The ADV Proposed Constitution: An Analysis

By Robin G. Jordan

The proposed constitution that would unite the Anglican District of Virginia and the Diocese of the Holy Spirit in a single diocese is the first governing document of an ACNA judicatory that I have been able to examine before its adoption. This proposed constitution holds a particular interest for me because the two Anglican jurisdictions that it would unite have ties to the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Church of the Province of Uganda, two of the reputedly more evangelical of the global South Provinces. My interest is more than academic since such a union may affect the region in which I live—western Kentucky. The Diocese of the Holy Spirit has a number of churches in Kentucky and the neighboring state of Tennessee. The character of any ACNA geographic diocese that is established in Kentucky and lays claim to jurisdiction over the state particularly concerns me. The Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky is liberal and the Episcopal Diocese of Western Tennessee is not any better. The Continuing Anglican jurisdictions represented in Kentucky and Tennessee are traditionalist Anglo-Catholic. One of these jurisdictions is intent on joining the Personal Ordinariate that the Roman Catholic Church is to erect for former Anglo-Catholics in the United States. Whatever is the school of thought that is prevalent in any group of churches forming an ACNA diocese in Kentucky is likely to determine the character of that diocese.

In this article I examine the provisions of the proposed constitution and draw attention to a number of its strengths as well as its problem areas. In some instances I suggest changes to the proposed constitution’s provisions.

In its Preamble the proposed constitution states that the diocese formed under its provisions is a part of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because it is a part of the Anglican Church in North America. In other words, the diocese owes its existence as a “member” of the Church to its membership in the ACNA. This is similar if not identical to how The Episcopal Church sees its dioceses.

As Allan Haley and others have noted, this view is a departure from how the Episcopal Church’s founding fathers saw that denomination. They viewed the fledgling Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA as a voluntary association of autonomous dioceses that owed its existence to the dioceses constituting it. They did not owe their existence to the newly formed denomination.

The ACNA is also a voluntary association of self-governing Anglican entities that owes its existence to these entities and not the other way around. Any change in an entity’s organization or structure should not require it to exchange the reality that the ACNA is its creature for the fiction that it is the creature of the ACNA. We have seen what problems the view that the dioceses are the creatures of TEC has caused that denomination.

Scripture does not recognize dioceses much less the ACNA as expressions of the visible Church of Christ. Consonant with Scripture the Thirty-Nine Articles do not recognize these parachurch organizations as the visible Church of Christ, only the local gathering of believing people in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered with due order and discipline as ordained by Christ.

In view of the tendency toward centralization observed in the ACNA as well as TEC, the preamble should be redrafted to reflect that the ACNA is a voluntary association of autonomous dioceses, and whatever existence it enjoys, it owes to the dioceses forming it. Whatever authority and powers its Provincial Council, College of Bishops, Executive Committee, and Archbishop may exercise is delegated.

Article I. Fundamental Declarations of the Diocese should have been divided into two sections—a section for the adoption of the provincial fundamental declarations and a section for delegation of authority and powers to the province. I had hoped that due to the ties of the Anglican District of Virginia and the Diocese of the Holy Spirit to the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Uganda the drafters of the proposed constitution would have included stronger affirmations of the historic Anglican formularies, particularly the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Jerusalem Declaration in this article than those in the constitution of the ACNA. The Church of Nigeria strongly affirms the Jerusalem Declaration in its constitution; the Church of Uganda unreservedly accepts the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies. Article 2 (c) of its constitution states:

It maintains this faith as embodied in the Doctrine. Sacraments and Discipline of the Church as they have been received by the Church of England and set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal and in the Articles of Religion commonly called the 39 Articles. It accepts the principles of worship set forth in
the Book of Common Prayer and disclaims any right to depart from the standards of Faith and Order or the Principles of Worship set forth in the said formularies of the Church of England.

The Common Cause Partnership Governance Task Force in the days leading up to the Inaugural Provincial Assembly was telling people that dioceses and other judicatories that wished to make such affirmations could do so in their own constitutions. The wording of the fundamental declarations relating to historic Anglican formularies permits a stronger affirmation of the historic Anglican formularies. The ACNA is not likely to object to a stronger affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration as its objections would raise questions as to its own commitment to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.

Article I also does not adequately state that the authority and powers of the “Province” are not inherent. Article VIII.1 of the ACNA constitution states:

The member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions shall each retain all authority they do not yield to the Province by their own consent. The powers not delegated to the Province by this constitution nor prohibited by this constitution to these dioceses or jurisdictions, are reserved to these dioceses or jurisdictions respectively.

In place of the last two sentences of Article I, I recommend the substitution of the following provisions.

Section 2. Delegation of Authority and Powers
This diocese in acceding to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America yields to the Province such authority and powers as are specifically enumerated in the aforesaid Constitution, and consents to such limitations upon its authority and powers as are likewise specifically enumerated in that Constitution. The Diocese retains all authority and powers not delegated to the Province or denied to the Diocese under the provisions of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America.

Article II Order, Governance and Discipline vests the order, governance, and discipline of the diocese in the Bishop, the Standing Committee, the Synod, the Executive Committee, and the Ecclesiastical Trial Court of the Diocese. In doing so, the proposed constitution establishes an Executive Committee as an organ of order, governance, and discipline of the Diocese. Article IV The Executive Committee and Ad Hoc Synod Committees, however, states:

The Synod, with the consent of the Bishop, may provide by canon for the appointment or election of an Executive Committee, with duties therein provided, to serve as the authority of the Synod between annual Synod meetings. Unless and until an Executive Committee be established, the Standing Committee shall perform all the functions of the Executive Committee. The Synod may establish such other committees as it deems necessary, and the Bishop, with the advice of the Standing Committee, may appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on particular matters assigned by the Bishop.

Having established an Executive Committee those who drafted the proposed constitution appear to have second thoughts about the establishment of the Executive Committee. Article III.1 Authority grants the Synod the authority to adopt canons but Article IV limits that authority in this particular case. The rationale for doing so is unclear.

To my knowledge The Episcopal Church is the only Anglican Province in which dioceses have separate Standing Committee and Executive Committees or their equivalents. Only the North American Continuing Anglican Churches that model their organization or structure on TEC have adopted this dual committee system.

In other Anglican Provinces the diocesan synod has a single executive body, variously known as the diocesan board (Church of Nigeria), diocesan council (Church of Uganda), diocesan standing committee (Anglican Church of Kenya, Diocese of Sydney), and so forth. In requiring its judicatories to have a Standing Committee, the Anglican Church in North America appears to be following the TEC model.

I would suggest the following changes to Article IV:

Section 1. The Executive Committee There shall be an Executive Committee which shall administer the affairs of the Diocese between the meetings of the Synod and, subject to the Canons of this Diocese and to any general or special direction of the Diocese, the Executive Committee shall have power in the name and on behalf of the Synod to exercise or perform any or all of the rights, authorities, and powers of the Synod save and except the making, altering, or repealing of any part of this Constitution or of any Canon and the exercise of any right, authority, or power to which the Synod shall by Canon declare that this section shall not apply.

Section 2. Membership of the Executive Committee The membership of the Executive Committee and the manner of their appointment or election shall be as set forth in the Canons; provided that the elected membership of the Executive Committee shall as far as may be possible represent the geographic areas in which the Diocese operates.

Pending the appointment or election of the Executive Committee under the provisions of this Constitution and the Canons of the Diocese the Standing Committee shall in the interim act as the provisional Executive Committee.

Section 3. Other Committees The Synod may establish such other committees as it deems necessary, and the Bishop may, in consultation with the Standing Committee, appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on particular matters assigned to them by the Bishop.

Article III.5 Presiding Officer of the Synod makes no provision for the possibility that both the Bishop and the Standing Committee might be absent. For example, they might be traveling together by airplane, the plane crashes, and they are killed. The proposed constitution would benefit from a provision like the following from the constitution of the Diocese of Quincy (ACNA).

ARTICLE VI OFFICERS OF THE DIOCESE AND THE SYNOD

Section 1. The Bishop of the Diocese shall be President of the Synod and shall have every right of membership in the same, and may speak to any issue on the floor immediately prior to the casting of a ballot. In the absence of the Bishop or other proper Ecclesiastical Authority, the senior active Diocesan Priest in attendance shall call the Synod to order, and a President shall then be elected.

The “of” was twice omitted from the phrase, “a member of the Synod,” in Article III.5.

In the third sentence of Article V.1 The Calling to the Episcopate the proposed constitution adopts doctrine and language that comes from the canons of the Anglican Church in North America. This doctrine and language in turn comes from the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and ultimately from the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. It infers a Roman Catholic view of apostolic succession. Chapter II, Article 1, Canon 375 §1 of the Roman Catholic Codes of Canon Law states:

By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them[my emphasis]. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.

This is the Roman Catholic doctrine of tactual succession. The position of historic Anglicanism is that bishops are successors to the apostles in so far as they preserve and transmit the teaching of the apostles.

Rather than use language that infers a particular doctrine of apostolic succession over which Anglicans have historically been divided and which the Anglican Reformers rejected, a section listing the duties and responsibilities of the bishop such as the following Article taken from the Church of Uganda’s West Ankola Diocese would be appropriate:

ARTICLE 8: THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DIOCESAN BISHOP
The Bishop shall have the following functions:
a) To have and exercise a general Pastoral care, leadership and supervision over the whole Diocese in accordance with this constitution and any other Diocesan Regulations that may be made from time to time.
b) To convene and preside over the Diocesan Synod and Council.
c) To appoint and nominate any person to any of the Diocesan offices as authorised by this constitution.
d) To carry out Confirmation of Christians in Parishes.
e) To Ordain Priests and Deacons.
f) To Commission Church Officers.
g) To represent the Diocese in its relation to the Province and the Anglican Communion worldwide.
h) To perform such other duties as may be entrusted to him by the Diocesan synod or this Constitution from time to time.

Article V.2 Concerning Criteria for Bishops is also an adaptation of Chapter II, Article 1, 378 §1 of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law:

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.

The minimum age requirement for a bishop in the Anglican Church in North America is based on the minimum age requirement for a Missionary Bishop in the Anglican Church of Rwanda, which is also the minimum age requirement for a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church.

As I have written elsewhere, Anglican Mission Canon Kevin Donlan was involved in the drafting of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. He is a former Roman Catholic priest who studied canon law at Cardiff University. He drew heavily upon the doctrine, language, norms, and principles of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. Canon Donlan was also a member of the Common Cause Partnership Governance Task Force that drafted the ACNA constitution and canons. The ACNA governing documents show the influence of the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s canons and through them the influence of the Roman Catholic Church’s canons. The Anglican Church of Rwanda’s constitution affirms the Thirty-Nine Articles but with a qualifier—“as adapted through the ages.” Its canons affirm the dogmas of the Council of Trent, which the Thirty-Nine Articles reject. This includes the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

The ACNA constitution and canons take positions on key issues over which conservative Anglicans are divided and align the ACNA with nineteenth century Tractarianism and Roman Catholicism on these issues. Comprehension in the ACNA, that is the policy of recognizing divergent opinions in a Church, extends only to those who accept these positions. Consequently the ACNA does not comprehend conservative evangelicals who uphold the doctrine of the historic Anglican formularies, who on these issues are aligned with the Anglican Reformers and historic Anglicanism, and whose opinions are well within the limits of Anglican comprehensiveness that the Thirty-Nine Articles set. Any group of churches forming an ACNA judicatory that adopts the language of the ACNA constitution and canons adopts the doctrinal bias of these governing documents and is not inclusive of conservative evangelicals even if comprehending them is its intention.

Conservative evangelicals may not comprise a large group in North America. However, they do stand in continuity with the Anglican Reformers and historic Anglicanism more than any other group of Anglicans represented in North America. Their exclusion from the ACNA and the unwillingness of the ACNA to adopt more doctrinally neutral language to facilitate their inclusion has implications that so far evangelical Anglicans outside of North America have shown a reluctance to explore. They are backing the ACNA but without taking a close look at what they are supporting.

The requirement in Article V.2 that prospective candidates should have experience as a rector of a congregation is a good one. However, if the group of churches that will be forming the new diocese is serious about achieving the vision of the ministry of the bishop laid out in the Task Force on Diocesan Status’ September 2010 Report, it will incorporate a provision in the constitution that permits a rector to retain his position as the minister in charge of a congregation upon his election as bishop, thereby ensuring that he carries out a part of his ministry at the local congregational level. See Mark Burkill’s Reform discussion paper, “Better Bishops.”

The proposed constitution’s retention of the ancient practice of a diocese electing its own bishops must also be commended. It is an important step in safeguarding the autonomy of the diocese.

Article VI.2 is extremely problematic as it recognizes the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America as having authority in relation to dioceses that the constitution and canons of the ACNA do not grant him. Nowhere in these governing documents does it require the consent of the Archbishop to declare the office of a bishop vacant or to restore a bishop to office. The provisions of this section represent a serious infringement upon the autonomy of the diocese. The ACNA canons already give powers to the Archbishop that the ACNA constitution does not grant him and which Anglican Provinces that have metropolitans do not give to their metropolitans. The ACNA constitution and canons do not designate the Archbishop to be a metropolitan nor do they confer metropolitical authority upon him. These powers seriously infringe upon the prerogatives of diocesan bishops.

Article IV.7 of the ACNA constitution recognizes the right of judicatories (i.e., dioceses, clusters, and networks) “to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Province.” For the Standing Committee to declare a vacancy in the office of a bishop due to permanent disability or prolonged absence would be consistent with the existing ACNA constitution and canons. There is no need to involve the Archbishop of the ACNA in what should be a decision made solely at the diocesan level. Meddling in diocesan affairs by the Archbishop of the ACNA should be strongly discouraged.

A Committee on Constitution and Canons should have more responsibilities than ensuring the conformity of the diocesan constitution and canons with the provincial governing documents, as Article VII provides. While one of its functions may be to see that proposed amendments to the diocesan constitution and canons do not conflict with the provisions of the provincial governing documents, its primary function should be to make sure that the diocese’s own governing documents have the clarity and preciseness of language and sufficiency of detail that all parties understand their provisions and are in agreement as to how they should be interpreted. The Committee on Constitutions and Canons should not be reduced to an enforcement mechanism for the Province. I would recommend the substitution of different language like that of the following section from the constitution of the Diocese of Quincy (ACNA):

ARTICLE XVI ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

Section 1. The Synod shall provide by Canon for a Committee on Constitution and Canons, to serve continuously, and shall prescribe its membership, organization and functions.

The second sentence of Article VIII is also redundant. See the last sentence of Article IV.

Article IX makes no provision for additional officers if the diocese should need them. This can be easily rectified by amending the first sentence of Article IX as follows:

In addition to the Bishop, and, if there be such, the Bishop Coadjutor and the Bishop Suffragan, the officers of the Diocese shall be the Secretary, the Treasurer, the Chancellor, the Registrar, and such other officers as the Synod may by canon provide.

The second sentence of Article X.1 is redundant. See the first sentence of Article II. Rather than omitting the second sentence of Article X.1 I suggest that the first sentence of Article II should be omitted from the constitution and the second sentence of Article X.1 should be amended as follows:

The fundamental agency of mission in the Province and the Diocese is the local congregation gathered in union with the Diocese.

Article X.2 is rather vague.

The worship of Almighty God in the Diocese shall be according to Anglican faith and order and shall be conducted in accord with the Constitution and Canons of the Province and of the Diocese.

What Anglican faith? What Anglican order? This section overlooks the fact the Anglicans are divided over faith and order. As it is presently written, this section suggests that the diocese will be worshiping according the provincial governing documents rather than the Book of Common Prayer. The substitution of the phrase “in accordance with the standards of…” in place of “in accord with” would make this section clearer in meaning. The only problem then would be the standards of the provincial governing documents, which are nebulous.

The provisions of Article XII and Article XIII are clear and to the point. The drafters of the proposed constitution have learned from the experiences of the congregations and clergy forming Anglican District of Virginia and the Diocese of the Holy Spirit. Both the property rights of the local congregation and the diocese are safeguarded.

The Constitutional Convention that meets in May to finalize the constitution and canons for the new diocese I hope will take much more time than did the ACNA Inaugural Provincial Assembly with the provincial governing documents. They will not only examine the constitution and canons section by section but will also debate their provisions and making needed changes. The Constitutional Convention should pay no heed to those who urge that the two documents should adopted as is, claiming that any problems may be fixed at a later date. This happened at Bedford. The problems have so far not been fixed. The ACNA leadership has shown no movement in the direction of fixing them.

The ACNA leadership, however, has shown a decided inclination to use the provincial governing documents as a mandate to do whatever they see fit. The creation of the office of provincial dean and the appointment of Bishop Don Harvey to that post is a good example. The problem is not simply a matter of a difference of interpretation but stems from a fundamental distain for constitutionalism and the rule of law. The dioceses and other judicatories of the ACNA can provide a counter-balance to this tendency. They can demand more accountability from leaders at the provincial level. They should certainly require it from their own leaders.

To read the ADV Proposed Constitution, click here.

To read the ADV Proposed Canons, click here.

To read the ACNA Constitution and Canons for purpose of comparison, click here.

I took a look at the feedback forms on the ADV web site and my general impression was that they were designed to limit feedback rather than encourage it, restricting feedback to a few selected provisons. The April 8, 2011 deadine for the submission of feedback and no provision for extensions reinforced this impression.