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.