Openness + Transparency = Trust + Confidence

By Robin G. Jordan

This article was prompted by the comments of one of my readers in response to a previous article, “A view of the emerging Anglican Church in North America.” It spurred me to better articulate my concerns related to the College of Bishops’ reception of Bishop Derek Jones.

There are a number of issues involved in Bishop Jones’ reception. His orders are not the only issue. They are the presenting problem that points to a whole complex of interrelated problems that are much more serious than the presenting problem itself.

Among these issues is how the College of Bishops came to their decision, what the bishops considered in the decision, and what they did not. Both people inside and outside the ACNA would like to know more about the College's decision-making process and in particular the way in which this decision was reached.

These issues include that the Anglican Church in North America’s canons establish certain requirements for the reception of deacons and presbyters but do not apply these requirements to the reception of bishops. Why was this loophole left in the canons? Why are not the same requirements being applied to all three ministries? This particular loophole points to other defects in the canons. The canons were a flawed document from the outset. They were available for public scrutiny and debate for a very brief period—too short of a period for people to examine and weight their provisions. They were also rushed through the inaugural Provincial Assembly.

One of the issues is the lack of real accountability mechanisms in the canons. This issue is further complicated by the unwillingness of the ACNA members to require accountability from their leaders at a formative stage in the development of the ACNA when such accountability is critical. What is being established is a precedent that is going to haunt the ACNA in the not too distant future and create all kinds of problems for the denomination. We have seen what happened in The Episcopal Church when it failed to require accountability from its leaders.

The ACNA is not immune to the problems that have beset TEC. Indeed I would suggest that the ACNA was infected with these problems before it was born. Indeed they are a part of its very DNA. They have already begun to manifest themselves. This is evident in how certain leaders show a disregard for the provisions of the denomination’s constitution and canons, for constitutionalism, and the rule of law, and treat these documents as a mandate for them to do whatever is right in their eyes, to use a biblical expression.

A very important issue is the direction in which the leaders of the ACNA are taking the denomination. This may not concern Anglo-Catholics and Convergentists, the two groups that dominate the ACNA. It does concern Anglicans like myself who value the Protestant heritage of the reformed Church of England, who recognize in the Thirty-Nine Articles not just a venerable formulary but an important means of safeguarding the truth of the gospel, and who believe that The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 in its main substance and chief parts contains the true doctrine of Christ. We share with the Global Anglican Future Conference the belief that acceptance of the Articles, as understood in their plain, natural, and intended sense, is essential to Anglican identity. We affirm with the Jerusalem Declaration that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is “a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer,” “a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 47).

An issue that is closely related to the direction in which the ACNA leaders are taking the denomination is the extent of consultations between the ACNA leaders and the global South Anglican bishops regarding proposed decisions that would affect not only the ACNA but also the entire global South Anglican community. The failure of TEC to consult with other Anglican Communion members and its willingness to act unilateral to pursue its own agenda provoked the crisis that led to the need for a new North American Anglican province. The leadership of the ACNA is evidencing the tendency toward the same kind of unilateralism. It is lower key than that of TEC but it is discernable.

I gather from various sources that the supporters of the ACNA in Africa, Australia, South America, Southeast Asia, and the United Kingdom do not have an accurate picture of the ACNA. They see the ACNA as a strong supporter of GAFCON, indeed as GAFCON in North America, but the ACNA is in reality not as strong in its support of GAFCON as they imagine. This is evidenced from its constitution and canons, the statements of ACNA leaders, and the comments of ACNA members. The commitment of the ACNA to a number of the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration (e.g. 4 and 6) goes near the margin. GAFCON recognition and support of the ACNA is tied to this belief; and the ACNA at the present time needs GAFCON recognition and support. However, if the ACNA leaders continue to take the denomination in its present direction, I foresee a parting of the ways between the ACNA and GAFCON looming in the future, as the ACNA leaders increasingly create situations that try the patience of the GAFCON bishops. Americans are accustomed to holding positions of leadership in whatever international organizations to which they belong and the ACNA can be expected to seek hegemony in GAFCON. The concept of manifest destiny is evident in Convergentist thought, in the view that the Holy Spirit is bringing the three theological streams—Catholic, evangelical, and Orthodox/Pentecostal—together in Anglicanism and in particular in the ACNA.

There has emerged in the ACNA what may be described as a culture of denial. This culture does not encourage leaders and members of the ACNA to face up to negative developments and problem areas and deal with them. It is the kind of culture that is found in unhealthy family systems. In a healthy family problems are recognized and solved and the family is strengthened through the process. In an unhealthy family those who draw attention to a problem or a set of problems are seen as “the problem.” They are calling attention to the family that it does not welcome, particularly the family member or members who are making the largest contribution to the family’s difficulties. The family may view as acceptable or normal what outsiders see as problematic or unacceptable. There is an unwillingness to admit that the family is experiencing difficulties, much less that each family member is contributing to these difficulties.

In some ways the ACNA is reminiscent of ancient Jerusalem. The city was surrounded by the enemy who was raising siege ramps against the city walls. Yet there were those within the city who kept saying “Peace, peace.” The people of the city listened to them and not to God’s prophet Jeremiah. They were unwilling to accept the reality of their situation.

The emergence of this culture of denial is not surprising. A large segment of the ACNA, clergy and laity, came out of The Episcopal Church, and they brought elements of its unhealthy family system with them. They fled the toxic environment of TEC. However, they absorbed a lot of its toxicity before they fled. This toxicity is poisoning the ACNA.

Those who fled TEC also misdiagnosed a number of the problems of TEC. What they see as preventive measures against these perceived problems are perpetuating in the ACNA the very real problems that exist in TEC.

The result is an unhealthy organizational culture. The culture of an organization influences how it operates, how it relates to outsiders, how it relates to its own members, how the leaders of the organization are in actuality selected, how decisions are actually made, what factors are given consideration in the decision-making process, and so forth.

The problems of the ACNA are not going to disappear. It is much easier to address problems in their early stages—nip them in the bud, than it is later on, especially when they have increased in complexity as well as number, and are all demanding immediate attention.

Rather than responding with denial to problems, the ACNA needs to size them up, identify a range of solutions, choose what is the best solution under the circumstances, and to apply it. After giving it an opportunity to work, the ACNA needs to evaluate whether it is working. If it is not, the ACNA needs to try something else.

Whatever the ACNA does, the denomination needs to do it out in the open and not behind closed doors. Greater openness and transparency on the part of leaders engenders greater trust and confidence in their leadership. It is a very simple equation. Openness + Transparency = Trust + Confidence.