By Robin G. Jordan
At the upcoming gatherings of the Anglican Church in North
America in late June of this year outgoing Archbishop Robert “Bob” Duncan will
give his last state of the denomination address. In this article I offer my own
assessment of the state of the Anglican Church in North America five years
after its formation.
The governing documents of the Anglican Church in North America
assign a limited role to the laity in the governance of that ecclesial body at
the denominational level. While the Provincial Assembly is predominantly made
up of lay delegates, the Assembly has no role in the governance of the
denomination except to approve or reject changes in the constitution and canons
adopted by the Provincial Council. The Assembly cannot amend these changes or
propose changes to the constitution and canons of its own.
While one half of the members of the Provincial Council, the
denomination’s “official” governing body,” are lay, the canons permit the
co-opting of six additional members who may be clergy or lay persons. It is
therefore possible for the clergy representation on the Provincial Council to
exceed the lay representation.
Since the Anglican Church in North America was formed, the
College of Bishops has arrogated to itself powers that the constitution and
canons do not vest in the College of Bishops or recognize as being inherent in
the College of Bishops. The College of Bishops has also usurped powers that
these governing documents vest in the Provincial Council. Among the
consequences of these actions is that the role of the laity in the
denomination’s governance has been further reduced.
Another troubling development in the Anglican Church in
North America is its Archbishop has expanded the powers of his office well
beyond those powers that the constitution and canons vest in the office of
Archbishop. He has created structures that he has no constitutional or
canonical authority to create. He has also made appointments that he likewise has
no authority to make. He has overall shown little respect for the provisions of
the denomination’s governing documents. In supporting his actions the College
of Bishops has displayed a similar propensity.
Two related developments are equally troubling. The model
diocesan constitution and canons that the Governance Task Force developed for
the use of groups of churches seeking to become dioceses of the Anglican Church
in North America contain provisions in which the diocese in formation
relinquishes to the Archbishop powers that the constitution reserve to the
dioceses. These provisions not only weaken the autonomy of the diocese but also
allow the Archbishop to meddle in the affairs of the diocese. It is bad enough
that the disciplinary canons permit the Archbishop to overrule the bishop of a
diocese and reverse his inhibition of a member of the clergy in the diocese. Under
the provisions of the model diocesan governing documents the Archbishop would
be able to bypass the bishop of the diocese and directly intervene in disputes
between congregations and their clergy.
The disciplinary canons lack a number of basic procedural
safeguards. They contain no special
procedures for the handling of child physical and sexual abuse allegations.
They also enable the Archbishop to influence the outcome of certain types of
hearings.
More recently the College of Bishops has adopted the
conclave model as the method that it will use in selecting a new Archbishop.
This is the model that the Roman Catholic Church uses in selecting a new pope.
The Governance Task Force, in drafting the constitution and
canons of the Anglican Church in North America, incorporated into these
governing documents two methods for the selection of a bishop for a diocese. In
the canons the Governance Task Force identifies the second method as the
preferred method of episcopal selection and commends it to the dioceses using
the first method for the selection of their bishop. The wording of the canons
is open to the interpretation that this method is the only one that dioceses
that were not founding entities of the Anglican Church in North America may use
to select a bishop. The application for recognition as a diocese supports this
interpretation of the canons’ wording.
This particular method of episcopal selection permits the
College of Bishops to select a diocesan bishop from a list of two or three
candidates presented by the diocese. The College of Bishops is not prohibited
from rejecting all the candidates on the list and calling for further
nominations until the diocese nominates someone to its liking. Nor is the
College of Bishop prohibited from nominating its own candidate in case of an
impasse between the College of Bishops and the diocese. This particular method
of episcopal selection enables any group or party dominating the College of
Bishops to pack the College of Bishops with its own members and those friendly
to that group or party.
Under the terms of the protocol with the Anglican Church of
Rwanda the College the College of Bishops must first approve all candidates
nominated for episcopal office in PEAR-USA. While the Rwandan House of Bishops
elects the bishops of PEAR-USA, this provision gives the College of Bishops
control over who is presented to the Rwandan bishops for election.
The Governance Task Force has dissuaded at least two
applicants for recognition as dioceses from adopting term limits for their
bishops, including a mandatory retirement age, claiming that the Provincial
Council would not approve their application. The constitution and canons,
however, do not prohibit the dioceses from limiting the term of office of their
bishops in any way.
To date the Anglican Church in North has not shown
evenhandedness in its treatment of all the conservative schools of Anglican
thought represented in that ecclesial body. Rather it has given preferential
treatment to one particular school of thought. This school of thought
subscribes to a revisionist redefinition of Anglicanism that while making ample
room for Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic doctrine and practice does not
similarly make room for conservative evangelical and classical Protestant and
Reformed Anglican doctrine and practice. With each successive doctrinal
statement—constitution, canons, “theological lens,” proposed ordinal, trial
services, proposed catechism--it has become increasingly apparent that the
Anglican Church in North America does not offer the kind of environment in
which conservative evangelicalism and classical Protestant and Reformed
Anglicanism can flourish and prosper.
The Anglican Church in North America has yet to produce a
comprehensive study of the denomination’s church planting efforts. Such a study
would include the number of churches planting new churches , sponsoring new
churches , and partnered with other churches in sponsoring new churches; the
number of church planting networks, the size of these networks, and other
details; the number of church plants each year covered by the study, the number
of church plants in existence after one year, two years, and so forth, the
number of failed church plants, factors contributing to their failure;
geographic regions and population segments targeted; and other useful
information. It would confirm whether the denomination was on the right track
in church planting efforts and would identify where the denomination needed to
change its strategy.
The Anglican Church in North America’s approach to training
church planters and church planting teams is to sponsor regional church
planting conferences. Those attending these conferences must in addition to
paying for travel expenses, hotel accommodations, and conference registration
fees must pay for the workshops offered at the conferences. The Anglican Church
in North America does not offer free webcasts of the conferences and the
workshops for those who cannot attend the conferences and workshops as do a number
of organizations like Together for the Gospel. Nor do the conference organizers
post videos of the conferences and the workshops on the Internet.
The Anglican Church in North America has no
denomination-wide mechanism for helping churches identify mission opportunities
outside their deanery and diocese. It has no mechanism for linking church
plants that have a need with churches that can meet that need. It does not make
full use of the resources of its churches through short term mission trips,
knowledge and skills sharing, one-time financial grants, and the like. It has
not produced any educational material on the nature and importance of missions
and inter-church cooperation in missions. Such material is one way a
denomination can keep the attention of its churches focused on mission and encourage
them to work together cooperatively.
Among the purposes of the Thirty-Nine Articles is to
safeguard the truth of the New Testament gospel. As the Jerusalem Declaration
points to our attention, the Articles contain “the true doctrine of the Church
agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.” As Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic
Anglicanism Today further informs us, the Articles are “a faithful
testimony to the teaching of Scripture, excluding erroneous beliefs and
practices and giving a distinct shape to Anglican Christianity.” Acceptance of
their authority “is constitutive of Anglican identity.”
In its constitution and canons the Anglican Church in North
America, however, equivocates in its acceptance of the authority of the
Thirty-Nine Articles. Since the adoption of these governing documents the
College of Bishops has endorsed a series of doctrinal statements—a “theological
lens,” a proposed ordinal, trial services, and a proposed catechism—which
either distort the meaning of the Articles or reject their authority. The
College of Bishops has shown strong leanings toward Anglo-Catholic and Roman
Catholic beliefs and practices that conflict with the Articles or with
principles derived from the Articles. This raises the question as to whether
the churches that the Anglican Church in North America is planting are churches
that are genuinely centered on the gospel. The latest doctrinal statement—the
proposed catechism—is nebulous about the contents of the gospel. The proposed catechism also teaches
Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic doctrine in a number of key areas or allows
such teaching. This doctrine is not consistent with the understanding of the
New Testament gospel articulated in the Articles. If the Anglican Church in
North America is not planting gospel-centered churches, it is not fulfilling
the Great Commission in its church planting efforts.
A discernible gap exists between the doctrine that the
College of Bishops endorses and the doctrine that a number of congregations and
their clergy believe. As the College of Bishops closes this gap, a decline in
the number of gospel-centered churches and church plants in the Anglican Church
in North America is inevitable.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
