The State of the Anglican Church in North America: The First Five Years

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.