Top Secret: For Your Eyes Only

By Robin G. Jordan

On my latest visit to the Anglican Church in North America website I found nothing new on that website. Even the latest article on the “news” page was an interview with Archbishop Bob Duncan that had previously been published in The Apostle in May 2012.

The reason I visited the ACNA was to see if its communications officer had published anything on the business session at Assembly 2012, especially on what changes to the constitution and canons were ratified and whether any of the Provincial Council approved-changes to these governing documents were sent back to the Council—an unlikely but newsworthy occurrence. I also wanted to see if the versions of the constitution and canons on the “governance” page had been updated to reflect any changes. It has been almost two months since Assembly 2012 ended on June 9.

I was not surprised to not find anything new. The ACNA website is beginning to resemble the static websites of a number of the Continuing Anglican Churches. When I checked the ACNA staff directory, I discovered that the ACNA has no communications officer!

I had gleaned from Bishop Jack Iker’s report to his diocese on the June 2012 ACNA meetings that the Provincial Council approved “some constitutional and canonical amendments.” He did not offer any details. He did not mention whether the Provincial Assembly had ratified these amendments. This suggested that in his mind the Assembly’s ratification of the amendments was not important—not worth space in the report.

The only bishop who did mention a specific amendment was CANA Bishop Felix Orji in his June 10 communiqué to CANA West. He wrote:

Second, Canon 6, Section 4 was amended to read: "No rector may be called to or dismissed from a congregation without the consent of the Bishop. No other clergy (assistants, etc.) may be called to or dismissed from the congregation without consultation with the Bishop. A diocese may adopt canons not in conflict with this section. All assistant clergy and lay employees of the congregation shall serve at the pleasure of and under the direction of the Rector, except as may be otherwise provided under local law." This ACNA Canon is consistent with the policies of the Congregation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), and therefore, we will function in compliance with this new directive. Rectors, please make sure your Vestries, Boards, and Parochial Councils are aware of and understand this new amendment. In addition, other amendments were made within the ACNA Canons this past week, so it is critical you download and familiarize yourself with the current version of the ACNA Canons from the ACNA website.

Obviously Bishop Orji is not aware that the version of the ACNA canons on the ACNA website has not yet been updated.

Among the proposed amendments to the ACNA governing documents that interested me were the proposed changes to Canon I.1.5. These changes are shown below in brackets:

Section 5. Concerning Officers of the Church

[1.] The Archbishop shall be the Presiding Officer of the Church, and the Presiding Officer of the Council. The Council shall appoint a Deputy Chair, a chancellor, a secretary, a treasurer, a registrar, and such other officers of the Church as it deems necessary. The Council shall define the duties of each officer of the Church. [The Archbishop may appoint a Provincial Dean in consultation with the College of Bishops to serve at the pleasure of the Archbishop until his successor is appointed and who may be authorized by the Archbishop to represent him in his absence.

2. The Terms of the Officers shall be as follows: The term of the Archbishop shall be as provided in Article IX of the Constitution. The terms of the remaining officers shall be:

• The term of the Deputy Chair shall be at the pleasure of the Archbishop.
• The term of the Chancellor shall be at the pleasure of the Archbishop.
• The term of the Secretary shall be for three years.
• The term of the Treasurer shall be for three years.
• The term of the Registrar shall be for three years.

A vacancy occurring in any office other than that of the Archbishop shall be filled by the Executive Committee until the next meeting of the Provincial Council.]

The preceding changes to the canons regularize Archbishop Duncan’s highly irregular creation of the office of ACNA Provincial Dean and his equally irregular appointment of his friend ANiC Bishop Don Harvey to that position. The appointment not only violated the provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons and made Archbishop Duncan liable to presentment, but also opened him to the charge of croneyism.

At the time Archbishop Duncan created the office of ACNA Provincial Dean and appointed Bishop Harvey to that position, the ACNA governing documents did not give power to the Archbishop to create such positions and to make appointments to them or recognize as inherent in his office power to do the same. Archbishop Duncan arrogated this power to his office by creating the position and making an appointment to it.

Was it really necessary for Archbishop Duncan to have taken this action? The answer is “no.” If the Archbishop needed an assistant, the College of Bishops could have, under the existing provisions of the ACNA canons, nominated and elected a bishop for special missions to assist him.

Although the College of Bishops and the Provincial Council went along with Duncan’s creation of the office of ACNA Provincial Dean and his appointment of Harvey to that position as they did his later creation of other offices and his subsequent appointments to these positions, they, in doing so, violated the provisions of the ACNA governing documents and made themselves liable to presentment. The whole affair shows how little regard the ACNA leadership appears to have for constitutionalism and the rule of law. It also reveals the inability or the unwillingness of other ACNA leaders to exercise a restraining influence upon the Archbishop. The ACNA system of ecclesiastical governance has no effective checks and balances where they are needed. It has no real accountability.

An article on the ACNA website, “College of Bishops Gathers in Ridgecrest,” had further piqued my curiosity. It briefly described the business transacted at the meeting of the College of Bishops preceding the July 2012 Provincial Council meeting. It contained this statement, “A formal statement was also adopted on the rules of the College of Bishops….” It also contained a reference to the election of Bishop Harvey as the dean of the College of Bishops.” “Officers were elected for the upcoming year, including The Rt. Rev. Donald Harvey, who will continue to serve as dean of the College of Bishops, and The Rev. John Cruikshank, who will continue to serve as secretary.”

The rules of the College of Bishops identify the Archbishop, a Dean, and a Secretary as the officers of the College of Bishops. They do not state how the Dean is to be selected. They do, however, state how the Secretary is to be chosen: “The Secretary is appointed by the Archbishop and need not be a bishop.”

The College of Bishop’s rules contain a number of provisions that rightly belong in the canons, not the rules of that body. Indeed they were proposed by the Governance Task Force for inclusion in the canons and so approved by the Executive Committee. Their inclusion in the College of Bishops’ rules exemplifies the extra-constitutional, extra-canonical way that the ACNA leadership operates.

The amendment to Canon I.1.5, the article, and the College of Bishops’ rules raise questions about the status of the office of Provincial Dean in the ACNA. Is the Provincial Dean an officer of the Province or an officer of the College of Bishops or both? How are the Provincial Dean and the Dean of the College of Bishops selected? Are the offices of Provincial Dean and the office of Dean of the College of Bishops two separate offices? In which case, why are they held by the same bishop?

While the appointment of the Dean of a Province by its Archbishop in consultation with the Bishops of the Province is unusual, it is not entirely unknown. In the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA) the Metropolitan of the Province appoints the Dean of the Province after consultation with the Province’s Bishops. Canon C2.3 states:

Dean of the Province

3. The Metropolitan shall at the first meeting of the Synod of Bishops in each calendar year appoint, after consultation with the Bishops, one of their number to be the Dean of the Province until the first meeting of such Synod in the year following. Whenever the Metropolitical See is vacant or in the absence for a period in excess of six weeks from the Province, or during the incapacity of the Metropolitan, the Dean of the Province shall execute all functions appertaining to the office of Metropolitan, until the See be again canonically filled, or until the return of the Metropolitan, or until his recovery from the incapacity. During such vacancy, absence or incapacity, the other Bishops of the Province shall render the said Dean of the Province such obedience as they are bound to give to the Metropolitan. Should the Dean of the Province be unable to perform his duties, or should the office fall vacant for any reason whatsoever, the Diocesan Bishop senior by consecration shall perform the duties of the Dean of the Province. If the office falls vacant, a new Dean shall be similarly appointed at the next meeting of the Synod of Bishops, and he shall hold office until the first meeting of the year following.

Articles of the Constitution, iii, iv, v, xiii, xv, xxi

The ACSA was formerly known as the Church of the Province of Southern Africa. It is the most liberal Anglican province in Africa. Recently one of its dioceses elected a woman bishop. Under the provisions of its canons a woman may serve as its Metropolitan.

Typically Anglican provinces that have a Dean of the Province make provision for that office in their constitution. Usually the Dean of the Province is elected by the Provincial House of Bishops from its members or the senior most bishop by consecration automatically becomes the Dean of the Province upon the election of a new Archbishop of the Province. The Dean of the Province serves for a specific term of office prescribed in the constitution or canons of the Province. It is highly unusual for the Dean of a Province to serve at the pleasure of its Archbishop. I have not come across any such provision in the governing documents of the Anglican provinces that I have studied to date.

Note the Dean of the Province of the ACSA serves for a one year term. He automatically assumes the functions of the Metropolitan in the prolonged absence of the Metropolitan, during a vacancy in the Metropolitical See, or in the incapacity of the Metropolitan. He does not require the authorization of the Metropolitan. When the Dean of the Province is performing the functions of the Metropolitan, the Bishops of the Province must render the same canonical obedience to the Dean of the Province as they would to the Metropolitan.

The requirements in the amendment to Canon I.1.5 that the Provincial Dean is to serve at the Archbishop’s pleasure and cannot represent the Archbishop in his absence except with his authorization suggest the fear that opposition might develop to the leadership of the Archbishop in the ACNA and the Dean of the Province might become the leader of that opposition and the Archbishop’s rival for leadership in the ACNA. The requirement that the Deputy Chair is to serve at the Archbishop’s pleasure suggests the same thing. Under the provisions of the amendment to Canon I.1.5 the Archbishop can demand the resignation of both officers for any reason that he chooses.

For those who are wondering why I picked “Top Secret: For Your Eyes Only” as the title of this article, it is a commentary on the willingness of ACNA leaders to share information with lay followers and outsiders. Some ACNA leaders are pretty up-front. Others operate on a “need to know” basis. Even major stakeholders in the ACNA are kept in the dark.

Generally the ACNA leadership has not shown itself to be as open and transparent as it could be, and indeed as it ought to be. I would have expected the Governance Task Force to have produced a series of articles explaining the changes to the constitution and the canons following their adoption and ratification, why they were necessary, and what they mean. I would have expected that task force to have given similar treatment to the rules of the College of Bishops. But it is becoming increasingly evident that the ACNA leadership does not value an informed membership. Rather it appears to take the position, “the less they know, the better.”

At times it seems like the ACNA leadership does not want to draw attention to what it is doing for fear that it will led to public discussion and criticism and possible opposition. Such an attitude will do irreparable harm to the ACNA in the long-term. We have seen what happened in the Roman Catholic Church where its hierarchy took a similar attitude and withheld critical information from its members.