By Robin G. Jordan
In this second article in the series “Proposals for the Reform of the Anglican Church in North America” I continue my examination of the episcopate in that body, one of a number of areas in its ecclesiastical governance and organizational structure, which needs reforming. The constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America were seriously flawed documents at the time of their adoption and subsequent ratification. The constitution was poorly worded, almost amateurish. Its provisions were open to multiple interpretations. The canons were cobbled together from the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and other sources, and omitted critical details. They, like the constitution, were short on checks and balances and safeguards. Interested parties were given only a very brief time—barely a fortnight—to examine the two documents and to offer comments and suggestions. The delegates to the Provincial Assembly were only given a day to deliberate upon the provisions of the two documents, during which time their deliberations were frequently interrupted. They were not permitted to change any of the provisions, being instructed by Archbishop-elect Robert Duncan to either ratify them or send them back to the Provincial Council. They had been told beforehand that if they did not ratify the constitution and canons, there would be no new Anglican province in North America. While some delegates wished to scrutinize the provisions more closely, others were prepared to adopt them by acclamation. A number of delegates, while they were not happy with the two documents, voted for their ratification out of the belief that troubling provisions could be changed at a later date.
The canons, like the constitution, contain partisan doctrinal statements relating to the episcopate. The doctrine, language, norms, and principles found in a number of sections of the canons relating to the episcopate have been taken from canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and originated in the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. This can be seen from a comparison of these sections with corresponding sections in the Rwandan and Roman canons. Implicit in these sections is a doctrine of apostolic succession that the English Reformers rejected at the Reformation and over which Anglicans have historically been divided.
The sections in the Rwandan canons are the work of Kevin Donlan, a former Roman Catholic priest and canonist. Donlan drew extensively on the Roman canons. Donlan was also a member of the Common Cause Governance Task Force that drafted the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
This author is prompted to ask why the Rwandan and Roman canons were used as a model for the canons of the Anglican Church in North America and not the canons of the Church of England. The Common Cause Governance Task Force had available to them the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, the Church of Nigeria, and the Church of Uganda. The constitution and canons of a number of other Anglican provinces and bodies are posted on the Internet: They include the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and the Diocese in Europe, the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Church of England, the Church of England in South Africa, the Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales, and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, and the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church, as well as the constitutions and canons of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. To this list has been added the new canons of the Church of England in Jersey. With the wealth of material that was available to the task force, one naturally must question why it turned to the Roman canons and to the Rwandan canons, which are heavily indebted to the Roman canons.
The wording of the sections of the canons relating to clergy also implies this doctrine of apostolic succession and the related doctrine of episcopal ordination. In light of the sharpness of the historic division among Anglicans over these doctrines and the lack of a consensus upon their validity the task force could have employed language that did not favor one view of episcopal ordination over another, as the compilers of other provincial constitutions and canons have done. In most cases they have confined themselves to reiterating the words of preface to the Ordinal, affirming the offices of deacon, presbyter, and bishop as normative to ordained ministry in the Anglican Church.
In its recognition of the orders of two bishops from the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Church the College of Bishops has tacitly affirmed the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession implicit in the canons. The College of Bishops provided further substantiation of the partisan character of the doctrine of the canons.
The Common Cause Governance Task Force incorporated Roman Catholic practice as well as doctrine into the canons. The minimum age requirement for a bishop in the Anglican Church in North America is the minimum age requirement for a Rwandan missionary bishop. It is also the minimum age requirement for a Roman Catholic bishop.
The provisions of the canons relating to clergy and bishops need redrafting so that they are not aligned with any particular doctrinal point of view but use language acceptable to all schools of thought. This is not an unreasonable expectation and would show a real commitment to a genuine comprehensiveness that makes room for all conservative viewpoints.
The canons require the conditional ordination of ministers who are received into the clergy of the Anglican Church in North America when they are ordained by a bishop whose authority to confer orders is not recognized by the Anglican Church in North America. They do not apply this standard to bishops coming from another jurisdiction not in communion with the Anglican Church in North America, requiring only their reception by the College of Bishops. They do prescribe that such bishops should be received “in accordance with the Canons of this Church” but contain no specific provisions delineating what procedures should be followed.
The canons authorize the creation of the office of bishop for special missions by the College of Bishops. The creation of this office does not require the approval of the Provincial Assembly or the Provincial Council, only consultation with the Executive Committee, which controls the purse strings of the Anglican Church in North America and prepares the annual budget. The canons do not limit the number of bishops for special missions whose office may be created under these provisions. The only limitation, while it is unstated, is the availability of funding.
What is notable about the office of bishops for special missions is its similarity to that of canon missioner in the Anglican Mission. Bishops for special missions are not missionary bishops overseeing a missionary district. Rather they perform specialized functions. They are elected by the College of Bishops and are under its oversight.
In the creation of such offices a wider consultation involving the Provincial Assembly or the Provincial Council between sessions of the Provincial Assembly is warranted with the submission of each proposal for a new office of bishop for special missions to the appropriate body for approval. In addition the Provincial Assembly or the Provincial Council acting on its behalf should have power and authority to exercise superintendence over bishops for specials missions, to confirm their appointment, to require reports of their activities, to censure, suspend, or remove bishops for special missions for cause, and to dissolve the office of bishop for special missions as it thinks fit.
At the present time the canons do not require the College of Bishops in creating an office of bishop for special missions to put in writing the duties and functions of such office. They make no provision for the dissolution of an office of bishop for special missions if such office no longer serves a useful purpose.
In championing the reform of the episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America, I am not advocating the abolition of the episcopate in that body as has been falsely alleged in a comment left in response to my previous article, which is also posted on VirtueOnline. Drawing attention to the need for the reform of an institution is not the same as calling for its abolition. Neither is drawing attention to the well-documented fact that Anglicans historically have been divided over whether bishops are of the essence of the church or of its well-being, of its esse or its bene esse.
In future articles in this series I will be looking at the primacy in the Anglican Church in North America and other problem areas in its form of ecclesiastical governance and organizational structure. I will be drawing attention to what might be done to reform the Anglican Church in North America and to remedy its problems.
Pointing problem areas to the attention of a church and observing its reaction is one way of gauging the health of that church. A healthy church faces problems squarely, and does something about them. An unhealthy church will deny their existence, their extent, and their severity. Even if it recognizes the existence of a problem, it will postpone adopting a course of remedial action, often procrastinating to the point that the problem is beyond remedying.
No comments:
Post a Comment