Archbishop Duncan Appoints Archdeacon. What Next?

On the Anglican Church in North America website I came across an article announcing Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of an ACNA Archdeacon for the Missionary District of Niobrara to serve the Sioux Indian people. The appointee is former Episcopal priest, Charles Montileaux, now with the ACNA.

The Missionary District of Niobrara was originally established by the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1871. It was incorporated into the Missionary District of South Dakota in 1883. Is the ACNA attempting to revive the Niobrara Missionary District?

At issue here is not whether there is a need for a mission to the Sioux Indian people of the Pine Ridge Reservation region or the Rev. Montileaux’s qualifications as a missionary, but the manner in which the Missionary District was established and the Rev. Montileaux appointed its Archdeacon. The ACNA canons permit the Provincial Council to wave the minimum ASA requirement for a group of churches applying for recognition as an ACNA diocese. They give the Archbishop power to appoint vicar generals for dioceses in formation. The ACNA canons make provision for the election of bishops for special missions by the College of Bishops. But the ACNA constitution and canons make no provision for the establishment of missionary districts by the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee, or the Archbishop. They do not establish the office of archdeacon at the provincial level much less give the Archbishop authority to appoint someone to the office of provincial archdeacon .

Here is a new example of the top ACNA leadership’s disregard of the provisions of the denomination’s governing documents. First, the appointment of a Dean of the Province and the assembling of an Archbishop’s Cabinet and now the establishment of a missionary district and the appointment of an archdeacon for that missionary district. Here is further evidence of the contempt that Archbishop Duncan and other ACNA top leaders have for constitutionalism and the rule of law and their treatment of the ACNA governing documents as a mandate “to do what is right in their own eyes.” Here is additional proof of the lawlessness that has come to characterize the tenure of Robert Duncan as the Archbishop and Primate of the ACNA.

This may seem like strong language to those reading this article but it accurately describes what is happening. Duncan is arrogating to himself and the office of Archbishop and Primate powers and functions that the ACNA governing documents do not give to that office or recognize as inherent in that office. This should greatly trouble members of the ACNA.

Archdeacon is an ecclesiastical office, not a secular corporate one. The proposed resolution that recognizes the Archbishop and Primates of the ACNA as having extensive powers as the chief executive of the church’s non-profit corporation would not cover this appointment.

None of the provincial constitutions and canons that I have studied and which include the provincial governing documents of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of Rwanda, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, the Church of Nigeria, and the Church of Uganda give the Primate of the province unlimited power or recognize the provincial Primate as having limitless power inherent in his office. The Primate must operate within limits set by the constitution and canons and ecclesiastical law.

The road down which Duncan is taking the fledgling denomination is dangerous one. The ACNA governing documents have very few checks and balances, safeguards, and accountability mechanisms. It has no mechanisms for the removal of the Primate by involuntary retirement or forced resignation as do a number of Anglican provinces should circumstances require the removal of the Primate.

As long as his actions do not provoke an outcry, Duncan will take the ACNA further down this road. He will push the envelope to make the office of Archbishop and Primate conform to his own vision of that office, which he has not openly shared with the rank and file of the ACNA. He is savvy enough to realize that if he did, some folks in the ACNA who currently accept his leadership might have second thoughts about being a part of the ACNA and vote their disapproval of his leadership with their feet.

However, if ACNA members have been paying attention to his addresses and sermons, his vision for the ACNA is a centralized system with senior clergy at the top and minimal participation of the laity in decisions that affect major issues in the life of the denomination. In one of his speeches Duncan remarked that regression, or backward movement, was an appropriate response to a crisis, with the inference that the crisis that the Episcopal Church has precipitated warranted a return to unfettered prelacy.

Duncan’s prescription for what ails the North American Anglican Church overlooks one very important fact: bishops are primarily responsible for what has happened in the Episcopal Church. They have promoted the support of liberal seminaries in their dioceses and have sent ordination candidates to these seminaries. They have accepted practicing homosexuals as ordination candidates, sent these candidates to seminary, and ordained them. They have authorized the blessing of same-sex unions and approved rites for this purpose. They have called for the legalization of gay marriage. They have confirmed the election of two practicing homosexuals to the episcopate and consecrated them as bishops. They have issued public statements in which they have denied the authority and inspiration of the Bible and supported heterodox or heretical teaching. They have licensed clergy who hold such views. They have also appointed as vicars or priests in charge of mission churches clergy who hold these views. The laity has been made the scapegoat.

Under Duncan’s leadership a pyramidal structure for the government of the denomination has been erected with the Archbishop and his Cabinet at the tip of the pyramid, the Executive Committee at the next level, the Provincial Council at the level below that, the Provincial Assembly on the next level down, and the laity at the base of the pyramid. Clearly Duncan would not be doing what he is doing if he did not have the support of others who think like he does and who share his vision for the ACNA.

As long as the ACNA membership tolerates these irregularities, they will continue. Only if the membership demands compliance with the provisions of the constitution and the canons and shows a willingness to curtail their giving and take other steps will such irregularities cease.

The actions of Duncan and the other top ACNA leaders are very similar to the misbehavior of an unruly child. As long as the parents or caregivers make excuses for the child’s misbehavior and do not set and enforce limits with the child, the child will continue to misbehave. Indeed, his misbehavior will grow worse. As long as ACNA members do not insist that Duncan and the other top ACNA leaders operate in accordance with the provisions of the two governing documents, they will keep doing what they are doing. They will become more flagrant in their disregard of the two governing documents’ provisions.

Duncan and the other top ACNA leaders may believe that they are acting in the best interest of the denomination. But so did the liberal Episcopal bishops who abused the canons of the Episcopal Church and their diocese to rid the diocese of conservative clergy whom they considered mutineers and turbulent priests. So did the Roman Catholic bishops who concealed the sexual predations of Roman Catholic priests under their jurisdiction and did not take disciplinary action against these priests and report them to the civil authorities.

Letting denominational leaders do as they please and not holding them accountable for their actions is ultimately going to have negative consequences for the ACNA. It is setting a harmful precedent that will plague the ACNA for years to come. It is establishing an ecclesiastical culture in which there is little or respect for the rule of law and in which leaders of the denomination have no sense of accountability to the members of the denomination. It is the type of ecclesiastical culture that encourages church leaders to see the rules as not made for them—to regard themselves “above the law” or even “a law unto themselves.” It is the type of ecclesiastical culture that permits the kind of things that happened in the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church to happen.