What the Future Holds for the Anglican Mission

By Robin G. Jordan

In this article I take a look at Canon Kevin Donlon’s proposed restructuring of the Anglican Mission. I will be using what I have garnered from “the Washington Statement” and other sources. I will also employing my own study of Canon Donlon’s earlier work, the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law (2007), and the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon law (1983), upon which the Rwandan canons to a large part are based. This article should be of interest not only to clergy, congregations, and mission partners of the Anglican Mission but also to members and supporters of the Anglican Church in North America. The ACNA canons show the discernable influence of both codes of canon law.

In this article I will examine a number of institutions that Canon Donlon’s proposal would create. I also look at how the proposal would affect the doctrine of the Anglican Mission and what other developments the Anglican Mission clergy, congregations, and mission partners can anticipate.

College of Consultors. Under the provisions of the 2007 Rwandan canons the primatial vicar of the Anglican Mission has an ecclesiastical superior in the office and person of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. He derives his legislative and executive authority from the Rwandan Primate whose deputy and representative he is in North America and must periodically report to the Rwandan Primate on the work of the Anglican Mission. Canon Donlon’s proposal would make the primatial vicar his own ecclesiastical superior and would changes his title to apostolic vicar. Instead of being the deputy and representative of the Rwandan Primate, deriving his authority from the Primate, he would be the deputy and representative of the Apostles, deriving his authority from them.

Canon Donlon’s proposal would also create a college of consultors. The concept of a college of consultors is taken from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law (1983). Under the provisions of Canon 402 § 2 if there is no coadjutor bishop or he is impeded (completely prevented from exercising the pastoral office in the diocese by reason of imprisonment, banishment, exile, or incapacity, so that he is unable to communicate, even by letter, with the people of the diocese) and no list of those upon whom the governance of the diocese is to devolve is at hand, it is the responsibility of the college of consultors to elect a priest who governs the diocese.

Under the provisions of Canon 419 while a see is vacant and until a diocesan administrator is appointed, the governance of the diocese devolves upon the auxiliary bishop. If there are a number of auxiliary bishops, it devolves upon the senior by promotion. If there is no auxiliary bishop, it devolves upon the college of consultors unless the Holy See has provided otherwise. The one who assumes governance must without delay convene the college which is competent to appoint a diocesan administrator.

Under the provisions of Canon 422 the auxiliary bishop or, if there is none, the college of consultors, must as soon as possible notify the Apostolic See of the death of the bishop. The person elected as diocesan administrator must as soon as possible notify the Apostolic See of his election.

Under the provisions of Canon 495 § 2 in vicariates and prefectures apostolic, the Vicar or Prefect appoints a council composed of at least three missionary priests, whose opinion, even by letter, he hears in the more serious affairs. As defined by Canon 371 § 1, “a vicariate apostolic or a prefecture apostolic is a certain portion of the people of God, which for special reasons is not yet constituted a diocese, and which is entrusted to the pastoral care of a Vicar apostolic or a Prefect apostolic, who governs it in the name of the Supreme Pontiff.”

Under the provisions of Canon 502 § 1 from among the members of the council of priests the diocesan bishop appoints 3 to 12 priests who constitute a college of consultors for five years. To it belongs the functions determined by law. Under the provisions of Canon 502 § 2 the diocesan bishop presides over the college of consultors. Under the provisions of Canon 502 § 4 unless the law provides otherwise, in a vicariate or prefecture apostolic the functions of the college of consultors belong to the council of the mission mentioned in Canon 495 § 2.

Under Donlon’s proposal the college of consultors will be composed of 3 retired bishops. This is consistent with the structure of the Anglican Mission that he adapted from the structure of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. Under the provisions of Canon 495 § 1 in each diocese of the Roman Catholic Church there is established a council of priests. The council’s role is to assist the bishop, in accordance with the law, in the governance of the diocese. In the 2007 Rwandan canons and the Anglican Mission Canonical Charter for Ministry Donlon transformed the council of priests into a council of missionary bishops. Under the new proposal he would give the council of missionary bishops the new title of the conference of bishops. The title and the structure also come from Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law (1983).

Under Donlon’s proposal the college of consultors would not have any special functions as in the Roman Catholic Church but would be a purely consultative body. The purpose of the college of consultators is to give the appearance of accountability but without demanding real accountability. It is a lateral structure in the hierarchy that Donlon’s proposal creates. The apostolic vicar is at the top of the hierarchy with all authority flowing from him down through the different levels of the hierarchy. The college of consultors exists for the apostolic vicar to consult should he feel the need for its advice or should he wish to give the appearance of having sought the advice of senior churchmen before he adopts a particular course of action. It is arguably a cosmetic structure.

Conference of Bishops. As I have already noted, Canon Donlon’s proposal would rename the council of missionary bishops the conference of bishops. College of bishops is also a title and structure coming from the Roman Catholic Church’s canons. Under the provisions of Canon 447 an episcopal conference—a conference of bishops—is an assembly of bishops of a country or a certain territory. Its function is “to promote, in accordance with the law, that greater good which the Church offers to all people.” Under the provisions of Canon 451 an episcopal conference draws up its own statutes, to be reviewed by the Apostolic See. Under the provisions of Canon 452 §1 each Episcopal Conference elects its president and determines who, in the lawful absence of the president, exercises the function of vice-president. It is also designates a general secretary, in accordance with the statutes. Under the provisions of Canon 455 §1 the episcopal conference makes general decrees only in cases prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church’s canons or by special mandate of the Apostolic See. Under the provisions of Canon 455 § 2 these decrees are not obligatory until they have been reviewed by the Apostolic See and lawfully promulgated.

The conference of bishops that Canon Donlon is proposing for the Anglican Mission will not have even the limited authority of an episcopal conference of the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops forming this conference will derive their authority from the apostolic vicar as the missionary bishops presently derive their authority from the primatial vicar. The major difference is that authority will not be ultimately derived from the Rwandan Primate but from the apostolic vicar himself. The power that Donlon’s proposal gives to the apostolic vicar is similar to the power that the Roman Catholic Church’s canons recognize as inherent in the office of the Roman Pontiff—the Pope. The major difference is that the apostolic vicar’s power is confined to a particular church while the Roman Pontiff’s power in Roman Catholic ecclesiology extends to the universal church. At the same time the apostolic vicar’s authority goes well beyond the authority of a metropolitan in an ecclesiastical province of an Anglican province.

Presbyterial Council. The presbyterial council that Canon Donlon is proposing resembles the council of priests of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. The council’s role, as I have previously noted, is to assist the bishop in the governance of the diocese. It also resembles the diocesan synod of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. The diocesan synod is an assembly of selected priests and other faithful that the diocesan bishop may convene if he sees a need. It is not a permanent institution. The diocesan bishop presides over the diocesan synod and he is the sole legislator in the diocesan synod. Other members of the diocesan synod have only a consultative vote. The diocesan bishop alone signs the synodal declarations and decrees and only by his authority may these be published.

The Anglican Mission Canonical Charter for Ministry already makes provision for a college of presbyters that the Anglican Mission chairman may periodically convene as a council of advice. Donlon’s proposal appears to establish this body as a permanent institution. The recommendations of the college of presbyters are not binding upon the Anglican Mission chairman and the council of missionary bishops. This structure is also arguably cosmetic.

As can be seen, the ecclesiastical structure that Canon Donlon is proposing for the Anglican Mission definitely is Roman Catholic. It may also be described as papistical with the apostolic vicar in the position of a pope.

What is conspicuously absent from the proposed new structure for the Anglican Mission are realistic, workable accountability mechanisms affecting the office of apostolic vicar. The proposed new structure concentrates too much authority in the hands of one individual and does not require any real accountability from this individual. It is a serious flaw in Canon Donlon’s proposal. It is also not the only serious flaw.

As Mark Burkill points to our attention in Better Bishops, synodical and chapter meetings of godly clergy and laity serve as a check upon the sinfulness and folly in bishops. They can provide godly wisdom when the Christian community and its leaders are faced with major issues. Burkill goes on stress, “Bishops must not be allowed to be tyrants and there must be effective means of holding them accountable to Scripture.” The latter is missing at the highest level in the Anglican Mission as Bishop Chuck Murphy’s approval of the draft of the 2007 Rwandan canons, his subsequent endorsement and promulgation of the canons, and his present support of Canon Donlon’s proposal shows.

Doctrinal Changes. Canon Donlon not only moves the ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Mission more in a Roman Catholic direction, he also moves its doctrine in the same direction. He proposes that the 2007 Rwandan canons should be adopted as the canons for the Anglican Mission. Donlon drafted the 2007 Rwandan canons: they are heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law (1983). They incorporate not only language from the Roman Catholic Church’s canons but also doctrine, principles, and norms. They replace the Reformed, Protestant and evangelical teaching of the classic formularies and historic Anglicanism with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Council of Trent.

As I have written elsewhere, the 2007 Rwandan canons require acceptance of and adherence to Roman Catholic teaching on apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. They make heresy and false doctrine an offense punishable by suspension and deposition. Under the provisions of the 2007 Rwandan canons holding doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures and the classic formularies and consistent with historic Anglicanism would constitute heresy and false doctrine.

Canon Donlon champions catechetical reform. What may be anticipated is the production and adoption of an Anglican Mission catechism that is Roman Catholic in doctrine. The production and adoption of alternative liturgical rites and forms that are also Roman Catholic in doctrine is a strong possibility.

Canon Donlon’s proposal would effect the complete overthrow of the authority of Scripture and the classic formularies in the Anglican Mission. The Anglican Mission would no longer be orthodox Anglican by the standards of the classic formularies and The Jerusalem Declaration. Its doctrine would be unscriptural and unsound. Donlon’s proposal would also cost the Anglican Mission its Anglican identity, which is tied to its acceptance of the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles, interpreted in their plain, natural, and intended sense.

If the 1999 Solemn Declaration of Principles has regulatory force in the Anglican Mission, Donlon’s proposal would dissolve the Anglican Mission. According to Article V of the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration are unalterable:

The teaching of this Church is defined by adherence to the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration, consequently we make no provision for their alteration by addition or subtraction. Should this Solemn Declaration be altered by any means, this Church would thereby cease to exist. Any money or property owned by the Province per se would be returned to the donors or their heirs and where that was not possible it would be sold and given to an orthodox Christian missionary society as soon as possible.

Under the provisions of Article V an alteration of these doctrinal norms and formularies by any means dissolves the Anglican Mission. Canon Donlon’s proposal clearly and without any doubt alters the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration. Whatever organization it creates will not be the Anglican Mission. Whether it is entitled to the assets of the Anglican Mission is question that may have to be determined by a court of law.

Canon Donlon’s proposal takes what began as a voluntary association of Anglican clergy and congregations committed to Scripture, the classic formularies, and the Great Commission and turns it into what Roman Catholic ecclesiology calls a sodality that is Roman Catholic in ecclesiastical structure and doctrine and which has an ecclesiastical superior who is recognized as having near absolute authority over the sodality and from whom is required negligible accountability. While the primary task of this sodality is to be mission work, it is debatable whether it will be carrying out the Great Commission as Protestants, including Anglicans, have understood it. The primary focus of the Great Commission for Protestants, including Anglicans, is to proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace by faith in Christ. Discipling, baptizing, and further instructing those who upon hearing the word of Christ come to faith in Christ are integral part of the Great Commission. Enfolding them in new churches is ancillary. The proclamation of the New Testament gospel is the essential element. If an ecclesial body replaces it with a “different gospel” as has happened in The Episcopal Church and is happening in the Anglican Mission, it is no longer carrying out the Great Commission. This is also what the future holds for the Anglican Mission.

Addendum:

In “the Washington Statement” compares the Anglican Mission with a “personal prelature.” For those who are unfamiliar with this Roman Catholic concept, I have reproduced Canons 294-297 of the Roman Catholic Church.

TITLE IV.
PERSONAL PRELATURES (Cann. 294 - 297)

Can. 294 After the conferences of bishops involved have been heard, the Apostolic See can erect personal prelatures, which consist of presbyters and deacons of the secular clergy, to promote a suitable distribution of presbyters or to accomplish particular pastoral or missionary works for various regions or for different social groups.

Can. 295 §1. The statutes established by the Apostolic See govern a personal prelature, and a prelate presides offer it as the proper ordinary; he has the right to erect a national or international seminary and even to incardinate students and promote them to orders under title of service to the prelature.

§2. The prelate must see to both the spiritual formation and decent support of those whom he has promoted under the above-mentioned title.

Can. 296 Lay persons can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of a personal prelature by agreements entered into with the prelature. The statutes, however, are to determine suitably the manner of this organic cooperation and the principal duties and rights connected to it.

Can. 297 The statutes likewise are to define the relations of the personal prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises or desires to exercise its pastoral or missionary works, with the previous consent of the diocesan bishop.

Whether “personal prelature” is an accurate description of the Anglican Mission is arguable.

“The Washington Statements” also maintains that the provisions of the Anglican Mission’s 2009 Canonical Charter for Ministry wrongly identifies the Anglican Mission as a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda because the Anglican Mission never made a formal petition to the Rwandan House of Bishops to become a missionary jurisdiction of the Province of Rwanda. The 2007 Rwandan canons also do not mention the Anglican Mission by name. What we have here is a question of interpretation. Title I.6.2(a) authorizes the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops to erect missionary associations and missionary jurisdictions. Title I.6.2(b) goes on prescribe where they may establish a missionary jurisdiction or society—“in any area of the world in which faithful Anglicans are in need of, and petition for, godly oversight from this Province.” It further states “a Missionary Jurisdiction shall be organized under such conditions and agreements not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of this Church, as shall be approved by the House of Bishops in Synod.” Title I.6.2 (e) states, “such a jurisdiction may be organized by a Primate with delegation oversight given to a Primatial Vicar who serves as the Chair of the Ministry Council in that missionary work.” These provisions do not require the Anglican Mission to formally petition the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops, only to seek oversight from the Province of Rwanda, which the Anglican Mission at an earlier stage did.

As I have written elsewhere, the Rwandan bishops were told their endorsement and promulgation of the 2007 Rwandan canons were needed so the Anglican Mission could make needed legal changes in its charter. From the Rwandan point of view the Anglican Mission is a missionary jurisdiction of their Province.