The State of the ACNA Today: Governance

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.

Any new forms of service other than experimental occasional forms of service authorized by a diocesan or network bishop would require the approval of the Provincial Assembly (see canon 1.14.3 of the Canons of the Church of Uganda).

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