by Robin G. JordanIntroduction. In this article I will examine the ecclesiology of the Anglican Church in North America, that is to say, its theological doctrine of the church. To obtain a complete picture of the ecclesiology of the ACNA, I will be taking a look at the theology of the church stated in the constitution and canons but also the ecclesiology embodied in the institutions created and established by the constitution and canons. I will be examining the views of top ACNA leaders and their actual leadership practices. I will be comparing the ecclesiology of the ACNA as pieced together from these sources with the theology of the church of the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism. I will also be taking a look at its origins. This includes cultural factors that may have contributed to its development.
The Anglican Church in North America is, at its present stage, a federation of para-church organizations. The para-church organizations fall roughly into two groups—the founding entities of the ACNA that formed the Common Cause Partnership and the “dioceses” that joined in the days immediately before and after the inaugural meeting of the Provincial Assembly. The relationship of the para-church organizations in the first group with the ACNA is determined in part by the constitution and canons, in part by protocol, and in part by the network of relationships their leaders built during the Common Cause Partnership stage of the ACNA. The relationship of the para-church organizations in the second group is largely determined by the constitution and canons and any relationships that existed between their leaders and the leaders in the first group before their admission to the ACNA. With one or two exceptions the organizations in the second group did not enjoy an independent existence before the formation of the ACNA and were established either in anticipation of its formation or shortly thereafter.
I will, in an accompanying article, “The Anglican Mission and the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic: A Contrast in Ecclesiology,” be looking at the ecclesiology of the Anglican Mission and its parent province, the Anglican Church of Rwanda, and comparing it with the ecclesiology of one of the more recent additions to the ACNA family—the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic. As readers will see from the two examples that I examine—one from the first group and the other from the second, there can be a considerable difference in ecclesiology between the para-church organizations forming the ACNA. While some may fit comfortably within the larger ecclesiology of the ACNA, others do not.
Ministers in Christ’s Church. Canon III.1.1 affirms the normality of three ministries in the Church of Christ—that of deacon, presbyter, and bishop, asserting that the Anglican Church in North America holds what is the historical Anglican position on this matter. In its affirmation of the normality of these ministries does Canon III.1.1 takes the historic Anglican position, as it claims? In
Freed to Serve Michael Green draws to the attention of his readers:
The Preface to the Anglican ordinal asserts roundly, ‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles’ times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ This statement is widely misquoted. It does not say ‘there have been three Orders’ that is, three only. It is not in the least polemical. The Reformers who framed the statement did not wish to unchurch their colleagues on the continent who had a different, perhaps presbyterian form of church government.[1]
Green goes on to say that the English Reformers retained at the Reformation the three catholic ministries of bishop, priest, and deacon because they saw these ministries as being agreeable both to history and scripture. In his reforming work in England Archbishop Thomas Cranmer applied the principle of retaining the old where “the old may be well used.” [2]
While “by the middle of the second century the threefold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon was the normal, almost universal pattern for Christian ministry…,” Green further notes, other ministries existed in the Christian Church. These ministries included apostles, prophets, prophetesses, exorcists, and miracle workers. [3] He stresses:
Jerome and Aquinas…both refused to regard bishops as a different order from priests, and the Council of Trent defined that the two differed in gradus but not in ordo. It would be precarious, therefore, to interpret the Anglican Ordinal in any exclusive sense. This can be easily proved, if proof is needed, by the fact that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Church of England enjoyed the closest of ties (including intercommunion and occasional interchange of ministers), with her sister churches of the Reformation on the continent who had not retained the threefold ministry. [4]
Green’s point is that the classical Anglicanism recognized the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon as both historical and scriptural. This, however, did not prejudice classical Anglicanism against recognizing other ministries. In the nineteenth century the Tractarians and later the Anglo-Catholics would interpret the Anglican Ordinal as excluding such ministries. They would unchurch all churches that did not have the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon even those churches (e.g., the Lutheran Churches) that had conflated the ministries of bishop and priest into the single ministry of pastor at the time of the Reformation on the basis that bishop and priest were not different orders but different grades in the same order.
In his discussion paper, “The Reform of the Episcopate and Alternative Episcopal Oversight,” David Holloway makes a number of important points in regards to these ministries in classical Anglicanism:
Classical Anglican doctrine on the episcopate is not prelatical. Classical Anglican doctrine is minimalist. It recognises two orders not three in the Church - a presbyteral and a deaconal order. Bishops (as Jerome, Peter Lombard and the Lateran Council acknowledged) are part of the order of the presbyterate. The Preface, therefore to the 1662 Ordinal does not say there are "three Orders" but "these Orders of Ministers ... Bishops, Priests and Deacons."
In the rubric of both the "Making of Deacons" and the "Ordering of Priests" there is the requirement for a sermon "declaring ... how necessary that order is in the Church of Christ." There is no such requirement in the Consecration service. Secondly, the headings to the pages in the 1662 Ordinal are respectively, "The Ordering of Deacons", "The Ordering of Priests" but "The Consecration [not "The Ordering"] of Bishops". Similarly in Article XXXVI it speaks only of "the consecration of archbishops and bishops" but "the ordering of priests and deacons". Thirdly, any order a Bishop has (according to the Ordinal) is political rather than ecclesial. A priest is "called ... according to ... the order of this Church", while the bishop is "called ... according to ... the order of this realm." This is most important.
That is why it is fair to say that classical Anglican doctrine recognises two orders, not three, in the Church. In the words of Dean Field (writing in the 17th century):
"that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a distinct power of order, but an eminence and dignity only."
For our Reformers, therefore, the bishop was a senior presbyter with a jurisdictional role and an ordaining role.[5]
As we can see, in its affirmation of the normality of ministries of bishop, priest, and deacon in the Christian Church, Canon III.1.1 goes a step beyond the classical Anglican position, which makes allowance for the existence of other ministries in the Christian Church. Rather it takes the nineteenth century Tractarian position. It is highly debatable as whether that position represents the historic position of the Anglican Church. Bishop John Bramhall, Bishop John Cosin, and other Caroline divines recognized the ministries of the reformed churches on the continent. While these churches lacked “the episcopal regimen,” they adhered to “the principles of the gospel.” Even Archbishop William Laud accepted the validity of the German Lutheran orders. The German Lutheran system of superintendancy, he maintained, “preserved the substance, though not the name, of episcopacy.” [6] The Tractarians were less charitable in their view of the continental reformed churches than the Caroline divines.
Apostolic Succession. Canon III.5.1 requires ministers “ordained in a jurisdiction not ordered in the historic succession” to be re-ordained. The term “the historic succession,” as it is used in Canon III.5.1, conveys more than the notion of a particular line of bishops that follow each other one after another and that is vouched for by history. It is also a term used in the writings of Anglo-Catholics, independent Catholics and Roman Catholics to describe a particular succession of bishops that meets the requirements of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. They take the position that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of bishops in unbroken personal succession traceable back to the apostles. It is the preservation of this succession without interruption that guarantees that the bishops in this succession are not only the successors to the apostles but also that they teach what the apostles taught. The bishops in this succession are not successors to the apostles because they teach the doctrine of the apostles. Rather their teaching is apostolic because they succeed the apostles.
By the imposition of the hands of a bishop or bishops in this succession not only is the apostolic commission conferred upon the new bishop but also the gift of the Holy Spirit needed to carry out this commission. By this means a bishop is not only consecrated but also the succession of bishops continued. By the same means apostolic authority has been transmitted from one generation to the next in the one holy catholic and apostolic church for the past two millennia. Only a bishop in this succession is a true successor to the apostles and has the spiritual authority to govern the church. Only a bishop in this succession is empowered by the Holy Spirit to validly confer the sacraments of holy orders and confirmation.
Whether a church has apostolic succession is a test of whether the church has apostolic teaching. Only a church that has apostolic succession teaches what the apostles taught. This doctrine is used to justify church teachings that are far removed from apostolic teaching as revealed in the Bible. Any objections to church teachings on the grounds that they are not found in the Bible nor can they be proved from the Bible are dismissed. Since the church has apostolic succession, its teaching are apostolic.
The English Reformers and classical Anglicanism, on the other hand, take a different view. In this view bishops are successors to the apostles if and only if they actually teach the doctrine of the apostles as found in the New Testament or as provable from the New Testament. True apostolic succession is succession of doctrine. It does not matter whether a bishop was consecrated by a bishop or bishops in a succession with a pedigree that goes back to the apostles. If the bishop does not teach New Testament doctrine, his teaching is not apostolic and he is not a successor to the apostles.
Whether a church has apostolic teaching is, for the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism, a test of whether the church has apostolic succession. In this view a church might have no bishops but still have apostolic succession because the church has preserved apostolic teaching. On the other hand, a church might have bishops who claimed the apostle Peter as the founder of their succession but did not have apostolic succession because it did not preserve apostolic teaching. The English Reformers and classical Anglicanism shares this view of apostolic succession with Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism.
Conservative evangelicals and other Protestant Anglicans are the contemporary adherents of the classical Anglican view of apostolic succession as succession of doctrine. Since the nineteenth century the nature of apostolic succession has been a point of contention between Protestant and Catholic Anglicans that persists to this day. The canons of the ACNA, as does its constitution, takes sides in this controversy, aligning the ACNA with the Catholic position instead of taking a neutral position, not aligned with either side of the debate.
Canon III.5.3 permits ministers “ordained in a jurisdiction by a bishop of the historic succession but not in communion with” the ACNA to be received as members of the clergy of the ACNA. It supports the preceding identification of the use of “the historic succession” in Canon III.5.2 with the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.
Canon III.5.4 requires the consent of the College of Bishops for the reception as a bishop of the ACNA any bishops “from another jurisdiction not in communion with” the ACNA. It also applies to two preceding canons to such bishops. In doing so, it provides further support to the foregoing conclusion.
The re-ordination requirement of Canon III.5.1 for ministers “ordained in a jurisdiction not ordered in the historic succession” not only does not recognize the validity of non-episcopal ordination but also that of episcopal ordinations of a church, the bishops of which are not in “the historic succession,” a particular succession of bishops through which Catholics would agree the apostolic commission, the Holy Spirit, and apostolic authority have been transmitted from apostolic times, and which has a lineal descent going back to the apostles themselves.
In contrast, English Reformers did not hold that episcopal ordination was necessary, much less episcopal ordination by a bishop in a particular succession of bishops:
The views of the Reformers are well known. They agreed that all necessary doctrine was set forth in Holy Scripture: and the importance of episcopal ordination was not plainly set forth there. Thus Cranmer could say, ‘I do not set more by any title, name or style than I do by the paring of an apple, further than it shall be to the setting forth of God’s word and will, and Bishop Hooper could write, ‘I believe the church is bound to no set of ministers or any ordinary succession of bishops…but only unto the Word of God.’[7]
In the footnotes of his book,
Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry, Roger Beckwith points to the attention of his readers that “the remarkably general language” of Article XXIII in the Thirty-Nine Articles “is widely recognized as avoiding any condemnation of non-episcopal ordination in the reformed churches on the continent. He further notes that it “may also be intended to safeguard lay voice in ordination and appointments.” [8]
As we have seen, the Caroline divines did not unchurch the continental reformed churches due to their abandonment of episcopal government or reject the validity of their sacraments due to the non-episcopal ordination of their clergy. Traditional High Church ecclesiology before the advent of the Tractarian Movement also recognized these churches and their orders. [9]
Canon III.8.2 describes the ministry of bishops. It maintains that bishops “are successors to the apostles through the gift of the Holy Spirit who is given to them.” The description of the ministry of bishops in Canon III.8.2 is adapted from a similar description in Canon III.23.1.1 of the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The latter, in turn, is adapted from a description of the ministry of bishops in Canon 375 §1 of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church:
By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.[10]
All three descriptions contain a variation of the statement that bishops “are the successors of the apostles through the grace of the Holy Spirit given to them.” However it is worded, this statement is a reference to the Catholic doctrine of tactual succession.
The Episcopate. Article I.2 of the constitution speaks of “the godly historic episcopate” as being “an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice” and consequently “integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.” It takes the position that bishops are essential to the existence of the Church, a view associated with Roman Catholicism, as well as Tractarianism and liberal Catholic ideology. In contrast, the English Reformers held that episcopacy was not essential to the being of the Church:
The way the Anglican tradition addresses the question of order may be seen in the Preface to the Ordinal of the Church of England which famously states ‘It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons’. It is not often appreciated what this careful statement is and is not saying. It is not arguing or insisting that bishops are essential to the existence of the Christian community. It is simply acknowledging that ‘bishop’ is a scriptural word, and that a distinctive episcopal ministry arose in the time of the apostles (hence the reference to ‘ancient authors’). This is the characteristic position of the early generation of Reformers in the Church of England. [my emphasis]
It is also to be noted that the statement speaks of ‘these Orders of Ministers’ and not of ‘three Orders of Ministers’. The latter is often assumed, but in fact the Church of England Reformers viewed bishops and priests as being of the same order, which is why bishops are consecrated rather than ordained. [11]
Archbishop Whitgift articulates the position of the Reformers and classical Anglicanism: “it is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government perpetually to be observed is nowhere in the scripture prescribed to the church.” Consequently the Reformers would “take issue with those who insisted that presbyterianism was the church order to be followed, just as they would take issue with any who insisted that bishops were essential to the life of the Christian community.” [12]
The Reformers had a very clear understanding that the gospel, rather than a particular form of Church government, creates and establishes the church. To think otherwise is to fall into the same error as the Roman Catholic Church. [13] What is essential to the life of the Christian community from the viewpoint of the Reformers is
apostolic teaching. Bishops are acceptable provided they teach the doctrine of the apostles.
The Thirty-Nine Articles do not indicate that any particular church government is necessary. Article XIX recognize only two marks of the visible Church of Christ—the preaching of the pure Word of God and the ministration of the sacraments with due order and discipline as ordained by Christ. These are the exact same marks of the visible church as are formulated in the Reformed Continental Confessions of Saxony, Augsburg, and Switzerland. [14]
Article X.5 of the ACNA constitution gives authority to the College of Bishops in “the election of the bishops of the province.” This authority consists of consenting to the election of the bishop-elect of an ACNA judicatory or choosing and consenting to a bishop for the judicatory “from among two or more nominees put forward by” the judicatory “in the manner set forward by canon.” “Set forward” means to “assist the progress of.” “Set forth” means to “expound.” This error was, before the ratification of the canons, drawn to the attention of the Governance Task Force, which did nothing to correct it. The particular choice of wording of this section prompts the question, “Why would the College of Bishops, having chosen the bishop of a judicatory, need to consent to their own choice, unless this provision envisions the possibility of a part of the College such as the presiding officer, a committee, or a board of electors choosing the bishop and the College ratifying its choice?” If the College of Bishops made the actual choice of the bishop, its consent to that choice would be superfluous. Its consent is implicit in the choice of bishop. The wording of this section leaves open the possibility that one faction in the College of Bishops on a consent vote might undo an earlier vote of the College to choose a particular nominee. This would allow a small faction in the College of Bishops to hold that College hostage by refusing to support the decision of the larger body.
Canon III.8.3 lists the criteria for the episcopate. This criteria is adapted from Canon III.23.2 of the Rwandan canons, which in turn are adapted from Canon 378 §1 of the Roman Catholic Church’s canons:
Can. 378 §1 To be a suitable candidate for the episcopate, a person must:
1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question;
2° be held in good esteem;
3° be at least 35 years old;
4° be a priest ordained for at least five years;
5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law, from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least be well versed in these disciplines. [15]
Note that the minimum age requirement of 35 years of age for the ACNA bishop is the same as the minimum age requirement as a Rwandan missionary bishop and a Roman Catholic bishop rather than historic minimum age requirement of an Anglican bishop, which is 30 years of age. [16] This minimum age requirement was apparently adopted to accommodate the Anglican Mission whose bishops are also Rwandan missionary bishops.
The Rwandan canons were composed after the establishment of the Anglican Mission as a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. A study of the role that the Anglican Mission played in the drawing up of the Rwandan canons would be useful in tracing the origins of different provisions of the ACNA canons. A number of provisions of the ACNA canons are adapted from those of the Rwandan canons. The provisions of the canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA in adapted form found in the Rwandan canons may have originated with the Anglican Mission. Such a study should also include what part, if any, the Anglican Mission had in the adaptation and incorporation of provisions of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church into the Rwandan canons.
Canon III.8.4.2 requires the body that elected a new bishop of a diocese to submit certification of the election of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops in order that the College of Bishops may confirm the election of the bishop elect. As an alternative to a diocese electing its own bishop and obtaining confirmation of the election from the College of Bishops, it permits a diocese to submit to the College of Bishops a list of two or three candidates from which the College of Bishops may “select one for the diocese.” It commends this practice to all dioceses. The alternative method of episcopal selection is adapted from the provisions of Canon III.23.3 of the Rwandan canons and Canon 9.2 of the proposed canons of the Anglican Missionary Province of North America.
All three methods for the selection of a bishop show the influence of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of following the ancient practice of a diocese electing its bishop and the bishops of the province confirming the election, which was preserved in the pre-Reformation medieval English practice of the chapter of the cathedral church of the diocese electing the bishop of the diocese and the archbishop of the province confirming the election, they adopt a variant of the method used in the Church of Rome to select bishops. Under the provisions of Canon 377 of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church “the Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those lawfully elected.” Various bodies (e.g. episcopal, conference, college of consultors, cathedral chapter) in an ecclesiastical province propose the names of suitable candidates for the episcopate to “the Apostolic See.” The metropolitan of the province may also propose suitable candidates, as may the president of the episcopal conference and individual bishops. In the case of an auxiliary bishop the diocesan bishop submits the names of three suitable candidates to “the Apostolic See.” [17] The underlying principle is that a higher authority in the church hierarchy selects a new bishop from nominations made by various church bodies and dignitaries at a lower level in the hierarchy. In the ACNA variant the diocese proposes by certificate the names of two or three candidates to the College of Bishops for its consideration. The College of Bishops may reject all three candidates. The ACNA canons do not specify what happens if the College of Bishops does reject the three candidates except that the College of Bishops must notify the diocese within a specified period of time. The College of Bishops is not bound by the constitution or the canons to select a candidate proposed by the diocese. The constitution and canons are open to interpretation as permitting the College of Bishops to propose and elect its own candidate. In the Rwandan variants the primatial vicar and council of missionary bishops of a missionary jurisdiction of the Province of Rwanda submit names of suitable candidates to the House of Bishops of the Province of Rwanda for consideration or in the case of a diocese the diocesan synod selects four suitable candidates and then submits the names of two of these candidates to the House of Bishops for consideration. The House of Bishops, if it is not satisfied with these two candidates may reject both candidates and elect additional nominations from the diocesan synod. Or it may elect one of the two candidates. In case of a tie the candidate who has seniority by date of ordination is declared elected. The election must be confirmed by the Primate of Rwanda. In the Anglican Missionary Province of North America variant the diocesan synod submits a slate of three candidates to the House of Bishops of the province which, if it does not elect one of these candidates as diocesan bishop, may request additional nominations from the diocesan synod until it elects a candidate. The election must be confirmed by the diocesan synod, and its confirmation of the election must in turn be confirmed by the House of Bishops. In all three variants the College of Bishops or House of Bishops replaces the Pope as the higher authority in the church hierarchy. In all three variants the College of Bishops or House of Bishops is essentially a self-perpetuating body with the diocese involved in only the nomination of candidates for the episcopate.
It is worthy of note that Canon 377 § 5 of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church does not foresee the concession of any “rights or privileges of election, appointment, presentation or designation” to the civil authorities. [18] This is quite clearly directed at the Church of England should the English Church re-enter the Roman fold.
Canon III.8.4.3 establishes as a norm for newly formed dioceses the second mode for selection of a bishop briefly described in Canon III.8.4.2. There was sharp disagreement on how the provisions of the Canon III.8.4 should be interpreted during the seventeen-day period that proposed constitution and canons were made public for comments and suggestion before their adoption. The instructions that accompanied the application for recognition as a judicatory (diocese or other grouping) of the ACNA supported the interpretation of that newly formed judicatories had no choice in respect to the mode of selection of a bishop. They were required to submit a list of two or three candidates to the House of Bishops for its consideration. The debate became so heated that a representative of the Governance Task Force publicly stated that new judicatories did have a choice as to how a bishop was selected for the judicatory. The Governance Task Force did not address the issues of what happened if the House of Bishops did not accept any of the nominees on a judicatory’s list and of whether a judicatory, having adopted a particular mode of selection could change it at a later date. The misleading instructions to the application for recognition were not withdrawn. No amendments were proposed to clarify the language of the constitution and canons.
In commending the practice of the College of Bishops selecting a bishop for a judicatory rather than the judicatory choosing a bishop for itself and establishing this practice as a norm for newly-formed judicatories the ACNA canons broke with a long tradition not only in the North American Anglican Church but also in the Church of England and the Christian Church. In the early Church the clergy and laity of a diocese elected the bishop of the diocese. [19] In consecrating the bishop elect, the bishops of the province confirmed his election. Even after the election of a new bishop had become the privilege of the cathedral chapter in the English Church, the leading members of the nobility and landed gentry in the diocese were consulted in the choice of a new bishop and the new bishop was presented to the general populace for its acclamation. By the reign of Henry VIII it had become the practice of the English monarch to nominate a candidate for a vacant see and to summon the cathedral chapter to elect the king’s nominee. Upon election the king appointed the new bishop to his post. By this time bishops were not only ministers of the Church, they were also ministers of the Crown. Even Henry VIII, the quintessential Tudor despot, did not dispense with the formality of an election.
Giving the College of Bishops authority not just to confirm a bishop’s election but also to elect a bishop weakens the autonomy of the judicatory in the ACNA at a time when the autonomy of the diocese is under attack in the Episcopal Church. See the Anglican Church Institute’s
Statement on South Carolina. As we shall see, the ACNA canons contain other provisions that weaken the judicatory’s autonomy.
Canon III.8.4.4 requires a two-third vote of the members of the College of Bishops present and voting “for consent or choice and consent” and establishes the time frame within which “consent” must be given. It requires a quorum of a majority of the active members of the College of Bishops for the election of bishops at a meeting of the College.
Canon III.8.6 authorizes the creation of one or more offices of bishop for special missions. Before creating such an office the College of Bishops must consult with the Executive Committee. While the provisions of Canon III.8.6 do not state so, this is apparently to ensure there are funds available to pay a stipend to the bishop for special missions and to meet his other expenses incidental to his office and work. Bishops for special missions are elected by the College of Bishops and they serve directly under that body. Canon III.8.6 states, “The College of Bishops may certify two or three candidates, from whom one may be elected by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the College.” The use of permissive language such as “may” and the use of the term “certify” instead of “nominate” open these provisions of Canon III.8.6 to interpretation as being optional and giving the College of Bishops leeway to choose a bishop of special missions in a different manner from the one suggested in Canon III.8.6. To certify a candidate, to declare his candidacy by certificate, or written document, is not the same as to nominate. A committee of the College might do the actually nominating or even the Archbishop as the presiding officer of the College. Stating that the College “may” elect one of these candidates is not the same as saying it must. Under the provisions of Canon III.8.6 it is not juridically bound to elect one of the certified candidates. It can elect a compromise candidate, nominated after two or three rounds of voting. Since the language is permissive, the Archbishop could propose a candidate and the College confirm the candidate by acclamation.
Canon III.8.7 requires ACNA dioceses to first have the consent of the College of Bishops before proceeding to select a suffragan or coadjutor bishop under the provisions of Canon III.8.4. It is noteworthy that Canon III.8.7 does not guarantee a diocese a minimum number of suffragan bishops or place a cap on the number of suffragan bishops that a diocese may have. It leaves this determination solely to the judgment of the College of Bishops with no right of appeal to the Provincial Council.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.9.2 in the case of the presentment of a bishop, including the archbishop, three of the five senior members of the college of bishops by date of consecration may “by affirmative vote” temporarily inhibit the bishop. Those inhibiting the bishop may not include “any bishop involved in the presentment or trial.” The provisions of Canon IV.9.2 omit many essentials details such as exactly when a bishop may be inhibited and how and under what circumstances the inhibition may be modified or revoked. Important procedural safeguards are noticeably missing.
Article X.1 identifies the College of Bishops’ primary task as propagating and defending “the faith and order of the church” and being “the visible sign and expression of the unity of the church.” It propounds the view that bishops, rather than the apostolic teaching they are charged to uphold, are the foci of unity in the church.
In his discussion paper
Better Bishops Michael Burkill draws attention to the way that the nineteenth century refashioned Anglican identity so as to emphasize secondary features of church life such as episcopacy rather than staying with the doctrinal position that has been the basis of Anglican identity up to that time. Under the influence of the Tractarian Movement the practice of episcopal ministry became prominent in defining what it is to be Anglican. It would also displace the gospel and biblical doctrine as the essential ingredient for the unity of the church. This focus upon secondary features of church life as securing Anglican unity as well as determining Anglican identity has made it extremely difficult to reform these features. [20]
Burkill identifies another major difficulty associated with the view that bishops are the sign and focus of church unity:
However the sad reality is that episcopacy cannot bear this weight in and of itself. Bishops will only maintain and strengthen the unity of the Christian community insofar as they are faithful teachers of the gospel and Scripture. This is why the Ordinal calls upon new bishops ‘to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word’. [21]
The Archbishop. Article IX establishes the office of archbishop and gives the archbishop the title and designation of the “Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America. Under its provisions the Archbishop is elected by the College of Bishops. Article IX limits the person elected as Archbishop to two five-year terms of office. An Archbishop’s term of office concludes at the meeting of the College of Bishops that elects the next Archbishop. 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 Governance Task Force added the clause “…and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon” to this section of Article IX after representatives of CANA drew to their attention that they were arrogating to the archbishop in the canons privileges, powers, authority and rights that the constitution did not give him.
Article X.2 limits the College of Bishops to bishops in active episcopal ministry and Article X.3 most importantly requires that the College of Bishops elect the Archbishop from among its members. Without this provision a presbyter or even a deacon or layman could have been elected archbishop since Article IX did not specify that the Archbishop should be in holy orders, much less a bishop. Article X.4 makes provision for special meetings of the College of Bishops “at the call of the Archbishop or one quarter of the episcopal members of the Provincial Council.” It does not give authority to the other members of the College of Bishops to call a special meeting.
The Archbishop as the chairman of the Provincial Council, the
de jure governing body of the ACNA, is responsible for preparing the agenda for Provincial Council meetings with the assistance of the Executive Committee and other office bearers” (Article VII.9).
According to the provisions of the foregoing articles the role of the Archbishop is essentially that of a president bishop or presiding bishop. But this is not the role that the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have given the Archbishop in the canons.
Canon I.1.3 gives the archbishop authority to call special meetings of the Provincial Council.
Canon 1.1.4 makes him the chairman of the Executive Committee, which is the board of directors of the Anglican Church in North America, Inc., controls the purse strings of the ACNA, determines the budget and program of the ACNA, refers matters to the Provincial Council and requires reports from the Council respecting matters it referred to the Council, and receives the combined annual reports from the diocesan bishops. The College of Bishops must consult the Executive Committee before it creates the office of a special bishop for missions and the Archbishop must consult the Executive Committee before modifying or terminating the temporary inhibition of a deacon or presbyter. The Executive Committee is the
de facto governing body of the ACNA and the real focal point of power in the ACNA.
The Executive Committee’s control of the affairs of the ACNA is justified by the requirement of the law under which the ACNA was incorporated as a non-profit corporation. This law requires that a board of directors must control a non-profit corporation. If the Provincial Assembly had been given a greater role in the governance of the ACNA as the general synod of the province, then a Provincial Executive Council elected by the Provincial Assembly and responsible to the Assembly could have met that requirement. This would have placed the administration and management of the affairs the ACNA into the hands of a larger group of people rather than a 13-member committee.
This points to a similarity between the organization of the ACNA and the Anglican Mission. Both have two power structures—once corporate and the other ecclesiastical. In the case of the ACNA the corporate structure actually runs the ACNA.
Canon I.1.5 makes the Archbishop the presiding officer of the Church as well as the presiding officer of the Provincial Council.
Canon 1.2.5 gives him authority to determine the rules under which the inaugural meeting of the Provincial Assembly will conduct its business.
Canon I.2.6 makes the Archbishop presiding officer of the Provincial Assembly and gives him authority to designate other persons to preside in his place.
Canon I.5.6 make provision for the Archbishop to appoint a vicar general for a diocese-in-formation “with the majority vote of the Council.”
Canon I.6.8 require the Executive Committee “to cause to be prepared a report to the Archbishop on the status and growth of the province.” Although Canon I.1.1 describe the Provincial Council as the governing body of the Church, Canon 1.6.8 makes no provision for the Council to receive a copy of this report. This is left entirely to the discretion of the Archbishop.
Canon I.7.3 authorizes the Archbishop to invite representatives of ACNA Mission Partners to ACNA functions and gatherings and to give them a seat and a voice in these functions and gatherings. Canon I.8 authorizes him to invite any person or group to church functions and to give them seat and a voice in such functions.
Canon III.1.2 maintains that the bishop of each diocese “owes canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest” to the archbishop of the ACNA. This provision is adapted from Canon C1.3 of the Church of England canons:
According to the ancient law and usage of this Church and Realm of England, the priests and deacons who have received authority to minister in any diocese owe canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the bishop of the same, and the bishop of each diocese owes due allegiance to the archbishop of the province as his metropolitan. [my emphasis] [22]
The provisions of Canon C 17 of the canons of the Church of England the Archbishops of Canterbury and York recognize as metropolitans of their respective provinces and therefore chief bishop over the bishops of their respective provinces:
The archbishop has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom. [23]
On the other hand, Article IX of the ACNA constitution does not recognize the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America as having superintendency over all ecclesiastical matters in the ACNA and metropolitical jurisdiction throughout the ACNA. While authorizing the Provincial Council to prescribe any additional duties and responsibilities of the Archbishop by canon, it does not authorize the Provincial Council to give the Archbishop by canon privileges, powers, authority and rights in addition those that the constitution gives him. In requiring the canonical obedience of the bishops of the province to the Archbishop Canon III.1.2 goes beyond prescribing an additional duty or responsibility of the Archbishop. It gives him authority over the other bishops of the province that the constitution does not give. It takes the position that this authority is his in virtue of his office. This would be the case if he were a metropolitan. However, the ACNA constitution makes him an archbishop and a primate but not a metropolitan. The constitutions and canons of Anglican provinces, if the archbishop or other bishop is to be the metropolitan of the province and to have authority over the other bishops of the province, typically state the archbishop or other bishop is, in addition to being the primate of the province, the metropolitan of the province with the duties and rights of a metropolitan of a province.
As we shall see, the provisions of Canon III.1.2 is not the only one in the ACNA canons that goes beyond prescribing an additional duty or responsibility of the Archbishop. The ACNA canons generally seek to give the Archbishop a larger role than the one delineated in the constitution, sometimes giving him powers, prerogatives, privileges, and rights that exceed those normally associated with a metropolitan of an Anglican province.
The Archbishop, like the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, may, upon the written demand of a bishop, appoint a board of inquiry to investigate rumors, reports, or allegations affecting the bishop’s character (Canon IV.4.2-5). This practice is not seen in the constitutions or canons of other Anglican provinces, except the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, which are based in part upon the canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA.
The Archbishop appoints the prosecutor and the legal advisor to the court for the trial of a bishop (Canon IV.5.2). He appoints the members of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the prosecutor, and the legal advisor to the court (Canon IV.5.3 [1]). This court tries clergy canonically attached to other Anglican provinces or dioceses and overseen by bishops of the ACNA in such cases where these provinces and dioceses have waived their jurisdiction in favor of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction. It may also try clergy who are amenable to presentment under the provisions of the canons and whose own diocese does not have a trial court. The Archbishop is not required to consult with anyone in making these appointments, not even the chancellor of the province. There is no confirmation process involving the Provincial Council or the Provincial Assembly or even the Executive Committee or the College of Bishops.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.5.4, which establish the Provincial Tribunal and prescribe its jurisdiction, the Provincial Council can delegate the nomination of suitable candidates for members of the court to its presiding officer, the archbishop, and appoint whomever he nominates. Canon IV.5.4 does not bar the Archbishop as a bishop of the province from serving as a member of the Provincial Tribunal or as the president of the court.
The provisions of Canon IV.8.1 give the Archbishop authority to pronounce sentence or to appoint a bishop to pronounce sentence in cases where there is no bishop with jurisdiction over the deacon or presbyter. In the Episcopal Church the practice has been that if the bishop of a diocese is disqualified from pronouncing sentence upon a deacon or presbyter, or there is no bishop of that jurisdiction, the sentence is pronounced by another bishop at the request of its standing committee. This practice respects the autonomy of the diocese. The provisions of Canon IV.8.1, on the other hand, weaken that autonomy.
Canon IV.8.2 recognize the College of Bishops, speaking through the archbishop or his designate, as having sole responsibility and authority to pronounce sentence on a bishop. Note that the Archbishop acts as the spokesman or voice of the College of Bishops. He does not actually impose the sentence.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.8.4 the bishop of the judicatory in which a deacon or presbyter was convicted may, “with the advice and consent of the Archbishop,” in consultation with the Executive Committee, shorten or terminate the sentence of suspension of the deacon or presbyter. This represents a serious infringement upon the authority and rights of the diocesan bishop and the autonomy of the diocese. It requires a bishop to consult the archbishop and obtain the archbishop’s permission before exercising his power to modify or remit a sentence that he imposed. It is an example of how the canons go beyond assigning a particular duty or responsibility to the archbishop. It implies that the Archbishop has, in matters of discipline, authority over the bishops of the ACNA even though the constitution he is not the metropolitan of the province. In the Episcopal Church the practice has been that the bishop of a diocese may, for sufficient reasons and with the advise and consent of two-thirds of all the members of the diocesan standing committee, remit and terminate a sentence of suspension pronounced in his jurisdiction upon a deacon or presbyter. This practice respects the autonomy of the diocese while the provisions of Canon IV.8.4.1 weaken it.
The provisions of Canon IV.8.4.2 require the College of Bishops to obtain the permission of the Archbishop before shortening or terminating the sentence of suspension of a bishop. This canon is modeled upon a Rwandan canon. In the Anglican Church of Rwanda, however, the Primate is also the metropolitan of the province. As in the case of Canon IV.8.4.1, Canon IV.8.4.2 represents an example of how the canons go beyond assigning a particular duty or responsibility to the Archbishop. It subordinates the College of Bishops to its presiding officer and weakens the authority of that body.
Canon IV.9.1 gives the Archbishop authority to modify or terminate a temporary inhibition imposed by a bishop of a diocese upon a deacon or presbyter of the diocese. This represents a serious infringement upon the authority and rights of the diocesan bishop and the autonomy of the diocese. It permits the Archbishop who is not the metropolitan of the province or its highest judicial authority, to meddle in the disciplinary proceedings of a diocese and to overrule the decisions of its bishop.
While the constitution envisions a fairly modest role for the archbishop, the Governance Task Force, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee has expanded that role arguably beyond the terms of the constitution. The recent appointment of Bishop Don Harvey as dean of the province shows a willingness on their part to go even further and to ignore the provisions of the canons as well as the constitution. In appointing Bishop Harvey as provincial dean Archbishop Robert Duncan stretched his authority well beyond the authority that the constitution and canons gives him. In agreeing to the appointment the Provincial Council and the Executive Committee took upon themselves authority that they had not been given by the constitution or the canons.
The office of dean of the province is important enough to warrant its inclusion not just in the canons but also in the constitution. The constitution should delineate the dean’s qualifications, his term of office, his duties and rights, and the manner by which he is elected or appointed. The canons should provide further details in respect to the performance of his duties and the exercise of his rights and the manner of his election and appointment.
In The Episcopal Church we see a Presiding Bishop who is expanding the role of that church official beyond its constitutional and canonical limits. In the Anglican Church in North America we see an Archbishop who is doing the same thing. Both are ignoring the provisions of their respective constitutions and canons or reinterpreting them to suit themselves. Both believe that they are doing the right thing. What we are seeing in both TEC and the ACNA is the breakdown of constitutional church government in which the church constitution and canons clearly define the roles of church leaders and church leaders keep within these constitutionally and canonically defined roles. There is very little respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law on the part of present day church leaders. See my accompanying article, “Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law in the ACNA.”
It is not surprising that the ACNA consequently displays a number of authoritarian characteristics. The commended method of selecting bishops can be used to exclude potential challengers to the status quo. The staggered terms of the Provincial Council members also reduce the likelihood of anyone challenging the status quo to make any headway in that body. The Provincial Assembly appears to be largely designed to mobilize the members of the ACNA around the goals of its top leaders. There is a high degree of concentration and centralization of power at the “federal” level of the ACNA. As we shall see, the same kind of concentration and centralization of power is also present in at least one of the sub-provincial jurisdictions of the ACNA. The top ACNA leaders, as has already been noted, are not particularly respectful of constitutionalism and the rule of law. They operate quite independently of the rules embodied in the constitution and canons, the supervision of an elected general synod, or the concerns of the para-church organizations they purportedly serve. Major decisions are made behind closed doors with little if any public discussion before hand. They exercise considerable power and have at best minimal oversight and accountability. The ACNA top leadership is to a certain degree self-perpetuating. The constitution and canons contain few checks and balances and safeguards.
The Sacraments. Canon II.4.1.2 establishes as a norm the confirmation of all baptized children and adults. It does not require any kind of preparation for confirmation such as confirmation classes. It does not require the candidates to “have an appropriate understanding of the Christian life and to understand and accept the life of Christ in their lifestyle;” to have “a firm determination to live the Christian life to the best of their ability;” and to have “an appreciation of the importance of worship and prayer in the life of the Church” and to “understand the importance of personal and communal worship.” [24] It does not even require the candidate to evidence repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ. It also does not set a minimum age requirement for confirmation. Such requirements would be indicative of catechetical view of confirmation in which the candidate upon attaining the age of discretion and after receiving instruction in the Christian faith and life makes a profession of his faith in Jesus Christ before the church and receives the prayers of the church. While Canon II.4.1.2 does not describe confirmation as a sacrament, a sacramental view of confirmation is implicit in its establishment of confirmation as normative for all baptized children and adults as if confirmation “is the topping up of baptism as the entry into Christian life.” [25].
Canon II.4.3.4 permits the admission of baptized young children to the Holy Communion. In failing to require a child to evidence the capacity to rightly, worthily, and with faith to receive the sacrament before being admitted to the Holy Communion, it breaks with the sacramental and eucharistic doctrine of Articles XXV, XXVIII, and XXIX. It implies that in a child who does not receive the sacrament in a worthy manner, the sacrament “has a wholesome affect or operation;” [26] that to a child who does not rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the sacrament the Bread is “a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Wine is “a partaking of the Blood of Christ;”[27] that the child, “void of a lively faith,” is a partaker of Christ [28]. It represents a significant departure from the doctrine of the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism. It teaches not only that baptism automatically conveys grace but also that justification comes about in baptism and not as St. Paul teaches by faith, and that the new birth took place in the child without any sign of change of life whatever. [29] It further teaches that the baptism enables a child to benefit from the sacrament even though he is unrepentant and unbelieving. The condition of the child does not take away the effect of the sacrament or diminish the grace of God’s gift. Like the fire berry that every morning a bird brought the retired star Ramandu from the valleys in the Sun in C. S. Lewis’
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, it imparts something to the child even though we see no evidence of what it imparts in the child. Each fire-berry took away a little of Ramandu’s age, and when he became as young as a child that was born yesterday, he would take his rising again and once more tread the great dance in the heavens. [30] This change, however, was discernable. Any change the sacrament is supposed to affect in the child is not.
Canon II.4.3.4 is also open to interpretation as teaching by implication the Lutheran doctrine that an infant is capable of faith. Martin Luther held that God imputes faith to the infant in baptism even though the infant is not aware of it.
The English Reformers and classical Anglicanism hold that the sacraments are designed to confirm our faith in Christ, to make it livelier and stronger (Article XXV), a view that it shares with a number of the continental reformed churches. This view presupposes faith in the godparents in the case of infant baptism or faith in the candidate in the case of adult baptism. It requires the existence of faith in the communicant in the case of Holy Communion. Faith is a necessary condition that must be present in the communicant in order that the communicant may benefit from reception of the sacrament. Without faith a communicant is not an appropriate recipient of the sacrament. The sacrament is not effectual. To be effective only a mustard seed grain of faith is necessary. Faith is the “good soil” upon which the seed of the word made visible in the sacrament falls. The seed springs up and bares fruit a hundredfold. It is not, as some critics of this view claim, a work that must be performed in order for the sacrament to operate.
Canon II.4.3.5 mentions the qualifications that the Supper of the Lord should be received rightly, worthily, and with faith as provided in Article XXVIII only in connection with the admission of members of other churches to the Holy Communion. The doctrine implicit in Canon II.4.3.4 contradicts Article XXVIII. The application of Article XXVIII to baptized adults but not to baptized young children raises questions as to how those who prepared the canons of Title II understand sin, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and related concepts. It points to one of the problem areas of the ACNA, that is, its tendency to hold doctrines that are contradictory to each other. I will address this problem area in the next article in this series.
Canon II.7.1 describes the state of Holy Matrimony as a sacrament, a view of matrimony held by Anglo-Catholics, independent Catholics, and Roman Catholics. The English Reformers and classical Anglicanism regard matrimony as a state of life allowed in the Scripture. It does not have the nature of a sacrament as it does not have any visible sign or ceremony ordained by God (Article XXV). In the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in
The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 matrimony is referred to as “an honourable estate” and “a holy estate” but not as a sacrament. [31] Nowhere in Canons B30-B36, the canons of the Church of England relating to matrimony, do we find any reference to matrimony as a sacrament. [32]
Conclusion. A number of influences are discernable in the Anglican Church in North America:
1. Catholic doctrine and practice have greatly influenced thinking in the ACNA. This is not only seen in the constitution and canons of the ACNA but also in varying degrees in the constitutions and canons of the para-church organizations forming the ACNA. It is also manifest in the emerging ethos of the ACNA. This influence is most evident in former Episcopalians and Continuers but is also evident in evangelicals and charismatics influenced by the Convergence/Ancient-Future Movement. It shapes their understanding of Anglican ecclesiology, identity, and unity. Those who appear to be least affected studied in conservative Reformed seminaries, came from conservative Reformed backgrounds, retained the Protestant and evangelical principles of the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church, or otherwise imbibed Reformed theology to the point that they are inoculated against this influence.
2. A second influence that has received a lot of attention in the media is that of the African Church. A number of the para-church organizations forming the ACNA were originally an extraterritorial jurisdiction of an African province. They continue to maintain ties with the province. At least one of them has adopted what are described as “African” methods and practices. The extent to which the methods and practices are actually African or are American but are presented as African is worthy of further study. My own observation is that a number of so-called “African” methods and practices are American interpretations and even caricatures of African methods and practices. In the process of being transplanted from one culture to another, they lost whatever checks and balances and safeguards associated with them while at the same time acquiring a more authoritarian cast, which can be attributed to those introducing the practices into the North American Church rather than to the African Church. A number of the supposedly “African” methods and practices actually come from the Roman Catholic Church and are not African at all. The Africans may have borrowed these methods and practices from the Roman Catholic Church and adapted them to African circumstances but they are clearly Roman Catholic in the doctrines, principles, and norms they embody.
3. There is an undercurrent of what can be described as reactionary thinking that has a strong pull on the ACNA. It is authoritarian and elitist. It shows little respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law, and is impatient with synods and deliberative decision-making processes. It is attracted to authoritarian institutions or to institutions that can be transformed into authoritarian institutions. It tends to justify its authoritarian leanings in a number of ways. These include that a more authoritarian approach produces results. In response to a crisis, regression, or backward movement, is appropriate. Episcopacy has historically been authoritarian. A more authoritarian regimen gives church leaders greater flexibility and more freedom of action to respond to circumstances. It is distrustful of the laity and favors minimal lay involvement in the government of the church and the management of its affairs. It shows a tendency to scapegoat the laity for the problems of The Episcopal Church and a willingness to absolve the clergy and in particular bishops of complicity in The Episcopal Church’s problems, which amounts to denial of the substantial role they played in these problems.
4. A fourth influence affecting thinking in the ACNA is the Convergence/Ancient-Future movement. Those influenced by this movement are non-critical in their approach to practices of the first five centuries of Christianity and later periods in Church history and the appropriateness of these practices to Anglicanism.
5. The Roman Catholic Church has exercised a strong influence upon the ACNA—through the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, through its influence upon the organizational structures and ecclesiology of a number of other Anglican provinces, through the Anglo-Catholic members of the Governance Task Force and through self-identified “evangelical” members of the GTS influenced by Catholic ecclesiology and theology. Some of the latter may be under the misapprehension that this ecclesiology and theology is “Anglican.”
The canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda are heavily indebted to the canons of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the canons of the former Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. Its doctrine of apostolic succession, holy orders, and sacraments has been strongly influenced by that of the Roman Catholic Church, as has its organizational structures and ecclesiology. The Governance Task Force altered the wording of a number of Rwandan canons and incorporated them into the ACNA canons. These changes, however, did not alter the theology of the canons in question.
6. A sixth influence is recent theories that apply entrepreneurial business practices and corporate organizational structures to church leadership and management.
The ecclesiology of the Anglican Church in North America is essentially Catholic. Implicit in its canons is the Catholic belief that apostolic succession is the main mark of the true church, that the continuity of the church is based upon a succession of bishops, not a succession of doctrine. According to the ACNA constitution the unity of church is episcopal not theological. The ACNA canons recognize not only the traditional division of the church into clergy and laity. They also adopt the position of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer that the church is divided into four orders. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons comprise the first three orders and the laity the fourth order. Their basic view of the church is hierarchical and oligarchic with a strong leaning toward monarchical. The latter is evident in the power and authority that the canons give the Archbishop. The role that they create for the Archbishop is not the role that the constitution envisions for him. As we have seen, the Executive Committee, as well as the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council, display a tendency to impute more power and authority to the Archbishop than is his by the provisions of the constitution. In a number of respects the canons and these three bodies treat the archbishop as if he is a metropolitan bishop. In some respects the canons give power and authority to the Archbishop that is patriarchal or even papal rather than metropolitical. At the same time the Governance Task Force, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee evidence reluctance to formally give the Archbishop in the constitution the title of metropolitan as well as the duties and rights of a metropolitan. This may be partially attributable to the fact that in at least one sub-provincial jurisdictions of the ACNA (i.e. the Anglican Mission) the bishops are members of the house of bishops of an African province and as such are responsible to the primate of that province who is the metropolitan of his province. The senior bishop of this sub-provincial jurisdiction is the vicar of this primate and in that capacity has sweeping powers that approximate and even exceed those of a metropolitan.
While the ACNA canons recognize the laity as having a primary role in the mission of the church, sharing responsibility for the ministry of the church with the bishops and other clergy, they do not acknowledge them to have a similar role in the governance of the church or the administration of church discipline.
The ACNA canons are Catholic in their view of the sacraments. The canons intimate that the operation of the sacraments is automatic, that is,
ex opere operato. In their admission of young baptized children to the Holy Communion they adopt a realist view of the Holy Communion. They reject the historic Anglican doctrine that a response of faith is essential to receiving the benefits of the sacrament. In their lack of any other requirements for confirmation beside baptism and their identification of matrimony as a sacrament, they take the position that there are more sacraments than baptism and Holy Communion.
For those who have not read the previous articles in this series, the following are links to these articles.
"The Anglican Mission and the Diocese of the Gulf South: A Contrast in Ecclesiology" "Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law in the ACNA" "Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America - Part V Ecclesiastical Discipline""Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America - Part IV: The Structure and Form of Governance of the ACNA" "Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America - Part III: Authoritarian Forms of Governance in Para-Church Organizations""Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America - Part II" "Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America - Part I"
Endnotes.[1] Michael Green, Freed to Serve, (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1983), 42.
[2] Ibid., 42-43.
[3] Ibid., 43.
[4] Ibid., 43.
[5] David Holloway, “The Reform of the Episcopate and Alternative Episcopal Oversight,” a Reform discussion paper on the Internet at:
[6] Peter Benedict Knockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760-1857, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),156-157.
[7] Green, Freed to Serve, 42.
[8] Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry, (Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 2003), 78.
[9] Knockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760-1857, 156.
[10] “Book II: The People of God,” “Part II: The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church,” “Section II: Particular Churches and Their Groupings,” “Title I: The Particular Churches and the Authority Constituted within Them (Cann. 368-430),” “Chapter II: Bishops,” “Article 1, Bishops in General,” Code of Canon Law, Can. 375 § 1, the canons of the Roman Catholic Church on the Internet at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM[11] Michael Burkill, “Better Bishops,” a Reform discussion paper on the Internet at:
http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/betterbishops.php[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Green, Free to Serve, 42.
[15] Code of Canon Law, Can. 378 § 1.
[16] “Title I: Organization and Administration of the Church,” “Canon 6 – of Missionary Districts,” Canons of the Province of Rwqanda, Canon I.6.3.1(3), the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda on the Internet at:
http://www.theamia.org/am_cms_media/canonsoftheprovinceofrwanda.pdf[17] Code of Canon Law, Can. 377 §1-4.
[18] Ibid., Can. 377 § 5.
[19] Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry, 59.
[20] Burkill, “Better Bishops.”
[21] Ibid.
[22] “Section C - Ministers, their ordination, functions and charge,” The Canons of the Church of England, 79, the canons of the Church of England on the Internet at:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/canons/complete.pdf[23] Ibid.,102.
[24] Canons of the Province of Rwqanda, Canon II.18.4.
[25] Michael Green, Baptism, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1987),102.
[26] “Articles Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of Both Provinces and the Whole Clergy in the Convocation Holden at London in the Year 1562 for the Avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for Establishing Consent touching True Religion,” The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the Use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David Pointed as They Are to Be Sung or Said in Churches and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops Priests, and Deacons, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),704.
[27] Ibid., 705-706
[28] Ibid., 706.
[29] Green, Baptism, 54.
[30] C. S. Lewis, The Voyage of Dawn Treader, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1980), 204-209.
[31] “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony,” 362-373.
[32] “Section B – Divine Service and the administration of the sacraments,” The Canons of the Church of England,51-57.
.jpg)
