By Robin G. Jordan
Based upon my study of the provincial governing documents of
the Anglican Church in North America and the proposals for a charter for
ministry for the PEAR Missionary District in North America, I am convinced that
both the ACNA and PEARUSA are heading into troubled waters. The governance
models adopted in the ACNA provincial constitution and proposed in the PEARUSA
charter for ministry reveals a basic distrust of the laity and large
representative governing bodies such as diocesan conventions, general
conventions, diocesan synods and general synods. They also show a decided
proclivity to blame the laity and large representative governing bodies for
developments in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church USA. At
the same time they reveal an equally pronounced tendency to ignore or minimize
the role of the bishops and clergy of the AC of C and TEC in those
developments. That role was substantial. Without the involvement of their bishops and
clergy in the spread of liberalism neither province would have become as
liberal as both presently are.
The ACNA governing documents limit the role of the
Provincial Assembly to ratifying changes in the ACNA constitution and canons
and making recommendations. Since the Assembly does not set its own agenda, it
in actuality can only endorse recommendations that are presented to it. The
Assembly cannot amend legislation submitted to it, much less initiate
legislation of its own.
Under the provisions of the revised PEARUSA charter for
ministry the PEARUSA College of Bishops and the PEAR House of Bishops are to
tightly control what business the College of Laity and Clergy may transact at a
Sacred Assembly. Only extraordinary
business that the Mission Council cannot resolve may be referred to the College
of Laity and Clergy. Only a bishop with the support of a majority of the clergy
and churches in his regional network or two PEARUSA bishops may petition for a
special session of the College of Laity and Clergy at a Solemn Assembly. The
Archbishop of PEAR is free to declare such a session if he sees a need for one.
These governance models embody an elitist view of the church
that belie statements in the ACNA provincial governing documents and the
PEARUSA charter for ministry regarding the laity. The government of the Christian community is
seen as belonging to the bishops and a select group of clergy and laity, not
the whole church, clergy and laity together.
These governance models reflect the strong influence of
Roman Catholic ecclesiology and governance structures and American entrepreneurial business
models. In the Roman Catholic Church lay bodies are convened primarily to
implement the decisions of the hierarchy. The sexual abuse scandals of recent
years have prompted a call for lay involvement in decision-making in that
denomination. The hierarchy has shown itself unable to protect children in
Roman Catholic churches, schools, and other institutions. At the same time it
has shown itself more than willing to conceal the misconduct of clergy and
religious.
In the American entrepreneurial business models a small
board of directors composed of the corporation’s top executives runs the
corporation. The Enron and similar
corporate scandals of the last century drew attention to the problems inherent
in these models. With the call for greater accountability and transparency in
PEARUSA, the adoption of governance models influenced by entrepreneurial
business models is surprising. If one lesson was learned from these scandals,
it was the great difficulty that stockholders’ meetings have reining in
corporate boards of directors and executives and demanding greater
accountability and transparency from them.
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment