An ACNA Constitution – An Evangelical View: A Reply to Bishop John Rodgers

By Robin G. Jordan

As much as I respect Bishop John Rodgers, I must strongly disagree with the position he has taken on the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA. Here is why.

The Provincial Assembly is a titular body. Beyond ratification of the legislative acts of the Council the Assembly has no real powers: It can discuss matters of faith and mission and make recommendations. The limitation of its powers to the ratification of constitutional changes and canons does not eliminate any susceptibility to political maneuvering and manipulation. Lobbying and pressure groups can persuade the delegates of diocese to vote against the interests of the diocese just as easily in the Assembly as they did in the General Convention. The Provincial Council is also susceptible to such maneuvering and manipulation. The form of ecclesiastical governance and modes of ecclesiastical and primatial election that the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA establish in actuality make it easier for one faction to dominate the ACNA and to establish its hegemony over the church. Abolishing the Assembly, transforming the Council into a Provincial Synod and the Executive Committee into a Provincial Executive Council, increasing the size of the delegation of each diocese to the Synod in proportion to the total ASA of the diocese, capping the size of the diocesan delegations to keep the Synod from becoming too large and unwieldy a body, and transferring the ratification of constitution changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would create important safeguards that are missing from the proposed constitution and code of canons. They would be a major step toward the avoidance of the replication in the ACNA of conditions that exist in TEC. All of these recommended changes to the proposed constitution and code of canons were submitted to the ACNA Governance Task Force but none of them were incorporated in the few amendments that the Governance Task Force did recommend to the Council in April.

If the groups of congregations that are meeting in Bedford, Texas this month do not sign the proposed constitution and code of canons, it does not mean as Bishop Rodgers suggests that there will be no church. Instead of these two highly flawed documents they can adopt resolutions establishing a new Governance Task Force to prepare a new draft constitution and code of canons for the ACNA and an Interim Instrument of Governance to provide temporary structure and governance for the ACNA until such constitution and code of canons have been drafted, studied, revised, adopted, and ratified.

Anyone who has worked with people in crisis knows that the crisis gives to the people it is affecting incentive or motivation to change. Remove the crisis and those affected by the crisis loose their incentive or motivation to change. Crises put people in a state of disequilibria and they will seek to regain their equilibrium. Once they have regained their equilibrium either by the removal of the crisis or by adjustment to the crisis, their incentive or motivation for change evaporates. Ratification of the proposed constitution and code of canons would remove the crisis that some people are experiencing over the prospect of these two documents not being ratified. Whatever incentive or motivation they may have to support any changes in the two documents would disappear.

From their actions the ACNA Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council give no indication of any real desire upon their part to make any substantive changes in the proposed constitution and code of canons related doctrinal, governance, and other concerns. While individual members of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have shown themselves open to listening to concerns, the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have collectively shown themselves unwilling to countenance substantive changes in these two documents in connection with these concerns. Ratifying the proposed constitution and code of canons is highly unlikely to make the two bodies more amenable to substantive changes in the two documents in respect to such concerns. The notion that these concerns can be addressed and the provisions of the constitution and code of canons amended after the proposed constitution and code of canons are ratified ring hollow. The window of opportunity for revising these two documents is now. That window of opportunity will slam shut as soon as they are ratified.

Having secured the ratification of the existing documents what incentive or motivation does the Governance Task Force or the Provincial Council have to revise them? Once they are ratified, the task of making much needed revisions will be much more difficult and much more divisive. I can hear the arguments already. “If you were willing to ratify them, why aren’t you willing to accept them as they are?” “You signed them so why are you wanting to change them so soon?” And so forth. As I have noted, a segment of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council is resistant to any major changes in the substance of the constitution and the code of canons and they appear to have the ear of the other members of these bodies. Their resistance is not likely to disappear. Instead it is likely to grow. This resistance to any change in the two documents is not confined to these bodies. The result will be increasing tension between proponents of revision of the documents and opponents to any change in documents and may eventually lead to a major split in the ACNA. It is better to deal with the concerns related to the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons now than put them off to later.

Is it really too late to make changes at this point? The language of the Fundamental Declarations may be the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement but that does not make it representative of all orthodox North American Anglicans, only those who were represented on the drafting group that drew up the statement and those represented in the Common Cause Leadership Council that adopted the statement. What it does suggest that at least one orthodox Anglican theological stream was not adequately represented on that drafting group or in the adopting Common Cause Leadership Council. If one carefully examines the language of the Fundamental Declarations, one thing is apparent. They were written to accommodate the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of matters—the Councils of the Church, the Anglican formularies–the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and the historic episcopate. They do not display the same sensitivity toward the Evangelical position upon these matters. As Ephraim Radner has pointed to our attention, they make room for other sources of authority beside the Articles and the Prayer Book.

Bishop Rodgers claims that the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the ACNA proposed constitution was not intended to set forth the “esse” position on the historic episcopate. Whatever the intentions of the drafters of the Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations were taken, this section is open to the interpretation as representing that position: “…a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic doctrine and practice….” “Inherent” means “essential” and “essential” means “of, constituting of a thing’s essence” and “an indispensable element.” In other words, “a godly historic episcopate” constitutes a part of the essence of the apostolic doctrine and practice; it is an indispensable element of that doctrine and practice. This is certainly open to interpretation as expressive of the “esse” position, a doctrinal position over which orthodox Anglicans have historically divided and over which they continue to be divided to this day. In a church that is supposed to be committed to providing a home for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams such a doctrinal position is out of place. In response to the assertion that reading Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA constitution as a statement of the “esse” position on the historic episcopate is a misinterpretation of that section, it must also be noted that any provision of a constitution or canon that is open to two or more interpretations is in need of revision: its language is not clear or specific enough to prevent it from being susceptible to more than one interpretation.

It must also be noted that two changes have already been made in the Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations now refer to the 1571 Articles instead of the 1562 Articles. The affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were dropped from the Fundamental Declarations and placed in the Preface where they are not as binding upon the ACNA as they would be in the Fundamental Declarations. The explanation that was offered Stephen Noll for this change was that the Fundamental Declarations were more ancient than the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, an apparent reference to the positions that the Fundamental Declarations take on the Councils of the Church, the historic episcopate, and the like. More plainly put, the ACNA has chosen to adopt the Catholic position on these matters over the Evangelical position due to the supposed antiquity of that position even though the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism--the Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Settlement—rejected the Catholic position as not only contrary to the word of God but also to the writings of the Church Fathers, and conservative Evangelicals reject this position to this day.

It must be further noted that Evangelicals have not being calling for the adoption of Evangelical positions on such matters but positions on which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are not historically divided and upon which both theological streams agree. If the ACNA is to be truly a comprehensive church for all three orthodox theological streams in North American Anglicanism, then the language of the Fundamental Declarations needs to be much more comprehensive. For example, one suggestion for an alternative version of Article I, Section 3 of the proposed constitution is as follows. It is a restatement of parts of the Preface to the 1550 Ordinal and Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference, staying fairly close to the original wording. It is one of several similar proposals, the major difference being that it is wordier than these proposals:

“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 concerns that have been presented to the Governance Task Force do not represent those of isolated individuals but of groups in and outside of the ACNA. Some of these groups identify themselves as Evangelical in their theological orientation and others do not but nonetheless share the concerns of their Evangelical brothers and sisters. Their concerns go beyond the language of the Fundamental Declarations. They ask why have the drafters of the proposed constitution and code of canons abandoned a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition in North American Anglicanism of a diocese electing its own bishops, a practice that not only has its roots in the practice of the early Church but is also a fundamental component of diocesan autonomy at a time when conservative bishops in the Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese in that church? . Why have they turned their backs on the centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church and the episcopal and primatial nomination and election process at a time when Roman Catholics are calling for lay involvement in the very same areas of their church due to recent disclosures in that church? Why do the proposed code of canons give all kinds of powers and functions to the Archbishop of the ACNA, treat him as a metropolitan, and require canonical obedience to the Archbishop from the other bishops of the church when the proposed constitution gives very limited powers and functions to the Archbishop and does not give him metropolitan authority over the other bishops of the church? These questions represent just a few of the concerns that they have been voicing. Space prevents me from listing all of them.

To those like myself who have examined similar ecclesiastical structures and ways of operating to the ones that the proposed constitution and code of canons would impose upon the ACNA, evaluated their merits, and weighed their short-term and long-term ramifications, these so-called “new ways” do not “bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise.” They suffer from their own particular set of problems as well as are susceptible to problems that beset more familiar patterns of structure and governance. There is an old proverbial saying: “It is better to deal with the devil you do know than the one you don’t know.” The more familiar patterns of structure and governance do have their share of problems but they are problems that are understood and can be readily dealt with.

The so-called “new ways” bring with them a host of problems that are not yet fully understood and may not prove as easy to deal with. They not only substantially restrict the autonomy of the diocese but they also greatly reduce the role of the laity in church government and number of other areas. While the proposed constitution reserves to the dioceses the powers that the constitution does not delegate to the province church or prohibit to the dioceses, the proposed code of canons takes powers that dioceses normally exercise and which the constitution does not delegate to the province and arrogates them to the province. The centralization of authority is a pattern that runs throughout the canons. Despite constitutional and canonical provisions that appear at first glance to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, so is the restriction of diocesan autonomy. A number of provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons reveal a decided bias against lay participation in such major decisions as the choice of a bishop or a primate. While bishops and clergy have largely been responsible for the drift of the Episcopal Church away from orthodoxy, the proposed constitution and code of canons treat the laity as the weak link in the chain.

The question has been raised as to why those who are expressing their reservations about the proposed constitution and code of canons and calling for substantive changes in these documents have not said anything before now. The reality is that they did draw the attention of the Governance Task Force to troublesome provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons within the extremely limited time that was permitted for public comment. Interested parties were given no opportunity to study the draft of the provisional constitution and canons that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted in December 2008. They were not released for public comment until after they were adopted. Interested parties were given seventeen days to study the documents that the Common Cause Leadership Council, acting as the provisional Provincial Council, adopted with some amendments as the finalized draft of the proposed constitution and code canons to be presented for ratification at the Inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas this month. At the time that the documents were released for public comment, Bishop Bob Duncan said pretty much what Bishop Rodgers has said. The documents were not perfect. They could be fixed later. Indeed, this has become a favorite talking point of leaders and proponents of the ACNA. They keep promising a better constitution and code of canons will be adopted at a later date if people accept the existing documents. Bishop Rodgers is really not saying anything new.

It may be helpful to read what was the experience of one individual who shared his concerns with his bishop and posted an account of what happened on the Internet. He was told that the way that North American Anglicans have historically choosing their bishops was “an innovation” and not the practice that the canons were imposing upon new dioceses and commending to founding entities that elect their bishops. The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the primate of the province, as well as the bishops of the dioceses, he was told would bring the ACNA in line with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The bishop in question failed to mention that the practice that he dismissed as an “innovation” had its roots in the practice of the early Church and had been preserved in the English practice of the canons of the cathedral chapter electing the bishop of the vacant see. The Anglican Communion has as many ways of choosing bishops and primates as it has provinces, and in the case of bishops, even dioceses. This anecdote suggests that at least one bishop has sought to put a lid on any dissent from the provisions of the existing documents and further suggests a vested interest in these documents.

Another anecdote also points to why some people have not taken issue with the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons. Another individual shared the view on the Internet that he saw no point in reading the two documents because if he drew attention of his bishop to their troublesome provisions, he did not expect his bishop to pay him any heed. If his bishop did listen to his concerns, took them to heart, and shared them as his own with the other bishops of the ACNA, they would nod their heads and smile and then ignore his concerns, doing things just as they had been doing. This particular individual felt so powerless that he did not even bother to read the documents.

Both anecdotes point to the existence of conditions in the ACNA not unlike those in the Episcopal Church. The proposed constitution and code of canons as they are presently written will, once they are ratified, contribute to the further development of such conditions. This is one of the concerns that is being expressed in respect to a number of provisions of these documents, for example the canonical provision that permits the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate rumors circulating relating to the character of a bishop and to bring charges against whoever is circulating the rumors. This provision is not found in the canons of any Anglican province that I have reviewed. It has a high potential for abuse.

I do not believe that Bishop Rodgers would sign a contract without closely reading the fine print and then after finding a number of troublesome provisions, sign it on the assurances of the person trying to get him to sign the contract that the terms of the contract with which he had trouble would be modified later. I do not believe that any good lawyer would counsel him to sign the contract. Rather he would insist upon the signature, witnessing, and attachment of the necessary legal documents modifying these terms before signing it. The proposed constitution and code of canons are contracts. Before signing them, the groups of congregations that are being asked to ratify them should study them carefully and insist upon the much needed modifications and not let themselves be rushed into signing the documents on the promise that the troublesome provisions will be “fixed” at some vague future date.