Barriers to Participation in the ACNA—Part 2

By Robin G. Jordan

In my previous article on barriers to the participation of classical Anglican evangelicals in the Anglican Church in North America, I examined the doctrinal bias of the ACNA constitution and canons, which is a significant barrier to their participation in the ACNA. In this article I am going to look a number of other barriers. I am also going to consider a possible solution to this problem and an essential condition for its success.

Constitution and Canons: The numerous defects from which the ACNA constitution and canons suffer form a significant barrier to classical Anglican evangelicals’ participation in the ACNA. Their language is problematic at a number of points. Both foundational documents are also lacking in clarity and insufficient in detail. Important procedural safeguards especially in the discipline of clergy are missing. The constitution and canons demand little if any accountability from those in positions of leadership and authority in the ACNA. At a number of points the canons show the influence of the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda that are based upon the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law and incorporate the doctrine, language, norms and practices of that Code of Canon Law. There are minor differences between the ACNA canons and the Rwandan canons. The major difference is the latter requires much greater accountability from those in positions of leadership and authority.

What was significant in the development of the ACNA constitution and canons and their adoption was that little opportunity was given to the public to subject the two documents to scrutiny and make comments upon their provisions before they were adopted. The period of public scrutiny and comment was extremely short—barely more than a fortnight, hardly sufficient time for interested parties to take a close look at their provisions. After the provisional Provincial Council adopted the two documents, they were submitted to the provisional Provincial Assembly for its ratification. The delegates to the provisional Provincial Assembly was given one day to complete its work, which was repeatedly interrupted by matters that should not have been allowed to interfere with the Assembly’s work. The Assembly was not permitted to modify any of the provisions of the two documents. It was given the choice of approving a particular section or returning it to the Provincial Governance Task Force for further work but without recommendation. Deliberation upon the documents’ provisions was not encouraged. There was one group of delegates who called for the ratification of the documents by acclamation without any examination of their provisions but the Governance Task Force had a number of amendments that needed to be given consideration. No amendments were allowed from the floor.

There was much hype on web sites supporting the ACNA about the unanimity of the delegates in ratifying the two documents but a number of delegates admitted afterwards that they had voted for ratification even though they had serious concerns and reservations about their provisions. The delegates had been led to believe that the ratification of the constitution and canons were absolutely essential to the establishment of the ACNA, and any provisions in the two documents that troubled them could be “fixed” at a later date.

A year has come and gone and the Provincial Council has shown no inclination to make needed changes in the constitution and canons. This is what I wrote would happen if the necessary changes were not made before the two documents’ ratification. Once they were ratified, the Provincial Council would have no incentive to change their provisions. Indeed the Provincial Council has shown a propensity to ignore their provisions altogether (See Leadership below).

Governance. The form of ecclesiastical governance that the ACNA has adopted is another significant barrier to classical evangelical participation in that body. The ACNA differs in a number of ways in its form of church government from existing Anglican provinces. Unlike these provinces the ACNA has no General Synod or its equivalent. In the provincial constitutions and canons that I have examined, the General Synod or its equivalent is the supreme authority of the province. The ACNA Provincial Assembly, however, in comparison to a General Synod or its equivalent, has no real power. With the exception of ratifying amendments to the constitution and changes to the canons, it is a purely consultative body. It may make recommendations but it cannot enact legislation. It cannot conduct inquiries and investigations, require the appearance of witnesses or the production of documents and reports, or suspend and remove provincial officials. It bears a striking resemblance to the sham national assemblies that various South American dictators have established to give legitimacy to their seizure of power and to the elected consultative national assemblies that the United Kingdom established in its African colonies in response to the growing demand for home rule and independence. In the days leading up to the ratification of the ACNA constitution and canons, the Common Cause leadership compared the proposed Provincial Assembly with the Anglican Mission’s Annual Winter Conference, a body that plays no role in the governance of that organization but serves as a combination mission conference and pep rally. The Anglican Mission has nothing comparable to a General Synod or its equivalent and is governed solely by its episcopal hierarchy. The latter derives its authority through the Anglican Mission’s primatial vicar from the primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and is accountable through the primatial vicar to the Rwandan primate. The Anglican Mission’s canonical charter shows the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law as do the Rwandan canons. It is far from an appropriate model for the form of governance of an independent Anglican province. In all fairness to the Anglican Mission it must be pointed out that the Anglican Mission is not a province. It is an extraterritorial missionary district of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

The official governing body of the ACNA is the smaller and less representative Provincial Council. One half of the members of the Council are bishops and other clergy. In the Provincial Assembly the proportion of lay members is much higher.

Describing the ACNA system for selecting bishops requires an article of its own. Before the ratification of the constitution and canons whether groupings of congregations and clergy applying for recognition as a diocese of the ACNA would be able to elect their own bishop was sharply debated on the Internet. Such groupings were led to believe from the directions for the application form that the College of Bishops was going to appoint their bishop from a slate of two or three candidates they presented to the College. On the other hand, the constitution and canons provided for two methods of selection—election by the diocese and confirmation by the College of Bishops or appointment by the College of Bishops. The canons commended the latter as the preferred method of selection. The debate eventually prompted a member of the Governance Task Force to state on the record that such groups were free to elect their own bishop. The provisions of the constitution and canons in regard to the selection of bishops was highly problematic in that they were silent on what would happen if the College of Bishops failed to appoint one of the diocese’ nominees for bishops. They did not stipulate whether the diocese would be required to make additional nominations. They left open the possibility that the College of Bishops could nominate and appoint the bishop of a diocese. In any event the second method of selection represents a serious infringement upon diocesan autonomy, and is highly susceptible to abuse.

The constitution and canons do not recognize the Archbishop of the ACNA as its metropolitan and therefore having metropolitical authority. The canons, however, do require the other bishops to take an oath of submission to the Archbishop. They give the Archbishop authority in a number of areas that is not exercised by the primates of the existing Anglican provinces whose constitutions and canons I have studied, even those who are recognized as having metropolitical authority. In a number of instances the authority of Archbishop particularly in the discipline of clergy infringes upon the customary authority of the ordinary of the diocese and the autonomy of the diocese. The canons permit the Archbishop to meddle in matters that are normally outside the purview of a primate.

In its form of governance at the denominational level the ACNA has adopted a number of the worst features of the episcopal system. The Governance Task Force drew upon African models that in turn were drawn from Roman Catholic models. At the same time it omitted a number of checks and balances and other safeguards incorporated into these models. The potential for abuse of power and arbitrariness in governance are high. There is nothing to counterbalance the authority of the Archbishop and to protect the ACNA from archiepiscopal tyranny and the Archbishop from his own folly. There are no provisions in the constitution or canons for the suspension and removal of the Archbishop.

Leadership. The present leadership of the ACNA is a third significant barrier to classical evangelical participation in the ACNA. This leadership is not open and transparent in their decision-making. Decisions are made behind closed doors, at meetings to which the media and the public do not have access, and then announced weeks and even months after they made. A number of ACNA bishops are not known for their accessibility, providing no contact information on the Internet, or buffering themselves from those who might wish to communicate with them. They act more like corporate executives or government officials than pastors.

The present ACNA leadership treats its constitution and canons as a mandate to do what they please. They display a low regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. A case in point is Archbishop Robert Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Don Harvey as the dean of the province. The ACNA constitution and canons make no provision for a dean of the province, much less the archbishop’s appointment of a provincial dean. The constitution and canons make no provision for the Provincial Council to authorize the creation of the office of provincial dean or the archbishop’s appointment of a provincial dean except by adopting a canon and even a constitutional amendment and then obtaining the Provincial Assembly’s approval of these measures. In authorizing the creation of this office and approving Bishop Harvey’s appointment to the office, the Provincial Council arrogated to that body powers that the constitution does not give it. In creating the office and appointing Bishop Harvey to it, Archbishop Duncan also arrogated to the office of Archbishop powers that the canons do not give it. More recently Archbishop Duncan has proposed the creation of an appointive Archbishop’s Cabinet to replace the ACNA Executive Committee, which is the focus of power in the ACNA and is also its Board of Directors in secular matters. The constitution and canons make no provision for an Archbishop’s Cabinet but the constitution does establish the Executive Committee and the canons delineate its functions and powers. The Executive Committee is elected by the Provincial Council and chaired by the Archbishop. Its replacement by an Archbishop’s Cabinet appointed by the Archbishop would shift the focus of power to the office of Archbishop.

Property. A fourth significant barrier to classical evangelical participation in the ACNA is that the constitution and canons do not fully guarantee congregational ownership of property. They permit dioceses to hold property in trust and with the written consent of the congregation to seize congregational property. They do not prevent a diocese from requiring such consent from congregations seeking to unite with the diocese or seeking assistance from the diocese.

Other Barriers. The ACNA has no judicatory that has a strong commitment to the evangelical, Protestant, and Reformed character of authentic historic Anglicanism. The classical Anglican evangelicals who were involved in a church in a Common Cause Partner that formed the ACNA and who have remained in the ACNA after its formation out of the belief that God placed them in the ACNA for a purpose are scattered throughout its judicatories. None of them to my knowledge is a member of the College of Bishops or the Provincial Council or its Executive Committee. While the ACNA has at least three Anglo-Catholic dioceses, and the Provincial Council has established the non-geographical Diocese of All Saints as an enclave for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics associated with the Forward in Faith movement, the ACNA does not have a similar diocese for classical Anglican evangelicals and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies.

A Possible Solution. One way to reduce or eliminate the barriers to classical Anglican evangelical participation in the Anglican Church of North America is to undertake a massive overhaul of the ACNA constitution and canons, to remove leaders who show little or no respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law, and establish and enforce a high level of accountability in the governance of the ACNA. Another way to reduce or eliminate such barriers might prove more practicable and less time-consuming. On the basis of the precedent that the Provincial Council established in its creation of the Diocese of All Saints, the Council could create a non-geographic diocese for classical Anglican evangelicals and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies. The Provincial Council in its protocol with the Anglican Mission granted exemptions from the provisions of the constitution and canons to that body. On the basis of this precedent the Council could offer similar exemptions to a classical Anglican evangelical judicatory that would reduce or eliminate a number of barriers to classical evangelical participation in the ACNA.

The Provincial Council could feasibly create a non-geographic ecclesiastical or internal province with its own synod and bishops, which served as an umbrella for classical Anglican evangelicals and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies. This province within a province would operate along lines similar to such provinces in the Anglican Church of Australia and the synod and bishops of the province within a province would confirm the canonical eligibility of the bishops elected by the dioceses forming the province. Its bishops would be welcomed into the College of Bishops and it would have representation in the Provincial Council in proportion to the number of dioceses within the province. Any proposal brought before the Provincial Council that affected the province would require the assent of the provincial synod in order to be binding upon the province. Having given its assent, the provincial synod could withdraw its assent at a future date. This has precedent in the Anglican Church in Australia in which canons in certain categories, adopted by the General Synod, require the assent of the diocese affected to have force in that diocese. It is an outgrowth of the time when the dioceses forming the ACofA were independent of each other. The ACofA is essentially a federation of autonomous dioceses.

Anglo-Catholics and other groups in the ACNA should have no objection to the creation of such a diocese or a province within a province, as it would not affect them. It would result in the existence of two or three or more groups of churches operating in the same territory but there is already precedent for that in Europe—in The Church of England’s Diocese in Europe and in The Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe—and in North America—in the ACNA itself, the Anglican Federation, and the less well-known American Anglican Congress. While these groups might have different bishops, different forms of church government, and different theologies, this should not prevent them from cooperating at the regional and local community level in areas of common interest where they believed that they could cooperate with each other. It would not prevent them from having a common pension and health insurance system.

North American Anglicans are such a theologically diverse group and hold such disparate theological views that territorial bishops and geographic dioceses are unrealistic. What we saw happen in the Anglican Church of Canada and in The Episcopal Church and what we are observing in the Church of England and elsewhere, is that one church party comes to dominate the diocese, its synod, its process for electing bishops, its process for selecting candidates for ordination, and its process for choosing new incumbents for its parishes and churches. Congregations and clergy that do not belong to the party in power find themselves isolated and marginalized. When a congregation loses its pastor to retirement, to another congregation, or to deposition, it has no assurance that his successor will be a good theological match with it. Often as not it is forced to accept a pastor that has a theological outlook at variance with its own, leaving its members with no option but to protest with their feet. In the ACofC and TEC the end-result was the departure of congregations and clergy from these provinces and the formation of the Common Cause Partnership and eventually the ACNA.

There is one serious hitch with this proposed solution. In order for it to work, all existing ACNA bishops, all new ACNA bishops, all existing congregations and clergy affiliated with the ACNA, and all new congregations and clergy affiliating with that body would need to enter into a binding covenant to proclaim the New Testament gospel of salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. This is one thing on which there would need to be total church-wide agreement.

The New Testament does not embrace pluralism and it does not recognize the existence of several gospels. In Ephesians 4:5 the apostle Paul speaks of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” In Philippians 1:27 he makes reference to “the faith of the gospel.” In Galatians 1:6-9 he draws to the attention the Galatians that there is no other true gospel beside the one he preached. Those who preach a different gospel are false apostles. Even if they are angels, they are accursed. Just as there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” there is one gospel.

Our Lord gave to his Church this commission: “And he said to them, ‘Go into the world and proclaim the gospel to whole creation’” (Mark 16:15). In order to be faithful to his commission a church must proclaim the one true gospel. Sacraments and good works have a place in the spiritual life of a believer but it is faith and faith alone by which he is justified, by which he is reckoned righteous in God’s sight.

As the prophet Amos observed, “Can two walk together, unless they have agreed?” (Amos 3:3), a passage that Archbishop Peter Akinola cited to explain why the Church of Nigeria was no longer in communion with The Episcopal Church. In 2 Corinthians 6:14 Paul reminds us that a believers should not be yoked with unbelievers. In his second letter John warns that those who welcome false teachers share in their evil deeds (2 John 1:9-10). Anyone who truly accepts the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures cannot disregard what these passages say. While there can be wide diversity of opinion on secondary matters, there cannot be any diversity of opinion on a matter of such great importance as the message of the gospel.

The English Reformers recognized this biblical truth. For this reason they drew up the Thirty-Nine Articles to ensure that all preachers and lecturers in the Church of England would be proclaiming the New Testament gospel—the gospel of grace. Right now the ACNA has no doctrinal standard like the Thirty-Nine Articles and no requirement like subscription to the Articles to assure classical Anglican evangelicals and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies that ACNA clergy and lay readers, preachers, and catechists are preaching and teaching the New Testament gospel. Without such assurance they would not be able to overcome their scruples about the propriety of participating in the ACNA even in a diocese or ecclesiastical or internal province like the one I have proposed. They would not be able in good conscience to take part in the ACNA.

The late Philip Edgcumbe Hughes calls our attention to the close connection between the New Testament gospel and Reformation Christianity in Theology of the English Reformers, which Anglican Mission Bishop John H. Rodgers Jr., describes as “a superb collection and summary of our 16th-century Anglican Reformers’ thoughts on key points of Christian theology”:

“…the Reformation of the sixteenth century was in its essence a spiritual movement flowing from the rediscovery of the gospel of divine grace to which the pages of Holy Scripture bear testimony.”

For the classical Anglican evangelical and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies the New Testament gospel is of paramount importance. There can be no compromising upon the message of the gospel. Any convergence of disparate traditions that obscures, distorts, or changes the gospel cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth and bears witness to Christ (John 15:26) and whom our Lord said would teach the disciples all things and bring to their remembrance all that he said to them (John 14:26), and would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

In the third article in this series I look at the challenges that face classical Anglican evangelicals and other Anglicans committed to the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her historic formularies in North America and the choices that confront them.