 |
As the twig is bent
so grows the tree.
|
By Robin G. Jordan
The ACNA website is touting Assembly 2014 as a celebration
of what God is doing in and through the Anglican Church in North America. It is
also peddling Assembly 2014 as “an opportunity for Anglicans in North America
to gather together for teaching, worship, and fellowship during an important
time of transition within the life of our province.”
Assembly 2014 is a reference to the ACNA Provincial Assembly—the
ACNA’s glorified pep rally that plays no actual role in the governance of the
ACNA except to rubber stamp changes to the ACNA constitution and canons. It
cannot conduct inquiries of its own into the affairs of the ACNA or enact
legislation. It cannot even recommend amendments to the changes to the ACNA
constitution and canons submitted to it for ratification. Its main purpose is
to bolster the moral of the ACNA membership and to muster their support for the
latest ACNA initiative.
At the start of Assembly 2014 the ACNA College of Bishops
will be announcing the election of a new Archbishop to lead the ACNA. This is
the transition to which the ACNA website refers.
Between now and Assembly 2014 in this coming June I will be
posting a series of articles on the state of the Anglican Church in North
America. In each article I will be
examining actual conditions in the ACNA.
As I have written on a number of occasions, the ACNA College
of Bishops pays little attention to the provisions of the ACNA constitution and
canons and acts as if it is not bound by these governing documents. The College
of Bishops functions as a de facto board of governors of the Anglican Church in
North America, overshadowing the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee
and usurping their roles. The Provincial Council and its Executive Committee
are the official governing bodies of the Anglican Church in North America
created and empowered by its constitution. The constitution does not recognize
the College of Bishops as having any role in the governance of the ACNA beyond the election of the Archbishop.
The ACNA College of Bishops has taken a number of
unconstitutional actions. The bishops authorized Archbishop Duncan’s
appointment of a Dean, an office which at the time had no constitutional or
canonical sanction. Nowhere do the constitution and canons recognize the
College of Bishops as having authority to approve such appointments.
The ACNA bishops authorized “a theological lens” to guide
the Prayer Book and Liturgy Taskforce in its work, an ordinal, and trial
services of Morning and Evening Prayer and Holy Communion. Here again, nowhere
do the constitution and canons recognize the College of Bishops as having
authority to approve guidelines for the work of the Prayer Book and Liturgy
Taskforce or to approve forms of service for use throughout the ACNA.
The ACNA canons grant to diocesan and network bishops
individually authority to approve forms of service used in their dioceses or
networks. This is the extent of the authority that the canons grant to the
bishops.
The ACNA constitution reserves to the Provincial Council
power to make canons related to the worship of the church. The Provincial Council
has never adopted and the Provincial Assembly ratified a canon granting
authority to the bishops collectively to approve guidelines for the work of the
Prayer Book and Liturgy Taskforce and to approve forms of service for use
throughout the ACNA. Until the adoption and ratification of such a canon the
College of Bishops as a body can make only recommendations.
Archbishop Duncan himself formed an Archbishop’s Cabinet, a
body the existence of which is neither sanctioned nor mandated by the
constitution and canons. The constitution and canons do not give the Archbishop
authority to create such a body. They also do not recognize that authority as
inherent in the office of Archbishop. An Archbishop’s Cabinet is a body typical
found in archdioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. It is composed of the heads
of various archdiocesan boards and departments. Its purpose is to coordinate
the running of the archdiocese.
Archbishop Duncan has also made other irregular appointments
beside the appointment of a Dean. These appointments, unlike his appointment of
a Dean, have never been regularized.
Unbeknownst to the rank and file of the ACNA membership, the
top leaders of the Anglican Church in North America appear to have adopted as
their model of ecclesiastical governance for the ACNA that of the Roman
Catholic Church sans the Pope. The
Roman Catholic Church in the United States is run by a Conference of Catholic
Bishops. It is surprising that the ACNA top leaders would adopt such a model of
governance at a time when that particular model of governance is costing the
Roman Catholic Church members both in and outside of the United States.
The Conference of Catholic Bishops is accountable to the
Pope. The ACNA College of Bishops, however, is accountable to nobody.
A more Anglican form of church government would be to make
the Provincial Assembly the supreme governing authority of the Anglican Church
in North America as in the Church of Uganda, for example. The Provincial
Council would be a standing committee of the Provincial Assembly, appointed by
the Provincial Assembly, and acting on its behalf between the sessions of the
Provincial Assembly. The Provincial
Council would be accountable to the Provincial Assembly and subject to its
directives.
The ACNA Governance Taskforce has produced a model diocesan
constitution and model diocesan canons for the use of groups of churches
seeking to become dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America. These
governing documents suffer from a number of defects. Two are particularly
noteworthy. The documents contain gross misinterpretations of the constitution
in which parts of the constitution that apply only to the province are
presented as if they applied to dioceses and networks in the ACNA.
The documents also contain provisions that relinquish to the
province, to the Archbishop in particular, powers that the constitution
reserves to the dioceses and networks unless a diocese or network relinquishes
them to the province. These provisions would give the Archbishop authority to
meddle in the affairs of the diocese or network, authority that none of the
numerous governing documents of Anglican provinces that I have examined either
grant to the Archbishop or equivalent of the province or recognize as inherent
in the archepiscopal office.
I have also heard troubling reports from impeccable sources
that representatives of the Governing Taskforce have told would-be ACNA
dioceses and networks that if they included provisions in their governing
documents limiting the term of office of their bishops, the Provincial Council
would not approve their application for admission to the ACNA. The constitution
and canons contain no provisions prohibiting a diocese or network from establishing terms
limits on the office of bishop. The Provincial Council has also not issued a
policy statement in which the Council acknowledged such a policy and offered
its rationale for that policy.
Whether the representatives of the Governance Taskforce were
warning would-be ACNA dioceses and networks against episcopal term limits on
their own initiative or were acting at the instigation of a particular group or
faction within the ACNA, I have not been able to ascertain. If this was indeed
the policy of the Provincial Council, then it would be incumbent upon the
Council to make such a policy more widely known and not in this roundabout way.
The Anglican Church in North America would greatly benefit
from a mandatory retirement age, fixed terms of office, and regular performance
reviews for its bishops. Bishops might serve an initial 10 year term of office
and would serve additional 5 year terms of office if a performance review board
appointed by the diocesan synod recommended such an extension and the diocesan
synod concurred with its recommendation.
The ACNA would also benefit from caps on the salaries and
other benefits of bishops. The compensation package for an ACNA Assistant Bishop
of Pittsburgh exceeds the compensation package for Episcopal Diocesan Bishop of
Louisiana. The latter’s compensation package contains two housing
allowances—one to pay the mortgage on a new home for the bishop in Louisiana
and the other to pay the mortgage on the bishop’s former home in Texas. This
was done to enable the new bishop to move from Texas to Louisiana to take up
his duties as ordinary of the diocese. The compensation package also includes
payments into contingency fund from which the diocese can pay the bishop’s
salary for up to 2 years in the event the revenues of the diocese dropped to a
level where the diocese could not meet its financial obligations to the bishop.
A bishop’s compensation package should be tied to his
performance as well as to the cost of living for a particular area. This is
where performance review boards could also play a valuable role. Increases in
that package would not be automatic but would be based upon performance. After
reviewing a bishop’s performance, the board might recommend an increase or it
might recommend the deferment of an increase until the bishop’s performance
improves. Regular performance reviews is one way a diocese can require
accountability from its bishops.
In addition to establishing a mandatory retirement age for
its bishops, fixing their terms of office, and requiring periodic reviews of
their performance, the governing documents of dioceses and networks in the
Anglican Church in North America need to include provisions for the forced
retirement or removal of bishops who are permanently incapacitated or otherwise
unable or unwilling to perform their duties. This is one of the reasons why it
is important to specify in these documents the duties, powers, and special
privileges of bishops in a particular diocese or network. Vague provisions
recognizing the bishop of a diocese or network as having duties, powers, and
special privileges customary to that office should be assiduously avoided as
they are open to multiple interpretations and result in all kinds of abuses.
In the days following the adoption of the provisional
constitution and canons for the Anglican Church in North America a controversy
arose centered on the language of the draft constitution and canons and the
application for admission as an ACNA diocese or network. The draft constitution
and canons made provision for two methods for selecting a bishop for a diocese
or network. Title III.4 of the draft canons contained the following provisions:
1. Bishops shall be chosen by a Diocese in conformance with
the constitution and canons of the Diocese and consistent with the Constitution
and Canons of this Church.
2. An electing body from the Diocese shall certify the
election of a Bishop for consent by the College of Bishops, or may certify two
or three nee ominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the
Diocese. The latter practice is commended to all Dioceses in this Church.
3. Where the originating body is newly formed, that body
shall normally nominate two or three candidates, from whom the College of
Bishops may select one.
After stating dioceses must choose their bishops in a manner
consistent with the province’s governing documents, Title III.4 briefly
explains the two methods of selecting a bishop permitted by the constitution.
The canon recommends the second method to all dioceses in the ACNA. The canon
goes on to establish the second method as normative for newly-formed dioceses
and networks. The application for admission as a new ACNA diocese or network
directs the group of churches seeking admission to submit the name of two or
three nominees for bishop on the application form. It does not direct the group
to submit the name of its bishop-elect or the names of two or three nominees for bishop.
The closest thing to an official statement regarding how the
language of the proposed governing documents should be interpreted came from a
member of the Governance Taskforce, Phil Ashey. Ashey’s position was that the a
group of churches seeking admission as a new ACNA diocese or network was free
to adopt the first method for selecting a bishop—elect a bishop and submit the
name of the bishop-elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation. He based
his interpretation of Title III.4 on the requirement in Title III.4.1 that the
manner in which a diocese or network chose its bishop must conform to its
constitution and canons. Title III.4.1, however, also requires that the manner
in which a diocese or network chooses a bishop must be consistent with the
province’s governing documents.
Ashey’s position was not endorsed by the other members of
the task force and therefore cannot be regarded as the official position of the
taskforce. The taskforce also did not modify the language of Title III.4 to make
it clearer and to support Ashey’s interpretation of its language. The wording
of the application for admission as a new ACNA diocese or network has never
been changed.
If the second method of episcopal selection were to become a
widespread practice in the Anglican Church in North America , it would
seriously curtail the autonomy of the dioceses and networks forming the ACNA. It
would place the selection of the province’s bishops in the hands of whatever
group or faction exercised the most influence in the College of Bishop. It
would turn the College of Bishops into an exclusive club that selected its own
members.
Confirmation of a bishop-elect is pretty clear cut: it is
essentially a determination of the canonicity of his election. Is he the right
age? Is he ordained and licensed as a presbyter. Does he have the necessary
education? Does he conform to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the
Anglican formularies in what he himself teaches if the province has such a
canonical requirement?
When the College of Bishops selects a bishop even from a
slate of nominees submitted by a diocese or network, other criteria are likely
to be considered in making that selection. Which one of these nominees will fit in
with the other bishops in the College of Bishops? Which one is an Anglo-Catholic? Does he share our vision for
the church? Does he support the direction in which we are taking the church? Will he go along with the way we do things? How malleable is he? Is
he a team player? And so on.
The canons do not prohibit the College of Bishops from
rejecting the nominees of a diocese or network until the diocese or network
nominates someone to the bishops’ liking. The language of Title III.4 is
permissive: “…from whom the College of Bishops may select one.”
Except for the requirement that the diocese or network must
be notified in writing, Title III.4. does not state what happens if the College
of Bishops rejects the bishop-elect nominees of a diocese or network. The
canons do not prohibit the College of Bishops from nominating someone
themselves or delegating to one or more its members the nomination of a suitable
candidate. The diocese or network must conform to its governing documents. The
canons, however, do not require the College of Bishops to conform to them.
Episcopal selection in the Anglican Church in North America
is made even more complicated by the protocol between the ACNA and the Anglican
Church of Rwanda., PEAR USA, also known as the North American Missionary
District of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, is both a part of the ACNA and a
part of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The bishops of PEAR USA are chosen by
the Rwandan House of Bishops. The nominees, however, must approved by the ACNA College
of Bishops.
Governance is not the only major problem area in the
Anglican Church in North America. In this article series on the state of that
church we will examine a number of these problem areas.
While some may argue that the ACNA is a young church and
needs time, I have seen nothing that indicates that the state of the church
will improve over time. On the contrary, I have seen a great deal that indicates
the opposite: The state of the church is going to worsen.
Whatever windows of opportunity there may be to reform the
ACNA are rapidly closing. If any meaningful reform of the ACNA is to occur, it
must be undertaken now.
Also see
Through a Glass Darkly: The Anglican Church in North America in 2014 and Beyond
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
