is again an obvious symbol to turn to. Just as it removes dirt from the body so it also symbolises washing dirt from our lives.
[sydneyanglicans.net] 30 May 2009--Water is the symbol of life and death.
Some symbols are hard to understand, some are arbitrary but this symbol has immediate and obvious impact - especially to a dry continent like Australia. It works as a symbol because it creates the reality that it symbolises.
Without water our country slowly dies in drought. And yet when the rains come, the rivers swell and the lakes turn from saltpans into inland seas. In next to no time the desert springs to life with luscious green vegetation, the lakes team with fish and the birds come from seemingly nowhere to nest in huge numbers.
But it is more than the countryside that needs water. We humans depend upon it for our very lives. We drink it to live. It is a constituent of all that we drink. Without it our thirst is painful and killing. With it we slake our thirst and revive our body.
Water is the symbol not only of life but also of cleanliness. For it is in water that we wash the grime of life off our bodies. So when we need to purify the defilement of our lives - water is again an obvious symbol to turn to. Just as it removes dirt from the body so it also symbolises washing dirt from our lives.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Financial probe baffles rector of local church
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20090525/NEWS01/905250356/Financial+probe+baffles+rector+of+local+church
[pressconnects.com] 26 May 2009--The rector of an Anglican church is "surprised and baffled" by a judge's decision that a regional diocese investigate whether a local parish mishandled money after it withdrew from the Episcopal denomination.
"The judge's statement is absolutely not true," said the Rev. Matthew Kennedy, pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton. "We have nothing to hide. I want to answer their questions."
Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous, who earlier this year ruled the central New York diocese was entitled to Good Shepherd's property, said diocesan allegations the parish misused an endowment should be investigated.
[pressconnects.com] 26 May 2009--The rector of an Anglican church is "surprised and baffled" by a judge's decision that a regional diocese investigate whether a local parish mishandled money after it withdrew from the Episcopal denomination.
"The judge's statement is absolutely not true," said the Rev. Matthew Kennedy, pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton. "We have nothing to hide. I want to answer their questions."
Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous, who earlier this year ruled the central New York diocese was entitled to Good Shepherd's property, said diocesan allegations the parish misused an endowment should be investigated.
Home: No place for Bible study
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=98895
[World Net Daily] 26 May 2009--A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
[World Net Daily] 26 May 2009--A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
A New Blue Print for the ACNA
By Robin G. Jordan
The changes to the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) envisioned in the following proposals would “broaden” the provisions of these two documents. They would remove a number of major obstacles to the membership of conservative evangelical Anglicans and conservative evangelical Anglican congregations; the formation of conservative evangelical Anglican dioceses, the ordination and licensing of conservative evangelical Anglican clergy; the teaching of the doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgical usages of the English Reformers and classical evangelical Anglicanism; and the nomination, election, and consecration of conservative evangelical Anglican bishops in the ACNA. They would also eliminate serious barriers to the participation in the ACNA of orthodox Anglicans who value the North American Anglican heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province; who see no justifiable reason for the ACNA’s abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in diocesan and provincial governance and the episcopal and archiepiscopal nomination and election process; and who greatly feel the loss of this involvement.
The Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations would omit the decidedly partisan doctrinal position that “a godly historical episcopate is an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice…,” a position over which Anglicans have historically been divided. They would commit the ACNA to the preservation of the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, a position on which Anglicans are in agreement.
Holy Orders. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 1, Section 1:
“The Anglican Church in North America holds and teaches that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders in Christ’s Church: bishops, priests, and deacons; and no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said offices, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to an authorized ordinal of this Church or has had consecration or ordination in some Church whose orders are recognized and accepted by this Church.”
Bishops. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 8, Section 2:
“Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God; it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all people.”
The constitution would require that the bishops of a judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) should be elected by one of the following methods, all of which preserve the ancient custom of a diocese choosing its own bishop:
1. By the representative governing body of the judicatory by whatever name it is designated (e.g., Conference, Convention, Council, House of Delegates, Synod, etc.). A description of two local adaptations of this method of election, that of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
What follows are several additional examples of local adaptations of that method. They are taken from my research notes for that article. The first example is a description of how the Archbishop of Sidney, a diocese and metropolitan see of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Archbishop of Sydney Appointment Ordinance 1982:
As soon as possible after the date a vacancy occurs in the see of Sydney, the standing committee passes a resolution that the vacancy should be filled. The person who on the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Sydney is entitled to exercising the powers vested in the archbishop summons the members of the synod to a meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy. Any two or more members of the Synod may in advance of this meeting nominate a candidate for the archbishop of the see. To be regarded as a nominee for archbishop of the see a candidate must have one or more nominations signed by at least 20 members of the Synod, have been notified in writing, and has agreed to be a nominee for archbishop of the see. A list of nominations must be sent to all the members of the synod within ten days of the meeting of the synod for the purpose of filling the vacancy. This list of nominations must contain the names of the nominees in alphabetic order with the names of all the members of Synod who have nominated each nominee. At the meeting of the Synod after the nominations have been formally proposed and seconded each member of the Synod is given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee in respect whether his name should be placed on a select list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the synod present, the lay members of the synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the select list. After the select list is compiled, each nominee whose name appears on the select list is formally proposed and seconded. The members of the Synod are given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee on each nominee in respect whether his name should be put on final list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the final list. A series of votes are then taken to reduce the name of nominees on the final list with the nominees in excess of a specific number determined by the canon delineating the election procedure receiving the lowest number of votes after the votes of both orders of the members of the synod being excluded after each vote. The same canon provides for preferential voting when the final list is reduced to two or three. When the final list is reduced to one, a motion is put to the synod that the nominee remain on the final list should be invited to be the archbishop of the see. A vote on the motion by show of hands is then taken in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of both orders of the members of the Synod then present and voting vote in favour of the motion, the nominee is declared duly elected to the office of Archbishop of Sydney.
The next step is confirmation of the election under the provisions of the Provincial Synod Ordinance for the Confirmation of Bishops’ Elections (N.S.W.) Assenting Ordinance 1965. If the election of the nominee is not confirmed and certified under the provisions of that Ordinance, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the see had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
The second example describes how the Bishop of Willochra, a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Regulation Two of the Diocese of Willochra, adopted in 1994.
When the see becomes vacant, or three months before the date of the retirement of the bishop, the administrator calls together the bishopric nomination committee which is required to nominate not less than three and not more than four persons to a special session of the diocesan synod to be called within three months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. The bishopric nomination committee consists of the administrator of the diocese together with five clerical and five lay members of the diocesan synod who are elected at the first session of each diocesan synod. There is also be elected three clergy and three lay persons as reserves in the event of any member of the committee being unavailable to serve. Any clergy member whose name is considered for nomination as bishop ceases to be a member of the committee. In the event of the administrator being nominated, the committee elects one of its members to chair the committee. The administrator circularizes all members of the diocesan synod inviting them to make submissions to the nomination committee. A name is not included for nomination to the diocesan synod unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members agree to the nomination. The nomination committee presents to the diocesan synod a statement about each nominee.
The administrator must cause a call of the diocesan synod to be made within three calendar months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. During the deliberations of the Election Synod only members and officers are allowed to be present except by special leave of the Synod. Members are prohibited at all times from disclosing any information concerning the proceedings of the Election Synod or the names of the candidates or the details of any ballot. The Synod by a vote of the majority of members present may at any stage in the proceedings under this regulation resolve itself into a committee of the whole and report back to Synod or may from time to time adjourn to a time to be fixed. When the Synod has assembled the administrator announces that a vacancy of the see has occurred. The administrator states the cause of the vacancy and explains the procedure to be followed in filling the vacancy, namely: that Synod is to receive the names submitted to it by the Nomination Committee together with not more than one name submitted by the House of Clergy and not more than one name submitted by the House of Laity. The administrator then informs members of Synod of the nominations being submitted to the Synod by the Nomination Committee. Each House of Synod then meets separately. The House of Clergy is chaired by the administrator and the House of Laity by a lay member of the Synod appointed by the administrator. The business of each House meeting separately is to consider the question "Do we wish to add the name of one person to the list of nominees?" If a majority in either House agree on the name of a person to be added then that name is added to the list of nominees. When both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity have completed the business before them the administrator shall call the Synod together again. The Synod then resolves itself into a committee of the whole for the purpose of discussing the candidature of those who have been nominated. After the discussion Synod resumes and each name is be balloted for individually by the House of Clergy and the House of Laity voting by orders. Every name which fails to obtain one third of the vote of each order is removed from the list. The names remaining on the list are then balloted for each voter recording a vote for one person only. The candidate obtaining two-thirds of the votes of each order is the bishop elect.
If after three ballots as in the preceding paragraph no candidate receives the requisite majority and if one of the candidates has obtained a majority of votes in each house and if the Synod decide in the affirmative it is permissible to move that such candidate be elected Bishop. If this motion is carried by a two thirds majority in each house voting by secret ballot then that person is the bishop elect. If no such motion is agreed to or if no candidate receives the requisite majority then the Synod is adjourned until such time as the Nomination Committee has prepared a further set of nominations for Synod.
If the person elected in accordance with this procedure declines to accept the see the Synod proceeds again under the Regulation.
If the Synod fails on two successive occasions to elect a Bishop it is competent for the Synod either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose to delegate its power and authority to elect a bishop to the primate, conjointly with some other bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia to be named by the Synod. If no such election of a bishop as provided for by the provisions of the Regulation or no appointment of a bishop under any delegated power and authority referred to above is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the vacancy of the see then the appointment of a bishop for this occasion passes to the primate conjointly with the bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia and is made by them.
The administrator reports to the metropolitan the result of any election or appointment in order to obtain the confirmation required by the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia or by any canon of the General Synod that may at that time be in force and binding on the diocese.
The election or appointment having been made and confirmed the person elected or appointed is, if not already consecrated, consecrated as provided in the canons of General Synod. In every case the bishop must take the oath of canonical obedience to the metropolitan and must make a declaration to be subject to the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the canons and determinations of the General Synod at that time in force and binding on the diocese and the constitution and regulations of the Synod. Any bishop elected must either before consecration or if already consecrated before exercising any episcopal function in the Diocese sign and subscribe to the following declaration:
I, A.B., Bishop elect of the Diocese of Willochra do promise that I will maintain and teach the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Australia and I consent to be bound by all the Constitution and Regulations of Synod now or hereafter in force and I hereby undertake immediately to resign the said Bishopric and all rights and emoluments appertaining thereto if sentence requiring such resignation shall at any time be passed upon me after due examination had by the Tribunal acknowledged by the said Synod for the trial of a Bishop in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. Given under my hand this.......................day of......................19...
2. By an Electoral College that may consist of all or part of the representative governing body of the judicatory. This example of a local adaptation of Electoral College method of the election of a bishop comes from the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia.
Under the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia the basic procedure for providing a diocesan bishop is that the primate convenes and presides over an electoral college or appoints a commissary to do so. The Electoral College consists of any bishop licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and those persons entitled to clergy votes and lay votes in the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod of the diocese concerned. The Electoral College by a majority of clergy votes and a majority of lay votes nominates (elects) a candidate to become the bishop. The primate submits the nomination to each of the bishops in full-time active episcopal ministry in the province and each such bishop informs the primate in writing whether or not that bishop has reason to disapprove the nomination on the ground of doctrine, or of character and manner of life, or of health, or of physical inability to undertake the episcopal ministry for which the nomination has been made. If all the bishops to whom the nomination is submitted inform the primate that they do not disapprove, the primate then proceeds to submit the nomination for the sanction of the General Synod.
If any bishop informs the primate in writing of disapproval, the bishops then consult either by meeting or other means. The bishops may decide by a majority of the bishops that the nomination should be submitted for the sanction of the General Synod or that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination. If the bishops decide that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination, they prepare in writing a statement of the reasons for their decision. The primate reconvenes, or instructs his commissary to reconvene, the Electoral College in order that it may reconsider its nomination. The statement prepared by the bishops is laid before the Electoral College, and the College then proceeds as if no nomination had been made. The candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination, and if that candidate is nominated the primate must submit the nomination for the sanction (confirmation) of the General Synod together with the statement prepared by the bishops and any memorial prepared by or with the authority of the Electoral College. If some other candidate is nominated, the nomination is submitted to the bishops of the province as the previous nomination was.
When the primate submits a nomination for the sanction of the General Synod, he submits it to the General Synod, if in session, or otherwise to every voting member of the General Synod. If the General Synod, if in session, or the members of the General Synod, when not in session, sanction (confirm) the nomination, the primate takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination once the nominee has declared in writing both assent to the Constitution and adherence and submission to the authority of the General Synod and has accepted the nomination.
If a nomination is not sanctioned, or if the nominee does not accept the nomination, that fact is communicated to the commissary presiding over the Electoral College that made the nomination and to the vicar-general (or equivalent) of the diocese concerned. After consultation with the legal counselor or chancellor and standing committee of the diocese, the commissary reconvenes the Electoral College for the purpose of making another nomination, or delegating the nomination. The constitution permits the delegation of the nomination to “a person or persons.” Any candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination unless such previous nomination has not been sanctioned by the General Synod (or by its members when not in session).
In the case of the nomination of the first bishop in a new diocese the Electoral College consists of the clergy licensed to any parish or any other ecclesiastical office within the boundaries of the new diocese, and not less than one lay representative for each parish or ministry or mission unit within the same boundaries elected in such manner as the primate or the commissary appointed by the primate directs.
An Electoral College sitting for the purpose of nominating a bishop to exercise an episcopal ministry within a diocese other than as diocesan bishop consist of the diocesan bishop and any other persons licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and the clerical and lay members of the standing committee of that diocese (by whatever name that standing committee is called) and such other persons being members of the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod as that body has previously chosen or determined from time to time.
3. By a Board of Electors elected by the representative governing body of the judicatory. The Board of Electors method of election of a bishop is a variation of the Electoral College method of election. The following description of a local adaptation of this method comes from the Wangaratta Bishopric Act 1904-1997. Wangaratta is a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia.
In the first session of every diocesan synod a six clergy duly licensed within the diocese and six laypersons being laypersons eligible to be members of the diocesan synod are chosen by ballot by the members of the diocesan synod to be a Board of Electors for the purpose of electing in the event of a vacancy in the see of the diocese the bishop of the diocese. Casual vacancies in the Board are filled in the same manner in the next session of the diocesan synod but if a voidance of the see occurs before the next session of the diocesan synod the remaining members of the Board may fill the vacancy. When the administrator of the diocese receives notification from the bishop of his intention to resign or retire, he may convene the Board. The administrator is the person appointed under the provisions of the Act to administer the diocese the affairs of the diocese during a vacancy in the see of the diocese. The Board does not proceed to the election of a bishop until the see becomes vacant. When a vacancy in the see has occurred, the administrator must convene the Board of Electors if he has not already done so and the Board must with all convenient speed proceed to the election of a bishop of the diocese and on such election having been made must report the result of the election to the administrator.
When an election has been made if effect cannot be given to the election the administrator notifies the Board of Electors and upon being so notified the Board proceeds as in the case of an original election and so on "toties quoties" until a bishop has been elected and installed. The members of the Board have power to decide as to all matters connected with the election but no election is valid unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members of the Board certify in writing to the administrator their assent to the election. In case of a vacancy in the see if any Board of Electors for a period of twelve months fails to elect a bishop and to notify the election to the administrator the Board is "ipso facto" dissolved and a new Board of Electors is constituted in following manner: The administrator with all convenient speed for the purpose of electing another Board of Electors calls a meeting (of which at least one month's notice specifying the objects of the meeting is given) of the persons who at the time of that failure were members of an existing diocesan synod or who if no diocesan synod is then in existence have been members of the last preceding diocesan synod at the time of its dissolution and the administrator is the president of this meeting the business of which is conducted according to the standing orders of the diocesan synod so far as they may be applicable. The administrator in the notice calling the meeting fixes a day for proceeding to the election of a new Board of Electors which election takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the persons elected take the place of the last preceding Board and have and exercise all the powers conferred upon that Board.
Upon an election having been made the administrator takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the election in accordance with the rules for the confirmation and consecration of bishops made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and adopted by the diocesan synod.
The code of canons would be amended to conform to the changes in the constitution. The constitution would require that the primate of the ACNA should be elected by the Provincial General Synod, by a Board of Electors elected by the Provincial General Synod, or an Electoral College consisting of the bishops of the ACNA and clergy and lay electors from each ACNA judicatory. Descriptions of local adaptations of all three methods are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
The procedure for the election of the primate would be delineated in the canons.
These methods of episcopal and primatial election give non-episcopal clergy and laity a substantial role in the election process and preserve basic elements of the synodical form of church government.
Judicatories. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term “judicatory,” it refers to the basic organizational unit of a denomination such as a diocese, conference, or association consisting of a group of churches. No ACNA judicatory would have exclusive jurisdiction over any geographic region of the United States or Canada. Other judicatories would be free to organize within such a region on the basis of territory or theological affinity (that is, shared doctrinal positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues).
The code of canons would clearly delineate the affiliation procedures by which groups of churches are recognized as judicatories of the ACNA. There would be two procedures. The first procedure would be for groups of churches that are already incorporated, have established an organizational structure, have adopted bylaws for the government of their members and the management of their affairs, and meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations, and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches would be required only to make a formal application, submit any necessary documentation, and agree to accede to the constitution and canons of the ACNA in order to be recognized as an autonomous ACNA judicatory. With their recognition the office of bishop of the judicatory would be automatically created and the judicatory would then elect its bishop, using one of three procedures that I have described.
The second procedure would be for groups of churches that are not incorporated, have not established an organizational structure or adopted bylaws, or meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches could apply for recognition as ACNA judicatories in formation. With the approval of their application the office of auxiliary bishop would be created. This auxiliary bishop would be appointed by the archbishop of the ACNA with the approval of the Provincial Executive Council and would oversee a specific group of churches. His role would be similar to that of a missionary bishop except unlike a missionary bishop he would not be responsible for a specific territory. If the specific group of churches was organized on the basis of theological affinity or theological affinity and territory, the auxiliary bishop appointed would be required to be a member of the same theological affinity group as the churches. If the specific group of churches were organized on the basis of territory, the canons would require that the auxiliary bishop be carefully matched with the group of churches that he is overseeing. If a judicatory in formation did, after a reasonable period of time, not met with all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance and a study of local conditions and other factors affecting the growth of the judicatory in formation suggested that it would not be able to meet these requirements if the period of formation was extended, the requirements could be waived and the judicatory in formation recognized as a autonomous judicatory, in which case it would elect its own bishop.
Applicants for recognition as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation and judicatories in formation would have the right to appeal any decisions of the Provincial Executive Council affecting them to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial General Synod would also have power to recognize a group of churches as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation on its own initiation as well as to overrule the decisions of the Provincial Executive Council.
The constitution would require the establishment of a representative governing body for each judicatory of the ACNA. This body by whatever name it is designated would consist of the bishops and licensed clergy of the diocese and elected lay members from each congregation of the diocese and would elect a standing committee from its clerical and lay members to serve as its executive body.
The Provincial General Synod. The constitution would establish as the governing body of the ACNA a Provincial General Synod consisting of a House of Bishops, a House of Clergy, and a House of Laity. The House of Bishops would consist of all the bishops of the ACNA. The House of Clergy would consist of clergy delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would consist of lay delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would have twice as many members as the combined membership of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. When the Provincial General Synod was in session, all three houses would sit together and vote together except where otherwise provided in the canons. All three houses would elect their own officers except that the primate would be the president of the House of Bishops by the virtue of his office.
The Provisional General Synod would have power to make canons and regulations for the ACNA, to amend the constitution of the ACNA, to adopt the budget of the ACNA, to elect the members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and give directives to that body, to appoint committees, boards, and commissions, to conduct hearings and inquiries, to summon witnesses and to require testimony, to censure, suspend, and remove members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and other officials of the ACNA,
The Provincial Executive Council. The Provincial Executive Council would be elected by the Provincial General Synod and would be accountable to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would act as the executive body of the Provincial General Synod and would carryout the work of the Provincial General Synod and the Province between sessions of the Provincial General Synod, subject to the constitution and canons of the ACNA and the regulations and directives of the Provisional General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would exercise such powers and perform such functions as provided by the constitution or determined by the Provincial General Synod by canon.
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments and Canons. For constitutional amendments member judicatories would send a proposed change to the Provincial Executive Council which would circulate the proposal within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed change were adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General 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 General Synod. If the proposed canon were adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General 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, the judicatory or judicatories that submitted the proposed canon would be free to submit it again at the next Provincial General Synod.
In a future article I hope to examine the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' Theological Committee's Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration which is due for release this spring and compare its clarification of the meaning of that theological statement with the doctrine formerly stated and otherwise expressed in the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
The changes to the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) envisioned in the following proposals would “broaden” the provisions of these two documents. They would remove a number of major obstacles to the membership of conservative evangelical Anglicans and conservative evangelical Anglican congregations; the formation of conservative evangelical Anglican dioceses, the ordination and licensing of conservative evangelical Anglican clergy; the teaching of the doctrine, ecclesiology, and liturgical usages of the English Reformers and classical evangelical Anglicanism; and the nomination, election, and consecration of conservative evangelical Anglican bishops in the ACNA. They would also eliminate serious barriers to the participation in the ACNA of orthodox Anglicans who value the North American Anglican heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province; who see no justifiable reason for the ACNA’s abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in diocesan and provincial governance and the episcopal and archiepiscopal nomination and election process; and who greatly feel the loss of this involvement.
The Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations would omit the decidedly partisan doctrinal position that “a godly historical episcopate is an integral part of the apostolic faith and practice…,” a position over which Anglicans have historically been divided. They would commit the ACNA to the preservation of the orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, a position on which Anglicans are in agreement.
Holy Orders. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 1, Section 1:
“The Anglican Church in North America holds and teaches that from the apostles’ time there have been these orders in Christ’s Church: bishops, priests, and deacons; and no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said offices, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to an authorized ordinal of this Church or has had consecration or ordination in some Church whose orders are recognized and accepted by this Church.”
Bishops. The following provisions adapted from the canons of the Church of England would replace Title III, Canon 8, Section 2:
“Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God; it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all people.”
The constitution would require that the bishops of a judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) should be elected by one of the following methods, all of which preserve the ancient custom of a diocese choosing its own bishop:
1. By the representative governing body of the judicatory by whatever name it is designated (e.g., Conference, Convention, Council, House of Delegates, Synod, etc.). A description of two local adaptations of this method of election, that of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Reformed Episcopal Church are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
What follows are several additional examples of local adaptations of that method. They are taken from my research notes for that article. The first example is a description of how the Archbishop of Sidney, a diocese and metropolitan see of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Archbishop of Sydney Appointment Ordinance 1982:
As soon as possible after the date a vacancy occurs in the see of Sydney, the standing committee passes a resolution that the vacancy should be filled. The person who on the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Sydney is entitled to exercising the powers vested in the archbishop summons the members of the synod to a meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy. Any two or more members of the Synod may in advance of this meeting nominate a candidate for the archbishop of the see. To be regarded as a nominee for archbishop of the see a candidate must have one or more nominations signed by at least 20 members of the Synod, have been notified in writing, and has agreed to be a nominee for archbishop of the see. A list of nominations must be sent to all the members of the synod within ten days of the meeting of the synod for the purpose of filling the vacancy. This list of nominations must contain the names of the nominees in alphabetic order with the names of all the members of Synod who have nominated each nominee. At the meeting of the Synod after the nominations have been formally proposed and seconded each member of the Synod is given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee in respect whether his name should be placed on a select list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the synod present, the lay members of the synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the select list. After the select list is compiled, each nominee whose name appears on the select list is formally proposed and seconded. The members of the Synod are given an opportunity to speak for and against each nomination. A motion is then put on each nominee on each nominee in respect whether his name should be put on final list. A vote on each motion is taken simultaneously by a secret ballot in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of either order of the members of the Synod present and voting vote in favour of the motion in respect of a nominee, the name of that nominee is placed on the final list. A series of votes are then taken to reduce the name of nominees on the final list with the nominees in excess of a specific number determined by the canon delineating the election procedure receiving the lowest number of votes after the votes of both orders of the members of the synod being excluded after each vote. The same canon provides for preferential voting when the final list is reduced to two or three. When the final list is reduced to one, a motion is put to the synod that the nominee remain on the final list should be invited to be the archbishop of the see. A vote on the motion by show of hands is then taken in each order of the members of the Synod present, the lay members of the Synod voting first. If a majority of both orders of the members of the Synod then present and voting vote in favour of the motion, the nominee is declared duly elected to the office of Archbishop of Sydney.
The next step is confirmation of the election under the provisions of the Provincial Synod Ordinance for the Confirmation of Bishops’ Elections (N.S.W.) Assenting Ordinance 1965. If the election of the nominee is not confirmed and certified under the provisions of that Ordinance, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the see had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
The second example describes how the Bishop of Willochra, a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, is elected. It comes from the Regulation Two of the Diocese of Willochra, adopted in 1994.
When the see becomes vacant, or three months before the date of the retirement of the bishop, the administrator calls together the bishopric nomination committee which is required to nominate not less than three and not more than four persons to a special session of the diocesan synod to be called within three months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. The bishopric nomination committee consists of the administrator of the diocese together with five clerical and five lay members of the diocesan synod who are elected at the first session of each diocesan synod. There is also be elected three clergy and three lay persons as reserves in the event of any member of the committee being unavailable to serve. Any clergy member whose name is considered for nomination as bishop ceases to be a member of the committee. In the event of the administrator being nominated, the committee elects one of its members to chair the committee. The administrator circularizes all members of the diocesan synod inviting them to make submissions to the nomination committee. A name is not included for nomination to the diocesan synod unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members agree to the nomination. The nomination committee presents to the diocesan synod a statement about each nominee.
The administrator must cause a call of the diocesan synod to be made within three calendar months of the vacancy of the see for the purpose of electing a bishop. During the deliberations of the Election Synod only members and officers are allowed to be present except by special leave of the Synod. Members are prohibited at all times from disclosing any information concerning the proceedings of the Election Synod or the names of the candidates or the details of any ballot. The Synod by a vote of the majority of members present may at any stage in the proceedings under this regulation resolve itself into a committee of the whole and report back to Synod or may from time to time adjourn to a time to be fixed. When the Synod has assembled the administrator announces that a vacancy of the see has occurred. The administrator states the cause of the vacancy and explains the procedure to be followed in filling the vacancy, namely: that Synod is to receive the names submitted to it by the Nomination Committee together with not more than one name submitted by the House of Clergy and not more than one name submitted by the House of Laity. The administrator then informs members of Synod of the nominations being submitted to the Synod by the Nomination Committee. Each House of Synod then meets separately. The House of Clergy is chaired by the administrator and the House of Laity by a lay member of the Synod appointed by the administrator. The business of each House meeting separately is to consider the question "Do we wish to add the name of one person to the list of nominees?" If a majority in either House agree on the name of a person to be added then that name is added to the list of nominees. When both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity have completed the business before them the administrator shall call the Synod together again. The Synod then resolves itself into a committee of the whole for the purpose of discussing the candidature of those who have been nominated. After the discussion Synod resumes and each name is be balloted for individually by the House of Clergy and the House of Laity voting by orders. Every name which fails to obtain one third of the vote of each order is removed from the list. The names remaining on the list are then balloted for each voter recording a vote for one person only. The candidate obtaining two-thirds of the votes of each order is the bishop elect.
If after three ballots as in the preceding paragraph no candidate receives the requisite majority and if one of the candidates has obtained a majority of votes in each house and if the Synod decide in the affirmative it is permissible to move that such candidate be elected Bishop. If this motion is carried by a two thirds majority in each house voting by secret ballot then that person is the bishop elect. If no such motion is agreed to or if no candidate receives the requisite majority then the Synod is adjourned until such time as the Nomination Committee has prepared a further set of nominations for Synod.
If the person elected in accordance with this procedure declines to accept the see the Synod proceeds again under the Regulation.
If the Synod fails on two successive occasions to elect a Bishop it is competent for the Synod either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose to delegate its power and authority to elect a bishop to the primate, conjointly with some other bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia to be named by the Synod. If no such election of a bishop as provided for by the provisions of the Regulation or no appointment of a bishop under any delegated power and authority referred to above is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the vacancy of the see then the appointment of a bishop for this occasion passes to the primate conjointly with the bishops of the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia and is made by them.
The administrator reports to the metropolitan the result of any election or appointment in order to obtain the confirmation required by the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia or by any canon of the General Synod that may at that time be in force and binding on the diocese.
The election or appointment having been made and confirmed the person elected or appointed is, if not already consecrated, consecrated as provided in the canons of General Synod. In every case the bishop must take the oath of canonical obedience to the metropolitan and must make a declaration to be subject to the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the canons and determinations of the General Synod at that time in force and binding on the diocese and the constitution and regulations of the Synod. Any bishop elected must either before consecration or if already consecrated before exercising any episcopal function in the Diocese sign and subscribe to the following declaration:
I, A.B., Bishop elect of the Diocese of Willochra do promise that I will maintain and teach the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Australia and I consent to be bound by all the Constitution and Regulations of Synod now or hereafter in force and I hereby undertake immediately to resign the said Bishopric and all rights and emoluments appertaining thereto if sentence requiring such resignation shall at any time be passed upon me after due examination had by the Tribunal acknowledged by the said Synod for the trial of a Bishop in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia. Given under my hand this.......................day of......................19...
2. By an Electoral College that may consist of all or part of the representative governing body of the judicatory. This example of a local adaptation of Electoral College method of the election of a bishop comes from the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia.
Under the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia the basic procedure for providing a diocesan bishop is that the primate convenes and presides over an electoral college or appoints a commissary to do so. The Electoral College consists of any bishop licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and those persons entitled to clergy votes and lay votes in the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod of the diocese concerned. The Electoral College by a majority of clergy votes and a majority of lay votes nominates (elects) a candidate to become the bishop. The primate submits the nomination to each of the bishops in full-time active episcopal ministry in the province and each such bishop informs the primate in writing whether or not that bishop has reason to disapprove the nomination on the ground of doctrine, or of character and manner of life, or of health, or of physical inability to undertake the episcopal ministry for which the nomination has been made. If all the bishops to whom the nomination is submitted inform the primate that they do not disapprove, the primate then proceeds to submit the nomination for the sanction of the General Synod.
If any bishop informs the primate in writing of disapproval, the bishops then consult either by meeting or other means. The bishops may decide by a majority of the bishops that the nomination should be submitted for the sanction of the General Synod or that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination. If the bishops decide that the Electoral College should reconsider its nomination, they prepare in writing a statement of the reasons for their decision. The primate reconvenes, or instructs his commissary to reconvene, the Electoral College in order that it may reconsider its nomination. The statement prepared by the bishops is laid before the Electoral College, and the College then proceeds as if no nomination had been made. The candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination, and if that candidate is nominated the primate must submit the nomination for the sanction (confirmation) of the General Synod together with the statement prepared by the bishops and any memorial prepared by or with the authority of the Electoral College. If some other candidate is nominated, the nomination is submitted to the bishops of the province as the previous nomination was.
When the primate submits a nomination for the sanction of the General Synod, he submits it to the General Synod, if in session, or otherwise to every voting member of the General Synod. If the General Synod, if in session, or the members of the General Synod, when not in session, sanction (confirm) the nomination, the primate takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination once the nominee has declared in writing both assent to the Constitution and adherence and submission to the authority of the General Synod and has accepted the nomination.
If a nomination is not sanctioned, or if the nominee does not accept the nomination, that fact is communicated to the commissary presiding over the Electoral College that made the nomination and to the vicar-general (or equivalent) of the diocese concerned. After consultation with the legal counselor or chancellor and standing committee of the diocese, the commissary reconvenes the Electoral College for the purpose of making another nomination, or delegating the nomination. The constitution permits the delegation of the nomination to “a person or persons.” Any candidate previously nominated is eligible for nomination unless such previous nomination has not been sanctioned by the General Synod (or by its members when not in session).
In the case of the nomination of the first bishop in a new diocese the Electoral College consists of the clergy licensed to any parish or any other ecclesiastical office within the boundaries of the new diocese, and not less than one lay representative for each parish or ministry or mission unit within the same boundaries elected in such manner as the primate or the commissary appointed by the primate directs.
An Electoral College sitting for the purpose of nominating a bishop to exercise an episcopal ministry within a diocese other than as diocesan bishop consist of the diocesan bishop and any other persons licensed for and exercising episcopal ministry within that diocese and the clerical and lay members of the standing committee of that diocese (by whatever name that standing committee is called) and such other persons being members of the diocesan representative governing body or diocesan synod as that body has previously chosen or determined from time to time.
3. By a Board of Electors elected by the representative governing body of the judicatory. The Board of Electors method of election of a bishop is a variation of the Electoral College method of election. The following description of a local adaptation of this method comes from the Wangaratta Bishopric Act 1904-1997. Wangaratta is a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia.
In the first session of every diocesan synod a six clergy duly licensed within the diocese and six laypersons being laypersons eligible to be members of the diocesan synod are chosen by ballot by the members of the diocesan synod to be a Board of Electors for the purpose of electing in the event of a vacancy in the see of the diocese the bishop of the diocese. Casual vacancies in the Board are filled in the same manner in the next session of the diocesan synod but if a voidance of the see occurs before the next session of the diocesan synod the remaining members of the Board may fill the vacancy. When the administrator of the diocese receives notification from the bishop of his intention to resign or retire, he may convene the Board. The administrator is the person appointed under the provisions of the Act to administer the diocese the affairs of the diocese during a vacancy in the see of the diocese. The Board does not proceed to the election of a bishop until the see becomes vacant. When a vacancy in the see has occurred, the administrator must convene the Board of Electors if he has not already done so and the Board must with all convenient speed proceed to the election of a bishop of the diocese and on such election having been made must report the result of the election to the administrator.
When an election has been made if effect cannot be given to the election the administrator notifies the Board of Electors and upon being so notified the Board proceeds as in the case of an original election and so on "toties quoties" until a bishop has been elected and installed. The members of the Board have power to decide as to all matters connected with the election but no election is valid unless a majority of the clergy and a majority of the lay members of the Board certify in writing to the administrator their assent to the election. In case of a vacancy in the see if any Board of Electors for a period of twelve months fails to elect a bishop and to notify the election to the administrator the Board is "ipso facto" dissolved and a new Board of Electors is constituted in following manner: The administrator with all convenient speed for the purpose of electing another Board of Electors calls a meeting (of which at least one month's notice specifying the objects of the meeting is given) of the persons who at the time of that failure were members of an existing diocesan synod or who if no diocesan synod is then in existence have been members of the last preceding diocesan synod at the time of its dissolution and the administrator is the president of this meeting the business of which is conducted according to the standing orders of the diocesan synod so far as they may be applicable. The administrator in the notice calling the meeting fixes a day for proceeding to the election of a new Board of Electors which election takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the persons elected take the place of the last preceding Board and have and exercise all the powers conferred upon that Board.
Upon an election having been made the administrator takes the necessary steps for giving effect to the election in accordance with the rules for the confirmation and consecration of bishops made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia and adopted by the diocesan synod.
The code of canons would be amended to conform to the changes in the constitution. The constitution would require that the primate of the ACNA should be elected by the Provincial General Synod, by a Board of Electors elected by the Provincial General Synod, or an Electoral College consisting of the bishops of the ACNA and clergy and lay electors from each ACNA judicatory. Descriptions of local adaptations of all three methods are found in my previous article, “The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America,” which is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/episcopate-in-anglican-church-in-north.html
The procedure for the election of the primate would be delineated in the canons.
These methods of episcopal and primatial election give non-episcopal clergy and laity a substantial role in the election process and preserve basic elements of the synodical form of church government.
Judicatories. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term “judicatory,” it refers to the basic organizational unit of a denomination such as a diocese, conference, or association consisting of a group of churches. No ACNA judicatory would have exclusive jurisdiction over any geographic region of the United States or Canada. Other judicatories would be free to organize within such a region on the basis of territory or theological affinity (that is, shared doctrinal positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues).
The code of canons would clearly delineate the affiliation procedures by which groups of churches are recognized as judicatories of the ACNA. There would be two procedures. The first procedure would be for groups of churches that are already incorporated, have established an organizational structure, have adopted bylaws for the government of their members and the management of their affairs, and meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations, and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches would be required only to make a formal application, submit any necessary documentation, and agree to accede to the constitution and canons of the ACNA in order to be recognized as an autonomous ACNA judicatory. With their recognition the office of bishop of the judicatory would be automatically created and the judicatory would then elect its bishop, using one of three procedures that I have described.
The second procedure would be for groups of churches that are not incorporated, have not established an organizational structure or adopted bylaws, or meet all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance. These groups of churches could apply for recognition as ACNA judicatories in formation. With the approval of their application the office of auxiliary bishop would be created. This auxiliary bishop would be appointed by the archbishop of the ACNA with the approval of the Provincial Executive Council and would oversee a specific group of churches. His role would be similar to that of a missionary bishop except unlike a missionary bishop he would not be responsible for a specific territory. If the specific group of churches was organized on the basis of theological affinity or theological affinity and territory, the auxiliary bishop appointed would be required to be a member of the same theological affinity group as the churches. If the specific group of churches were organized on the basis of territory, the canons would require that the auxiliary bishop be carefully matched with the group of churches that he is overseeing. If a judicatory in formation did, after a reasonable period of time, not met with all the canonical requirements for minimum number of clergy and congregations and minimum number of members or average weekly attendance and a study of local conditions and other factors affecting the growth of the judicatory in formation suggested that it would not be able to meet these requirements if the period of formation was extended, the requirements could be waived and the judicatory in formation recognized as a autonomous judicatory, in which case it would elect its own bishop.
Applicants for recognition as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation and judicatories in formation would have the right to appeal any decisions of the Provincial Executive Council affecting them to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial General Synod would also have power to recognize a group of churches as an autonomous judicatory or judicatory in formation on its own initiation as well as to overrule the decisions of the Provincial Executive Council.
The constitution would require the establishment of a representative governing body for each judicatory of the ACNA. This body by whatever name it is designated would consist of the bishops and licensed clergy of the diocese and elected lay members from each congregation of the diocese and would elect a standing committee from its clerical and lay members to serve as its executive body.
The Provincial General Synod. The constitution would establish as the governing body of the ACNA a Provincial General Synod consisting of a House of Bishops, a House of Clergy, and a House of Laity. The House of Bishops would consist of all the bishops of the ACNA. The House of Clergy would consist of clergy delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would consist of lay delegates elected by each autonomous judicatory and each judicatory in formation. The House of Laity would have twice as many members as the combined membership of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. When the Provincial General Synod was in session, all three houses would sit together and vote together except where otherwise provided in the canons. All three houses would elect their own officers except that the primate would be the president of the House of Bishops by the virtue of his office.
The Provisional General Synod would have power to make canons and regulations for the ACNA, to amend the constitution of the ACNA, to adopt the budget of the ACNA, to elect the members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and give directives to that body, to appoint committees, boards, and commissions, to conduct hearings and inquiries, to summon witnesses and to require testimony, to censure, suspend, and remove members and officers of the Provincial Executive Council and other officials of the ACNA,
The Provincial Executive Council. The Provincial Executive Council would be elected by the Provincial General Synod and would be accountable to the Provincial General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would act as the executive body of the Provincial General Synod and would carryout the work of the Provincial General Synod and the Province between sessions of the Provincial General Synod, subject to the constitution and canons of the ACNA and the regulations and directives of the Provisional General Synod. The Provincial Executive Council would exercise such powers and perform such functions as provided by the constitution or determined by the Provincial General Synod by canon.
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments and Canons. For constitutional amendments member judicatories would send a proposed change to the Provincial Executive Council which would circulate the proposal within the judicatories not less than 90 days before the next meeting of the Provincial General Synod. If the proposed change were adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General 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 General Synod. If the proposed canon were adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the Provincial General 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, the judicatory or judicatories that submitted the proposed canon would be free to submit it again at the next Provincial General Synod.
In a future article I hope to examine the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' Theological Committee's Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration which is due for release this spring and compare its clarification of the meaning of that theological statement with the doctrine formerly stated and otherwise expressed in the constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
Film Warns of Rising 'Homegrown Jihad' Threat in U.S.
http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/General/2009/05/film-warns-of-rising-homegrown-jihad-threat-in-u-s-15/index.html
[The Christian Post] 16 May 2009--The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms.
It infiltrates the highest echelon of American education; recruits the social rejects in U.S. prisons; and teaches American Muslim children to hate infidels, warns a new documentary that features a devout Muslim American, a former terrorist, and some of the nation’s top national security experts.
“This is not a film about Islam,” clarifies the documentary "The Third Jihad" at the onset of the film. “It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them.”
Over the course of 72-minutes, the film pulls together TV footage aired on Islamic broadcasting stations, secret documents that shows U.S. Muslim groups’ connection to terror organizations, and interviews with former CIA, FBI analysts and radical Islam experts to introduce the concept of “cultural jihad” – a new jihad method that uses the laws and rights of a society to undermine the freedoms it offers and to overthrow its social system.
[The Christian Post] 16 May 2009--The face of radical Islam is no longer limited to gun-toting, bomb-strapping, plane-hijacking terrorists. Now it takes on more subtle forms.
It infiltrates the highest echelon of American education; recruits the social rejects in U.S. prisons; and teaches American Muslim children to hate infidels, warns a new documentary that features a devout Muslim American, a former terrorist, and some of the nation’s top national security experts.
“This is not a film about Islam,” clarifies the documentary "The Third Jihad" at the onset of the film. “It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them.”
Over the course of 72-minutes, the film pulls together TV footage aired on Islamic broadcasting stations, secret documents that shows U.S. Muslim groups’ connection to terror organizations, and interviews with former CIA, FBI analysts and radical Islam experts to introduce the concept of “cultural jihad” – a new jihad method that uses the laws and rights of a society to undermine the freedoms it offers and to overthrow its social system.
Parishes and New Westminster mediation unsuccessful
[Anglican Network in Canada] 16 May 2009--After one and a half days of mediation with Chief Justice Donald Brenner acting as the mediator,the Diocese of New Westminster and four Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) parishes – St. John’s (Shaughnessy), St. Matthias and St. Luke, and Church of the Good Shepherd in Vancouver, and St. Matthews in Abbotsford – failed to reach an agreement. The dispute over church properties will now proceed to trial in the BC Supreme Court commencing May 25.
On January 6, 2009, the parties appeared before Chief Justice Brenner requesting an expedited
trial process and permission was granted. To reduce the time for trial and pre-trial procedures,
they agreed to exchange most of their evidence by affidavits and cross-examine a number of
witnesses before the trial. The trial begins May 25 and is set for three weeks.
Earlier this year, the ANiC parishes served a “Notice to Mediate” on the Diocese of New
Westminster. The mediation was scheduled for two full days (May 14 and 15) but by noon today,
an impasse was reached.
“We are very disappointed a settlement could not be reached”, said Cheryl Chang, Chancellor of
ANiC. “We were really hoping we could achieve a peaceful, mutually beneficial resolution of the
matters in dispute.”
This dispute arises from the current divide in the global Anglican Communion over profound
theological differences. The Anglican Church of Canada’s (ACoC) Primates’ Theological
Commission, in its recent “Galilee Report” acknowledged the division among the ACoC’s own
theologians, reflecting the division in the broader Anglican Church. The report said, “We are not of one mind among ourselves”. Similarly, the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council – one of the “Instruments of Unity” in the global Anglican Communion – demonstrated the depth of the division.
In light of this division in Anglicanism, the court will determine who the proper beneficiaries are of the trust over the church property of these four parishes – the diocese or the congregations which bought, paid for, renovated and maintained their church buildings, and who wish to continue upholding established Anglican teaching along with the majority of global Anglicans.
Additional background information is available here.
Today, ANiC numbers 29 parishes, three bishops, 73 priests and deacons and 3500 Canadians in
church on an average Sunday. Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to
remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that
orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their Anglican brothers
and sisters around the world.
On January 6, 2009, the parties appeared before Chief Justice Brenner requesting an expedited
trial process and permission was granted. To reduce the time for trial and pre-trial procedures,
they agreed to exchange most of their evidence by affidavits and cross-examine a number of
witnesses before the trial. The trial begins May 25 and is set for three weeks.
Earlier this year, the ANiC parishes served a “Notice to Mediate” on the Diocese of New
Westminster. The mediation was scheduled for two full days (May 14 and 15) but by noon today,
an impasse was reached.
“We are very disappointed a settlement could not be reached”, said Cheryl Chang, Chancellor of
ANiC. “We were really hoping we could achieve a peaceful, mutually beneficial resolution of the
matters in dispute.”
This dispute arises from the current divide in the global Anglican Communion over profound
theological differences. The Anglican Church of Canada’s (ACoC) Primates’ Theological
Commission, in its recent “Galilee Report” acknowledged the division among the ACoC’s own
theologians, reflecting the division in the broader Anglican Church. The report said, “We are not of one mind among ourselves”. Similarly, the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council – one of the “Instruments of Unity” in the global Anglican Communion – demonstrated the depth of the division.
In light of this division in Anglicanism, the court will determine who the proper beneficiaries are of the trust over the church property of these four parishes – the diocese or the congregations which bought, paid for, renovated and maintained their church buildings, and who wish to continue upholding established Anglican teaching along with the majority of global Anglicans.
Additional background information is available here.
Today, ANiC numbers 29 parishes, three bishops, 73 priests and deacons and 3500 Canadians in
church on an average Sunday. Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are committed to
remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that
orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their Anglican brothers
and sisters around the world.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Chaos as ACC battle on Covenant Plan
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10667#more-10667
[Anglican Mainstream] 15 May 2009--The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the Covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting.
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the Covenant debate confused some delegates, and resulted in the adoption of a compromise resolution that holds off acceptance of the Covenant until a new committee reviews and revises the disciplinary provisions in section 4 of the agreement —- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.
Questions of perfidy and incompetence were lodged against Dr Williams by conservative members of the ACC in inter views with The Church of England Newspaper immediately following the vote. But the anger with Dr Williams’ performance softened to exasperation by the following day for some conservative delegates to the May 2-12 meeting.
Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams having endorsed the Covenant at the start of the debate, and then apparently reversing himself and backing the call for delay by the end of the session.
Originally published in The Church of England Newspaper.
[Anglican Mainstream] 15 May 2009--The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the Covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting.
However the defeat appears self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the Covenant debate confused some delegates, and resulted in the adoption of a compromise resolution that holds off acceptance of the Covenant until a new committee reviews and revises the disciplinary provisions in section 4 of the agreement —- a process ACC secretary general Canon Kenneth Kearon said could take up to a year.
Questions of perfidy and incompetence were lodged against Dr Williams by conservative members of the ACC in inter views with The Church of England Newspaper immediately following the vote. But the anger with Dr Williams’ performance softened to exasperation by the following day for some conservative delegates to the May 2-12 meeting.
Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams having endorsed the Covenant at the start of the debate, and then apparently reversing himself and backing the call for delay by the end of the session.
Originally published in The Church of England Newspaper.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Wisdom of the Cross: Some reflections on ACC-14 and the Anglican Covenant
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=422
[Anglican Communion Institute] 14 May 2009--A number of persons from around the Communion have asked me for my perspective on the recent ACC meeting’s treatment of the proposed Anglican Covenant. There are at least two reasons, I suppose, why my opinion might be solicited. First, I have been a member of the Covenant Design Group that, over the past two and half years has worked at the drafting of this document. Obviously, I have a particular stake in what happens to the work we have spent over 30 full days in prayer, study, and labor producing. But second, I have long argued that doctrinally traditional Anglicans like myself should both be engaged in the Covenant’s promise and articulation but also willing to maintain that engagement from a posture of continued communion within and among our divided member churches. There are many who now wonder whether the outcome to the ACC meeting undercuts that argument.
[Anglican Communion Institute] 14 May 2009--A number of persons from around the Communion have asked me for my perspective on the recent ACC meeting’s treatment of the proposed Anglican Covenant. There are at least two reasons, I suppose, why my opinion might be solicited. First, I have been a member of the Covenant Design Group that, over the past two and half years has worked at the drafting of this document. Obviously, I have a particular stake in what happens to the work we have spent over 30 full days in prayer, study, and labor producing. But second, I have long argued that doctrinally traditional Anglicans like myself should both be engaged in the Covenant’s promise and articulation but also willing to maintain that engagement from a posture of continued communion within and among our divided member churches. There are many who now wonder whether the outcome to the ACC meeting undercuts that argument.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Report from ACC-14 Day Seven: No Fourth Moratorium and No Covenant
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10307
[Anglican Mainstream] 9 May 2009--What happened today with the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Continuation Group(WCG) Report?
I have just spent all day observing ACC-14’s decisionmaking plenary sessions here in Kingston, Jamaica. I would like to offer several observations:
The failure to pass a "fourth moratorium" on litigation
As we reported two days ago, the Anglican Communion Office, speaking through Bishop Gregory Cameron, could not explain why the moritorium on litigtion, unanimously voiced by the Primates at the Dar es Salaam meeting, was not included among the Communion Moratoria in the WCG draft resolution. In fact, the WCG report to the Archbishop of Canterbury included the fourth moratorium in paragraph 4, and noted that the current failure to observe this moratorium was exacerbating the "interventions" in North America.
When a resolution to add this fourth moratorium was moved today, the Presiding Bishop of TEC rose to complain, among other things, that such a moratorium would enable congregations leaving TEC to "alienate their property."
As usual, nothing could be further from the truth. The key principles set out in the appendix to the Dar es Salaam Statement required both parties "to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from the Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny use of that property to those congregations." (WCG Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury at paragraph 34, footnote 11, page 7). It is exactly the kind of "standstill" begged for by +Rowan Williams in his presentation of the WCG Recommendations, where he called all parties to take a step back from what they are doing - that we owe it to the Lord of our Church to do so.
Dr Williams has read the report. He presented its recommendations to the ACC-14. He was present at DES and read that Statement too. Yet he allowed the misrepresentation of the Presiding Bishop to stand, without comment.
[Anglican Mainstream] 9 May 2009--What happened today with the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Continuation Group(WCG) Report?
I have just spent all day observing ACC-14’s decisionmaking plenary sessions here in Kingston, Jamaica. I would like to offer several observations:
The failure to pass a "fourth moratorium" on litigation
As we reported two days ago, the Anglican Communion Office, speaking through Bishop Gregory Cameron, could not explain why the moritorium on litigtion, unanimously voiced by the Primates at the Dar es Salaam meeting, was not included among the Communion Moratoria in the WCG draft resolution. In fact, the WCG report to the Archbishop of Canterbury included the fourth moratorium in paragraph 4, and noted that the current failure to observe this moratorium was exacerbating the "interventions" in North America.
When a resolution to add this fourth moratorium was moved today, the Presiding Bishop of TEC rose to complain, among other things, that such a moratorium would enable congregations leaving TEC to "alienate their property."
As usual, nothing could be further from the truth. The key principles set out in the appendix to the Dar es Salaam Statement required both parties "to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from the Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny use of that property to those congregations." (WCG Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury at paragraph 34, footnote 11, page 7). It is exactly the kind of "standstill" begged for by +Rowan Williams in his presentation of the WCG Recommendations, where he called all parties to take a step back from what they are doing - that we owe it to the Lord of our Church to do so.
Dr Williams has read the report. He presented its recommendations to the ACC-14. He was present at DES and read that Statement too. Yet he allowed the misrepresentation of the Presiding Bishop to stand, without comment.
The Anglican Covenant: Where Do We Go from Here?
http://www.stephenswitness.com/2009/05/anglican-communion-covenant-where-do-we.html
[Stephen's Witness] 9 May 2009--Thanks to the marvels of global communications, I was able to follow the so-called deliberations, a.k.a., manipulations, of the final session of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica. As part of the flood of commentary following this “historic” session in the afternoon of 8 May 2009, I offer here a few initial reflections.
The Hope of the Ridley Cambridge Draft
As close observers of the Anglican scene may know, I have been a supporter of the idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant since it was raised as a part of the solution of the crisis in Anglicanism caused by the brazen violation by the Episcopal Church USA of biblical, traditional and ecclesiastical norms (especially Lambeth Resolution 1.10). I offered critiques of the early drafts produced by the Covenant Drafting Group, and finally an “Appreciation of the Ridley Cambridge Draft” (RCD). All of these essays can be found at http://www.stephenswitness.com/.
Here is the quick summary of my qualified appreciation (two cheers!) of RCD....
[Stephen's Witness] 9 May 2009--Thanks to the marvels of global communications, I was able to follow the so-called deliberations, a.k.a., manipulations, of the final session of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica. As part of the flood of commentary following this “historic” session in the afternoon of 8 May 2009, I offer here a few initial reflections.
The Hope of the Ridley Cambridge Draft
As close observers of the Anglican scene may know, I have been a supporter of the idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant since it was raised as a part of the solution of the crisis in Anglicanism caused by the brazen violation by the Episcopal Church USA of biblical, traditional and ecclesiastical norms (especially Lambeth Resolution 1.10). I offered critiques of the early drafts produced by the Covenant Drafting Group, and finally an “Appreciation of the Ridley Cambridge Draft” (RCD). All of these essays can be found at http://www.stephenswitness.com/.
Here is the quick summary of my qualified appreciation (two cheers!) of RCD....
Apostacy and deception: Statement on ACC-14 from the Anglican Church League
http://acl.asn.au/apostacy-and-deception/
[Anglican Church League] 9 May 2009--The reports from the 14th Anglican Consultative Council meeting being held in Jamaica make for depressing reading. ‘Assume incompetence rather than malevolence’, the old saying goes. That is becoming harder and harder to do, even for the optimists amongst us.
The intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury at crucial points to serve the interests of TEC and its presiding bishop and to thwart the attempts to bring real accountability to bear on those who have abandoned the teaching of Scripture and are pursuing the property of faithful Anglicans through the courts, undermines any suggestion that he is providing genuine leadership at this crucial time. The activities of other officials from the Anglican Communion Office were even more openly serving the revisionist agenda.
We have once again been shown how firmly apostasy and deception is embedded in the international structures of Anglicanism. There is no hope for the future there. Generous-hearted faithful Anglicans have been willing to keep trying for a resolution through those structures and once again they have been betrayed at the highest level. The goodwill of faithful men and women has been presumed upon and taken as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve. We need to pray for those who have been so seriously disillusioned this week.
[Anglican Church League] 9 May 2009--The reports from the 14th Anglican Consultative Council meeting being held in Jamaica make for depressing reading. ‘Assume incompetence rather than malevolence’, the old saying goes. That is becoming harder and harder to do, even for the optimists amongst us.
The intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury at crucial points to serve the interests of TEC and its presiding bishop and to thwart the attempts to bring real accountability to bear on those who have abandoned the teaching of Scripture and are pursuing the property of faithful Anglicans through the courts, undermines any suggestion that he is providing genuine leadership at this crucial time. The activities of other officials from the Anglican Communion Office were even more openly serving the revisionist agenda.
We have once again been shown how firmly apostasy and deception is embedded in the international structures of Anglicanism. There is no hope for the future there. Generous-hearted faithful Anglicans have been willing to keep trying for a resolution through those structures and once again they have been betrayed at the highest level. The goodwill of faithful men and women has been presumed upon and taken as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve. We need to pray for those who have been so seriously disillusioned this week.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Where Does the ACNA Really Stand on GAFCON?
By Robin G. Jordan
In the provisional constitution of the Anglican Church in North America that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted on 5 December 2008 the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were listed with the seven points from the Common Cause Theological Statement as one of the eight "elements" of the "Anglican Way," or the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy. In the revised ACNA constitution that the Provincial Council adopted on 25 April 2009 and commends to the ACNA dioceses for ratification in June the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration have been removed from Article I and placed in the Preface. While the revised constitution "affirms" the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, it no longer classifies them as an "element" of the "Anglican Way," a component part of the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy.
When the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations in Article I are compared with the points of the Jerusalem Declaration, the first thing one notices is that the Fundamental Declarations uses markedly different language on a number of key issues that the Jerusalem Declaration addresses. The difference in language points to a difference of position on these issues. Point 3 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ." Point 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders." Point 5 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures." Point 3 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Point 6 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship." Point 6 of the Jerusalem Declaration state, "We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture." Point 7 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571 (originally 1562), taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." Point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."
What then does the revised constitution means when it states, "we affirm…the Jerusalem Declaration"? According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "affirm" means to "state as fact, aver (thing, thing to be so, that). "Aver" means to "assert, affirm." "Assert" means to "declare, state (that thing is, thing to be)." According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "affirm" means to "validate, confirm; state positively; to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed; to express dedication to." It also means to "to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath; to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court." "Confirm" means to "to give approval to: ratify; to give new assurance of the validity of: remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact."
If the revised constitution is indeed stating the Jerusalem Declaration to be fact, asserting it to be valid, ratifying it, why then does it retain the Fundamental Declarations that differ on a number of key issues with the Jerusalem Declaration? Is the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration included in the revised constitution as a matter of political expediency? The ACNA leadership needs the recognition of the GAFCON Primates for their own reasons but they do not subscribe to all the points of the Jerusalem Declaration. For the ACNA leadership the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations are more authoritative than the Jerusalem Declaration. The removal of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I and the retention of the seven points of the Common Cause Theological Statement are open to this interpretation. It certainly raises questions regarding the commitment of the ACNA to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.
The Fundamental Declarations in Article I are silent on a number of key issues addressed in the Jerusalem Declaration—salvation by grace through faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, "the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the atonement, the sanctity of marriage, the Great Commission, the stewardship of creation, recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us;" and Christ’s second coming. The Jerusalem Declaration solemnly declares the tenets of orthodoxy that are articulated in its fourteen points underpin Anglican identity. Article III of the revised constitution does identify the mission of the ACNA with the Great Commission and the revised code of canons does contain a statement on the sanctity of marriage. The revised canons, however, take a different position than the Jerusalem Declaration on several issues. These issues include recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," and working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us." They require adherence to the doctrinal positions stated in the Fundamental Declarations and developed in the revised canons. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part I," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/04/anglican-church-in-north-america.html )
From the perspective of conservative evangelical Anglicans in and outside of North America who support GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the establishment of a new province in North America, the emerging Anglican Church in North America is starting to resemble a cuckoo chick. The cuckoo is a migratory bird that deposits its eggs in hedge-sparrow’s and other nests. The cuckoo chick, when it hatches, aggressively demands the attention of the mother bird in whose nest its egg was deposited. The hedge-sparrow or other bird is unable to distinguish the cuckoo chick from one of its own hatchlings and tends to its needs. While the mother bird is away from the nest, the cuckoo chick pushes the other hatchlings and any unhatched eggs out of the nest. There is an element in the ACNA that is assiduously courting the recognition and support of GAFCON. At the same time there is also an element in the ACNA that is moving the ACNA in a direction that, if it is not counter to the direction of GAFCON, is not entirely harmonious with that direction. This element does not recognize the orthodoxy of conservative evangelical Anglicans and classical evangelical Anglicanism and has strongly influenced the doctrinal content of the revised constitution and code of canons.
The ACNA is limited in its orientation not only in the sphere of doctrine but also in the sphere of governance and modes of episcopal and archiepiscopal election. It has nothing to offer orthodox North American Anglicans who value their heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels and the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. It shows a determination to abandon centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part II," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/anglican-church-in-north-america.html ) Due to its lack of sufficient breadth in these areas as well as the evident disharmony between the provisions of its revised constitution and code of canons and the Jerusalem Declaration, the ACNA is at the present time a poor candidate for recognition as a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. This state of affairs, however, can be easily rectified by the well thought out modification of the ACNA constitution and canons. In my next article I examine how the ACNA can broaden its orientation in the spheres of doctrine, governance and mode of episcopal and archiepiscopal election and close the gap between the provisions of its revised constitution and canons and the Jerusalem Declaration.
In the provisional constitution of the Anglican Church in North America that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted on 5 December 2008 the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were listed with the seven points from the Common Cause Theological Statement as one of the eight "elements" of the "Anglican Way," or the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy. In the revised ACNA constitution that the Provincial Council adopted on 25 April 2009 and commends to the ACNA dioceses for ratification in June the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration have been removed from Article I and placed in the Preface. While the revised constitution "affirms" the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, it no longer classifies them as an "element" of the "Anglican Way," a component part of the ACNA definition of Anglican orthodoxy.
When the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations in Article I are compared with the points of the Jerusalem Declaration, the first thing one notices is that the Fundamental Declarations uses markedly different language on a number of key issues that the Jerusalem Declaration addresses. The difference in language points to a difference of position on these issues. Point 3 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ." Point 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders." Point 5 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures." Point 3 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Point 6 of the Fundamental Declarations state, "We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship." Point 6 of the Jerusalem Declaration state, "We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture." Point 7 of the Fundamental Declarations states, "We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571 (originally 1562), taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief." Point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration states, "We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."
What then does the revised constitution means when it states, "we affirm…the Jerusalem Declaration"? According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "affirm" means to "state as fact, aver (thing, thing to be so, that). "Aver" means to "assert, affirm." "Assert" means to "declare, state (that thing is, thing to be)." According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "affirm" means to "validate, confirm; state positively; to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed; to express dedication to." It also means to "to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath; to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court." "Confirm" means to "to give approval to: ratify; to give new assurance of the validity of: remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact."
If the revised constitution is indeed stating the Jerusalem Declaration to be fact, asserting it to be valid, ratifying it, why then does it retain the Fundamental Declarations that differ on a number of key issues with the Jerusalem Declaration? Is the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration included in the revised constitution as a matter of political expediency? The ACNA leadership needs the recognition of the GAFCON Primates for their own reasons but they do not subscribe to all the points of the Jerusalem Declaration. For the ACNA leadership the seven remaining points of the Fundamental Declarations are more authoritative than the Jerusalem Declaration. The removal of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I and the retention of the seven points of the Common Cause Theological Statement are open to this interpretation. It certainly raises questions regarding the commitment of the ACNA to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.
The Fundamental Declarations in Article I are silent on a number of key issues addressed in the Jerusalem Declaration—salvation by grace through faith, the perspicuity of Scripture, "the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the atonement, the sanctity of marriage, the Great Commission, the stewardship of creation, recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us;" and Christ’s second coming. The Jerusalem Declaration solemnly declares the tenets of orthodoxy that are articulated in its fourteen points underpin Anglican identity. Article III of the revised constitution does identify the mission of the ACNA with the Great Commission and the revised code of canons does contain a statement on the sanctity of marriage. The revised canons, however, take a different position than the Jerusalem Declaration on several issues. These issues include recognition of "the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice," "freedom in secondary matters," and working together "to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us." They require adherence to the doctrinal positions stated in the Fundamental Declarations and developed in the revised canons. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part I," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/04/anglican-church-in-north-america.html )
From the perspective of conservative evangelical Anglicans in and outside of North America who support GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the establishment of a new province in North America, the emerging Anglican Church in North America is starting to resemble a cuckoo chick. The cuckoo is a migratory bird that deposits its eggs in hedge-sparrow’s and other nests. The cuckoo chick, when it hatches, aggressively demands the attention of the mother bird in whose nest its egg was deposited. The hedge-sparrow or other bird is unable to distinguish the cuckoo chick from one of its own hatchlings and tends to its needs. While the mother bird is away from the nest, the cuckoo chick pushes the other hatchlings and any unhatched eggs out of the nest. There is an element in the ACNA that is assiduously courting the recognition and support of GAFCON. At the same time there is also an element in the ACNA that is moving the ACNA in a direction that, if it is not counter to the direction of GAFCON, is not entirely harmonious with that direction. This element does not recognize the orthodoxy of conservative evangelical Anglicans and classical evangelical Anglicanism and has strongly influenced the doctrinal content of the revised constitution and code of canons.
The ACNA is limited in its orientation not only in the sphere of doctrine but also in the sphere of governance and modes of episcopal and archiepiscopal election. It has nothing to offer orthodox North American Anglicans who value their heritage of synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels and the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. It shows a determination to abandon centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. (See my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part II," on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/anglican-church-in-north-america.html ) Due to its lack of sufficient breadth in these areas as well as the evident disharmony between the provisions of its revised constitution and code of canons and the Jerusalem Declaration, the ACNA is at the present time a poor candidate for recognition as a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. This state of affairs, however, can be easily rectified by the well thought out modification of the ACNA constitution and canons. In my next article I examine how the ACNA can broaden its orientation in the spheres of doctrine, governance and mode of episcopal and archiepiscopal election and close the gap between the provisions of its revised constitution and canons and the Jerusalem Declaration.
Anti-Christian Violence Reported in 3 Indian States
http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/Persecution/2009/05/anti-christian-violence-reported-in-3-indian-states-07/index.html
[The Christian Post] 8 May 2009--Two incidents of assault and one incident of vandalism against Christians and their properties were reported from three Indian states on Wednesday.
According to the Evangelical Fellowship of India, about 30 extremists from a Hindu group attacked a Christian meeting, injuring 10 believers and a five-year-old girl in Mumbai.
The attackers, reportedly from the Swami Narendra Maharaj Sansthan, forcefully entered the prayer meeting at Damodar Hall in Nallasopara (East), and attacked the pastor, children and women. There were over 200 Christians attending the meeting organized by Vasai Taluka Christian Pastors Association.
"After closing the doors and windows of the hall on all sides, the hardline Hindus forced Christians to chant 'Jai Shri Ram' and started beating the believers when they refused to recite the Hindu devotional," reported an EFI correspondent.
"Pastor James Samuel received hospital treatment and had five stitches to his head while about 10 others including a five-year-old child were left with bruises."
The incident led to the arrest of five Hindu extremists who have been charged for rioting.
[The Christian Post] 8 May 2009--Two incidents of assault and one incident of vandalism against Christians and their properties were reported from three Indian states on Wednesday.
According to the Evangelical Fellowship of India, about 30 extremists from a Hindu group attacked a Christian meeting, injuring 10 believers and a five-year-old girl in Mumbai.
The attackers, reportedly from the Swami Narendra Maharaj Sansthan, forcefully entered the prayer meeting at Damodar Hall in Nallasopara (East), and attacked the pastor, children and women. There were over 200 Christians attending the meeting organized by Vasai Taluka Christian Pastors Association.
"After closing the doors and windows of the hall on all sides, the hardline Hindus forced Christians to chant 'Jai Shri Ram' and started beating the believers when they refused to recite the Hindu devotional," reported an EFI correspondent.
"Pastor James Samuel received hospital treatment and had five stitches to his head while about 10 others including a five-year-old child were left with bruises."
The incident led to the arrest of five Hindu extremists who have been charged for rioting.
Setback for Third Province movement in San Jaoquin ruling
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4391
[Religious Intelligence] 8 May 2009--The third province movement in the United States may have received a severe setback this week after a California court issued a tentative ruling holding that dioceses are creatures of the national Episcopal Church and may not secede.
On May 4, Judge Adolfo Corona of the Fresno Superior Court issued a preliminary opinion, stating that he would likely issue a summary judgment on behalf of the Episcopal Church against Bishop John-David Schofield and the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
As a matter of law and fact the judge argued, the Episcopal Church was a “hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church.”
“In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments,” he said. Under this principal, a parish is a subunit of a diocese, which is itself a subunit of the national Episcopal Church, the Judge Corona reasoned.
[Religious Intelligence] 8 May 2009--The third province movement in the United States may have received a severe setback this week after a California court issued a tentative ruling holding that dioceses are creatures of the national Episcopal Church and may not secede.
On May 4, Judge Adolfo Corona of the Fresno Superior Court issued a preliminary opinion, stating that he would likely issue a summary judgment on behalf of the Episcopal Church against Bishop John-David Schofield and the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
As a matter of law and fact the judge argued, the Episcopal Church was a “hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church.”
“In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments,” he said. Under this principal, a parish is a subunit of a diocese, which is itself a subunit of the national Episcopal Church, the Judge Corona reasoned.
A review of Speechless: Silencing the Christians. By Donald Wildman
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/05/08/a-review-of-speechless-silencing-the-christians-by-donald-wildman/
[Culture Watch] 8 May 2009--The many freedoms and benefits of Western civilisation are in large measure due to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Yet throughout the West, Christianity is increasingly coming under attack. Religious freedom in general and Christianity in particular are both under direct assault as the West moves in a leftwards and secular direction.
Donald Wildman, who has for decades championed pro-faith and pro-family causes, here documents the relentless war being waged against biblical Christianity. He provides numerous examples of how Christians in North America are being targeted by secular activists.
All these cases of anti-Christian bigotry and intimidation make for very sobering reading. One wonders how it is that a nation like the US has so quickly become a land where Christians are being bullied into silence, and where activist minority groups are turning the values and beliefs of a once great nation upside down.
[Culture Watch] 8 May 2009--The many freedoms and benefits of Western civilisation are in large measure due to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Yet throughout the West, Christianity is increasingly coming under attack. Religious freedom in general and Christianity in particular are both under direct assault as the West moves in a leftwards and secular direction.
Donald Wildman, who has for decades championed pro-faith and pro-family causes, here documents the relentless war being waged against biblical Christianity. He provides numerous examples of how Christians in North America are being targeted by secular activists.
All these cases of anti-Christian bigotry and intimidation make for very sobering reading. One wonders how it is that a nation like the US has so quickly become a land where Christians are being bullied into silence, and where activist minority groups are turning the values and beliefs of a once great nation upside down.
Western Louisiana Backs Bishop on Church Polity
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/5/7/western-louisiana-backs-bishop-on-church-polity
[The Living Church] 8 May 2009--The standing committee of the Diocese of Western Louisiana voted unanimously May 6 to approve a statement that affirms the integrity of diocesan governance in The Episcopal Church.
“As a diocesan standing committee, we acknowledge and desire to be a diocese in full communion with the wider Anglican Communion and the See of Canterbury,” the statement reads in part. “As a diocese we oppose any actions by General Convention that would mandate financial assessments from dioceses to the General Convention budget, or exercise control of trust interests on diocesan or congregational assets.”
The statement is intended to demonstrate the standing committee’s support for its diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, who is one of 11 diocesan bishops who recently endorsed a statement of concern that the polity of the The Episcopal Church as a “voluntary association of equal dioceses” was in grave peril because of uncanonical actions by the Presiding Bishop and her appointed staff.
[The Living Church] 8 May 2009--The standing committee of the Diocese of Western Louisiana voted unanimously May 6 to approve a statement that affirms the integrity of diocesan governance in The Episcopal Church.
“As a diocesan standing committee, we acknowledge and desire to be a diocese in full communion with the wider Anglican Communion and the See of Canterbury,” the statement reads in part. “As a diocese we oppose any actions by General Convention that would mandate financial assessments from dioceses to the General Convention budget, or exercise control of trust interests on diocesan or congregational assets.”
The statement is intended to demonstrate the standing committee’s support for its diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, who is one of 11 diocesan bishops who recently endorsed a statement of concern that the polity of the The Episcopal Church as a “voluntary association of equal dioceses” was in grave peril because of uncanonical actions by the Presiding Bishop and her appointed staff.
Proposed Moratorium on Litigation Omitted from Draft Resolution
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/5/7/proposed-moratorium-on-litigation-omitted-from-draft-resolution
[The Living Church] 8 May 2009--One of the foremost items on the Anglican Consultative Council’s agenda is consideration of the final report of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG). During a May 6 press briefing, the Rt. Rev. Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St. Asaph (Wales) and former deputy secretary general of the ACC, said he did not know why a fourth moratorium—on litigation—had been noted in the WCG’s final report but was omitted from the draft resolution of nine recommendations proposed by the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and primates (JSC) for approval by the ACC.
The WCG was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2007 to advise him on the implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report, how best to carry forward the Windsor Process in the life of the Communion, and to consult on the “unfinished business” of the report. The ACC will be discussing the WCG report and considering a resolution about it on May 8.
[The Living Church] 8 May 2009--One of the foremost items on the Anglican Consultative Council’s agenda is consideration of the final report of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG). During a May 6 press briefing, the Rt. Rev. Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St. Asaph (Wales) and former deputy secretary general of the ACC, said he did not know why a fourth moratorium—on litigation—had been noted in the WCG’s final report but was omitted from the draft resolution of nine recommendations proposed by the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and primates (JSC) for approval by the ACC.
The WCG was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2007 to advise him on the implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report, how best to carry forward the Windsor Process in the life of the Communion, and to consult on the “unfinished business” of the report. The ACC will be discussing the WCG report and considering a resolution about it on May 8.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You – Part II
By Robin G. Jordan.
In this second part of my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You," I examine a number of significant obstacles to participation in the ACNA facing orthodox Anglicans who value the ecclesiastical heritage of North American Anglicanism—synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. The constitution and code of canons adopted by the provisional Provincial Council of the ACNA on April 25, 2009 and commended by that body to the dioceses of the ACNA for ratification introduce what are for orthodox North American Anglicans unwarranted and radical changes in the forms of governance for the diocese and the province and the modes of choosing bishops of a diocese and the primate of a province.
The constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America create a Provincial Assembly but vest no real powers in that body. The Provincial Assembly may deliberate upon matters relating to the faith and mission of the church, receive reports from the Provincial Council, make recommendations, and ratify the canons and constitutional amendments that the Provincial Council adopts. The role of the Provincial Assembly is largely consultative much like the consultative assemblies that were established in the former African colonies of France and Great Britain before they were given their independence. These consultative assemblies also had no real powers. They were created to give the native population a token role in the government and administration of the colony. Their members were largely appointed or ex officio. The real governing body of the colony was the governor and the executive council. Likewise, the real governing body of the ACNA is the Archbishop, the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, and the College of Bishops.
As the code of canons is worded, the bishop or bishops of a diocese can appoint the representatives of the diocese to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council. The canons do not guarantee the clergy and laity of the diocese any role in their selection, as in a synodical form of church government. Nothing in the canons prevents the parent Province of a diocese from playing a role in the selection of the diocese’s representatives to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council.
The code of canons requires the establishment of a standing committee or an equivalent body in each diocese. The main reason for this body appears to be to provide the diocese with an ecclesiastical authority in the event of the prolonged absence, incapacity, or death of the ordinary of the diocese. The canons make no provision for the establishment of a diocesan synod or an equivalent body in each diocese. The form of governance of a diocese is left to the discretion of the diocese but this provision of the constitution appears to be intended to permit dioceses to remain subject to the constitutions and canons of their parent Provinces and to continue the non-synodical forms of church government established in these dioceses. It is not a guarantee of diocesan autonomy since the canons give to the province powers and functions normally exercised by the diocese.
North American Anglicanism has a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition of dioceses electing their own bishops. The origins of the tradition of this tradition can be traced to the early Church. In A History of the Medieval Church 590-1500, Margaret Deanesly describes how bishops were elected in the fifth century:
"By the middle of the fifth century the normal unit of church government was the city group of Christians, headed by the bishop and his ‘familia’ of clergy. The see or sphere of the bishop’s authority included a larger or small territory around his city, very small in the east and Italy where cities were plentiful and Christianity was old, very large in the west where conditions were the opposite. This sphere of authority was known usually as the ‘parochia’ or parish of the bishop. Episcopal sees had already become grouped under provinces, under the authority of the metropolitan or bishop of the mother see. His authority was exercised in a supervision of episcopal elections, (which were made by the clergy, nobles, and people of the parochial under the direction of neighbouring bishops summoned to perform the obsequies of the late bishop), and in the summons and presidency of the provincial synod." [ 1]
During this period in Church history the laity shared with the clergy in the election of a bishop. Deanesly goes on to point to her readers’ attention:
"Beyond this, the provinces of the church had become grouped into eparchates or patriarchates, around some parochial or see situated in a city of world wide importance , and usually where the first reaching of the faith had been the work of an apostle. There were four eastern and one western patriarchates….The visible organization of the church was broadly the same in all the patriarchates, and rested upon locally trained and ordained family of clergy and locally elected but provincially sanctioned bishops." [2]
By the ninth century the election of bishops had become the canonical right of the cathedral chapter of the see. The laity continued to share in the episcopal elections in two ways. The nobility participated with the cathedral clergy in the deliberations that preceded the choice of a bishop. The common people, when the new bishop was presented to them, signified their assent to his election by acclamation. By the sixteenth century the chapter’s election of a bishop had become a formality in the English church with the chapter electing the candidate nominated by the king but even Henry VIII did not dispense with this formality. The chapter still technically elected the bishop of the diocese. The diocese chose its own bishop.
The canons of the ACNA establish as the principal and preferred mode of choosing bishops in the ACNA a method of episcopal selection that is the antithesis of the traditional method of episcopal election in North American Anglicanism. The origin of this new method of episcopal selection can be traced to the period in English Church history when the Bishop of London and later the Archbishop of Canterbury began to appoint missionary bishops to oversee the churches in Great Britain’s far-flung colonial empire, especially in the empire’s African colonies.
A number of cultural and political factors have shaped the development of this particular method of episcopal selection in the African Provinces. Traditional African society is to a large extent hierarchical and tribal. Petty kings or paramount chieftains held sway over a particular territory. These kings or chieftains ruled with the advice and assistance of lesser chieftains who themselves ruled a district within that territory. A district consisted of a number of villages, each with its village headman and elders. When making important decisions the chief of the district consulted the leaders of the communities in the district. This way of organizing African society is centuries old and finds expression today in the strong men leading a number of African nations. Its greatest expression was the Pharaohs who ruled ancient Egypt. From fifteenth century to the twentieth century the European nations colonized and controlled large segments of the African subcontinent and exploited its resources. By the nineteenth century the typical British colonial administration in Africa consisted of a governor and a council. The governor was appointed by the Crown and the council was appointed by the governor. Later the council would also include members elected by the British colonists. Even then the composition of the council was strongly influenced by the British class system as was the colonial government in general. The council, however, did not include any representatives of the native African population. The governor appointed district commissioners to govern the specific districts, or subdivisions, of the colony. In their dealings with the native African population the district commissioners often worked through the chiefs and headmen of the district. Both the influence of traditional African society and the former British colonial governments can be seen in the ecclesiastical structure of the African Provinces, including how they select bishops.
The particular variant of this mode of episcopal selection that the ACNA constitution permits and the ACNA canons adopt is an adaptation of that of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Under the provisions of the canons the College of Bishops elects the bishops of a diocese. A diocese may nominate two or three candidates for the office of bishop ordinary or suffragan bishop of a diocese. The canons, however, contain no provisions requiring the College of Bishops to elect one of the diocese’s nominees. They do not prohibit the College of Bishops from rejecting the diocese’s nominees, nominating its own candidate, and electing him as the ordinary or suffragan of the diocese. The canons offer few details relating to the nomination process. They do not guarantee a substantial role in the nomination process to the clergy and laity of the diocese. Indeed they do not guarantee the clergy and laity of the diocese any role in the process at all. They leave room for the parent Provinces of dioceses to have a considerable role in the nomination process of the dioceses that are also extraterritorial jurisdictions of these Provinces. The canons also make no provision for a diocese to make additional nominations if the College of Bishops rejects all the candidates that a diocese nominates. They do not rule out practices like that of the AMiA in which that ecclesiastical organization’s Council of Missionary Bishops nominates candidates to fill vacancies in the AMiA hierarchy or to add to that hierarchy and the Primatial Vicar approves each nomination before the nominations are passed onto the Rwandan Primate and Provincial House of Bishops for consideration, a nomination process that gives one person the final say in who is nominated. Under the provisions of the canons it is possible for a small group of individuals or a single individual to nominate the candidates for the office of bishop, for example, the standing committee or the outgoing bishop.
The constitution and the code of canons do make provision for the College of Bishops’ confirmation of the election of the bishop-elect of the small number of founding entities of the ACNA like four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and the Reformed Episcopal Church, the constitutions and canons of which provide for the election of the bishop or bishops of the diocese by the diocese. At the same time the canons promote the adoption of the previously described method of episcopal selection by these entities and impose this method upon new dioceses recognized by the ACNA.
The guidelines for application for recognition as a diocese of the ACNA require a group of congregations applying for such recognition to invite all congregations in its particular locality to become a part of the new geographically based diocese, including the congregations of the founding entities in that locality. As defined in these guidelines "affinity" refers to an existing relationship with a founding entity, not a common doctrinal position on key theological and ecclesiological issues. Under the provisions of the canons the College of Bishops will select the bishops of all the new geographically based dioceses formed in accordance with these guidelines.
Under the provisions of the constitution, the College of Bishops elects the Archbishop and Primate of the ACNA. The particular variant of this mode of primatial election that the constitution permits and the canons adopt is an adaptation of that of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). However, the clergy and laity in the ACNA, unlike the Nigerian clergy and laity in the election of the Nigerian Primate, have no role in the election of the ACNA Primate.
The constitution and canons of the ACNA do away with centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of the bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. At a time when the remaining conservative bishops of The Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, they greatly weaken diocesan autonomy in the selection of bishops and a wide range of other matters in the ACNA.
The explanations that a number of ACNA leaders offer for these unwarranted and radical changes in diocesan and provincial governance and episcopal and primatial selection, are unconvincing. The practice of dioceses electing their own bishops with antecedents going back to the fifth century, they claim, is an "innovation." The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the bishops of the diocese brings the ACNA "in tune with the rest of the Anglican Communion," an assertion that overlooks the fact that the Anglican Communion chooses bishops in as many ways as it has provinces and in some cases as dioceses in a province. The claim that this mode of episcopal selection is a deterrent against liberalism and heterodoxy rings hollow in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church that has a similar method of choosing bishops has produced liberal and heterodox bishops. The latter method of episcopal selection has also produced bishops who ordained sexual predators and then failed to protect children from them. From an evangelical perspective the spiritual condition of Roman Catholics in many parts of the world is lamentable. They are at best nominally Christian and combine pagan beliefs and practices with Catholic ones.
In Africa the particular mode of episcopal and archiepiscopal selection that the ACNA has adopted has caused rioting and violence. It is not without its own problems. The African provinces may be experiencing remarkable growth but they, like megachurches in the United States, have by their own admission substantial numbers of churchgoers who are spiritually immature and in their particular case resort to animistic religious practices and witchcraft in times of crisis. The ACNA in adopting it is trading one set of problems for another.
As we have seen in the first part of this article, the ACNA constitution and canons demand a very high price from conservative evangelical Anglicans for a place at the ACNA table. They must relinquish a biblically faithful and historically genuine Anglican way of following Jesus Christ. They must turn their backs on the teaching of the Bible, the English Reformers, and classical evangelical Anglicanism. As we have seen in this second part of the article, they demand a similarly high price from orthodox Anglicans who value the ecclesiastical heritage of North American Anglicanism—synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. They must give up centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of the bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. They must accept a significant reduction of the autonomy of the diocese in a number of areas, including the choice of its bishops. In exacting such high prices for a place at its table, the ACNA has put itself in the same league as The Episcopal Church. North America certainly needs a new province for orthodox Anglicans. But it is increasingly looking like the ACNA is the wrong candidate for that job.
Endnotes:
[1] Margaret Deansley, A History of the Medieval Church 590-1500 (London: Routledge,1989), electronic edition available on the Internet at http://www.questiaschool.com/read/108794488, 2-3
[2] Ibid., 3-4
Robin G. Jordan is a lifelong Anglican who lives and writes in western Kentucky.
In this second part of my article, "The Anglican Church in North America Welcomes You," I examine a number of significant obstacles to participation in the ACNA facing orthodox Anglicans who value the ecclesiastical heritage of North American Anglicanism—synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. The constitution and code of canons adopted by the provisional Provincial Council of the ACNA on April 25, 2009 and commended by that body to the dioceses of the ACNA for ratification introduce what are for orthodox North American Anglicans unwarranted and radical changes in the forms of governance for the diocese and the province and the modes of choosing bishops of a diocese and the primate of a province.
The constitution and code of canons of the Anglican Church in North America create a Provincial Assembly but vest no real powers in that body. The Provincial Assembly may deliberate upon matters relating to the faith and mission of the church, receive reports from the Provincial Council, make recommendations, and ratify the canons and constitutional amendments that the Provincial Council adopts. The role of the Provincial Assembly is largely consultative much like the consultative assemblies that were established in the former African colonies of France and Great Britain before they were given their independence. These consultative assemblies also had no real powers. They were created to give the native population a token role in the government and administration of the colony. Their members were largely appointed or ex officio. The real governing body of the colony was the governor and the executive council. Likewise, the real governing body of the ACNA is the Archbishop, the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, and the College of Bishops.
As the code of canons is worded, the bishop or bishops of a diocese can appoint the representatives of the diocese to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council. The canons do not guarantee the clergy and laity of the diocese any role in their selection, as in a synodical form of church government. Nothing in the canons prevents the parent Province of a diocese from playing a role in the selection of the diocese’s representatives to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council.
The code of canons requires the establishment of a standing committee or an equivalent body in each diocese. The main reason for this body appears to be to provide the diocese with an ecclesiastical authority in the event of the prolonged absence, incapacity, or death of the ordinary of the diocese. The canons make no provision for the establishment of a diocesan synod or an equivalent body in each diocese. The form of governance of a diocese is left to the discretion of the diocese but this provision of the constitution appears to be intended to permit dioceses to remain subject to the constitutions and canons of their parent Provinces and to continue the non-synodical forms of church government established in these dioceses. It is not a guarantee of diocesan autonomy since the canons give to the province powers and functions normally exercised by the diocese.
North American Anglicanism has a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition of dioceses electing their own bishops. The origins of the tradition of this tradition can be traced to the early Church. In A History of the Medieval Church 590-1500, Margaret Deanesly describes how bishops were elected in the fifth century:
"By the middle of the fifth century the normal unit of church government was the city group of Christians, headed by the bishop and his ‘familia’ of clergy. The see or sphere of the bishop’s authority included a larger or small territory around his city, very small in the east and Italy where cities were plentiful and Christianity was old, very large in the west where conditions were the opposite. This sphere of authority was known usually as the ‘parochia’ or parish of the bishop. Episcopal sees had already become grouped under provinces, under the authority of the metropolitan or bishop of the mother see. His authority was exercised in a supervision of episcopal elections, (which were made by the clergy, nobles, and people of the parochial under the direction of neighbouring bishops summoned to perform the obsequies of the late bishop), and in the summons and presidency of the provincial synod." [ 1]
During this period in Church history the laity shared with the clergy in the election of a bishop. Deanesly goes on to point to her readers’ attention:
"Beyond this, the provinces of the church had become grouped into eparchates or patriarchates, around some parochial or see situated in a city of world wide importance , and usually where the first reaching of the faith had been the work of an apostle. There were four eastern and one western patriarchates….The visible organization of the church was broadly the same in all the patriarchates, and rested upon locally trained and ordained family of clergy and locally elected but provincially sanctioned bishops." [2]
By the ninth century the election of bishops had become the canonical right of the cathedral chapter of the see. The laity continued to share in the episcopal elections in two ways. The nobility participated with the cathedral clergy in the deliberations that preceded the choice of a bishop. The common people, when the new bishop was presented to them, signified their assent to his election by acclamation. By the sixteenth century the chapter’s election of a bishop had become a formality in the English church with the chapter electing the candidate nominated by the king but even Henry VIII did not dispense with this formality. The chapter still technically elected the bishop of the diocese. The diocese chose its own bishop.
The canons of the ACNA establish as the principal and preferred mode of choosing bishops in the ACNA a method of episcopal selection that is the antithesis of the traditional method of episcopal election in North American Anglicanism. The origin of this new method of episcopal selection can be traced to the period in English Church history when the Bishop of London and later the Archbishop of Canterbury began to appoint missionary bishops to oversee the churches in Great Britain’s far-flung colonial empire, especially in the empire’s African colonies.
A number of cultural and political factors have shaped the development of this particular method of episcopal selection in the African Provinces. Traditional African society is to a large extent hierarchical and tribal. Petty kings or paramount chieftains held sway over a particular territory. These kings or chieftains ruled with the advice and assistance of lesser chieftains who themselves ruled a district within that territory. A district consisted of a number of villages, each with its village headman and elders. When making important decisions the chief of the district consulted the leaders of the communities in the district. This way of organizing African society is centuries old and finds expression today in the strong men leading a number of African nations. Its greatest expression was the Pharaohs who ruled ancient Egypt. From fifteenth century to the twentieth century the European nations colonized and controlled large segments of the African subcontinent and exploited its resources. By the nineteenth century the typical British colonial administration in Africa consisted of a governor and a council. The governor was appointed by the Crown and the council was appointed by the governor. Later the council would also include members elected by the British colonists. Even then the composition of the council was strongly influenced by the British class system as was the colonial government in general. The council, however, did not include any representatives of the native African population. The governor appointed district commissioners to govern the specific districts, or subdivisions, of the colony. In their dealings with the native African population the district commissioners often worked through the chiefs and headmen of the district. Both the influence of traditional African society and the former British colonial governments can be seen in the ecclesiastical structure of the African Provinces, including how they select bishops.
The particular variant of this mode of episcopal selection that the ACNA constitution permits and the ACNA canons adopt is an adaptation of that of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Under the provisions of the canons the College of Bishops elects the bishops of a diocese. A diocese may nominate two or three candidates for the office of bishop ordinary or suffragan bishop of a diocese. The canons, however, contain no provisions requiring the College of Bishops to elect one of the diocese’s nominees. They do not prohibit the College of Bishops from rejecting the diocese’s nominees, nominating its own candidate, and electing him as the ordinary or suffragan of the diocese. The canons offer few details relating to the nomination process. They do not guarantee a substantial role in the nomination process to the clergy and laity of the diocese. Indeed they do not guarantee the clergy and laity of the diocese any role in the process at all. They leave room for the parent Provinces of dioceses to have a considerable role in the nomination process of the dioceses that are also extraterritorial jurisdictions of these Provinces. The canons also make no provision for a diocese to make additional nominations if the College of Bishops rejects all the candidates that a diocese nominates. They do not rule out practices like that of the AMiA in which that ecclesiastical organization’s Council of Missionary Bishops nominates candidates to fill vacancies in the AMiA hierarchy or to add to that hierarchy and the Primatial Vicar approves each nomination before the nominations are passed onto the Rwandan Primate and Provincial House of Bishops for consideration, a nomination process that gives one person the final say in who is nominated. Under the provisions of the canons it is possible for a small group of individuals or a single individual to nominate the candidates for the office of bishop, for example, the standing committee or the outgoing bishop.
The constitution and the code of canons do make provision for the College of Bishops’ confirmation of the election of the bishop-elect of the small number of founding entities of the ACNA like four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and the Reformed Episcopal Church, the constitutions and canons of which provide for the election of the bishop or bishops of the diocese by the diocese. At the same time the canons promote the adoption of the previously described method of episcopal selection by these entities and impose this method upon new dioceses recognized by the ACNA.
The guidelines for application for recognition as a diocese of the ACNA require a group of congregations applying for such recognition to invite all congregations in its particular locality to become a part of the new geographically based diocese, including the congregations of the founding entities in that locality. As defined in these guidelines "affinity" refers to an existing relationship with a founding entity, not a common doctrinal position on key theological and ecclesiological issues. Under the provisions of the canons the College of Bishops will select the bishops of all the new geographically based dioceses formed in accordance with these guidelines.
Under the provisions of the constitution, the College of Bishops elects the Archbishop and Primate of the ACNA. The particular variant of this mode of primatial election that the constitution permits and the canons adopt is an adaptation of that of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). However, the clergy and laity in the ACNA, unlike the Nigerian clergy and laity in the election of the Nigerian Primate, have no role in the election of the ACNA Primate.
The constitution and canons of the ACNA do away with centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of the bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. At a time when the remaining conservative bishops of The Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, they greatly weaken diocesan autonomy in the selection of bishops and a wide range of other matters in the ACNA.
The explanations that a number of ACNA leaders offer for these unwarranted and radical changes in diocesan and provincial governance and episcopal and primatial selection, are unconvincing. The practice of dioceses electing their own bishops with antecedents going back to the fifth century, they claim, is an "innovation." The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the bishops of the diocese brings the ACNA "in tune with the rest of the Anglican Communion," an assertion that overlooks the fact that the Anglican Communion chooses bishops in as many ways as it has provinces and in some cases as dioceses in a province. The claim that this mode of episcopal selection is a deterrent against liberalism and heterodoxy rings hollow in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church that has a similar method of choosing bishops has produced liberal and heterodox bishops. The latter method of episcopal selection has also produced bishops who ordained sexual predators and then failed to protect children from them. From an evangelical perspective the spiritual condition of Roman Catholics in many parts of the world is lamentable. They are at best nominally Christian and combine pagan beliefs and practices with Catholic ones.
In Africa the particular mode of episcopal and archiepiscopal selection that the ACNA has adopted has caused rioting and violence. It is not without its own problems. The African provinces may be experiencing remarkable growth but they, like megachurches in the United States, have by their own admission substantial numbers of churchgoers who are spiritually immature and in their particular case resort to animistic religious practices and witchcraft in times of crisis. The ACNA in adopting it is trading one set of problems for another.
As we have seen in the first part of this article, the ACNA constitution and canons demand a very high price from conservative evangelical Anglicans for a place at the ACNA table. They must relinquish a biblically faithful and historically genuine Anglican way of following Jesus Christ. They must turn their backs on the teaching of the Bible, the English Reformers, and classical evangelical Anglicanism. As we have seen in this second part of the article, they demand a similarly high price from orthodox Anglicans who value the ecclesiastical heritage of North American Anglicanism—synodical forms of church government at the diocesan and provincial levels, the diocesan synod’s election of the bishops of the diocese, and the general synod’s election of the primate of the province. They must give up centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the diocese and the province and in the nomination and election of the bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province. They must accept a significant reduction of the autonomy of the diocese in a number of areas, including the choice of its bishops. In exacting such high prices for a place at its table, the ACNA has put itself in the same league as The Episcopal Church. North America certainly needs a new province for orthodox Anglicans. But it is increasingly looking like the ACNA is the wrong candidate for that job.
Endnotes:
[1] Margaret Deansley, A History of the Medieval Church 590-1500 (London: Routledge,1989), electronic edition available on the Internet at http://www.questiaschool.com/read/108794488, 2-3
[2] Ibid., 3-4
Robin G. Jordan is a lifelong Anglican who lives and writes in western Kentucky.
Rectors’ Declaration of Support for the Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church
http://communionpartners.org/?p=58
[Communion Partners] 6 May 2009--A group of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have issued a statement on the polity of the Episcopal Church with which we as Rectors of churches in the Episcopal Church are in full agreement. Our understanding of the seat of authority in the Episcopal Church, as elaborated by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, is consistent with that elaborated in the Bishops’ statement. We also find the arguments supporting the statement to be compelling and worthy of intentional study by the sundry dioceses, bishops, deputies, clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.
The authority of the Episcopal Church resides at the diocesan level. This is witnessed to by the structure of the church as “that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses.” Also, the Constitution and Canons of the Church make no provision for either a central hierarchy or a Presiding Bishop with metropolitan authority. Furthermore, our General Convention representation is as dioceses and not as communicants, with only an administrative role for the convention leadership, the voting members of the leadership themselves drawn from the diocesan deputations. In addition, the ordinal does not contain any language acknowledging or committing to submit to any metropolitan or central hierarchal authority.
[Communion Partners] 6 May 2009--A group of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have issued a statement on the polity of the Episcopal Church with which we as Rectors of churches in the Episcopal Church are in full agreement. Our understanding of the seat of authority in the Episcopal Church, as elaborated by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, is consistent with that elaborated in the Bishops’ statement. We also find the arguments supporting the statement to be compelling and worthy of intentional study by the sundry dioceses, bishops, deputies, clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.
The authority of the Episcopal Church resides at the diocesan level. This is witnessed to by the structure of the church as “that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses.” Also, the Constitution and Canons of the Church make no provision for either a central hierarchy or a Presiding Bishop with metropolitan authority. Furthermore, our General Convention representation is as dioceses and not as communicants, with only an administrative role for the convention leadership, the voting members of the leadership themselves drawn from the diocesan deputations. In addition, the ordinal does not contain any language acknowledging or committing to submit to any metropolitan or central hierarchal authority.
Report from ACC-14: Day Four
http://www.americananglican.org/report-from-acc-14-day-four
[American Anglican Council] 6 May 2009--So what are we presented with? In essence it would appear that the Archbishop is preparing himself and the communion for a significant change. He admitted it could no longer be the communion it was 20 years ago. Therefore the proposals are not an attempt to put the clock back, put Humpty Dumpty back together again or the toothpaste back in the tube.
Rather they could be seen as a time-honoured process, whereby a group with senior power seeks to retain that power while all along seismic shifts are taking place at other levels. These proposals are not about solving the current crisis or bringing the divisions in the Communion to an end. These proposals are about continuing the listening process, enabling people to restate their positions over and over again without any time limit, and accepting that there will be some ruptures and breaks but still keeping them within the current instruments of communion which are being modified to take account of them.
Related articles:
http://acl.asn.au/acc-refuses-to-seat-ugandan-delegate/
ACC refuses to seat Ugandan delegate due to his ‘cross border intervention’ - Anglican Church League
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/05/archbishop-rowan-chaos-and-division-in-all-around-we-see.html
Archbishop of Canterbury 'Chaos and division' in all around we see - Times Online
[American Anglican Council] 6 May 2009--So what are we presented with? In essence it would appear that the Archbishop is preparing himself and the communion for a significant change. He admitted it could no longer be the communion it was 20 years ago. Therefore the proposals are not an attempt to put the clock back, put Humpty Dumpty back together again or the toothpaste back in the tube.
Rather they could be seen as a time-honoured process, whereby a group with senior power seeks to retain that power while all along seismic shifts are taking place at other levels. These proposals are not about solving the current crisis or bringing the divisions in the Communion to an end. These proposals are about continuing the listening process, enabling people to restate their positions over and over again without any time limit, and accepting that there will be some ruptures and breaks but still keeping them within the current instruments of communion which are being modified to take account of them.
Related articles:
http://acl.asn.au/acc-refuses-to-seat-ugandan-delegate/
ACC refuses to seat Ugandan delegate due to his ‘cross border intervention’ - Anglican Church League
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/05/archbishop-rowan-chaos-and-division-in-all-around-we-see.html
Archbishop of Canterbury 'Chaos and division' in all around we see - Times Online
Monday, May 04, 2009
Covenant: Is this an instrument to castrate Gafcon?
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/05/covenant-is-this-an-instrument-to-castrate-gafcon.html
[Times Online] 4 May 2009--Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams leads discussions about Anglican unity in Jamaica, heavyweight theologians are battling it out over the internet.
Is the Anglican Covenant an instrument to castrate conservatives, or a stick to beat liberals?
[Times Online] 4 May 2009--Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams leads discussions about Anglican unity in Jamaica, heavyweight theologians are battling it out over the internet.
Is the Anglican Covenant an instrument to castrate conservatives, or a stick to beat liberals?
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Say no to assimilation
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/marketing/say_no_to_assimilation/
[sydneyanglicans.net] 2 May 2009--In my last article on “Reaching the New Sydney”, I presented the challenge of reaching the multi-cultural population that is the New Sydney.
As we consider how to do this, there is a fundamental issue that first needs to be addressed.
Over the years, I have encountered the view that runs something like this – “It’s OK to set up a culturally distinctive ministry for evangelistic purposes (to reach “them”), but once they become Christians, they should assimilate into the local church (become like “us”).”
To which I ask the question – “Why is that? What’s the reason for that view?”
As I turn to the Scriptures for answers, this is what I see:
[sydneyanglicans.net] 2 May 2009--In my last article on “Reaching the New Sydney”, I presented the challenge of reaching the multi-cultural population that is the New Sydney.
As we consider how to do this, there is a fundamental issue that first needs to be addressed.
Over the years, I have encountered the view that runs something like this – “It’s OK to set up a culturally distinctive ministry for evangelistic purposes (to reach “them”), but once they become Christians, they should assimilate into the local church (become like “us”).”
To which I ask the question – “Why is that? What’s the reason for that view?”
As I turn to the Scriptures for answers, this is what I see:
Michael Nazir-Ali: Is the much-debated Covenant fit for purpose?
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22263/#more
[TitusOneNine] 2 May 2009--This week the Anglican Consultative Council meets in Jamaica. One of the items on its agenda is the latest draft for an Anglican Covenant. This is an opportune moment to ask if the draft is ‘fit for purpose’ and if it will make any difference to the situation, if it is approved by the member churches of the Communion.
This latest draft of an Anglican Covenant, and its accompanying commentary, has taken account of the many responses and submissions made in respect of the earlier drafts. This means that the theological and ecclesiological sections of the proposed Covenant are stronger than they were before. A question remains as to why the Introduction is still not part of the Covenant. This weakens the theological basis of the Covenant, even if the drafters now tell us that it “shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant” (4:4:1).
The first section opens by telling us that each church in the Covenant affirms its ‘communion’ in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church but it does not say anything about the communion between or among particular churches which is the issue at the moment. What is the basis for such fellowship and how can one church recognise the presence of the Church of Jesus Christ in another? This section claims also that our mission is shared with other churches and traditions beyond the Covenant. Which churches do the drafters have in mind and what is the extent of this sharing? If we are not careful, this could lead to the very carte blanche the Covenant is being designed to avoid.
In section 3 we are told that the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together “through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” but this reference back to the 1930 Lambeth Conference is not, as we shall see, fully reflected in the decision-making processes proposed by the drafters.
There is again the usual Anglican attempt to having your cake and eating it. This draft moves away unhelpfully from the previous language of autonomy in interdependence to a renewed emphasis on autonomy. The commentary claims that Anglicans wish to keep the autonomy of their churches but no biblical or apostolic evidence is provided for the sort of autonomy which could be acceptable, nor about its limits and dangers. We are told that adoption of the Covenant by a church does not “represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (4:1:1) but surely the representative bodies of the Communion should have the power at least to determine what relations there should be among the provinces, depending on whether they subscribe to the Covenant or not. It is strange to regard such representative bodies of the churches themselves as ‘external’.
[TitusOneNine] 2 May 2009--This week the Anglican Consultative Council meets in Jamaica. One of the items on its agenda is the latest draft for an Anglican Covenant. This is an opportune moment to ask if the draft is ‘fit for purpose’ and if it will make any difference to the situation, if it is approved by the member churches of the Communion.
This latest draft of an Anglican Covenant, and its accompanying commentary, has taken account of the many responses and submissions made in respect of the earlier drafts. This means that the theological and ecclesiological sections of the proposed Covenant are stronger than they were before. A question remains as to why the Introduction is still not part of the Covenant. This weakens the theological basis of the Covenant, even if the drafters now tell us that it “shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant” (4:4:1).
The first section opens by telling us that each church in the Covenant affirms its ‘communion’ in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church but it does not say anything about the communion between or among particular churches which is the issue at the moment. What is the basis for such fellowship and how can one church recognise the presence of the Church of Jesus Christ in another? This section claims also that our mission is shared with other churches and traditions beyond the Covenant. Which churches do the drafters have in mind and what is the extent of this sharing? If we are not careful, this could lead to the very carte blanche the Covenant is being designed to avoid.
In section 3 we are told that the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together “through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” but this reference back to the 1930 Lambeth Conference is not, as we shall see, fully reflected in the decision-making processes proposed by the drafters.
There is again the usual Anglican attempt to having your cake and eating it. This draft moves away unhelpfully from the previous language of autonomy in interdependence to a renewed emphasis on autonomy. The commentary claims that Anglicans wish to keep the autonomy of their churches but no biblical or apostolic evidence is provided for the sort of autonomy which could be acceptable, nor about its limits and dangers. We are told that adoption of the Covenant by a church does not “represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (4:1:1) but surely the representative bodies of the Communion should have the power at least to determine what relations there should be among the provinces, depending on whether they subscribe to the Covenant or not. It is strange to regard such representative bodies of the churches themselves as ‘external’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)