What Every Church and Every Pastor Considering Affiliation with the Anglican Church in North America Need to Know.

By Robin G. Jordan

Ed. Note: This article was written with Anglican Mission churches and pastors particularly in mind, but it is applicable to other churches and pastors.

In response to the recent disclosures affecting the Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church of Rwanda, Anglican Mission churches and pastors weighing the option of migrating from the Anglican Mission to the Anglican Church in North America need to consider a number of developments in the ACNA. The Anglican Mission is not alone in its need to implement doctrinal and structural reforms.

The Solemn Declaration submitted at Kampala in 1999 and forming the Anglican Mission’s doctrinal and theological basis establishes the classic Anglican formularies (e.g., the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571; The Book of Common Prayer of 1662) as the doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Mission. While Bishop Chuck Murphy and other representatives of the Anglican Mission may have participated in the drafting of the Common Cause Theological Statement and Bishop Murphy may have signed that theological statement on the behalf of the Anglican Mission, the Common Cause Theological Statement is much weaker in its affirmation of the classic Anglican formularies than the Solemn Declaration and explicitly and implicitly recognizes other doctrinal and worship standards that the Solemn Declaration does not recognize. The Common Cause Theological Statement forms the basis of ACNA Fundamental Declarations.

Bishop Murphy’s endorsement of the Common Cause Theological Statement, like his endorsement of the 2006 trial services, suggests that he sits rather loosely to the Anglican Mission’s own doctrinal and worship standards as established by the Solemn Declaration. The Solemn Declaration requires that the doctrine of any alternative liturgies or forms used in the Anglican Mission conform to the doctrine of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 2006 trial services did not meet this requirement. Neither did An Anglican Prayer Book that Murphy endorsed in 2008.

Bishop Murphy, Canon Kevin Donlon, and other Anglican Mission representatives also participated in the drafting of the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America. Canon Donlon drafted the 2008 Rwandan canons, which made doctrinal and structural changes in the Anglican Church of Rwanda that moved it away from the Anglican Church and closer to the Roman Catholic Church. The 2008 Rwandan canons are heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law in doctrine, language, norms, and principles. They make the Church of Rwanda not only Roman Catholic in structure but also doctrine. The ACNA canons also show the influence of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. It is not as obvious as in the 2008 Rwandan canons but it is evident to anyone who takes the time to compare the three codes of canon law. The ACNA canons, like the 2008 Rwandan canons, take Roman Catholic positions on apostolic succession, bishops, ordination, and the sacraments. The ACNA constitution and canons requires unreserved subscription to the ACNA governing documents and their doctrine.

This past summer the ACNA College of Bishops authorized for use in the Anglican Church in North America an ordinal that does not require blanket belief in the canonical Old Testament and New Testament, embodies an Anglo-Catholic/Roman Catholic view of the historic episcopate at odds with the doctrine of the classical Anglican Ordinal, and countenances pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic beliefs and practices rejected by the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism, including the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. The ACNA College of Bishops’ authorization of this ordinal points to another major problem area in the Anglican Church in North America—ACNA top leaders’ disregard of the provisions of its constitution and canons.

The ACNA Provincial Assembly is modeled upon the Anglican Mission’s Winter Conference and plays a negligible role in the governance of the ACNA. The ACNA governing documents, on other hand, give considerable authority to the ACNA Provincial Council and its Executive Committee. However, under Archbishop Robert Duncan’s leadership the College of Bishops has usurped the role of the Provincial Council in a number of areas. Archbishop Duncan has created an Archbishop’s Cabinet composed of bishops appointed by himself and the Archbishop’s cabinet has usurped the role of the Executive Committee. The ACNA governing documents do not vest the office of Archbishop with the authority to create bodies like the Archbishop’s Cabinet or recognize that authority inherent in the archiepiscopal office. An Archbishop’s Cabinet is an administrative body typically found in Roman Catholic Archdiocese.

Archbishop Duncan himself shows a very low regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. He treats the ACNA governing documents as a mandate to do what he pleases. He created the position of Dean of the Province and appointed his long time friend ANiC Bishop Don Harvey to this position. He has also created the positions of provincial canons and provincial missioners and made appointments to these positions. The ACNA governing documents do not vest his office with authority to create such positions and make appointments to them nor do they recognize that authority inherent in his office. The ACNA governing documents contain no mechanisms by which Duncan can be held accountable for his flagrant violations of the ACNA constitution and canons. It contains no checks and balances and safeguards.

The ACNA governing documents do not recognize the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America to be the metropolitan of the province. They do not give him metropolitical jurisdiction over the ACNA. Archbishop Duncan has been arrogating to the office of Archbishop functions and powers not exercised by Anglican Archbishops who are metropolitans of their provinces and have metropolitical jurisdiction over their provinces. He, however, is not the only person in the ACNA actively seeking to establish for the Archbishop a role that goes beyond that of a metropolitan of an Anglican province with metropolitical jurisdiction over the province. This is evident from the ACNA canons and the ACNA model diocesan constitution and canons. It may be attributed in part to ignorance of the role of a metropolitan of an Anglican province with metropolitical jurisdiction over the province and in part to the influence of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and prelatical forms of ecclesiastical governance.

Under the provisions of Title IV.3.2 of the ACNA canons the Archbishop may authorize the extension of the five-year-limitation on presentments and convictions for offenses under the provisions of Title IV.2. Title IV.4.1 requires that charges filed against a bishop for Title IV.2 offenses must be filed with the Archbishop, his delegate, or the College of Bishops. Under the provisions of Title IV.4.2 a bishop may demand an investigation of rumors, allegations, or reports affecting his personal or official character. The demand must be made to the Archbishop, his delegate, or the College of Bishops, and must be signed by two other bishops in addition to the bishop making the demand. In either case the Archbishop appoints a board of inquiry (Title IV.4.3). These provisions are adapted from the disciplinary canons of the Episcopal Church as revised through 1967.

Under the provisions of Title IV.5.2.2 of the ACNA canons the judges of the trial court for a bishop are elected by the Provincial Council, a body over which the Archbishop presides as its president and in which he has a voice and a vote. The Archbishop is not prohibited from serving on the trial court. Under the provisions of Title IV.5.2.3 the Archbishop appoints the legal adviser to the trial court and the prosecutor. These provisions offer little or no protection to a bishop from an Archbishop who is hostile to him and intent upon exploiting the provisions of the disciplinary canons to affect his removal from office.

Under the provisions of Title IV.5.3.2 of the ACNA canons the Archbishop appoints the judges of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction as well as the legal advisor to the court and the prosecutor. The Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction has jurisdiction over cases referred by ACNA bishops who have oversight of clergy canonically attached to other Anglican provinces or dioceses in those cases where such provinces or dioceses have waived their jurisdiction in favor of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction; and cases in which a member of the clergy who is amenable to presentment under the ACNA canons is attached to a diocese that does not have a trial court (Title IV.5.3.1). The latter provision would apply to dioceses in formation that have not set up a trial court system. Whether clergy would receive a fair and impartial hearing in a court where the judges, the legal adviser to the court, and the prosecutor are appointed by the Archbishop, enabling him to pack the court with individuals through whom he can influence the outcome of the hearing is highly doubtful. An examination of the ACNA disciplinary canons shows that they as a whole suffer from a lack of procedural safeguards and other provisions needed to ensure clergy—deacons, presbyters, and bishops—receive a fair and impartial hearing.

Title IV.8.1 of the ACNA canons recognizes that in the case of a presbyter or deacon the bishop is the sentencing authority.

The Bishop alone has the authority to pronounce sentence on a Presbyter or Deacon convicted as indicated in these canons. If there is no Bishop, the Archbishop or another Bishop designated by the Archbishop shall pronounce sentence.

Title IV.8.1, however, authorizes the Archbishop or a bishop designated by the Archbishop to pronounce sentence in the absence of a bishop having jurisdiction. Whether this represents an improvement over what has been the practice in the Episcopal Church is questionable. In the Episcopal Church the standing committee, which is the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in the absence of the bishop of the diocese, requests the bishop of another diocese in the same ecclesiastical province as the diocese to pronounce sentence. This practice is more consistent with the principles of diocesan autonomy than the provisions of Title IV.8.1. English ecclesiastical law has historically recognized the right of the bishop of a diocese to pronounce sentence in cases of deacons and presbyters under his jurisdiction and makes provisions for the sentencing of deacons and presbyters in the absence of the bishop having jurisdiction, which respect this right. Under English ecclesiastical law a deacon or presbyter may appeal the decision of a diocesan ecclesiastical court to the metropolitan of the province. To protect the rights of the appellant and to prevent conflicts of interest, the metropolitan of the province refers the appeal to a body created to hear such appeals. The provisions of Title IV.8.1 unnecessarily involve the Archbishop in the disciplinary matters of a diocese. A practice more consistent with the principles of diocesan autonomy and the right of a bishop having jurisdiction to pronounce sentence would be to establish a panel of bishops who would be available to pronounce sentence in a case of a deacon or presbyter in the absence of the bishop having jurisdiction. The standing committee of the diocese would request a bishop on this panel to pronounce sentence.

Title IV.8.2 of the ACNA canons recognizes that in the case of a bishop the College of Bishops is the sentencing authority.

The College of Bishops, speaking through the Archbishop or his designate, has the sole responsibility and authority to pronounce sentence on a Bishop.

The provisions of Title IV.8.4 of the ACNA canons break with a longstanding principle of English ecclesiastical law.

Upon a showing of good cause: 1. A sentence of suspension of a Presbyter or Deacon may be terminated or shortened by the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Presbyter or Deacon was convicted with the advice and consent of the Archbishop, in consultation with the Executive Committee; 2. A sentence of suspension of a Bishop may be terminated or shortened by the College of Bishops with the consent of the Archbishop.

This principle recognizes that to the sentencing authority in a case involving a deacon, presbyter, or bishop belongs the right to terminate or shorten a sentence of suspension imposed by the sentencing authority.

The only canons of an Anglican province in which I have found similar provisions to those of Title IV.8.4 are the provisions of Title IV.36.4-5 of the 2008 Rwandan canons.

Section 4 – Length of Sentences
A sentence of suspension of a priest or deacon may be terminated or shortened by the Bishop of the diocese in which he was convicted with the advice and consent of the House/College or Council of Bishops.

Section 5 – Termination of Sentences
A sentence of suspension against a bishop may be terminated or shortened by the House/College of Bishop with the Consent of the Primate.

Canon Kevin Donlon who drafted the 2008 Rwandan canons also served on the Common Cause Governance Task Force that drafted the ACNA canons. These provisions represent not only a departure from the principles of English ecclesiastical law but also an infringement upon the autonomy of the diocese and the prerogatives of the bishop of the diocese. They are not the only departure from the principles of English ecclesiastical law and infringement upon the autonomy of the diocese and the prerogatives of the bishop of the diocese found in the ACNA canons. The provisions of Title IV.9.1 also break with a longstanding principle of English ecclesiastical law and infringe upon the autonomy of the diocese and the prerogatives of the bishop of the diocese.

A Bishop may temporarily inhibit a Presbyter or Deacon from the exercise of ministry when the Bishop believes, upon reasonable grounds, that the Presbyter or Deacon has engaged in conduct upon which a Presbyter or Deacon in this Church may be presented. With the advice and consent of the Standing Committee or its equivalent, such inhibition may be extended until such charge is dropped or action taken by a Trial Court. Upon application by a Presbyter or a Deacon who has been temporarily inhibited under this Canon and upon a showing of good cause, the Archbishop or his designate may modify or revoke the temporary inhibition. Such decision shall be rendered within thirty (30) days.[Emphasis added.]

It has been long recognized in English ecclesiastical law that only the bishop who temporarily inhibited a deacon or presbyter may modify or revoke the temporary inhibition. Like the provisions of Title IV.8.1, the provisions of Title IV.9.1 unnecessarily involve the Archbishop in the disciplinary matters of a diocese.

The ACNA model diocesan constitution and canons encourage a diocese to yield powers to the province beyond those yielded to the province by its accession to the ACNA constitution and canons. Under the provisions of Article V.1 of the model diocesan canons the diocese yields to the College of Bishops power to appoint an acting bishop to be in charge of the diocese upon the request of the standing committee until a bishop is elected. Under the provisions of Article V.2 a diocese yields to the Archbishop power to make the final determination as to whether the office of bishop of the diocese is vacant due to his prolonged absent or physical or mental incapacity. They require the standing committee to obtain the Archbishop’s consent before declaring a vacancy in the office of the bishop of the diocese. Under the provisions of Title I.6.2.c of the model diocesan canons the diocese yields to the Executive Committee power to admit a congregation or mission of another denomination to the province, requiring such a congregation or mission to first apply to the Executive Committee for admission to the province before it may be received into the diocese. Its provisions contradict the provisions of Title I.6.2 of the ACNA canons: “Every congregation of the Church belongs to the Church by union with a Diocese of the Church or through a Diocese-in-Formation.” The provisions of Title I.7.4.e of the model diocesan canons yield to the Archbishop power to settle disputes between vestries and congregations, unnecessarily involving the Archbishop in diocesan matters.

Rather than drafting constitutional amendments and canonical legislation that would take away these powers from the dioceses of the ACNA and further reduce the autonomy of the ACNA dioceses, the Governance Task Force has adopted the expedient of having dioceses in formation voluntarily relinquish the powers in question. By taking this route the Governance Task Force avoids the public debate that amendments to the ACNA constitution and alterations to the ACNA canons would provoke. Such debate would lead to closer scrutiny of the ACNA constitution and canons and would bring its numerous flaws and weaknesses and questionable provisions into the open, and would expose them for what they are.

The diocesan model canons contain references to provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons that have no bearing upon the governance of dioceses but which have been incorporated with the apparent intent to mislead dioceses in formation drafting their governing documents into believing that these provisions do have such bearing. For example, Title I.1.7 of the model diocesan canons contains a reference to Article VII of the ACNA constitution and implies that it is applicable to “synod councils” wherein fact it applies only to the Provincial Council and has nothing to do with “synod councils.”

The influence of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law is particular evident in the provisions of the ACNA canons relating to bishops. The description of the ministry of the bishop in the ACNA canons comes with some minor alterations from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The ACNA canons establish 35 as the minimum age requirement for an ACNA bishop. This is the minimum age requirement for a Rwandan missionary bishop and a Roman Catholic bishop. The ACNA canons authorize two modes of choosing bishops. They commend the second mode, which involves the College of Bishops choosing a bishop for a diocese from two or three candidates nominated by the diocese. It is modeled upon how bishops are chosen in the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Rwandan mode of choosing bishops shows the strong influence of how bishops are chosen in the Roman Catholic Church.

The ACNA canons set no mandatory retirement age for bishops in the ACNA. Dioceses in formation drafting their own governing documents have found the ACNA Provincial Council and its Governance Task Force to be dominated by Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic thinking in regards to the office of bishop. When the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic limited the term of office of its bishop to seven years in its proposed governing documents, the Provincial Council objected to this term limit and forced the Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic to remove it from the documents. When Diocese of Mid-Atlantic proposed to impose a term limit upon its bishop, representatives of the Governance Task Force told the Diocese’s constitutional convention that the Provincial Council would not recognize the Diocese if it set a limit upon the term of office of the bishop.

Article IV.7 of the ACNA constitution states, “This Constitution recognizes the right of each diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based) to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Province. Article VIII.1 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.

Title I.5.2 of the ACNA canons states, “Each Diocese may establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Church, except as hereinafter set forth….” Nowhere in the ACNA governing documents is a provision that prohibits a diocese from establishing a mandatory retirement age for its bishops or otherwise limiting their term of office. What we see happening is a concerted effort upon the part of the Provincial Council and the Governance Task Force to force the dioceses of the ACNA into a particular mold. It clearly represents an infringement upon the autonomy of the diocese and a violation of the ACNA’s own constitution.

Mandatory retirement ages for bishops are common in the global Anglican community. While other forms of term limits are less common, they are not unknown. The Church of England in South Africa has established term limits for its presiding bishop and its area bishops. The Diocese of Grafton, a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, has a established a review process in which the job performance of the diocesan bishop is reviewed periodically and if it is found to be satisfactory, his term of office is extended. How long a diocesan bishop stays in office is tied to how well serves as diocesan bishop. A number of Anglican provinces are in communion with Lutheran bodies that routinely limit the term of office of their bishops. The ACNA constitution and canons are characterized by their lack of not only checks and balances and safeguards but also accountability mechanisms. Mandatory retirement ages and term limits for bishops are accountability mechanisms.

This effort to force the ACNA dioceses into the same mold is not confined to this one area. Article VIII of the model diocesan constitution requires a diocesan synod to obtain the consent of the bishop of the diocese before creating a synod council. Until the creation of a synod council it vests the functions of the synod council in the standing committee of the diocese. Title I.1.7 of the model diocesan canons vests legislative and “non-ecclesiastical executive” authority of the diocese in a diocesan synod and between the meetings of the diocesan synod in a synod council. Title I.2.1 under the heading “Powers and Duties” recognizes the diocesan synod as having power to adopt and amend the diocesan constitution and canons; approve the budget; establish and oversee the program of the diocese; and elect the bishops of the diocese, members of the diocesan standing committee, and diocesan representatives to the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council. Title I.2.5 authorizes the synod council to perform the duties of the diocesan synod between the meetings of the diocesan synod and authorizes the diocesan standing committee to perform the functions of the synod council until the synod council is created.

The thinking behind these provisions of the model diocesan constitution and canons is quite evident. The bishop and a small body of advisers would run the diocese. This thinking is Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic, not Anglican. Among the intents of these two documents is to give extensive power to the bishop while limiting the power of the diocesan synod. They seek not to establish responsible, synodical church government at the diocesan level but a form of prelacy.

Anglican Mission churches and pastors need to be wary of pressure to switch to the ACNA from their friends attending or pastoring ACNA churches. A number of the folks in the ACNA are in denial about the problems of the ACNA. Their denial may be what is motivating them to use whatever means they can to persuade others to join them in the ACNA against their better judgment. The ACNA is in need of extensive reforms. Until its leaders show a genuine commitment to undertake these reforms, Anglican Mission churches and pastors disaffected from the Anglican Mission would do better to form their own conference of Anglican churches, modeling these reforms for the ACNA.

The Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission point a unmet need in North America—the need for an Anglican province that is unwavering in its commitment to the Scriptures, the Anglican formularies, the Great Commission, and responsible, synodical church government. A conference of Anglican churches built upon these four foundation stones would be a major step toward the meeting of this need.

As long as churches and pastors continue to join the Anglican Church in North America despite the problems to which I have drawn attention, the ACNA has no motivation to do anything about them. Should, however, these problems, prove a hindrance to its growth, it may be motivated to correct them. If it were obdurate, the formation of a conference of Anglican churches built upon the four foundation stones would be a way forward for churches and pastors committed to the Scriptures, the Anglican formularies, the Great Commission, and responsible, synodical church government. Over time the GAFCON Primates might come to recognize that this conference of Anglican churches truly embodies the tenets of Anglican orthodoxy articulated in The Jerusalem Declaration and would see in it the new orthodox Anglican province in North America for which they had called at the first Global Anglican Future Conference.