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.