Moving Forward Together: The Next Step - Part 3

By Robin G. Jordan

In this third article in the series “Moving Forward Together: The Next Step” I examine a number of provisions of Title I of the canons of the Anglican Church in North America that may affect the proposed PEARUSA sub-jurisdiction. They include a number of changes to the canons that the ACNA Governance Task Force has proposed and the ACNA Provincial Council has adopted. These changes will be submitted to the ACNA Provincial Assembly for ratification at its meeting in Ridgecrest, North Carolina this coming June.

The ACNA constitution and canons are poorly worded documents and in a number of places lacks sufficient detail and precise language. As I noted in my previous article, the ACNA constitution contains a number of provisions that affect judicatories—dioceses and other groupings of congregations—but is not clear as to whether these provisions apply to all judicatories—clusters and networks as well as dioceses--or just to dioceses. In the Definition of Certain Terms at the beginning of Title I of the canons the term “Diocese” is defined to include a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based).” This definition should have been incorporated into the constitution for the sake of clarity as it is in Canon I.1.2: “Each Diocese (i.e., diocese, cluster or network, whether regional or affinity-based, hereafter called a “Diocese”) shall select….”

In the same list of definitions we find this definition of the term “The Faith.”

“The Faith” is the faith once for all delivered to the saints of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church, as set forth in Article I of the Constitution [emphasis added].

As I noted in my examination of the ACNA constitution the ACNA takes an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of issues that have historically divided Anglicans. The claim that everything articulated in Article I is the faith of Jude 3, “the faith which once and for all God has given to his people,” the faith of the New Testament Church, is open to debate.

The amendment of Canon I.1.1 takes away the power of the Provincial Council to enter into covenants that define relationships with Anglicans internationally and with other Christian jurisdictions and gives it to the Archbishop and the College of Bishops. The Provincial Council’s power in such matters is reduced to affirming whatever covenants into which the Archbishop or the College of Bishops enters. The use of the weak term “affirm” rather than the stronger terms “approve” or “confirm” is noteworthy. This change represents a significant reduction of the power of the Provincial Council.

Despite its clarification of the term “Diocese” Canon I.1.2 is nonetheless problematic. Canon I. 1.2 states:

Each Diocese … shall select, by means not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Church, one (1) Bishop, one (1) member of the Clergy, and two (2) lay persons to be members of the Council. The Council may appoint up to six (6) persons of any order as full Council shall be an ex officio member. A diocese may select a replacement to serve for the unexpired term of any member selected by that diocese who does not serve his or her full term of office. A retiring member of the Council is eligible for reelection for one additional term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the initial Council shall be composed as provided in Article VII.2 of the Constitution. The term of office of a member of the Council shall be five (5) years.

Critical details are missing such as whether the provisions of Canon I.1.2 apply to bishops. Will the diocese that has only a single bishop be denied episcopal representation in the Provincial Council after ten years? The provisions of Canon I.1.2 do not state that bishops are excluded from the limitation on how long a Council member may serve.

The amendment to Canon I.1.4 requires the staggering of the terms of office of the members of the Executive Committee. It limits their term of office to two 3 year-terms consecutively. It also makes officers of the province ex officio members of the Executive Committee with a voice but no vote. This changes reduces the possibility of the introduction of meaningful reforms by a new administration and enables a faction that has obtained control of the Executive Committee to retain control of that body and to block such reforms. It denies a vote in the Executive Committee to the Provincial Dean (an office regularized by an amendment to Canon I.1.5), the Deputy Chair of the Provincial Council, and the Chancellor of the Province as well as the Secretary, Treasurer, and Registrar of the Province.

Two amendments to Canon I.1.5 make significant changes in the provisions of that canon. The first amendment makes provision for the appointment of a Dean of the Province by the Archbishop in consultation with the College of Bishops to serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop. This provision regularizes Archbishop Robert Duncan’s creation of the office of Provincial Dean (which under the ACNA constitution and canons he had no authority to do) and his appointment of Bishop Don Harvey to that office. The amendment also specifies that the Provincial Dean “may be authorized by the Archbishop to represent him in his absence. The provisions of this amendment are unusual when compared with the provisions of the governing documents of provinces of the Anglican Communion. The office of Dean of the Province is typically established in the constitution of the province and not its canons. The two most common modes of appointment are seniority (Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda) and election by the Provincial Synod (Kenya). The term of office of the Dean of the Province and his duties and responsibilities are specified in the constitution of the province. In none of the constitutions I have examined does the Dean of the Province serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop of the province.

The second amendment to Canon I.1.5 specifies the terms of office of the officers of the province. What is noteworthy is that Deputy Chair and the Chancellor, while appointed by the Provincial Council, serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop. The deputy presiding officer of the Provincial Council, the ACNA’s governing body, serving at the pleasure of its Archbishop is an unusual arrangement in a province. If the Chancellor is to serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop, he should be appointed by the Archbishop, not an uncommon arrangement at the provincial level.

The Dean of the Province and the deputy presiding officer of the governing body of a province are two important leadership positions. Making their term of office at the pleasure of the Archbishop appears to be motivated by fear that they might become competitors with the Archbishop for leadership of the province. It enables the Archbishop to nip such a development in the bud. If the Archbishop is leading the province in the wrong direction, it makes more difficult the organization of opposition in the Provincial Council to the direction in which he is leading the province. It must be noted that the ACNA governing documents require little if any accountability from the Archbishop and make no provision for his suspension and/or removal.

The second amendment to Canon I.1.5 also authorizes the Executive Committee to fill a vacancy “in any office other than that of the Archbishop until the next meeting of the Provincial Council. It is unclear whether this provision applies also to the Provincial Dean. It could have been better worded. “ A vacancy occurring in any office, exclusive of the offices of the Archbishop and the Dean of the Province, shall be filled by the Executive Committee until the meeting of the Provincial Council.”

Canon I.2.1 defines the role of the Provincial Assembly—“to deliberate on any matter concerning the Faith and Mission of the Church and to make recommendations to the Provincial Council concerning such matters.” Canon I.2.2 limits the Assembly’s role in the governance of the ACNA to ratifying its constitution and canons and any amendments to these governing documents adopted by the Provincial Council. It cannot modify the constitution and canons itself or any proposed amendments to these governing documents. Canon I.2.2 requires the Assembly return unratified matters to the Council for further consideration. While the Assembly is able to receive reports from the Council, it is not able to require reports from the Council. It has no investigative powers and cannot conduct inquiries or require the production of documents or electronic records or the testimony of witnesses. Except for its ratification of the ACNA constitution and canons and any amendments to these governing documents, it is a purely consultative body.

In giving negligible authority to the Provincial Assembly the ACNA departs from the general practice of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. For example, Canon 1.5.1 of the Church of Uganda states: “The Provincial Assembly shall be the supreme governing authority of the Church of Uganda. It shall speak and act on behalf of the whole Church of Uganda.”

Canon I.2.3 establishes the formula by which the number of representatives to the Provincial Assembly is to be determined. Dioceses-in-Formation are entitled to representation in the Assembly as well as existing judicatories. Under its provisions judicatories with a high average Sunday attendance would have more delegates than those with a low average Sunday attendance. Judicatories that were more successful in attracting people and establishing new congregations would have greater representation in the Assembly. Since the Assembly has negligible authority, the greater representation of these judicatories in the Assembly does not benefit them in any way.

Under the provisions of Canon I.2.3 the Provincial Council determines the number of delegates for each judicatory. The Council may delegate this responsibility to the Executive Committee. This is unusual as typically a Provincial Assembly or its equivalent itself determines the number of delegates for each judicatory entitled to representation in that body. Compare the provisions of Canon I.2.3 with those of Canons 1.5.2-1.5.4 of the Church of Uganda:

1.5.2 The Provincial Assembly shall consist of three houses:
(i) The House of Bishops
(ii) The House of Clergy
(iii) The House of Laity

1.5.3 The delegates of every Diocese to the Provincial Assembly shall consist of representatives of houses of Bishops, of Clergy and of Laity, elected in accordance with these Canons. The delegation
shall include at least one Bishop, one Clergy, one Lay man, one Lay woman, and one youth.

1.5.4 The number of delegates of each Diocese to the Provincial Assembly shall be determined by the Assembly from time to time and any other number as shall e determined by the Provincial Assembly from time to time.

Canon I.2.3 also gives representation to “founding non-ecclesial organizations.” This is also unusual, or at least it would be if the Provincial Assembly were a legislative body.

Canon I.2.4 establishes the formula by which the number of youth delegates to the Provincial Assembly is to be determined. Judicatories that are successful in attracting and retaining youth would benefit from its provisions in terms of the number of youth delegates to which they would be entitled. But this would also give them no advantage due to the negligible authority of the Provincial Assembly.

What is noteworthy about Canon I.2.5 is that it enabled the Archbishop to determine the rules for conducting the inaugural meeting of the Provincial Assembly and to control its proceedings as its presiding officer (Canon I.2.6). It remains to be seen whether the Assembly will adopt its own rules at the Ridge Crest meeting, which it is authorized to do under the provisions of this canon.

Canon I.3.2 permits the College of Bishops to admit to the College as “consultors” archbishops or bishops of other provinces of the Anglican Communion, who are not otherwise members of the College. Article X.2 states: “Each bishop in active episcopal ministry shall be included in the College of Bishops as provided by canon.” “Each bishop in active episcopal ministry” appears to be a reference to bishops of the ACNA only. There is no mention of bishops of other ecclesial bodies. It must also be noted that the ACNA is not a province of the Anglican Communion. Whether this provision is constitutional is questionable.

Canon I.4 grandfathers in the taskforces and committees of the Common Cause Partnership as the taskforces and committees of the ACNA. It contains no requirements that new judicatories recognized by the ACNA should be given representation on these taskforces and committees.

Canon I.5.1 requires all judicatories to be composed of a minimum of twelve (12) congregations with an ASA of at least fifty (50) each and a collective ASA of at least one thousand (1,000). It permits the Provincial Council to modify these requirements on a case-by-case basis by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members.

Canon I.5.2 reiterates the provisions of Article IV.7, to which it adds a qualifier, “except as hereinafter set forth.” This kind of addition amends the provisions of Article IV.7 and should have been adopted in the form of a constitutional amendment, not a canon. Canon I.5.2 also reiterates the provisions of Article IV.4. It contains a second qualifier—“The structures of pre-existing dioceses are recognized,” another addition which amends Article IV and also should have been adopted in the form of a constitutional amendment, not a canon. The Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council not only has used the canons to add to the provisions of the constitution without amending that governing document but they also have used the model diocesan constitution and canons to similarly modify the provisions of the provincial constitution and canons.

Canon I.5.3 requires the governing body of each judicatory to establish a standing committee or its equivalent. It further stipulates:

This committee shall be a council of advice to the Bishop and the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in the absence of a Bishop authorized to act. The other rights and duties of the committee shall be established by diocesan canon.

The standing committee that serves as a council of advice to the bishop of the diocese and as the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in his absence is peculiar to The Episcopal Church. Other Anglican provinces make provision for a diocesan administrator, vicar general, or senior clergyman to perform the duties and functions of the diocesan bishop in the absence or incapacitation of the diocesan bishop or during a vacancy in the office of diocesan bishop. Canon I.5.3 represents an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory.

Canon I.5.4 permits judicatories “gathered under the jurisdiction and oversight of another Province of the Anglican Communion at the time of the organization of the Anglican Church in North America” to operate under the provisions of the constitution and canons of that province. Canon I.5.4 infers that the ACNA is a province of the Anglican Communion, which is not the case. Canon I.5.4 is another addition to the constitution, which should have been adopted in the form of a constitutional amendment, not a canon. It is another example of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council adding to the provisions of the constitution without amending that governing document.

Canon I.5.5 contains this provision, which was at the center of a heated debate before the adoption and ratification of the present ACNA canons:

The application shall contain the name of the recommended nominee or nominees for Bishop and shall contain the present and proposed group budget, including the intended financial support of a Bishop. (Such form and the guidelines for such application are included herein as Appendix “A”)

A representative of the Governance Task Force would subsequently deny that this provision and other provisions in the canons and the application form and its guidelines meant that only founding entities of the ACNA could elect their own bishop, that groupings of congregations affiliating with the ACNA after the adoption and ratification of the canons would not be able to elect their own bishop but would have to submit a list of nominees to the College of Bishops that would choose their bishop for them. He argued that Article IV.7 recognizing the right of each judicatory “to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Province” included the right to determine how the judicatory chose its bishops. To date the Diocese of Western Anglicans is the only ACNA judicatory that has submitted the names of two nominees to the College of Bishops from which the College chose its first bishop. The Diocese of the Gulf-Atlantic, the Diocese of the South, and the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic elected their own bishop and submitted the name of the bishop-elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation. However, the above-mentioned provisions of the canons and the application form and its guidelines have never been modified. The Provincial Tribunal has never issued a ruling on the matter.

Canon I.5.6 does not require the Archbishop to consult with
a diocese-in-formation before appointing a vicar general for the diocese-in-formation, only to secure approval of the Provincial Council. Canon I.5.6 limits the existence of a diocese-in-formation to five years but does not specify what is to happen if the diocese-in-formation does not achieve the status of diocese within that timeframe.

Canon I.6.3 relating to the organization of congregations represents an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory, as does Canon I.6.5. relating to the governing boards of congregations. Judicatories normally regulate such matters in their governing documents.

The amendment to Canon I.6.4 substitutes the following wording for the present wording of the section.

Section 4 - Concerning the Calling and Licensing of Clergy and the Ending of a Ministry Relationship

1. It shall be the duty of Clergy and vestries to consult with the Bishop in the calling and ending of a ministry relationship.

2.Clergy who are not canonically resident in the diocese may not serve a congregation or institution of the diocese without being licensed by the bishop.

As well as being poorly worded—a congregation calls a new pastor and terminates a pastoral relationship, this change also represents an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory. As in the case of the organization and governing boards of congregations judicatories normally regulate such matters in their governing documents.

Canon I.6.6 is another addition to the constitution, which should have been adopted in the form of a constitutional amendment, not a canon. It is another example of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council adding to the provisions of the constitution without amending that governing document.

All congregational property, real and personal, owned by a member congregation is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by the congregation and shall not be subject to any trust in favor of the Province or other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of the Church; neither may any Diocese assert any such claim over the property of any of its congregations without the express written consent of the congregation [emphasis added]. Where property is held in a different manner by any Diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.

Where a substantive alteration or addition to an article of the constitution is involved as in this example and the examples previously noted, a constitutional amendment is required.

The amendment to Canon I.6.7 substitutes “congregations” for “churches” in the first sentence of the section. What is noteworthy about this section is that it requires congregations to seek the consent of the bishop before planting a new congregation and to provide spiritual cover and temporal assistance to the newly planted congregation until it is self-sustaining. It also defines what it means by “self-sustaining”—able to call and provide for its own clergy and is acceptable to the bishop. The provisions of this section represent an unnecessary intrusion in matters in which the judicatory is in a better position to determine based upon its knowledge of conditions in the judicatory, as well as represent an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory in determining what methods of church planting and criteria for recognition of self-sustaining congregations will be used in the judicatory.

The amendment to Canon I.6.8 alters the deadline for the Executive Committee’s preparation of a composite report of diocesan annual reports from July 1 of each year to May 1 of each year. What is noteworthy about this section is the composite report is submitted to the Archbishop rather than the Provincial Council, which is the governing body of the province. It gives the Archbishop control of what statistical data is shared with the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops, the clergy and congregations of the province, and the general public. He is free to withhold vital information on the status and growth of the province if he thinks fit. It does nothing to foster a culture of openness and transparency in the province.

The amendment to Canon I 7.1 requires ministry partners, affiliated ministries, and religious orders of the ACNA to subscribe without reservation to its Fundamental Declarations in Article I. At the same time it only permits the representatives of a ministry partner, affiliated ministry or religious order to attend ACNA functions and gatherings on the invitation of the Archbishop despite the Provincial Council’s admittance of the ministry partner, affiliated ministry or religious order.

The amendment to Canon I.7.2 defines a ministry partner as “a founding entity of the province as listed in Article II of the constitution” or “a jurisdiction or coalition which is deemed to have a special relationship with the province.” It permits delegates of ministry partners to have a seat and voice in the Provincial Assembly and Provincial Council “as determined by the Archbishop.” It is arguably that the Provincial Council as the governing body of the province should make such determination, not the Archbishop. The Council admits ministry partners and may terminate their ministry partner status “with or without cause.”

The amendment to Canon I.7.3 substitutes the following wording for the present wording of the canon.

An affiliated ministry may be an entity such as a seminary, mission agency, or ministry organization, religious society or sodality. A diocese, or other entity that is part of a jurisdiction other than the Anglican Church in North America, may also apply for affiliated ministry status so long as the requirements of Section 1 of this canon are met.

A fourth amendment to Canon I.7 adds a fourth section relating to vowed communities and religious orders.

Canon I.9.3 relating to diocesan standards for record keeping, audits, insurance, investments and the bonding of financial officers is arguably an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory. The Provincial Council as the governing body of the province would be the more appropriate body than the Executive Committee to establish such standards for the province.

The first sentence of Canon I.10.1 is a reiteration of Article III.1 and is redundant. The permissive language of the last sentence of Canon I.10.1 implies that judicatories do not have the right to establish standards for the ministry of the laity. It is arguably an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory.

The list of the duties of the laity in Canon I.10.2 is the type of list normally found in the canons of diocese or other judicatory. It is also arguably an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the judicatories in the ACNA and an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory.

Canon I.10.3 makes no provision for any form of membership in the ACNA other than as a member of a congregation. This is shortsighted as the ACNA has friends and supporters in parts of Canada and the United States in which there are no ACNA congregations.

Title I is not the only title of the ACNA canons that may affect the proposed PEARUSA sub-jurisdiction. In my next article I will examine Titles II and III.