The Emerging Ecclesiastical Culture of the AC-NA

By Robin G. Jordan

The appointment of Bishop Harvey as the Dean of the Anglican Church in North America is very telling about the emerging ecclesiastical culture of the AC-NA. Those who occupy positions of leadership at the provincial level do not appear to regard themselves as bound by the rules embodied in the church’s instruments of governance. This raises questions about the kind of ethic and in turn the kind of theology that dominates the AC-NA’s emerging ecclesiastical culture. As the former Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggins observed, “a sound ethic can precede only from a sound theology.” [Donald Coggins, Preaching: The Sacrament of the Word, New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company 1988, 144]

The conflict between conservatives and liberals in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church has been over moral values and doctrinal beliefs. In these two churches the abandonment of traditional morality has gone hand in hand with the abandonment of orthodox doctrine. One of the effects of these developments has been the erosion of principle in guiding conduct and a loss of respect for the “rule of law.” The result is what church leaders believe will bring about a desired end increasingly determines how they act. A large number of those occupying positions of leadership in the Anglican Church of North America are former clergy and members of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. They appear to have brought this attitude into the AC-NA with them.

Archbishop Duncan was very insistent as Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership and then as Archbishop elect of the Anglican Church in North America that the instruments of governance of the newly-formed church should not be too detailed, majoring in what he described as “minors.” This Archbishop Duncan claimed was a major weakness of The Episcopal Church system of ecclesiastical governance. He suggested a correlation between a church’s preoccupation with the details of its constitution and canons and its spiritual condition. A church that was genuinely spiritual would not be overly concerned with the details of these instruments of governance. Archbishop Duncan argued for what he described as a “minimalist” constitution and set of canons. Written instruments, the provisions of which were clear, detailed, and precise—important safeguards against arbitrariness in governance and abuse of power, he maintained would prove a hindrance and obstacle to mission. Rather the AC-NA should “major in the majors” as he put it. To the bystander, it sounded as if Archbishop Duncan and the others making these arguments did not want anything that might get in the way of them doing what they wanted to do. These arguments were very telling about the attitude of those making them toward constitutional government and the “rule of law” in the church. Expediency required them to accept a constitution and a set of canons but they clearly favored a form of church government which did not limit the discretionary powers of the top leaders but left a great deal to their judgment.

The comments of AC-NA members on another web log in response to the concerns expressed in this article series offer valuable insights into the AC-NA’s church culture. One comment was to the effect that a church that is “spiritual” and has “spiritual” leaders does not need rules. There was the inference that rule-making and rule-keeping are legalistic and unspiritual. Another comment took the position that it did not matter if church leaders did not follow manmade rules as long as they obeyed biblical teachings. Christ’s warning against nullifying the word of God for the sake of human tradition was cited as the Scriptural basis for this point of view.

Neither viewpoint is biblical. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians addresses problems of the Corinthian church related to the beliefs of members of that church that in having received the Holy Spirit, they were free not to follow any moral principles or code. The freedom of the Gospel, as Paul draws to the attention of the Corinthians, is not license for immorality or unprincipled conduct. In his writings Paul stresses the role of church leaders as models for other Christians. If they are immoral or unprincipled in their conduct, they set a bad example for their fellow Christians. They also risk becoming stumbling blocks not only for other believers but also for those outside the Christian community. Their conduct reflects poorly on the whole Christian community as well as themselves and their particular part of that community. It becomes the cause of reproach from outsiders and of entanglement in the snares of the devil.

These comments suggest that AC-NA leaders are fostering ethical confusion in AC-NA members and creating fertile ground in which unbiblical beliefs and values may flourish. They point to a strong element of antinomianism and a decidedly un-Anglican disregard for the “rule of law” in the ecclesiastical culture of the AC-NA.

The establishment of a Provincial Assembly shorn of any significant role in the governance of the AC-NA except that of ratifying the decisions of the Provincial Council points to another aspect of the AC-NA’s church culture. A significant number of the clergy who shaped the AC-NA’s present system of ecclesiastical governance and now hold its top leadership positions share a common dislike of a synodical form of church government and a common distrust of the laity. Even though it is self-evident that the bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for the present state of these two churches, this particular group of clergy tended to blame the synodical forms of church government and the laity of the two churches. Archbishop Duncan was very insistent that the inaugural Provincial Assembly should not try to modify the constitution and the set of canons that was submitted to it for its approval, and should avoid what he claimed to be another major weakness of The Episcopal Church’s system of ecclesiastical governance.

The AC-NA does not require that the judicatories—dioceses or other groupings of congregations—which form the church, must have a synodical form of church government. Under the AC-NA constitution and canons the outgoing bishop of a judicatory is not prohibited from choosing his successor and the successors to any auxiliary bishops of the judicatory. The AC-NA canons only require that a list of nominees or the name of the bishop elect should be submitted to the College of Bishops for appropriate action. They have very little to say about the governance of judicatories beyond requiring judicatories to have a standing committee or its equivalent to act as the ecclesiastical authority of the judicatory in the absence of the bishop, allowing judicatories to continue to operate under the provisions of the constitution and canons of their parent province, and permitting them to hold local church property in trust if they already do so or take it into trust if a local congregation gives its written consent.

One of the AC-NA’s largest founding entities, if not its largest, is the Anglican Mission in the Americas. A primatial vicar, acting on the behalf of the primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and responsible to him, governs the AMiA with the assistance of a council of missionary bishops. The primate and house of bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda chooses the missionary bishops that comprise this council. Each missionary bishop is responsible for overseeing a regional network of the AMiA. The council of missionary bishops may submit nominations for new missionary bishops. The primatial vicar may veto a nomination. He may also make nominations of his own. The council of missionary bishops may nominate a successor to the primatial vicar. The Rwandan primate and the house of bishops are not jurisdically bound to choose a new missionary bishop or primatial vicar from any of the nominees whose names are submitted to them. The AMiA has an agreement with the AC-NA that the AC-NA College of Bishops will welcome all new bishops that the Rwandan primate and house of bishop chooses. The AC-NA has no equivalent of a synod and its clergy and laity do not share with its bishops in the governance of that ecclesial body. The primatial vicar may convene and consult gatherings of AMiA clergy but these gatherings can make only recommendations. They have no legislative powers. Except in appointive positions its laity plays no role in the governance of the AMiA.

In the months before the formation of the AC-NA the provisions of the AC-NA provisional constitution and canons relating to the selection of the initial bishop for a new judicatory became the subject of heated debate on the Internet. They were open to interpretation that the College of Bishops selected this bishop from a list of two or three nominees that the new judicatory submitted to it. The guidelines for the completion of an application for the recognition of a new judicatory supported this interpretation. This writer and others drew to the attention of the Governance Task Force that the College of Bishops’ selection of new bishops represented a significant departure from a long tradition of a diocese electing its own bishop and the bishops of the province confirming the election, which went back to the early church. The ACNA finally issued a statement through one of the members of the Governance Task Force that, while the preferred method for the selection of the initial bishop of new judicatory was for the College of Bishops to select the bishop from such a list of nominees, a new judicatory could elect its own bishop and then submit the name of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation of the election. However, the guidelines for the completion of the application form were not corrected. The language of the provisions of the proposed constitution and canons that had prompted the debate was not made clearer. The issues of what would happen if the College of Bishops rejected all nominees on a judicatory’s list and whether a judicatory could elect a successor to a bishop that the College of Bishops had selected were not properly addressed.

In the AC-NA there are two dominant schools of thought relating to ecclesiastical governance. The first school of thought is a strong advocate of prelacy. Adherents of this school of thought argue that the corrective to what happened in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church is strong “spiritual” bishops governing the church. They downplay the contribution of bishops with prelatical aspirations to the plight of conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians in North America. It may also be said of many of its adherents as Stephen Noll once said of the Africans: they need to learn to distinguish between episcopal power and episcopal tyranny. Adherents of this school of thought are also likely to hold opinions similar to the two viewpoints described earlier in this article. A significant number of the AC-NA’s present leaders belong to this school of thought, particularly those who share a common dislike of a synodical form of church government and a common distrust of the laity.

The second school of thought favors a synodical form of church government in which ecclesiastical governance is in the hands of the church as whole, both clergy and laity together, and not exclusively in the hands of bishops or any other particular order. This school of thought sees bishops playing a limited constitutional and canonically defined role in the government of the church. It would give bishops and other church leaders much less discretionary powers than the first school of thought and would require a system of checks and balances and other safeguards to discourage arbitrariness in governance and the abuse of power. There are various shades of opinion between these two schools.

An aspect of the AC-NA church culture that deserves further comment is the secretiveness. As was noted in the preceding article, the provisional AC-NA constitution and canons were not made public until after their adoption. The lack of openness and transparency that characterized the Common Cause Leadership Council also characterizes the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, and the other committees and task forces at the provincial level. A report of the Prayer Book and Common Worship Task Force that was released after the inaugural Provincial Assembly was given limited circulation and was not made public. The AC-NA canons make no provision for the publication of the deliberations of the Provincial Council in a journal and the only account of its most recent meetings were carefully worded press releases. What AC-NA members hear back home is what their leaders decide to tell them.

AC-NA members tend to deny the existence of problems in the AC-NA or minimize their seriousness and attack those who call attention to their existence or to their seriousness. Those in and outside AC-NA who express concerns over developments within the AC-NA are labeled as hostile to the AC-NA. There is very low tolerance for internal and external criticism even if it is constructive and friendly. These attitudes also appear to be a part of the AC-NA’s emerging ecclesiastical culture.

A final aspect of the AC-NA’s church culture that is coming out into view is the worldliness of that culture. Archbishop Duncan and its other spokesmen like to draw attention to the number of AC-NA congregations and to compare them with the number of TEC congregations. They sound like corporative executives comparing the growth of their corporation with that of their competitors. The preoccupation with being larger than the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church shows that the AC-NA, like the ACA and TEC, is a captive of the larger culture and is influenced by its values and ways of thinking. The AC-NA, like the larger Christian community in North America, is far from free of worldly influences. In this regard the difference between the AC-NA, the ACA, and TEC is one of degree.

The AC-NA does have a number of congregations that are vibrantly Christian and fully committed to the work of the Great Commission. In these congregations the spiritual gifts and natural talents of all members, young and old, are employed to bring the gospel to a lost and fallen world. The question is will these congregations grow and thrive in this kind of church culture in the long-term? Or will they be forced to seek a healthier environment in which they can carryout their ministry?