A Plea for a Moratorium on the Ratification of the ACNA Constitution and Canons

By Robin G. Jordan

Readers of Anglicans Ablaze may have been following the discussion on Stand Firm in connection with the thread titled “Can Evangelicals Accept the Historic Episcopate?” In a number of posts Matt Kennedy argues that evangelicals can accept the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America without compromising their “evangelical principles.” This argument, while it may convince some evangelicals, does not convince others or even Anglicans who do not identify themselves as evangelicals.

The language of Article I, Section 3 is decidedly partisan. Both Bishop John Rodgers and Stephen Noll in their own way have acknowledged this. Bishop Rodgers has stated that the concern regarding the language of the section is "significant" and needs "to be resolved." Dr. Noll has described the language of the section as "prescriptive-normative" rather than "descriptive normative,"noting, "...maybe the Anglo-Catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution." Philip Ashey has linked the section to the decidedly partisan Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution of the 1886 Episcopal House of Bishops. The arguments of a number of posters in support of the retention of the section point to its partisanship. Kennedy’s own suggestion that Anglo-Catholics might take offense at its removal from the Fundamental Declarations does the same.

Several posters have built the case that the doctrine articulated in the section is one over which Anglicans have historically been divided. Two traditions exist in Anglicanism. In the view of one tradition the episcopacy is seen as being of the essence of the Church. The most extreme proponents of this view have argued that the Church cannot exist without it. In the nineteenth century they unchurched a number of denominations solely on the basis that they did not have an episcopal form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the Church of Rome, the seventeenth century Catholic Reaction, the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism.

In the view of the other tradition the episcopacy, while it is a very ancient and commendable form of church government, is not a divine institution. The Scriptures do not prescribe any particular form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the English Reformers, the Elizabethan Settlement, the Evangelical Revival, and classical evangelical Anglicanism.

Both traditions have historically been represented in North American Anglicanism, the first notably by Bishop Samuel Seabury and the second notably by Bishop William White. Both views have their contemporary proponents in and outside of North America.

The question has been raised whether such partisan statements of doctrine rightfully belong in the constitution and code of canons of a church that is comprised of not one but three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical—and is supposed to embody Anglican comprehensiveness. Posters who embrace a vision of the Anglican Church in North America in which all three streams are given ample room to flourish have argued that they do not. On the other hand, posters who have been for a large part Anglo-Catholic in theological outlook have opposed their removal.

While the inclusion of partisan doctrinal statements in the ACNA constitution and code of canons is a serious problem, it represents the tip of the iceberg. It is one of a number of problems that are manifesting themselves in the ACNA. Some of these problems are connected to the provisions of the constitution and canons; others are not. These problems include but are not limited to:

· The abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in church government and the election of bishops, including the primate.
· The centralization of power in the national church, in the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Archbishop.
· A revival of prelacy and authoritarian forms of church government.
· The revival of an episcopal patronage system and the problems and abuses inherent in such a system.
· A resurgence of clericism and the unbiblical subordination of the laity to the bishops and clergy.
· A lack of any safeguards against episcopal and clerical power and their abuse.
· The inadequate treatment of the laity as full partners and stakeholders in the church.
· A significant reduction in the autonomy of the diocese, primarily manifest in the College of Bishops’ election of diocesan and auxiliary bishops and the canons’ arrogation to the national church powers and functions that the diocese has historically exercised and which the constitution does not delegate to the national church or prohibit to the diocese.
· The canons’ arrogation to a titular archbishop of powers and functions, including metropolitan authority, which the constitution does not give him.
· A weak commitment to the local congregation’s ownership of local church property evident in constitutional and canonical provisions permitting a diocese to hold property in trust.

The large role that the ACNA constitution and code of canons gives to bishops is surprising since serious theological disputes between congregations and clergy and their bishops and the abuse of episcopal power were high on the lists of reasons that congregations and clergy left The Episcopal Church, establishing the need for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. The growing centralization of power and the encroachment of the national church upon the autonomy of the diocese are major causes for concern of orthodox Anglicans remaining in The Episcopal Church. So is the Presiding Bishop’s arrogation of powers and functions that the church’s constitution and canons does not give her. With TEC suing bishops, clergy, and other church leaders and even members of the congregations that have left TEC and in some cases pursuing criminal charges against them, one would have expected a stronger commitment to a local congregation’s ownership of property.

Checks and balances and other safeguards are noticeably missing from the ACNA constitution and code of canons. The lessons that the leaders of the ACNA have learned from the events of the past forty years are not what we might have hoped that they would learn. For example, the ACNA canons contain a provision that enables a bishop to request the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate suspected rumors in respect to his character. This provision has a high potential for abuse. It could be used to suppress legitimate dissent. The argument that one hears from the more enthusiastic supporters of the ACNA that the ACNA has godly bishops while TEC does not, is rather thin, and offers little comfort.

Both the ACNA constitution and code of canons need a complete overhaul and a major revision. Refusing to ratify the two documents until they are overhauled and revised is the only way to ensure that they are changed. Dioceses that want to see changes in the documents but choose to ratify them are going to discover that the changes they desire will not be forthcoming. Only a small number of changes were made in the documents at the April meeting of the Provincial Council. The paucity of these changes suggests that the ACNA leadership has an investment in keeping the documents as they are. If the ACNA leadership is not inclined to change them before ratification, they are certainly not likely to become more inclined to change them once they are ratified. Hence, the need for a moratorium on their ratification until they can be examined thoroughly and needed alterations and additions made.