Appointment of AC-NA dean points to need for new constitution and canons

By Robin G. Jordan

Among the objectionable features of the AC-NA constitution is that it concentrates too much power into the hands of a small group of people, contains few if any credible safeguards against the abuse of power, and does not require any accountability of those wielding power in the government of the church. These drawbacks became evident this past December with Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of a dean of the province that under the provisions of the AC-NA constitution and canons he has no authority to appoint. (See “Recent appointment of a Dean of the ACNA raise serious constitutional questions.”) In agreeing to this appointment the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee not only condoned this unconstitutional and uncanonical act but also became accessories to it. The Archbishop, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee have offered no explanation for this violation of the instruments of governance of the AC-NA.

The reaction of AC-NA members has been mixed. Many are unfamiliar with the church’s constitution and canons and do not realize that the appointment was illegal. Some have tried to justify it on the basis of the growing burden of office upon the Archbishop. What is even worse is that others, while recognizing that the appointment was not constitutional or canonical are willing to tolerate such actions on the part of their leadership.

The AC-NA canons contain a provision (Title I.1.5) by which the Provincial Council might have appointed an assistant to the Archbishop. They also contain a provision (Title III.8.6) by which the College of Bishops could have, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, created an office of Bishop for Special Missions to act as an assistant to the Archbishop, to be elected by the College of Bishops and to work under the College of Bishops’ supervision. The AC-NA leadership, however, did not avail themselves of these constitutional and canonical options but instead chose one that was neither constitutional nor canonical.

The fact that the AC-NA leadership do not view themselves as bound by the church’s constitution and canons and feel free to set them aside at will should be a cause for alarm. If they are willing to disregard these instruments of governance in one area, in what other areas are they willing to disregard them? The danger is that if AC-NA members do not raise an outcry protesting this and similar actions, the AC-NA leadership will be emboldened to operate more and more in this fashion.

Disregard for the “rule of law” is one of the major problems that besets The Episcopal Church. The “rule of law” means that the “law,” in this particular instance, the provisions of the constitution and canons of the AC-NA, “is above everyone and it applies to everyone.” Whether bishop, clergy, or laity, whatever their leadership position in the church, “no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.” The “rule of law” is a safeguard against arbitrary governance. Where the “rule of law” prevails in an ecclesial body, a church leader cannot exercise discretionary powers beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution and canons of that body. The “rule of law” is superior to the rule of any church leader.

The provisions of the AC-NA constitution require the Provincial Council to define the discretionary powers of the Archbishop by canon. Article IX.3 states:

“The Archbishop convenes the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops, represents the Province in the Councils of the Church and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

The Provincial Council cannot simply meet and by a show of hands decide to give a particular discretionary power to the Archbishop. The Council must adopt a proposed canon specifying that power and then submit the proposed canon to the Provincial Assembly. If the Provincial Assembly does not agree with the Provincial Council that the Archbishop should have such discretionary power, it may refuse to ratify the proposal, in which case it is not binding upon the AC-NA.

The constitution and canons do not recognize the Executive Committee as having power and authority to enact legislation binding upon the AC-NA or to otherwise mandate the exercise by the Archbishop of powers beyond those enumerated in the constitution and canons. They do not give the Executive Committee such power and authority.

Under the provisions of the present AC-NA constitution and canons even if the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee and the College of Bishops unanimously agreed that it was within the discretionary powers of the Archbishop to appoint a dean of the province, such an appointment would not be constitutional or canonical as long as there was not a canon giving that authority to the Archbishop. Article IX.3 is very clear on the matter: “…and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

There is a great need to hold the Archbishop, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee accountable for their actions. But the mechanisms for that accountability are sadly lacking in the AC-NA constitution and canons. The Provincial Assembly has no real power. It cannot propose and adopt legislation, much less conduct investigations and impose sanctions.

This appointment should be a red flag to all AC-NA members who have concerns about the particular form of ecclesiastical governance that the AC-NA has adopted, its lack of safeguards and accountability, and the greatly diminished role of the laity. The threat of congregations and groupings of congregations withdrawing from the AC-NA is not going to serve as a deterrent to this kind of action. What are needed are far-reaching changes to the constitution and canons that would make the Provincial Assembly the central governing body of the AC-NA, would subordinate the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee to the Provincial Assembly, would clearly define the extent of the Archbishop’s powers, and would give the laity a much larger role in the government of the church. These changes should include provisions specifying how the constitutions and canons should be interpreted. But the most important change needs to take place in the attitude of those leading the AC-NA, that is, having agreed to conform to the provisions of the constitution and canons, they actually do so, working within the rules embodied in these instruments of governance.