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.