News Analysis: Anglican Mission chooses Ministry Partnership over ACNA Membership

By Robin G. Jordan

What really happened? In my experience as a close observer of developments in the Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church in North America the story that is put out for public consumption is only the spin that one or both organizations want to give to a particular development. The full story may not come to light until months or years later or never at all.

What is the advantage to the Anglican Church of Rwanda of not permitting the Anglican Mission from integrating into the Anglican Church in North America at the present time? What does it gain? We are told that back in January the Rwandans told the Anglican Mission that its bishops could not sit in the Rwandan House of Bishops if they sat in the ACNA College of Bishops? Were the Rwandans telling the Anglican Mission that it needed to make up its mind about its relationship with Anglican Church of Rwanda and the ACNA? Choose the ACNA or us but you cannot be a jurisdiction of both churches.

As I see it, the only thing that the Anglican Church of Rwanda gains from not permitting the Anglican Mission to integrate with the ACNA is leverage with the ACNA at a future date. But how would the Anglican Mission give them leverage with the ACNA? And why would the Rwandans want it?

Of the Common Cause Partners that formed the ACNA, the Anglican Mission is one of the oldest. Of these partners, the Anglican Mission has also enjoyed sustained growth. Over a period of ten years it has grown to 150 congregations with an ASA of at least 50 on Sundays. It has acquired the most experience in planting new churches and a large percentage of its congregations are composed of folks who were never a part of the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church. Archbishop Duncan’s wife in comments on Tex-Anglican’s Blog admits that the ACNA has gone out of its way to accommodate the Anglican Mission. She confirms what my own research shows.

Any plan of using the Anglican Mission as leverage with the ACNA would require continued growth on the part of the Anglican Mission and lackluster or non-existent growth on the part of the ACNA. The ACNA would be the weaker partner in the merger and the partner from which the Anglican Mission as the stronger partner could exact concessions favorable to it. This, however, does not sound very African. But it does sound very American.

While we are told that the decision of the Anglican Church of Rwanda forced the Anglican Mission to choose Ministry Partnership status, was that really the case? Who benefits from keeping the Anglican Mission a separate organization from the ACNA? I have heard the argument that the Anglican Mission is a cash cow for the Rwandans but I do not believe that pecuniary motives are behind this development. Those who benefit the most from this development are the present leaders of the Anglican Mission, in particular Primatial Vicar/Chairman Bishop Charles Murphy. Another group that benefits are those who like the present organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance of the Anglican Mission, which is heavily indebted to the doctrine, language, norms, and principles of the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, as are the Rwandan canons. This Code of Canon Law is a primary source of both the Anglican Mission canonical charter and the Rwandan canons. An important second source is the canons of the Episcopal Church as revised through 1967. This points to the involvement of the Anglican Mission in the drafting of the Rwandan canons. Both the Anglican Mission canonical charter and the Rwandan canons were promulgated in 2008. An important question is, “Did the influence of Roman Catholic canon law upon both documents come from within the Anglican Church of Rwanda or the Anglican Mission?” While the Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination in Rwanda and there is a strong likelihood of the source of this influence being Rwandan, the Anglican Mission is not the evangelical and low church organization that some people believe it. It does have an Anglo-Catholic wing and that wing has a strong commitment to Catholic doctrine, order, and practice. The Anglican Mission itself could also be the source of the Roman Catholic influence as well as the Episcopal influence.

One Anglican Mission priest’s rationalization for what he described as the Anglican Mission’s “top-down structure” was that the Anglican Mission is a mission organization. However, a mission organization to operate effectively does not need to adopt the organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance almost identical with that of a Roman Catholic archdiocese or diocese, a structure and form of governance in which all power and authority is derived from the Primate of Rwanda through the Primatial Vicar and whatever power and authority that an office bearer exercises is delegated to him by someone above him in a centralized hierarchy and is not vested in the office he holds. It does not need to adopt the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church in which all power and authority are ultimately derived from the Pope as purported Vicar of Christ. Being a “missionary district” or a “missionary society” does not explain why the Anglican Mission adopted this particular organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance.

In another comment on the Internet before this news broke an Anglican Mission canon missioner suggested that the Anglican Mission leaders were not prepared to fully integrate the organization into the ACNA until the organization’s congregations and clergy had fully assimilated what he described as its “African methods.” However, the methods that the Anglican Mission has adopted are not particularly African. They actually originated in the Roman Catholic Church and corporate America. While they may not be familiar to some North American Anglicans, they are not particularly innovative or new. His comment points to a reluctance to dismantle the present organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance of the Anglican Mission. There is a strong investment in how the Anglican Mission is currently structured and governed.

The Rwandan canons make provision for the transfer of missionary districts and societies to the jurisdiction of another province. The language of the particular canon suggests that those who drafted it envisioned the transfer of such districts or societies intact, with the Primate of the new province assuming the role of the Primate of Rwanda in relation to the missionary district or society. The missionary district or society would retain its existing organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance. One gain that both the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission would desire from obtaining additional leverage with the ACNA is a stronger constitutional guarantee of that structure and form of governance and in the case of the Anglican Mission control over appointments to the highest positions in its hierarchy, including the office of Primatial Vicar. I gather from a number of comments on the Internet that members of the Anglican Mission do not have a high opinion of the leadership of present ACNA leaders especially in the area of mission.

A major problem that I anticipate with this development should it occur is the tendency of the Anglican Mission to enfold in its own organization the new churches that it plants, rather than release them to the regional-based judicatories in which they may be located. The Anglican Mission has no policy against releasing churches to other Anglican bodies. However, Anglican Mission new church plants are assimilated and incorporated in the organization from the outset and once they have achieved self-supporting status, they have little incentive to transfer to another body. If the Anglican Mission enjoys continued growth while the ACNA, which is largely composed of former Canadian Anglican and US Episcopal congregations and clergy, maintains a more moribund existence, the Anglican Mission will always be the dominant partner in the relationship even though it may eventually become the missionary arm of the ACNA once more. This possibility causes me less concern than another possibility that I am going to examine next.

While the Anglican Mission was not the oldest Anglican body in the Common Cause Partnership from which the ACNA was formed, it was one of the largest bodies, if not the largest body, in that coalition. Its position in the CCP was like that of the senior partner in a firm. Through its representatives in the CCP/ACNA Governance Task Force, the CCP Leadership Council/ACNA Provincial Council, and the CCP/ACNA Executive Committee the Anglican Mission influenced the shape of the ACNA, its organizational structure and its form of ecclesiastical governance. The fingerprints of the Anglican Mission are seen all over the ACNA constitution and canons. The Provincial Assembly is modeled upon the Anglican Mission Winter Conference, which plays no role in the governance of the Anglican Mission but functions like a Mission Network Gathering but on a larger scale. The Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) requirement for recognition as an ACNA judicatory may have come from the Anglican Mission. The canonical provision permitting the banding together of dioceses for common mission or as distinct jurisdictions within the ACNA was drafted with the Anglican Mission in mind. So was the canonical provision permitting judicatories gathered under another province at the time of the formation of the ACNA to remain under the constitution and canons of their parent province. The canonical provisions relating to the ministry of bishops and the criteria for the episcopate come from the Rwandan canons, which in turn come from the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. The description of the ministry of bishops includes a reference to the Roman Catholic doctrine of tactual succession that is also found in the original Roman Catholic canon. The minimum age requirement of an ACNA bishop is the minimum age requirement of a Rwandan missionary bishop. The mode of episcopal election that the ACNA canons commend to its constituent bodies and establishes as the norm for new judicatories is adapted from the Rwandan canons, which in turn are adapted from the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. The disciplinary canons show the influence of the Rwandan canons and through the latter the influence of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church and the influence of the canons of The Episcopal Church as revised through 1967. The mode of election of the Archbishop of the ACNA is also indicative of the influence of the Rwandan canons.

While the Anglican Mission is not the only former Common Cause Partner with authoritarian leanings, these tendencies are particularly evident in provisions traceable to the Anglican Mission. Determining the extent to which such tendencies are homegrown and to which they reflect Rwandan influence and through that influence Roman Catholic influence would be a worthwhile study.

The proclivity of the Anglican Mission for authoritarian organizational structures and authoritarian forms of ecclesiastical governance points to another motive for desiring to gain greater leverage over the ACNA. The Anglican Mission would be able to extract concessions from the ACNA in the form of changes to the ACNA organizational structure and form of ecclesiastical governance to bring them more in line with those of the Anglican Mission.

In addition to studying the Rwandan canons and the Anglican Mission canonical charter, I have also examined the Anglican Mission Network Development Manuel. I found nothing in the Manual that was particularly African. Rather the Manual drew largely upon sound business management and church planting principles. They included establishing cohesive Mission Networks, making sure the best people—those with proven leadership ability and experience and a strong commitment to the organization, its vision, its goals, and its values—were picked for leadership positions, ensuring funds were put to the best use, making sure everyone shared the same vision, goals, and values, and ensuring a high level of commitment, co-operation, and giving. A primary focus of the Anglican Mission is church planting. The Anglican Mission has learned from the mistakes of its earlier years.

From my examination of the Manual I conclude that the authoritarian organizational structure and authoritarian form of ecclesiastical governance at the upper levels of the Anglican Mission are unnecessary. The Mission Networks could operate effectively without this authoritarian superstructure and its Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

I also conclude that the Manual is weak in its identification with Anglicanism. I could have omitted the few references to Anglican and Anglicanism and used the Manual for any church with missionary bishops. What theological emphases I found were not so much Anglican as Ancient-Future or Convergence. As I noted earlier the Anglican Mission is not the evangelical and low church organization that some people believe it. It does have an Anglo-Catholic wing and that wing has a strong commitment to Catholic doctrine, order, and practice.

In 2006 the Anglican Mission and the Prayer Book Society USA jointly produced a collection of trial services for the use of the Anglican Mission, which were supposed to be contemporary English versions of the services of the classical Anglican Prayer Book—The Book of Common Prayer of 1662. In actuality, the trial services largely came from the 1928 American Prayer Book and were much more Catholic in tone than the services of the 1662 Prayer Book. In 2008 the Anglican Mission and the Prayer Book Society USA jointly produced An Anglican Prayer Book. This time there was no pretense that the services were contemporary English versions of the 1662 Prayer Book services. The book was advertised as a contemporary English introduction to the services of the 1662, 1928 American, and 1962 Canadian Prayer Books. Examination of the book revealed that a number of changes had been made in these services making them more Catholic in doctrine. The Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration of Principles requires any alternative rites or forms used in the Anglican Mission to conform to the doctrine of 1662 Prayer Book. The services in An Anglican Prayer Book failed to meet this critical requirement. Yet Bishops Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers endorsed the book and commended it not only for the use of Anglican Mission congregations and clergy but also other North American Anglicans.

The dominant ideology of the Anglican Mission is Ancient-Future or Convergence. It brings together non-Anglican evangelicals and charismatics with a penchant for antiquity, liturgy, and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It emphasizes piety and practice and does not press doctrine. Unlike conservative Anglican evangelicals, the adherents of this twentieth century ideology are not greatly troubled by the Anglican Mission’s token adherence to the doctrine of the reformed Church of England and its formularies and its flirtation with prelacy and Roman Catholic ecclesiology. They are convinced that they are the forefront of a new movement of the Holy Spirit and represent the future of Anglican Christianity in North America, a self-perception that the Anglican Mission leaders are only too willing to encourage and reinforce.

In opting for Ministry Partnership relationship with the ACNA, the Anglican Mission has caused something of a crisis in the ACNA. It has upset the ACNA’s equilibrium. This is necessarily a bad thing. Crises provide motivation for change. And the ACNA needs to make a number of changes in its constitution and canons, which I have identified elsewhere. The ACNA also needs to make clear to its leaders that the constitution and canons are not a mandate for them to do what they like. They are expected to operate within the limits established by these documents. Constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law are an important part of the North American Anglican heritage, the value of which cannot be stated too strongly. They are worth protecting and passing on to future generations.