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.
No comments:
Post a Comment