Beneath the Glamour: An Evangelical View of the New Anglican Church in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

In the folktales of the British Isles and Ireland the sometimes mischievous, sometimes malicious spirits variously known as the fairies, the Sealy Court, the Unsealy Court, and the sidhe have the power to enchant human beings into seeing things as they wish the human beings to see them, and not as they really are. This magical power, its use, and its effects are called “glamour.” In these tales those who are offered fairy hospitality, with the help of fairy ointment or a magic seeing stone, or even a blow to one of their eyes, are able to penetrate the glamour and to see things for what they are. The rich foods and rare wines that the fairies are offering them turn out to be poisonous toadstools and dirty water and the golden dishes and bejeweled goblets in which they are served, leaves and acorn cups.

The formation of the Anglican Church in North America has a glamour about it, which, while not magical, keeps Anglicans both in and outside of North America from seeing things as they really are. Evangelical Anglicans from around the world are hailing the launching of the ACNA. Would they be as enthusiastic and as unqualified in their support of the new church if they saw things for what they are? With this particular article I hope to help evangelical Anglicans to see through the glamour and to get a real look at the ecclesiastical structure named the Anglican Church in North America, a number of the events surrounding its formation, and how the creation of the ACNA may affect evangelical Anglicanism in and outside of North America.

The provisional constitution and canons that form the basis of the two documents that the inaugural Provincial Assembly ratified at Bedford, Texas on June 22-23, 2009 were kept under wraps until the very day that Common Cause Leadership Council adopted them on December 5, 2008. They were not made available for public comment until after their adoption. The only people who saw them before their adoption were those who attended the Council meeting. A brief question and answer session was held before they were submitted to the Council for a vote on adoption. Despite fanfare with which they were subsequently unveiled, they were quite disappointing. Poorly crafted, with conflicting provisions, they gave the impression of having been hastily put together by several different committees or work groups who had not closely consulted with each other.

What was even more alarming was the ecclesiastical structure that they created. One of the problems facing conservative Anglicans in The Episcopal Church (TEC) has been the growing centralization of power. The provisional constitution and canons established a similar power structure with no safeguards against the abuse of power. The original structure resembled that of a political party with a party congress (Provincial Assembly) electing a party central committee (Provincial Council) and ratifying the party rules (constitution and canons) and the party central committee under the leadership of the party chairman (Archbishop) making the party rules, determining party policy, and managing the affairs of the party.

An alternative constitution, modeled on the constitutions of Anglican Church of Australia and the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas was submitted to the bishops of the Common Cause Partnership and the Governance Task Force but it did not provide the kind of structure that they wished to establish for the ACNA. It made a Representative Governing Body the supreme legislative and executive authority of the province, gave the primate of the province limited and clearly defined duties and powers, reserved considerable powers to the judicatories of the province, and contained a bill of rights for local congregations. This proposal was also published on the Internet to stimulate the closer examination of the provisions of the provisional constitution by comparison with an alternative constitution.

On April 3, 2009 the Common Cause Leadership Council released the drafts of several proposed amendments to the provisional constitution and an expanded set of canons, incorporating the provisional canons. Interested parties were given 17 days to study the two documents and to submit comments and suggestions to the Governance Task Force. Despite the total inadequacy of the period of time allocated to public comment a number of groups and individuals did make submissions to that committee. Only a very tiny number of their recommendations were incorporated into the draft constitution and canons. The major changes that were made in the two documents were the proposals of the Common Cause Leadership Council. On April 25, 2009 the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted the finalized version of the constitution and canons and commended them to the inaugural Provincial Assembly for ratification. The Governance Task Force did meet before the inaugural Provincial Assembly one more time to consider last minute amendments.

ACNA members for the most part displayed little enthusiasm for debating the provisions of the constitution and canons in the days preceding the inaugural Provincial Assembly. A not uncommon attitude was that the ACNA leaders knew what was best for the ACNA. This mindset of passive, unquestioning acceptance of authority was one that Anglo-Catholic clergy had fostered in TEC laity in the nineteenth century and from which liberal and revisionist clergy had benefited in the twentieth century.

Any criticism of the constitution and canons increasingly became seen as a criticism of the ACNA and suddenly the constitution and canons became a taboo subject. A conservative Anglican website that had been running a series of my articles examining the provisions of the constitution and the canons discontinued publishing my articles, explaining that growing criticism from members of the ACNA leadership had prompted the decision. Another conservative Anglican website declined to run the articles, citing its support of the ACNA. No conservative Anglican websites picked up the articles from the two web logs on which they were posted, even when the articles were drawn to their attention. It soon became apparent that there was a self-imposed conservative Anglican media blackout on anything that drew attention to the deficiencies of the constitution and canons.

Despite this blackout there was some public debate on the Internet upon the provisions of the constitution and canons and their drawbacks. This debate did help to bring a number of concerns to the attention of the ACNA bishops and Governance Task Force and prompted responses from three senior ACNA bishops and the latter committee. A series of articles related to the constitution and canons, with proposals for the revision of the two documents, from this period are on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/

At the session of the Provincial Council on June 21, 2009 the question of modifying the wording of the third declaration of the proposed Fundamental Declarations was raised. It was drawn to the attention of the Council that evangelicals and other conservative Anglicans in the ACNA objected to the unnecessarily partisan doctrinal position of the declaration: it was “too Catholic.” Anglo-Catholic members of the Council countered with the objection that a number of the other declarations was “too evangelical.” The objection was also raised that if the Council modified the wording of one declaration, it would lead to proposals to modify other declarations’ wording. The wrangling over the proposed changes might cause the unraveling of the present detente between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals. On the motion of Bishop Jack Iker, the Council voted to retain the existing wording of the Fundamental Declarations. The only change in the Fundamental Declarations that was approved was the correction of the number of declarations from eight to seven, an oversight of the Council when it adopted the proposed canons on April 25, 2009.

In their greetings to the ACNA on the behalf of the Church of England Evangelical Council Bishop Wallace Benn and Archdeacon Michael Lawson described the ACNA as unifying the Anglo-Catholic and evangelical traditions but the unity to which they refer is an artificial one that is maintained at the expense of the evangelical tradition. In the public debate over the issue of making the wording of the third declaration neutral, which preceded the inaugural Provincial Assembly, one member of the Governance Task Force objected to such a change in the Fundamental Declarations on the grounds that Anglo-Catholics might perceive any proposal for modification of the wording of the declaration as an attack on Catholic doctrine and take offense, causing a rupture in the partnership underlying the ACNA. This fear of how Anglo-Catholics might react, points to one of the dynamics operative in the ACNA. In this sense evangelicals in the ACNA are the hostages of the Anglo-Catholics in that body. They tiptoe around the Anglo-Catholics lest they upset the Anglo-Catholics and the Anglo-Catholics pull out of the partnership. The result is an unequal partnership.

A common outcome of disagreements between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals is that the evangelicals accommodate the Anglo-Catholics and compromise their own principles. All Anglo-Catholics have to do is stand their ground and evangelicals acquiesce to them. What transpired in the Provincial Council meeting before the inaugural Provincial Assembly is illustrative of this dynamic. In the ACNA evangelical concerns are more likely to be sacrificed on the altar of unity than Anglo-Catholic ones. The ACNA is far from a model of Anglo-Catholic-evangelical cooperation, of Anglo-Catholic–evangelical mutual give and take.

At the session of the Provincial Assembly on June 22, 2009 at which the constitution was ratified Bishop Robert Duncan insisted that the Assembly either ratify each part of the constitution and canons “as is” or return it to the Provincial Council. He objected to the Assembly itself making any changes in a part of the constitution or canons, a normal procedure in deliberative bodies, which he derisively referred to as “going back to Egypt” and equated with the legislative process of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. It was quite evident that he wanted the Council to retain control of whatever alterations and additions were made to the constitution and canons and the Assembly to play a very limited role, either accepting or rejecting what the Council had presented to it.

At the session of the Provincial Assembly on June 23, 2009 at which the canons were ratified one group of delegates wanted to move quickly through the canons. Another group wanted to examine each canon, discuss its merits and to consider amendments. A “tug of war” developed between the two groups. At the very opening of the session there was a motion for the acceptance of the canons by acclamation but this motion was tabled. The motion was later withdrawn. About 30 minutes into the session Bishop Duncan took the chair and urged the delegates to move faster as speakers were waiting to address the Assembly. Bishop Duncan was also opposed to the session extending to the following day. By the afternoon the Provincial Assembly had worked its way through the entire set of canons and ratified all of them. There was very little discussion. Motions to return a canon to the Council were regularly quashed. The only amendments that were offered had been drawn up ahead of time and had received prior approval. Indeed the motion for acceptance of the canons by acclamation might not have been tabled except for these amendments. All of the amendments were adopted. There were no amendments from the floor.

At both sessions of the Provincial Assembly, the proceedings of the Assembly were regularly interrupted by “mission minutes,” announcements, and greetings from other jurisdictions. These interruptions diverted the attention of the delegates from the task at hand. They tended to emphasize that the constitution and canons were not the main business of the Assembly

The constitution and canons that were amended and ratified in Bedford, Texas take sides in the debate over a number of key issues that have historically divided Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals. The constitution favors a Catholic viewpoint on a number of these issues in its official definition of Anglican orthodoxy. It defines as orthodox Anglicans those who meet the following criteria:

(1) They believe that the Old and New Testament are the Word of God (but not “God’s Word written”) and that Scripture is inspired and has final (but not supreme) authority in matters of faith and practice.

(2) They believe baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be sacraments ordained by Christ himself and to be administered with unfailing use of His words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

(3) They believe that the historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice and consequently is essential to the fullness and unity of the church.

(4) They believe the historic faith of the undivided church as articulated in the three Creeds—Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian.

(5) They believe the teachings of the first four councils of the undivided church and “the Christological clarifications” of the fifth, sixth, and seventh councils, “in so far as they are agreeable to Holy Scripture.”

(6) They accept the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with the 1661 Ordinal as a standard for Anglican discipline and doctrine and “with the Books that preceded it” as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship. The Books that preceded the 1662 Prayer Book are not identified.

(7) They accept the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, understood in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues called into question in the sixteenth century, and as expressing fundamental principles of Anglican belief. An earlier version of the constitution placed “the” before “fundamental principles” but the article was dropped from subsequent versions.

According to this definition of Anglican orthodoxy conservative evangelicals who subscribe to the doctrines that historically have distinguished classical evangelical Anglicanism are not orthodox Anglicans. According to the same definition Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Bishop John Jewel, Archbishop John Whitfield and the other English Reformers who took the position that no particular form of church polity is prescribed by Scripture and that “the essential notes of the Church” are “the true preaching of the word of God, and the right administration of the Sacraments…” were not orthodox Anglicans. Neither were the generations of Anglicans who held the same view of what constitute the indispensable characteristics of the Church.

The doctrinal statements incorporated into a number of canons are Catholic in content. Catholic doctrine is also implicit in a number of canons. Doctrines set forth or implied in the canons include the automatic operation of the sacraments, the Real Presence, baptismal regeneration, the sacramental nature of confirmation and ordination, and tactual succession.

Congregations joining the ACNA or forming a diocese with other congregations must subscribe to the constitution and canons of the ACNA, including their doctrinal provisions. Individuals becoming members of the ACNA must accept the doctrinal views expressed in these provisions and implied in the constitution and canons. Candidates for holy orders must “subscribe without reservation” to a declaration in which they “solemnly engage to confirm to the Doctrine ….of Christ” as the constitution and canons interpret it. So must all bishops before they are consecrated if they have not previously been consecrated.

Entities such as seminaries, religious orders, congregations, dioceses and ministry organizations, which may belong "another denomination of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or be independent," must “subscribe without reservation” to the Fundamental Declarations in order to become ministry partners with the ACNA. Candidates for the office of bishop in the ACNA must “fully embrace” the Fundamental Declarations.

The constitution and canons discard an important part of the legacy that previous generations of North American Anglicans have bequeathed to posterity. This legacy includes 1) centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church at all levels and the nomination and election of the diocesan bishop and auxiliary bishops of the diocese and the primate of the province; 2) synodical exercise of episcopal authority, with the power of the bishop counter-balanced by councils of clergy and laity as a deterrent to episcopal tyranny; and 3) genuine autonomy of the diocese particularly as manifest in its election of its own diocesan bishop and auxiliary bishops and its initiation and ratification of constitutional amendments and canons.

The Provincial Assembly has the largest number of lay members. However, the Assembly has no actual power. Its only role in the governance of the church is to ratify proposed constitutional amendments and canons adopted by the Provincial Council. If future sessions of the Assembly are conducted in the same manner as the Assembly’s inaugural session, its ratification of constitutional amendments and canons is likely to be perfunctory. The Assembly also has no control over its own agenda.

The smaller and less representative Provincial Council is the highest governing body of the ACNA. The Council elects a twelve-man Executive Committee that serves as the Board of Directors of the ACNA and sets the agenda for the meetings of the Council. The Executive Committee is the real focus of power in the ACNA.

How delegates to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council are chosen is left to the diocese or jurisdiction. The diocesan bishop may appoint the delegates or the diocesan convention or synod, if the diocese has such a representative governing body, may elect them. Under the provisions of the constitution and canons a diocesan bishop may govern a diocese without the counter-balance of a diocesan convention or synod. Indeed a bishop may oversee an entire jurisdiction without such a counter-balance since the canons permit dioceses and jurisdictions to continue to operate under the constitutions and canons of their parent Provinces. As the bishop of the jurisdiction he may appoint the delegates for the dioceses or other subdivisions within that jurisdiction or he may delegate their appointment to the bishops overseeing the dioceses or subdivisions.

At the first session of the inaugural Provincial Assembly the chair announced that the Executive Committee would be naming members to the Provincial Council before the full Council met in December although the neither constitution nor the canons give the Executive Committee the authority to make such appointments. The Executive Committee’s appointment of Council members is irregular, if not unconstitutional. The canons authorize the Executive Committee to fill causal vacancies in its membership for the remainder of the unexpired term, a questionable provision since the Council must meet at least annually and could fill any casual vacancies at its annual meeting.

One of the most significant departures of the ACNA from its North American Anglican heritage is the mode of episcopal election favored by the canons. While the canons for the time being permit judicatories electing their own bishops to continue to do so, requiring them to obtain confirmation of the election from the College of Bishops, the canons establish as the norm for new judicatories the election of their bishop by the College of Bishops and commend this mode of episcopal election to the judicatories that continue to elect their own bishops. In the days following the Provincial Council’s adoption of the finalized version of the constitution and canons on April 25, 2009 there was a public debate over a number of provisions of the two documents. This mode of episcopal election was one of the provisions that had given rise to controversy. The Governance Task Force eventually issued a public statement in which a representative of the committee stated that the mode of election under fire was only an option: it was not mandatory. However, this statement did not explain why the application material appended to the proposed canons did not advise applicants for recognition as a diocese of the ACNA that they had two options. It instructed the applicant to submit the names of two or three nominees for the office of bishop of the diocese for the consideration of the College of Bishops:

“The College of Bishops has authority in the election of bishops. A grouping puts forward two or three nominees for bishop. The College may choose one and grant consent for his consecration (Article X). Canon 4 further specifies that an eligible candidate for bishop will be a duly ordained male presbyter of at least 35 years of age, who possesses those qualities for a bishop which are in accordance with Scriptural principles, and who has fully embraced the Fundamental Declarations of this Province. Additional guidelines for the submission of nominees for bishop will be provided.”

The related matter of whether the new diocese, if the College of Bishop chooses its first bishop, could subsequently elect its own bishop has never been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties who drew attention to the lack of specific language in the canons stating that it could.

One proposal that was submitted to the Governance Task Force would have clearly stated in the canons that a diocese was free at any time to change the mode by which the bishops of the diocese were elected and would not be bound to use the same mode of episcopal election for each occasion a vacancy in the office of diocesan or auxiliary bishop needed to be filled or an additional auxiliary bishop needed to be elected. The proposal died in that committee. It was not reported to the Provincial Assembly in the form of an amendment to the canons.

The origin of the mode of episcopal election that the canons favor can be traced to the Roman Catholic practice of dioceses in the British Isles and Ireland nominating three candidates for the office of diocesan bishop in a vacant see for the consideration of the Holy See. In the Anglican adaptation of this method of choosing bishops the bishops of the province replace the Pope as the extra-diocesan authority that makes the final choice.

Another major break with its North American Anglican heritage on the part of the ACNA is the election of the Archbishop by the College of Bishops without any involvement of the clergy and laity. No rationale has been offered for placing his election solely in the hands of the bishops of the province. What arguments like the one Bishop John Rodgers made in support of changes of this type, do not say is that, while “the new ways…bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise” to leaders like himself, the particular mode of primatial election that the ACNA has adopted is no more new than the aforementioned mode of episcopal election. The bishops of the province of the liberal Scottish Episcopal Church elect the Primus of that province. In the liberal Church in Wales the election of the Archbishop of the province passes to the provincial Bench of Bishops if the Archbishop’s Electoral College cannot agree upon the choice of a new Archbishop.

One of the amendments to the constitution that was adopted on June 22, 2009 authorized the assignment of additional duties and responsibilities to the Archbishop by canon. In the public debate preceding the inaugural Provincial Assembly it was drawn to the attention of the Governance Task Force that the canons arrogated to the Archbishop duties and responsibilities not authorized by the constitution, doing what Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori has been doing in TEC and setting a bad precedent.

Under the provisions of the constitution the Archbishop is not the metropolitan of the province and does not have metropolitan authority. However, the canons require the bishops of the province to show canonical obedience to the Archbishop even though he is not a metropolitan but an ordinary bishop like themselves with the designation of Archbishop and a number of special functions.

Provisions touted as safeguarding diocesan autonomy are actually designed to permit jurisdictions like the AMiA to continue to operate as they have been operating without any synodical form of church government. The canons arrogate to the province powers that historically have belonged to the diocese in North America, ignoring the provisions of the constitution reserving to the dioceses the powers not delegated to the province or prohibited to the dioceses. The canons not only contain provisions permitting dioceses and jurisdictions to continue to operate under the constitutions and canons of their parent Provinces but also giving the archbishops and bishops of parent Provinces a seat and a voice in the College of Bishops.

The provisions of the constitution that has been publicized as protecting the property rights of local churches also permit dioceses to continue to hold property in trust. A related canon permits dioceses to take property into trust with the written consent of the local congregation.

The canons have been described as “minimalist” and not burdening the ACNA with “unnecessary legalism.” However, they contain a number of provisions that are not necessary and could have been omitted. In a number of sections they do not provide details where details are very much needed. For example, they do not state whether a diocese can present a second slate of candidates for consideration of the College of Bishops if the College of Bishops rejects its first slate of candidates for the office of diocesan bishop. They do not juridically bind the College of Bishops to choose anyone on the slate of candidates that the diocese nominates.

Like the constitution, the canons contain few if any procedural safeguards against the abuse of power. Indeed they have several provisions that could be easily abused. For example, the canons permit the ACNA’s new Archbishop to appoint at the request of a bishop a board of inquiry to investigate the circulation of rumors about the bishop. In the wrong hands the board could be used to suppress legitimate dissent.

The ecclesiastical culture that is emerging in the ACNA is one in which obtaining the patronage of an influential bishop is going to play an important part in the politics of the new church. Without the backing of such a patron clergy and laity are not likely to receive a hearing in the decision-making bodies of the ACNA or secure an appointment to an office, committee, or task force.

In a church in which constitution and canons favor Anglo-Catholic doctrine rather than not aligning with the views of any theological grouping, the kinds of institutions that the ACNA fundamental documents create are not going to foster an environment that is friendly to evangelical Anglicanism, particularly in its classical form, and supportive of its beliefs and practices. What it is likely to promote is the development of an environment that is not too different from that in TEC and ACA. Evangelicals are going to have a difficult time teaching and practicing their beliefs and upholding and preserving their identity. These documents set in place mechanisms that can be used not only to discourage and suppress heresy and liberalism but also classical evangelical Anglicanism and other biblically faithful and authentically Anglican ways of following Jesus Christ.

In its constitution and canons the Anglican Church in North America fails to rise to two important challenges. The ACNA fails to establish an ecclesial body that is a truly comprehensive Anglican church as conservative Anglicans understand Anglican comprehensiveness. The ACNA also fails to restore to good condition and vigor the institutions that form a major portion of the legacy bequeathed to North American Anglicans. Rather the ACNA sets up a church that shows partiality to the theological outlook of one school of thought. It throws away an important part of the legacy handed down to North American Anglicans, adopting the practices of other provinces in its place and trading one set of problems for another. The particular ways that it has adapted these practices are themselves problematic. The church that lies beneath the glamour, the church that Bishop Duncan proclaimed in his opening address to the inaugural Provincial Assembly represents “a new day” in a time in which “there is a great Reformation of the Christian Church underway” is a church that is very much in need of reform itself.

Bishops back UK launch of orthodox Anglican fellowship

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bishops.back.uk.launch.of.orthodox.anglican.fellowship/23692.htm

[Christianity Today UK] 20 June 2009--Five English bishops are set to join the launch of a new fellowship for orthodox Anglicans who say they want to stay true to Scripture and get on with the Great Commission of sharing the Gospel with the world.

The Fellow of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in Westminster on July 6 in the presence of the Bishops of Fulham, Lewes, Chichester and Rochester. The Bishop of Chester has sent greetings.

The gathering will also hear video and personal greetings from international guests including Nigerian Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda.

Britain is no longer a Christian nation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5662294/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christian-nation.html

[Telegraph] 29 June 2009--But these figures are just about the only signs of hope for the church and certainly not the first green shoots of a revival. Other statistics make for gloomy reading.

Annual decline in Sunday attendance is running at around 1 per cent. At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility.

Bishop to head new church plant drive

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/bishop_to_head_new_church_plant_drive/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 29 June 2009--Archbishop Dr Peter Jensen has announced that Bishop Al Stewart will spearhead a new diocesan church planting organisation.

The announcement was made at a church planting conference at Moore College in late June.

It involves Al Stewart, currently Bishop of Wollongong, being appointed as director of Evangelism Ministries, which will then be restructured for the recruitment and support of church planters.

Dr Jensen said Connect09 “has challenged us to move from maintenance to mission”.

Presiding Bishop deposes bishops

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4618

[Religious Intelligence] 29 June 2009--US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has deposed two more retired American bishops, announcing on June 12 that she had accepted the voluntary renunciation of ministry of the retired Bishop of Quincy the Rt Rev Edward MacBurney and the retired Bishop of Southern Virginia the Rt Rev David Bane.

However, the two bishops have stated they have not renounced their orders, but were being accepted into the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone under Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.

A press release from the presiding bishop’s office said the two bishops were “being removed from ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church 'for causes which do not affect (their) moral character,' " the release said, citing the words of the church's voluntary renunciation canon.” The release noted this action did not purport to defrock the two bishops and would not affect their ecclesial standing in other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

P.B.’s Canon: Church Faces ‘Vague Anxiety’ in Advance of Convention

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/25/pbs-canon-church-faces-vague-anxiety-in-advance-of-convention

[The Living Church] 29 June 2009--Unlike the previous General Convention, next month’s gathering faces a “vague anxiety level” over multiple issues as opposed to just one, said the Rev. Canon Charles K. Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop. He made the remarks during a June 24 lecture at Virginia Theological Seminary (VTS).

The comment came in response to a question as to whether a final decision on issues such as same-sex blessings would come out of the General Convention. Canon Robertson said that Resolution B033 from the 75th General Convention, consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester as Bishop of the Northern Michigan, and the budget are all flash points causing anxiety for different Episcopalians.

“What’s fascinating about this General Convention . . . [is] that there’s not really a very specific target for our anxiety,” he said. “We’re not seeing the same thing we saw in 2006.”

Canon Robertson’s lecture, titled “Facing into the Wind: Lessons on Leadership from Conflict in The Episcopal Church,” was the first in the seminary’s summer leadership series. In it, he presented a model of how conflict develops and escalates. He looked back at prior Anglican controversies, particularly the ordination of women, to contend that the current tensions within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are neither new nor unexpected.

THE ACNA ASSEMBLY - DAY 3

By Robin G. Jordan

I must confess that writing this commentary has been a struggle. I am a day late in writing it and I left my first draft on the hard drive of my computer at home. The constituting of the Anglican Church in North America was a glorious day for those who attended the gathering, as well as for other clergy and members of the new church. It was for them the realization of a dream. It was a time for jubilation. On the other hand, my own interest in what was happening in Bedford, Texas dropped sharply after the ratification of the constitution and canons with only a few changes. I plan to take a look at these changes in a future article.

I have noted a number of reactions to the news of the ratification of the constitution and canons. One reaction was to see the ease with which the constitution and canons were passed and the lack of pronounced vocal opposition to their provisions as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Another reaction was to see the same phenomena as a deliberate effort on the part of the delegates to set aside their reservations in regards to the two documents and to ratify them for the sake of the unity of the new church. I do not know how wide-spread these reactions have been but I expect them to pass into the mythos that will eventually surround the launching of the Anglican Church in North America.

I had anticipated that the two documents would be accepted. The momentum for their ratification was too great. The dynamics present at any gathering like the inaugural Provincial Assembly would work in the favor of their passage. Those like myself who have serious concerns regarding their provisions were not well organized. Leaders who were sympathetic to our concerns were hesitant to aggressively pursue modification of the documents from fear of precipitating a split in the new church. One conservative Anglican website had stopped running my articles, ostensibly because of growing criticism from members of the ACNA leadership. Another conservative Anglican website declined to publish them, citing its support of the ACNA. Few conservative Anglican bloggers posted the articles on their blogs. Criticism of any kind of the new church, even friendly criticism of its foundational documents, had become taboo. Consequently, I was unsuccessful in getting my message to those who needed to hear it. As a lone voice I was easy to dismiss.

Is the struggle for a better constitution and a better set of canons for the Anglican Church in North America over? No. It has just begun, as has the struggle to make the ACNA a truly comprehensive church for all conservative North American Anglicans and to restore and revitalize that part of the North American Anglican heritage that the ACNA has abandoned. However it chooses to present itself, the ACNA will never truly be an Anglican province if it does not successfully rise to these two challenges.

THE ACNA ASSEMBLY - DAY 1

By Robin G. Jordan

Editor's Note: Due to a number of objections to the first four paragraphs of the original version of this article, I have deleted the original version of the article with the comments made in response to it. It is not my policy to normally to delete an article or the accompanying comments but in this case I decided to make an exception. It was not my intention to cause offense. The article, as was pointed to my attention, does not suffer from the deletion of the first four paragraphs to which several of my readers took offense. As a consequence the article appears out of order. It was originally posted on June 22, 2009.

The reaction of the congregation to Bishop Duncan’s sermon at the opening Eucharist of the Provincial Assembly pointed to a major weakness of the Assembly—the vulnerability of its delegates to persuasive charismatic speakers. Over a period of several days a group of such speakers can sway delegates to make decisions that they otherwise might not make, for example, ratify a proposed constitution and set of canons about which they have misgivings instead of calling for a moratorium on their ratification. Lobbyists working in concert with these speakers can move among the delegates, promoting the desired outcome of any vote that will be taken at the gathering.

Bishop Duncan drew to the delegates’ attention that they had no resolutions to consider. They were free from the onus of making decisions. What was unsaid was the corollary: they did not have to do any thinking for themselves; there were leaders to do the thinking for them. This is what Episcopalians were asked to do—not to think for themselves, not to ask questions, not to challenge the decisions of their leaders—and we see the results in the Episcopal Church today.

Bishop Duncan’s remark also points to another major weakness of the Provincial Assembly. The delegates to the Assembly have no control over what is happening during the Assembly’s proceedings. The delegates cannot initiate any action of their own: they cannot offer resolutions. They cannot turn the ACNA in a direction that the ACNA leadership does not want to take the organization. The ACNA leadership is carefully orchestrating these proceedings. It sets the agenda. It determines each day’s activities.

One would have to be extremely naïve to think that the ACNA leadership does not have a particular outcome in mind and has planned everything to achieve that outcome. They have left nothing to chance.One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to make this observation. Nor does one have to see sinister motives behind what the ACNA leaders are doing.

The ACNA leaders are former Episcopalians. They have been immersed for years in the culture of the Episcopal Church. They think and act like Episcopalians. They are far from free of the influence of the Episcopal Church.

The bishops have also imbibed a high view of the role of bishops from their African counterparts who have been influenced by Catholic theology. This view of episcopacy and the episcopate has elevated the office of bishop in their eyes. They are apt to see themselves as acting in the interest of the Church when they may be actually acting in their own interests.

Bishops are men like other men. They are fallible. As the Thirty-Nine Articles wisely draws to our attention, “all be not governed with the Spirit and the Word of God.” Article XXI is referring to “General Councils.” However, what it says is applicable to the members of the episcopate. “They may err, and sometimes have erred….”

Catholic theology may teach that bishops have received a special grace of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the hands of a bishop in the apostolic succession. Reformed theology, however, offers a corrective in its recognition that God gives what he chooses to give. Man cannot force God to act in a way of his choosing. He cannot confine God to sacraments and constrain God to do his will. It is a sobering thought and one we do well to take to heart.

THE ACNA ASSEMBLY - DAY 2

By Robin G. Jordan

The Provincial Council took less than a day to go through the proposed set of canons and to adopt them. The session initially got off to a bad start with the Council jumping around the canons instead of taking them one by one. Throughout the session the work of the Council was interrupted by various speakers--foreign dignatories and missioners. As Baby Blue noted in her live commentary, those who raised questions were bishops and other clergy. The lay members of the Council were silent.

The canons that will be presented to the Provincial Assembly for ratification on Wednesday are a “rush job.” Bishop Duncan was opposed to the session extending into the next day and pushed for the completion of the session by the end of the day.

I have studied the canons since they were first made public on April 3, 2009 and adopted with amendments on April 25, 2009. They are riddled with all kinds of problems, none of which could have possibly been adequately addressed in the time that the Council devoted to them.

For a number of proposals for their revision and an explanation of why each proposed change is necessary, I refer readers to “Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America” on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-canons-of.html A similar set of proposals for the constitution are on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-constitution-of.html

The fast pace at which the constitution and the canons were pushed through the Provincial Council is going to come back and haunt the leadership of the ACNA. Many concerns were not even touched upon, much less properly dealt with. The problems are not going to disappear.

The question must be asked: why the hurry? Would not the ACNA benefit from a solid foundation and a solid framework instead of the shaky ones with which the constitution and canons in their present form provide the church?

When the excitement of the inaugural Provincial Assembly has ended, a lot of people are going to realize that the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council did not do as good a job as they had originally thought. It may be two or three years or longer down the road and after a number of churches have pulled out of the ACNA but that time will come. Would not it better to put in place a more equitable constitution and canons from the outset and prevent all the strife and unhappiness that the existing documents are going to produce?

ACNA Assembly Ratifies Constitution

By Robin G. Jordan

In Bedford, Texas yesterday delegates to the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, caught up in the excitement of the moment, almost unanimously ratified the proposed constitution, the provisions of which had become the source of contention in the days leading up to the gathering. I must wonder how many of the delegates really studied the document and weighed its implications before they voted for its ratification.

The provisional constitution on which the document was based the Common Cause Leadership Council did not release to the public until after its adoption on December 5, 2008. The Council made public several proposed amendments to the provisional constitution and a set of canons on April 3, 2009. Interested parties were given until midday of April 20, 2009—seventeen days—to study the documents, make comments, and offer suggestions. The Council adopted the finalized version of the constitution and canons on April 25, 2009. Most of the changes made in the documents originated with the Council. Only a few of the suggestions that were submitted to the Governance Task Force were incorporated into the finalized version.

The constitution suffers from a number of problems. Among these problems it takes an unnecessarily narrow and partisan doctrinal position on a number of key issues that divide conservative Anglicans, as do the proposed set of canons that will be presented for ratification on Wednesday. Consequently the ACNA will not be as comprehensive church for conservative Anglicans in North America as it had been originally envisioned.

The new church follows a trend evident in The Episcopal Church from which many of its congregations and four of its dioceses broke away and moves toward a greater centralization of power at the national level. The highest governing body of the ACNA is not the Provincial Assembly but the smaller and less representative Provincial Council. The latter elects a twelve-man Executive Committee which serves as the Board of Directors of the ACNA. The Provincial Assembly has no power beyond ratifying the initial constitution and set of canons of the ACNA and any subsequent amendments to these documents. It is particularly vulnerable to manipulation by persuasive speakers and experienced lobbyists (See "The ACNA ASSEMBLY – DAY 1”).

With the ratification of the constitution ACNA has abandoned centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church and the selection of church leaders, which has been an integral part of North American Anglicanism. Under the provisions of the constitution the bishop of a diocese may appoint the delegates to the Provincial Assembly and Provincial Council from his diocese. The ACNA College of Bishops has authority over the election of bishops of the new church. If a diocese chooses its bishop, the College of Bishops must confirm the choice. However, the College of Bishops may choose the bishop of a diocese. The proposed canons make the College of Bishops’ selection of the bishops of the diocese the norm for new dioceses and commend this mode of selection to the existing dioceses that continue to select their own bishops. They also permit dioceses to operate under the constitutions and canons of the Provinces that took their constituent congregations under their wing when they broke away from The Episcopal Church. The Anglican practice of a bishop exercising his power synodically and sharing the governance of a diocese with a synodical meeting of clergy and laity is not mandated in the constitution or the canons. The College of Bishops elects the Archbishop of the ACNA.

The constitution and canons contain few checks and balances and other safeguards. Dioceses may continue to hold property in trust. Dioceses may also take property into trust with the consent of the local congregation.

Among the difficulties that I have encountered in seeking to draw attention to the problems with the constitution and canons has been the unwillingness on the part of a number of conservative Anglican web sites supportive of the ACNA to run articles drawing attention to these problems. One website stopped running my articles ostensibly because of growing criticism from members of the ACNA leadership. The editor of the website informed that they had told him that I was “too narrow” in my views. The editor of another web site informed me that his organization was a strong supporter of the ACNA and he would have to verify what I was claiming in my articles. He never ran any of my articles. At the same time these web sites have freely run articles that ACNA leaders and the ACNA Governance Task Force had written in defense of the constitution and canons. Under the circumstances the delegates’ ratification of the constitution is not surprising.

The Doctrine of the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America

http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/doctrine-of-canons-of-anglican-church.html

[The Heritage Anglican Network] 20 June 2009--Canons are not just rules by which a church operates. They are statements of the doctrines that the church holds. They define what the church members are expected to believe and what the clergy are expected to teach. In the case of the canons of the Anglican Church in North America they also define what other “entities” with whom the church may enter into relationship must believe. Canons may also express a particular doctrine without putting it into the form of a statement.

In this article I will be examining a number of the provisions of the canons of the Anglican Church in North America that indicate the position that the canons take on specific doctrinal issues of concern to Anglicans. I will be taking a look at the implications of these provisions. My examination of the canons will not be exhaustive. It will be confined six canons but it will consider in one case how the other canons express a doctrinal view different from the doctrine stated in that canon.

To read the rest of the article, click here.
To read the previous article, "The Doctrine of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America, click here.
To read a series of proposed amendments to the ACNA constitution withexplanatory notes, click here.
To read a series of proposed amendments to the ACNA canons with explanatory notes, click here.

AMiA Missionary Bishops Elected

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/19/amia-missionary-bishops-elected

[The Living Church] 20 June 2009--Three new bishops were elected to serve the Anglican Province of the Church of Rwanda’s missionary jurisdiction in North America at a June 13 meeting of the Rwandan House of Bishops, according to a press release distributed by the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA).

The candidates are: the Rev. Todd Hunter, director of West Coast Church Planting for the AMiA and the former president of Alpha USA; the Rev. Canon Doc Loomis, canon missioner for the AMiA and chairman of the committee on Mission for the Common Cause Partnership; and the Rev. Silas Tak Yin Ng, canon missioner for Asian initiatives for the AMiA. The consecrations will take place in September.

Reformed Christians Study 'Third Wave Pentecostalism'

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090617/reformed-christians-study-third-wave-pentecostalism/index.html

[The Christian Post] 20 June 2009--The highest governing body of the Christian Reformed Church on Tuesday approved a report on the "Third Wave" movement of the Holy Spirit and recommended sending it to member congregations for study.

The report asks churches to accept the different ways in which the Pentecostal-like movement manifests the work of the Spirit while cautioning members against misuses and placing too much emphasis on spiritual gifts and experiences.

Coined by C. Peter Wagner, founder of Global Harvest Ministries, the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit is similar to the Pentecostal and charismatic waves that preceded it but with important differences, the report – drawn up by a CRC study committee – states.

While the earlier movements emphasize baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, the third wave focuses on multiple fillings of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion with emphasis on "the more evangelically acceptable area of spiritual gifts for ministry," such as prophecy, inner healing, powerful prayer and the reality of spiritual warfare.

Also, the CRC committee offers the third wave as a predominantly evangelical phenomenon that has not, for the most part, caused division in church communities, unlike the preceding waves.

The Doctrine of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America

http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/doctrine-of-constitution-of-anglican.html

[The Heritage Anglican Network] 16 June 2009--In this first of a series of two articles on the doctrine of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America, I examine the doctrinal positions that the Constitution takes on a number of issues and their implications. Why is the doctrine of these two documents important? Philip Ashey in his contribution to the paper, “An Overview of the Work of the Governance Task Force on the Constitution and Canons for the Anglican Church in North America” provides an answer.

“These declarations or ‘confessions’ are so fundamental to our identity as Anglicans that it is the duty of every member of the Province to engage regularly in the reading and study of the Doctrine of the Church as found in Article I of the Constitution (Canon I.10.2). Congregations become members when their Vestry or comparable governing board certifies that they have subscribed to the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA—including Article I (Appendix A Guidelines, No. 9) All ordinands to the diaconate and presbyterate are required to swear an oath to “solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them”—which includes the received Fundamental Declarations in Article 1 (Canons III. 3.2 and III.4.3, emphasis added). Bishops are also required to make the same declaration at their consecration (Canon III.8.5) and may be presented and deposed for violation of this vow (Canon IV.2.3)”

With his answer in mind, let us take a look at the doctrine of the ACNA Constitution....

Watertown's Christ Church to shut doors next month

http://www.rep-am.com/News/420032.txt

[Republican American] 16 June 2009--Eighty-nine years ago, Shirley Palmer was baptized at Christ Church. She was married there and saw her son baptized and confirmed there. Nineteen years ago she attended her husband's funeral at the 245-year-old building on the town Green.

And last year Palmer was there when nearly all of the congregation left to form their own church because of the national Episcopal Church's stance on gays and other issues.

On Sunday, Bishop Laura J. Ahrens of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut told the congregation the final services in the building will be July 26.

It is closing.

"It sort of broke your heart," Palmer said. "But you have to go on."

Clergy go on strike after Archbishop’s removal

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4573

[Religious Intelligence] 16 June 2009--The Roman Catholic clergy of the Central Africa Republic (CAR) staged a one-day strike last week to protest the removal by the Vatican of the Archbishop of Bangui, Mgr Paulin Pomodimo, for violating his vow of chastity.

Appointed to oversee the country’s nine Roman Catholic dioceses in 2003, the 54-year-old archbishop resigned on May 27 after he was found by the Vatican to possess "a moral attitude which is not always in conformity with his commitments to follow Christ in chastity, poverty and obedience."

The archbishop’s resignation follows that of the former president of CAR’s episcopal conference, Bishop François-Xavier Yombandje of Bossangoa, who stepped down on May 16 after a Vatican fact-finding mission faulted him for having a common law wife.

Henry VIII Divorce Plea Reproduced

http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-06-16_116394451.html

[ANSA] 16 June 2009--An Italian publisher has produced a scaled-down replica of the massive petition written by English lords in 1530 to try to persuade the pope to let Henry VIII get a divorce.

The Venice-based publisher, Scrinium, was given unprecedented access to the Causa Anglica letter which has been kept in the Vatican's secret archive for almost 500 years.

Scrinium's replica will be unveiled at Rome's Palazzo della Cancellertia, the former papal chancellery, on June 23 - the anniversary of the eve of Henry's incoronation on June 24, 1509.

The company used the skills of Venetian glass-workers to reproduce the 85 seals on the letter.

5 Truths Churches Struggle to Accept

http://www.buildingforministry.com/2009/06/5_truths_churches_struggle_to.html

[Christianity Today] 16 June 2009--I help churches navigate change. As a Transforming Church consultant, I meet with leaders of churches and non-profit organizations across the country and help them through a journey of discovery, vision clarity, personal transformation, and community impact. No matter how diverse their situations, they share one thing in common: they all struggle to admit certain truths. Here are five of them that, once understood, may set you free:

Bishop laments ‘silencing of religious language’

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4565

[Religious Intelligence] 16 June 2009--The "language of God" - common in public life for centuries - "is now muted, if not almost silent," in this country, according to a leading English bishop.

The lament was voiced by the Rt Rev Martin Wharton, Bishop of Newcastle, who said the mood was famously summed up by Alistair Campbell, press aide to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, with the words "We don't do God".

This meant that if a politician referred to God at all it was in a "half-embarrassed kind of way," the bishop told his diocesan synod.

Bishop Wharton said: "Religion is seen as something which may be privately engaged in - but publicly irrelevant."

Or worse, it could been seen as "dangerous, emotional, and the cause of wars and terrorism," said the 64-year-old church leader, a former Bishop of Kingston-upon-Thames.

Navajoland Declines P.B.’s Choice for Interim Bishop

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/16/navajoland-declines-pbs-choice-for-interim-bishop

[The Living Church] 16 June 2009--The annual convocation of the Navajoland Area Mission adopted overwhelmingly an amended resolution to defer the election of an interim bishop until September. The convocation met June 12-14 at Good Shepherd Mission in Fort Defiance, Ariz.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori presided and officiated at the opening Eucharist, which was attended by about 150 persons, including 40 delegates. Prior to the start of the convocation, Bishop Jefferts Schori had nominated the Rev. Canon David Bailey, canon to the ordinary for the Diocese of Utah, as a possible choice for interim bishop. Her proposal also included identifying and training Navajo leadership, and fund raising in conjunction with the Episcopal Church Foundation.

But during debate, several speakers said they felt that the proposal had not been discussed adequately within Navajoland. Others asked whether it would be possible for the Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, National Indigenous Bishop for the Anglican Church of Canada, to continue serving as assisting Bishop of Navajoland, a role he has held since 2006. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of Canada, had said previously that he wants Bishop MacDonald working in Canada on a full-time basis.

Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America

The following proposals are companion proposals to those in the document, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America.” A number of these proposals bring provisions of the canons into conformity with the provisions of the constitutional amendments proposed in that document. A number of the proposals address other provisions of the canons that are the cause of concern. Attention is in several instances drawn to canonical provisions in need of being changed but no specific additions, alterations, or omissions are proposed. It is hoped that this document, like “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America,” will help delegates to see that the foundational documents being presented for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas on June 22-25, 2009 are in need of serious revision. Ratification of the ACNA constitution and canons in their present form at that meeting is not only premature but it is also likely to make the much needed revision of these foundational documents more difficult. A temporary delay in their ratification is warranted until their provisions can be more thoroughly examined, their implications for North American Anglicanism more carefully studied, and critical revisions adopted.

To read the proposed amendments to the ACNA canons, click here.
To read the proposed amendments to the ACNA constitution, click here or here.
To read a series of articles related to the ACNA constitution and canons, click here.

Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America

The following proposals have been put together to address the concerns of a number of groups and individuals in and outside the Anglican Church in North America in connection with the provisions of the ACNA constitution to be presented for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas on June 22-25, 2009. They have also been compiled to draw the attention of the delegates to the Provincial Assembly to those parts of the constitution that are in serious need of revision and to offer in their place suitable alternative provisions. A good foundation and framework are essential to a well-built house. Without them those living in the house may discover in a few years that they need to make costly repairs. They may even have to tear down part or all of the house and rebuild it. With these proposals we hope to provide that foundation and framework for the Anglican Church in North America.

I.3 We take our place with generations of Anglicans in recognizing that “from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” which “Offices” are always to be held in “reverent estimation”; and join with the 1888 Lambeth Conference in expressing the opinion that “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church” supplies an important part of the basis on which approach may be made toward the reunification of the Church.

The existing section of the constitution excludes from the constitution’s official definition of Anglican orthodoxy the longstanding views on episcopacy of orthodox Anglicans in the evangelical and Reformed tradition and takes an unnecessarily narrow and partisan doctrinal stance. This proposed amendment substitutes a statement relating to Christian ministry and the historic episcopate upon which all three orthodox theological streams represented in the ACNA can agree. The first part of the statement paraphrases the Preface of the 1550 Ordinal and the second part, Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference.

I.8 We unite with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in solemnly declaring the fourteen tenets of orthodoxy that are set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration and which underpin our Anglican identity.

This proposed amendment incorporates the fourteen tenets set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration into constitution’s official definition of Anglican orthodoxy and closes the gap between the constitution’s definition of Anglican orthodoxy and the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition.

II.2 Groups of congregations and their clergy may be recognized as member dioceses of this Church by action of the Provincial Synod in accordance with such procedures as shall be delineated in the Canons of this Province.

This proposed amendment is clearer, more specific and more detailed in its language. It replaces “added” with “recognized,” acknowledging the autonomous character of the groups of congregations and clergy forming member dioceses of the ACNA. It replaces “Provincial Council” with “Provincial Synod,” bringing the language of this section into conformity with that of IV.6.

IV. 2 The Anglican Church in North America is a voluntary association of autonomous (or self-governing) groups of local congregations and their clergy, each group organized on the basis of geographic proximity, shared positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues, or existing relationship or any combination thereof, and having its own bishop and auxiliary bishops, that have banded together for common mission and mutual support, and have entered into a compact for this purpose, as represented by this Constitution.

This proposed amendment further acknowledges the autonomous character of the member dioceses of the ACNA and the voluntary nature of their association together as the ACNA. It recognizes four bases for the organization of a member diocese: geographic proximity, a common theology and ecclesiology, or existing relationship or a combination of two or more of the three. The amendment is an important safeguard against what has happened in TEC where the diocese is treated as a state or regional branch of the national church and therefore subordinate to the national church rather than as an autonomous entity voluntarily joined with similar entities for mutually-defined purposes. It also makes clearer the bases on which groups of congregations and their clergy may organize as autonomous dioceses. Under its provisions a group of congregations and their clergy standing in one particular tradition may organize as separate autonomous diocese on the basis of their common theology and ecclesiology instead of joining a regional-based autonomous diocese in which another tradition is dominant. A group of congregations and their clergy scattered across North America and standing in the same tradition may also organize as an autonomous diocese. As the history of TEC has shown, dioceses in which two or three theological streams are represented are more likely to experience serious power struggles and theological disputes than those that are homogenous.

IV. 3 Repeal. See VI.

IV. 4 Member dioceses may, at the sub-Provincial level, form distinct jurisdictions or voluntary associations for common mission and mutual support and such bodies may adopt and amend their own constitutions and canons.

This proposed amendment brings the language of this section into conformity with that of the proposed amendment to IV.2. Under the provisions of this section several dioceses standing in the same tradition may form a distinct jurisdiction.

IV.6 There shall a Provincial Synod as provided by Article VII and by Canon.

This proposed amendment transforms the Provincial Council into a Provincial Synod and make it the primary representative body as well as the governing body of the province.

IV.7 This Constitution recognizes the right of each diocese, whether organized on the basis of geographic proximity, shared positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues, or existing relationship or any combination thereof, to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Province.

This proposed amendment brings the language of this section into conformity with that of the proposed amendment to IV.2.

V.1 The Provincial Synod, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, has power to make canons ordering the common life of this Province in respect to the following matters:1. The Faith and Order of the Province2. The Mission of the Province3. Forms of Service authorized for use in the Province and other matters relating to worship, the sacraments, and the pastoral offices.4. Standards for Ordination5. Discipline, support, and transfer of Clergy6. Ecumenical and international relations7. Norms for Holy Matrimony8. The proper administration of the Province

This proposed amendment modifies the language of the existing section, eliminating unnecessary wording, and making other changes in the wording of the section. It adds a clause subjecting the Provincial Synod’s canon-making power to the provisions of the constitution. See V.2 for the provisions of the constitution affecting the Provisional Synod’s canon-making power.

V.2 All proposed canons must be circulated among the member dioceses at least ninety (90) days before the regular or special meeting of the Provincial Synod at which they will be considered. If a proposed canon is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, it shall be submitted to each member diocese for ratification. Each member diocese shall send its decision in writing to the Chair of the Provincial Synod, who shall inform the member dioceses of the results, and if approved by two-thirds of the member dioceses, the canon shall take effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the canon. If the proposed canon is not ratified, it may be resubmitted at the next Provincial Synod.

This proposed amendment requires the circulation of proposed canons among the member dioceses well ahead of meetings of the Provincial Assembly and the member dioceses’ ratification of any proposed canon adopted by the Provincial Synod. It is an important safeguard of the autonomy and interests of the member dioceses.

VI. Repeal. The Provincial Assembly is largely titular, having no real power beyond ratifying constitutional changes and canons. Due to its unwieldy size it is highly susceptible to co-option. Persuasive speakers and experienced lobbying groups could easily sway the delegations of the member dioceses to the Assembly to vote against the interests of their respective dioceses. Regular mission conferences could perform the function of strengthening the mission of the province. They could deliberate upon matters referred to them and make recommendations to the member dioceses, the Provincial Synod, the Provincial Executive Council, and the College of Bishops.

VII. Change title to “The Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

VII.1-4 Change all references to “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” These proposed amendments are self-explanatory.

VII.5 Repeal. The need for the co-option of additional members to the Provincial Synod is highly questionable.

VII.6-7 Change all references to “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

VII.8 Special meetings of the Provincial Synod may be called by the Chair and shall be called at the request of two dioceses or one-third of the members of the Provincial Synod.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the calling of special meetings of the Provincial Synod at the request of two dioceses as well as one-third of the members of the Provincial Synod.

VII.9 The Chair with the assistance of the Provincial Executive Council will be responsible for the preparation of the agenda of each Provincial Synod meeting.

This proposed amendment brings the language of VII.9 into conformity with that of VII.10.

VII.10 There is hereby established a Provincial Executive Council, the membership, term of office, manner of election, and duties of which shall be established by canon. Initially the Provincial Executive Council shall be composed of the members of the Common Cause Executive Committee, as constituted under the Common Cause Articles.

This proposed amendment establishes a Provincial Executive Council to replace the Executive Committee and to serve as the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America, Inc.

VIII. 1 The member dioceses retain all authority that they do not delegate to this Province by this Constitution. The powers not delegated to the Province by this Constitution nor prohibited by this Constitution to the member dioceses are reserved to the member dioceses and may be exercised by each such diocese independently or in conjunction with one or more other such dioceses.

The proposed amendment alters the language of VIII.1 to make it clearer that the powers that the province and its institutions may exercise are limited. Under its provisions any canon arrogating powers to the province or its institutions that are not specifically delegated to them would be unconstitutional—a safeguard against any encroachment of the province and its institutions upon the powers of the diocese.

VIII. 2 The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member diocese or distinctive jurisdiction or voluntary association for common mission and mutual support formed by the member dioceses with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate.

This proposed amendment brings the language of VIII.2 into conformity with the language of the other proposed amendments.

IX. 1 The Archbishop will be known as the ‘Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America.’ The Archbishop will be elected, in accordance with such procedures as shall be prescribed by Canon, by a Primatial Electoral College consisting of the bishops in active service of the Province and such clerical and lay electors as shall be provided by Canon.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the election of the Archbishop by a Primatial Electoral College that includes clerical and lay electors as well as the College of Bishops, giving the clergy and laity a role in the election of the Archbishop, restoring not only what has been the historic practice in North America but also was the practice of the early church . Retaining clergy and lay involvement in the election of the primate is even more important given the Archbishop’s duties as Primate—a recent and critical development in the Anglican Communion.

IX. 2 The person elected as Archbishop will hold office for a term of five years concluding at the end of the meeting of the Primatial Electoral College at which his successor is elected. An Archbishop who has served one term of office may be elected for a second term of office. No bishop who has not served as a bishop with jurisdiction for a period of at least six years shall be eligible for election as Archbishop. Any bishop who is elected to the office of Archbishop shall retain his see as a bishop with jurisdiction and continue to discharge his duties as such bishop. Initially, the Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership shall serve as Archbishop and Primate of the Province.

As well as prescribing the term of office of the Archbishop, this proposed amendment establishes the requirements that only those who have been a bishop with jurisdiction for at least six years may serve as Archbishop and the Archbishop must retain his diocesan responsibilities. The first requirement is a hedging of the position of Archbishop against ambitious office seekers and the accompanying politics. The second requirement recognizes that the separation of TEC’s Presiding Bishop from diocesan responsibilities has not been a healthy development for TEC and the primate’s retention of diocesan responsibilities is not an uncommon practice, for example the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Australia and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church of the Province of Southern Cone.

IX. 3 The Archbishop shall convenes the meetings of the Provincial Synod, Provincial Executive Council, and College of Bishops, preside at such meetings, certify the election of new bishops, arrange for their consecration if they have not been previously consecrated, participate in such consecrations or designate another bishop to act in his stead, represent the Province in the Councils of the Church, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by Canon.

The existing section gives limited authority to the Archbishop while the canons give him many additional powers and responsibilities that exceed this limited authority as well as the powers that the Presiding Bishop exercises in TEC. While some of these additional powers and responsibilities may not be objectionable on the merits, the canons giving them to the Archbishop violate the constitution, setting a bad precedent and resembling the current TEC Presiding Bishop’ exceeding of her authority. This proposed amendment prescribed the duties of the Archbishop, listing those historically associated with that office. It also makes provision for the prescription of additional duties by canon.

X.1 The chief work of the College of Bishops shall be to propagate and defend the faith and order of the Church and to serve as the visible sign and expression of the unity of the Church.

This proposed amendment slightly alters the language of the existing section and makes it clearer.

X.3 The College of Bishops may by two-thirds vote of its members, suspend or remove the Archbishop from office for cause.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the suspension or removal of the Archbishop by a two-third vote of the members of the College of Bishops. The Archbishop’s suspension or removal would not prevent him from performing his diocesan responsibilities.

X.4 Change “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

X.5 (a) The College of Bishops shall have authority to confirm the election of bishops of the Province and to consent to their consecration if they have not previously been consecrated. Upon electing a bishop or auxiliary bishop a diocese shall report the election to the College of Bishops in order to obtain confirmation of the election, and consent for consecration of the bishop elect if applicable. If the election is not confirmed by the College of Bishops, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
(b) It is competent for the governing body of a diocese, in accordance with the constitution and canons of the diocese, to either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose delegate the power and authority of the diocese to elect a bishop or auxiliary bishop to the College of Bishops. The delegated power and authority referred to above shall cease with the election of a bishop or auxiliary bishop by the College of Bishops for such occasion and upon confirmation of the election by the governing body of the diocese. Such delegated power and authority may be rescinded by the governing body of the diocese at any time before the election of a bishop or auxiliary bishop for the aforesaid occasion. If the election is not confirmed by the governing body of the diocese, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
(c) Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed to prohibit a diocese from choosing a different mode of election for each different occasion that the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop becomes vacant or an additional auxiliary bishop is required.

The existing section permits and the canons impose upon new dioceses a mode of episcopal election that is alien to North American Anglican practice and to the practice of the early church in which that practice is rooted. The canons also commend this mode of episcopal election to founding entities that presently elect their own bishops. The longstanding practice in North American Anglicanism is that the diocese elects its own bishop and the bishops of the province and the General Convention or standing committees of the province (United States) or the metropolitan and the bishops of the ecclesiastic province (Canada) confirm the election. Notwithstanding the problems with episcopacy in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, they cannot be ascribed to this practice that predates the decline of the last forty years. The origins of the practice of dioceses electing and the province sanctioning bishops can be traced to the fifth century AD. In the historical context of North American Anglicanism the practice of the College of Bishop’s election of the bishop of a diocese is an innovation and is made at the expense of the clergy, laity and individual diocese. Even outside of North America it is of relatively recent origin in Anglican practice and bears a strong resemblance to the Roman Catholic practice of English and Irish dioceses nominating candidates for the office of bishop of a vacant see and submitting their names to the archbishop of the province who then submits the names with his recommendations to the Holy See. The Holy See is not juridically bound to appoint one of the nominees.

This proposed amendment preserves the historical North American Anglican –early church practice of dioceses electing their own bishops and the province confirming their election. At the same time it permits the governing body of a diocese to either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose delegate the power and authority of the diocese to elect a bishop to the College of Bishops for a particular occasion. The election of the bishop so elected must be confirmed by the governing body of the diocese. If a diocese delegates its power and authority to elect a bishop to the College of Bishops on one occasion, it is not bound to do so on a subsequent occasion but may elect his successor itself. Both options are open to new dioceses: they may elect their own bishop or delegate their power and authority to elect their first bishop to the College of Bishops. The proposed amendment safeguards the autonomy of the members dioceses, new as well as existing, in the choice of their bishops.

The flexibility of the provisions of the proposed amendment enable a diocese to try both modes of election and to decide which mode works best for the diocese. It also allows a diocese to revisit an earlier decision that the diocese had made in connection with how the bishops of the diocese would be elected and change the mode of episcopal election. If a diocese opts to elect its own bishop, the manner of how the bishop is elected--by a synod of the diocese, an episcopal electoral college, a board of electors, or any other method consistent with Anglican practice--is left to the diocese.

X.6 The College of Bishops may develop such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for the conduct of its business and shall have such other powers as shall be prescribed by Canon.

This proposed amendment is a corrective. The constitution does not delegate to the College of Bishops all the powers that the canons give to that body. As in the case of the canons giving the Archbishop many additional powers and responsibilities that exceed the limited authority that the constitution gives him, the canons violate the constitution and set a bad precedent.

XI Replace “Provincial Council” with “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

XII All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be subject to any trust interest in favor of the Province, a member diocese, or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province or any member diocese thereof. Where property used by a local congregation is held in a different manner by any diocese such property shall be transferred to the local congregation, within five years of the adoption of this Constitution, under such terms and conditions as the diocese and the local congregation agree upon. A local congregation may dispose of its property as it determines, subject to any self-accepted indebtedness or other self-accepted restrictions. Nothing in this article shall be construed to abrogate or curtail the right of this Church or a member diocese thereof to own, hold, manage, and convey property in its own name for the purpose of carrying out ecclesiastical programs.

This proposed amendment abolished the practice of dioceses holding property in trust altogether and makes provision for the orderly transfer of any property held in trust from the diocese to the local congregation.

XIII Each member diocese or any group of dioceses organized into a distinct jurisdiction agree to share the cost of operating the Province as provided by Canon.

This proposed amendment brings the language of XIII into conformity with the language of the other proposed amendments.

XIV As may be provided by canon, a member diocese or any group of dioceses organized into a distinct jurisdiction may be removed from membership in the Province, after due warning from the Provincial Executive Council, if agreed to by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Executive Council present and voting, and a vote of at least a majority of the members of the Provincial Synod in each of the three orders of bishops, clergy and laity.

This proposed amendment requires a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Executive Council present and voting, and a vote of at least a majority of the members of the Provincial Synod in each of the three orders of bishops, clergy and laity to expel a member diocese or jurisdiction from the ACNA.

XV.1 Repeal. See XV. 2

XV.2 For any changes or amendments to this Constitution the following procedure shall be used: Any proposed change shall be sent by a member diocese to the Provincial Executive Council which shall circulate it among the member dioceses not less than ninety (90) days before the next meeting of the Provincial Synod. If the proposed change is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, it shall be submitted to the governing bodies of the member dioceses for ratification. The governing bodies of the member dioceses shall send a written notice of their approval to the Archbishop who shall then inform them of the results. If approved unanimously by the member dioceses, the approved proposed amendment shall be placed into force.

This proposed amendment establishes a procedure for adopting amendments to the constitution and ratifying them similar to that for adopting canons and ratifying them except that the ratification of a constitutional amendment requires the approval of all the governing bodies of the member dioceses. As in the case of proposed canons this type of procedure not only safeguards the interests of the member dioceses but also discourages hastily conceived constitutional amendments. They encourage those seeking to propose constitutional amendments to consult with all the governing bodies of the member dioceses beforehand and to work out with these governing bodies proposals that are agreeable to them.

A Response to ‘An Introduction to the ACNA Constitution and Canons – By Bishop Robert Duncan’

By Robin G. Jordan

Whatever questions may have been posed at the deliberations of the Governance Task Force and the wider consultations that Governance Task Force undertook, the answers of the Governance Task Force appear to have been influenced by preconceived notions that members of the Governance Task Force brought to those deliberations and consultations. One set of questions that was apparently not asked is how in our attempts to resolve one set of problems can we keep from replacing them with another set of problems? In adopting the practices of “the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion” are we trading one set of problems for another? From where did they acquire these practices and what historically have been the problems associated with such practice? What newer problems are manifesting themselves in connection with the same practices? These important questions and other questions as equally as important do not appear to have been asked. Perhaps they were. However, it is not evident from the finalized version of the ACNA constitution and canons.

What is missing from the principles that Bishop outlined as necessary to understand “why something had been done in the way proposed,” as opposed to the way it has historically been done in North American Anglicanism, is a serious commitment on the part of the Governance Task Force and the Common Cause Leadership Council to the preservation, renewal, and strengthening of four vital elements of the North American Anglican heritage—a synodical form of church government, substantial lay involvement in the governance of the church and the selection of church leaders, the autonomy of the diocese particularly in its choice of bishops (subject to the province’s confirmation of the canonical eligibility of the bishop-elect), and the concept of the province as a voluntary association of equal dioceses over which the province has limited, constitutionally-defined authority. Noticeably lacking is also a commitment to the degree of clarity, specificity, and detail in the language of the two documents essential to preventing any misunderstanding of their provisions and to avoiding the kinds of irregularities that are apt to beset a church when such documents are not sufficiently clear, specific, and detailed.

The skeleton that the Governing Task Force has provided for the ACNA contains a number of provisions that do not need to be included in the constitution and canons of a church. This is readily seen when the ACNA constitution and canons are compared with those of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone and other Anglican provinces. At the same time that skeleton omits a number of provisions that should have been included. The work of the Governing Task Force might have been really strengthened if the other interested parties beside the Common Cause Leadership Council had been given an opportunity to make their own contribution to that work. The provisional constitution and canons were not made public until after the Leadership Council had adopted them in December. Interested parties were given only seventeen days to make comments and offer suggestions in connection with the proposed amendments to the provisional constitution and the draft code of canons made public in April.

Rather than giving “far more place to the laity,” the ACNA constitution and canons actually give the laity a limited role in the governance of the ACNA. First, while the lay members may form one half of the members of the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council, they form substantially more than half the membership of the ACNA. In proportion to the laity the bishops and the clergy of the ACNA form a very small part of the church.

Second, the constitution and canons permit the dioceses to adopt forms of governance like that of the AMiA in which the laity does not even have a token role in the governance of that “sub-provincial jurisdiction” and the role of the clergy is not much better. As the AMiA is presently organized, the bishops of that jurisdiction will select the bishop, the clergy, and laity that will represent the AMIA in the Provincial Council and the clergy, laity, and youth who will represent the AMiA in the Provincial Assembly. The ACNA constitution and canons contain no provisions that guarantee the laity any role in the nomination and election of the clerical and lay members of these two bodies. This is left solely to the discretion of the member dioceses.

Third, while the Provincial Assembly may have a large number of lay members, including voting youth members, the Assembly has no real power. The Assembly may receive reports, deliberate, recommend, and ratify but it may not initiate legislation, conduct investigations, censure, or remove from office. It is largely titular. In the hands of lobbying groups the Assembly has a high potential to become a rubber stamp for whatever faction dominates the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council.

Fourth, what role the laity has in the nomination and election of the bishops of a diocese depends upon the diocese. Under the ACNA constitution and canons they are not guaranteed any role at all. The canons permit dioceses to continue to operate under the constitution and canons of the parent Provinces. Under the canonical charter of the AMiA the Council of Missionary Bishops nominates candidates for the office of bishop. All candidates must be approved by the Primatial Vicar. The names of the candidates with their curricula vitae are then submitted to the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops for their consideration.

The ACNA canons requires that all new dioceses to nominate two or three candidates for the office of bishop and to submit their names to the College of Bishops for consideration. The canons state that the College of Bishops may elect one of the candidates but they contain no provision that juridically binds the College of Bishops to elect any of the candidates. They are silent on whether, if the College of Bishops rejects all three candidates, the diocese may nominate additional candidates. The canons commend this mode of choosing bishops to founding entities that continue to elect their own bishops. It is strikingly similar to the way that bishops are chosen in the Anglican Church of Rwanda (see Title I, Canon 6, Sections 3, 4, 5and 6, and Title III, Canon 23, Section 3 of the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/Final%20Edition%20of%20the%20Canons%20of%20the%20Province%20of%20Rwanda.pdf ) and in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Ireland (see "Bishops: Present Legislation," Catholic Encyclopedia on the Internet at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm). The way the canons are worded procedures followed in these churches could also be followed in the ACNA.

Neither the clergy nor the laity has any role in the election of the titular Archbishop of the ACNA, who is chosen solely by the College of Bishops.

Bishop Duncan claims, “…the bishops don’t own the property.” However, the ACNA constitution does permit dioceses holding property in trust to continue to do. It does not abolish the practice. The ACNA canons also allow dioceses to take property into trust with the written consent of the local congregation.

Bishop Duncan goes on to say, “Giving is a free exercise, the tithe is upheld, force is not a way forward.” On the other hand, the instructions for the application for recognition as an ACNA diocese state, “While acknowledging the tithe as the underlying principle of the new province, it is accepted that some ACNA jurisdictions already have a giving procedure in place that cannot be immediately altered easily. Permission is therefore given to continue those current systems of giving that it is understood must stay in place for now, but with intentional steps and designs in place to move into the uniformity of the tithe as the standard for all the province. Congregations moving into new groupings are encouraged to give ten percent of local income to the new grouping, while each new grouping is encouraged to give ten percent of group income to the support of the cost of operating the Province.” If giving is voluntary, why is permission required to continue current systems of giving? Tithing also represents an innovation in the United States, particularly at the national church level but also at the diocesan and local congregational level where proportional giving has generally been the rule. The question arises why the national church would require ten percent of the revenues of a diocese in a church in which the diocese is “a grouping of congregations gathered for mission” and “the local congregation is the fundamental agency of mission.”

Bishop Duncan’s comment, “under stress, regress” is not very reassuring. The first question that comes to mind is to “regress” to what—some imagined golden age in Anglicanism? If one looks at the different periods in Anglican Church history, they all had their share of problems—authoritarian episcopacy and prelacy in the seventeenth century, clashes over doctrine and churchmanship in the nineteenth century, and so on. Regression in the face of stress is not a healthy response.

All of the bodies that the ACNA constitution and canons establish, the Provincial Assembly, the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Provincial Tribunal are highly susceptible to political maneuvering and manipulation. The two documents contain few checks and balances, guarantees, and safeguards. As far as protecting the interests of the member dioceses transferring the ratification of constitutional changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would provide greater security than an assembly in which a persuasive speaker or two, working in concert with an experienced pressure group, could sway the diocesan delegations to vote against their respective dioceses’ interests.

The need for a more exciting pair of documents is not what is prompting orthodox North American Anglicans to draw attention to troublesome provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons. They have been thoughtfully examining the two documents and weighing their implications. They recognize that the documents provide more than a framework. They provide a vision of a church’s future, of the direction in which church leaders are taking the church. They see the principles reflected in the documents other than the six that Bishop Duncan mentions:

1. Partisanship. The constitution and canons contain dogmatic statements that are related to ecclesiological and theological issues over which orthodox Anglicans has historically been divided, and which take a particular side in these controversies. The presence of these statements belies any assurances from ACNA leaders that the ACNA is committed to a genuine comprehensiveness that truly embraces all three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical--in North America.

2. Centralization of authority, with the canons arrogating to such bodies as the Provincial Council and the College of Bishops, powers and functions that the constitution does not give to them. The canons place the making of major decisions affecting the faith and order of the church into the hands of what has a high potential of becoming a small, closed, self-perpetuating group.

3. Lessening of the autonomy of the diocese. Despite constitutional provisions that appear to protect diocesan autonomy, the canons arrogate to the province powers and functions that North American dioceses have historically exercised, including the establishment of norms in such matters as the criterion for self-supporting parishes and standards for lay ministry. A critical area in which the canons reduce diocesan autonomy is the election of the bishops of the diocese, commending to the founding entities of the ACNA a practice in which the College of Bishops elects the bishops of the diocese in place of the diocese itself. The instructions for applications for recognition as an ACNA diocese point to a future reduction of diocesan autonomy: “Article IV recognized the right of each grouping to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Province. While not required at this time, future canons may require each grouping to write a constitution and canons in support of the Provincial Constitution and Canons.”

4. Diminution of lay involvement in ecclesiastical governance and selection of church leaders. The ACNA constitution and canons abandon centuries of hard-won lay involvement in these areas of church life. Lay members of the ACNA are treated as less than full partners and stakeholders in the ACNA.

Whether what we are witnessing and the finalized version of the ACNA constitution and canons represents is “the rebirth of the biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America” remains to be seen. A number of the provisions of the two documents are already the cause of division. As people come to fully understand their implications, they are likely to cause further division. Instead of ratifying the documents, the member dioceses of the ACNA needs to defer action upon them, giving themselves time to carefully examine the constitution and canons, weigh their implications, and make substantive changes. An interim instrument of governance can be drafted and adopted to provide for the government of the ACNA and the management of its affairs during this period of review. If they are ratified in their present form, the two documents will be an ongoing source of tension and conflict and eventually may precipitate the dissolution of the ACNA.