The Anglican Church in North America Unveils Proposed New Rites and Governing Document Changes

By Robin G. Jordan

On the first day of the meeting of the College of Bishops,  the Anglican Church in North America published the Provincial Meeting Journal for the June meetings of the College of Bishops, the Archbishop’s Cabinet and Executive Committee, the Provincial Council, and the Provincial Assembly. This is to large extent typical of the ACNA despite a commitment to greater openness and transparency by the College of Bishops. Important documents are published at the last minute so there is no opportunity for the unhurried examination of their contents, much less the open discussion of the contents and the ramifications for the ACNA and North American Anglicanism and the mobilization of opposition to any of the proposals contained in them. The Anglican Church in North America in this regard is a far worse offender than the Episcopal Church. One is prompted to suspect top ACNA leaders of seeking to control the outcome of its public gatherings in this manner.

Included in the Provincial Meeting Journal are a number of reports. The following reports particularly caught my attention.

The Admission of Catechumens

This report contains the revised rite for the admission of catechumens. Note the questions and answers at the very beginning of the rite:

The Priest shall then greet them at the door, and ask the following,

Officiant Do you desire to be baptized?

Answer. I do.

Officiant What do you hope to gain?

Answer. I hope to gain eternal life in Christ.

These questions and answers convey the idea that we are saved by baptism—not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—but by baptism!

Note also the words with which the prayer of exorcism, “O Lord God of hosts…” concludes: “… and make them ready to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit; through Jesus Christ our Lord.” While this clause is consistent with the teaching of the new ACNA catechism that the Holy Spirit is given at baptism and only at baptism, it is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach, that is, the Holy Spirit may be given before, at, or after baptism or not at all. It excludes the Reformed view that the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration precede faith.

As we shall see, there is a noticeable lack of consistency not only between the proposed rites of Baptism and Confirmation and this rite but also between those two rites, the teaching of the new ACNA catechism, and the teaching of the Scriptures.

As I have written elsewhere, the Oil of Catechumens is used in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to anoint the baptismal candidate before he is baptized. In the Roman Catholic Church it is classified as a sacramental. The use of the Oil of Catechumens in the revised rite of admission of catechumens points not only to the influence of unreformed Catholicism in the Anglican Church in North America but also to the tendency toward ritualism in that denomination.

Compare the revised ACNA rite for the Admission of Catechumens with the Church of South India’s Office for Making a Catechumen. It is quite evident from such a comparison that the ACNA team that prepared the rite could have developed a more comprehensive rite that is acceptable to most if not all recognized schools of Anglican thought.

Constitution and Canons

Note that all the proposed changes to the constitutions, canons, and guidelines for the recognition of new ACNA judicatories contained in this report are highlighted in yellow.

The first thing that caught my attention was the words “with changes approved by the Executive Committee.” Nowhere in the ACNA constitution and canons is a provision requiring the Executive Committee’s approval of proposed changes to the ACNA governing documents. For the Executive Committee to vet proposed changes to these governing documents means that this body has taken upon itself a role that is both unconstitutional and uncanonical and points to the increasingly authoritarian governing structure of the Anglican Church in North America. It is a structure highly reminiscent of the structure of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. It is bad enough that only the Governance Task Force can initiate proposals for changes in these governing documents and not individual members of the Provincial Council or the Provincial Assembly. Such a structure greatly reduces the possibility of meaningful reform in the ACNA where it is needed.

The first proposed changes to the constitution appear to be designed to limit the options of groups of churches seeking recognition as a judicatory of the Anglican Church in North America. It would drop the term “cluster” from whether it appears in the ACNA constitution. It represents a major step toward the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic contiguous dioceses and the abolition of non-geographic affinity networks.

The second proposed amendment to the ACNA constitution changes when a new archbishop begins his term of office from the conclusion of the meeting of the College of Bishops at which he is elected to the conclusion of the meeting of the Provincial Assembly following that meeting. This enables the outgoing archbishop to preside over the Provincial Assembly and transfer “spiritual authority” to his successor with all the pomp and ceremony that the ACNA can muster for the occasion. It is quite evident from the related changes to the canons that this proposed amendment and those changes are designed to further elevate the office of the archbishop in the minds of ACNA clergy and laity. Considering the College of Bishops’ decision to elect a new archbishop in a solemn conclave modeled upon the meeting of the College of Cardinals that convenes to elect a new pope, one is prompted to wonder where the College of Bishops is going with these proposals.

A number of proposed changes to the canons are contained in the report. I will be touching upon only a few of them. I strongly recommend that readers closely examine all the proposed changes and thoughtfully consider their implications. 

Among the proposed changes is a tightening of the standards for for recognition of a group of churches as an ACNA judicatory. Under these proposed changes only in exceptional cases may the Provincial Council modify these requirements and then on a case by case basis and upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will be actually deciding whether or not the requirements should be modified and the Provincial Council approving or rejecting its decision. This is the kind of decision-making process that characterizes the Anglican Church in North America—small non-representative bodies making the real decisions and larger more representative bodies rubber stamping those decisions. In the parlance of the Soviet era Communist Party this was euphemistically known as “democratic centralism.”  It is also the way that the Roman Catholic Church’s governing structure operates.

A number of additions to the canons have been proposed.  They include an addition to Canon I.5:

Section 7 – Concerning Diocesan Sustainability

The Executive Committee shall review the annual Diocesan Reports with the objective of determining the sustainability of the several dioceses. The Executive Committee may open a dialogue with any diocese it feels is in need of assistance with the objective of strengthening its sustainability.

Note the additional role that this new section gives to the Executive Committee. 

This section opens the way to the Anglican Church in North America dissolving dioceses and networks that ACNA top leaders no longer regards as sustainable and reassigning their congregations to judicatories that top ACNA leaders view as capable of maintaining themselves at a desirable level (e.g. financially supporting the denomination). The provisions of this new section might also be used as leverage against judicatories withholding financial support from the denomination over a disagreement with the denomination.

Several additions are proposed to Canon I.6.2. The proposed additions are shown in italics.

Section 2 - Concerning Congregations

A congregation in this Church is a gathered group of Christians who have organized and function in accordance with the canons of this Church, attached to a diocese and under the oversight of a bishop. Every congregation of the Church belongs to the Church by union with a diocese of the Church or through a diocese-in-formation. A congregation of this Church is a gathering where the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance (Article XIX).

The first addition establishes the main ACNA requirements for a congregation. It is organized and functions in accordance with the ACNA canons, is attached to an ACNA diocese, and is under the oversight of an ACNA bishop. It lays the ground work for making the structure, organization, and governance of ACNA congregations more uniform. The second addition appears to be largely cosmetic and to have been included as an afterthought.

The use of the term diocese for all judicatories in the canons rather than diocese and network is noteworthy. The exclusive use of this term makes it easier to abolish affinity networks at a future date.

The wording of Canon I.6.7 is replaced with new language. Note that the new language no longer emphasizes the responsibility of individual congregations to replicate themselves and to plant new congregations. It shifts the responsibility for the planting of new churches to the diocese. It ties the provision of spiritual covering and practical assistance to new plants to the diocese’s missional strategies. It no longer includes criteria for determining the sustainability of new plants and assigns the development of such criteria to the bishop and the diocese.

The proposed changes to Canon I.6.8 make the congregation not its rector and church wardens responsible for submitting the annual report. Under these proposed changes the annual report would be submitted to denominational headquarters as well as to the bishop of the diocese in a form determined by the Executive Committee, not the Provincial Council. These proposed changes essentially create duplicate systems for reporting data. The provision requiring the Executive Committee to submit a report on the status and growth of the denomination to the archbishop rather than the Provincial Council, its official governing body, has been retained. It should be noted that the archbishop chairs the Executive Committee and has access to all the data that it receives. He himself is in a position to determine what goes into that report and what is withheld.

A new canon would be added to Title I.

Canon 12 Of Missionary Districts

On the recommendation of the College of Bishops and the Executive Committee, the Provincial Council may establish one or more Missionary Districts. Missionary Districts are intended to advance the ministry of the Province in extending the Kingdom of God into new areas of the Province or beyond. A Missionary District may be the initiative of one or more dioceses or may be the initiative of the Provincial Council on behalf of the Province. Where the initiative is of one or more dioceses, they shall provide episcopal oversight and financial support. Where the initiative is of the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops may elect a Bishop for Special Mission and the Province shall provide financial support. In establishing Missionary Districts care shall be taken not to intrude or conflict with the ministries of existing dioceses, congregations or other missions.

Note the lead role the College of Bishops and the Executive Committee play in the creation of Missionary Districts. Their recommendation is required before the Provincial Council can act to create such districts.

Note the insistence in the last sentence of the proposed new canon that care should be taken to ensure that Missionary Districts do not “intrude or conflict with the ministries of existing dioceses, congregations or other missions.” This provision can be expected to hamper the further creation of non-geographic affinity networks for the purpose of planting new congregations or maintaining particular theological stances and may be used to prevent their creation altogether. It also reflects outmoded views of how to extend the mission of congregations and to make their ministries more effective, particularly in the area of planting new congregations.

Those who drew up this proposed new canon do not appear to realize that the North American mission field in the twenty-first century is not the North American mission field in the twentieth century. Approaches that worked in the nineteenth and twentieth century are not going to work in the twenty-first century. The realities of the twenty-first century North American mission field demand greater flexibility and openness to new ideas and new approaches.

The addition of proposed new initial paragraph to Canon III.8.4 would require ACNA judicatories to obtain permission of the College of Bishops before proceeding with the election of any bishop. This provision would be applicable to the ordinary of the diocese or network as well as to coadjustor, suffregan, and assistant bishops. The paragraph establishing as the norm for new ACNA judicatories and as the preferred option for all ACNA judicatories the selection of a bishop for a new judicatory by the College of Bishops from a list of nominees submitted by the new judicatory is retained.

To the declaration in Canon III.8.5 this wording would be added:

“And I do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the Archbishop of this Church, and to his successors: So help me God.”

Under the provisions of the ACNA constitution the archbishop has very little authority and is essentially a presiding bishop with a fancy title. Nowhere in the constitution is the archbishop recognized to be the metropolitan of the province or to have metropolitical authority over the province.

The Governance Task Force has consistently used a provision of Article IX.3 of the constitution under which the archbishop may be assigned additional duties and responsibilities by canon to expand the role of archbishop well beyond the role for that office envisioned in the constitution. The current archbishop has during his term of office arrogated to himself powers that the constitution and canons do not give him or recognize as inherent in the office. The Governance Task Force has then regularized his unconstitutional and uncanonical actions with a series of changes in the canons. This wording treats the archbishop as if he is metropolitan of the province and has metropolitical authority over the province.

In its report the Governance Task Force argues that this oath of obedience to the archbishop is common to a number of Anglican provinces. It must be pointed out, however, that in these provinces the archbishop is recognized in the constitution of the province to be the metropolitan of the province and to have metropolitan authority over the province. (The exception is the Church of England in which recognition of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as the metropolitan of their respective provinces and having metropolitan authority over their respective provinces is found in its canons.) It must be reiterated that the ACNA constitution contains no such provision.

A new section would be added to the guidelines for recognition as an ACNA judicatory in the appendix to the canons:

2. Rational for Becoming a Diocese/Network or Diocese/Network “In Formation”.

Answers to the following five questions must be submitted along with the completed application.

(1) Is there a compelling missional reason for not becoming a part of an existing ACNA diocese in your geographic area?

(2) How will your application support the development of ACNA as one, united Biblical and missionary church reaching North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ?

(3) What other reasons do you have for forming a new diocese or diocese-in-formation?

(4) Are all of the diocesan bishops and vicar-generals of existing dioceses or diocese-in-formation which have churches in the geographic area where you are forming in agreement with your application?

(5) If not, what efforts have you made to address their concerns?

This new section represents a highly significant change to the guidelines. It basically discourages the formation of new judicatories in geographic areas where an ACNA judicatory or judicatory-in-formation already exists. It is designed to encourage groups of churches to join an existing judicatory or judicatory-in-formation rather than form their own diocese or network. It raises a substantial barrier to the continued formation of non-geographic affinity networks within the denomination and represents a major step toward the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographic contiguous dioceses and the abolition of non-geographic affinity networks.

What is also noteworthy is that the section directing groups of churches applying for recognition as an ACNA judicatory to submit two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops would select a bishop for the new judicatory is left untouched. The guidelines do not advise such groups of churches that they have the option of electing a bishop and then submitting the name of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation of his election. This suggests that the movement within the ACNA to replace election of bishops by the diocese with selection of bishops by the College of Bishops is strongly influencing the Governance Task Force. 

If selection of bishops by the College of Bishops became the primary if not sole method of choosing bishops, it would give the College of Bishops greater control over who became a member of that body and would greatly reduce the autonomy of the dioceses and networks in the Anglican Church in North America. It would also reduce the likelihood of meaningful reform in the ACNA. The College of Bishops would become a self-perpetuating body, admitting to the episcopal bench only those that met its particular requirements, not the needs of the diocese or network that they are to serve. It would enable a single faction or party to dominate the episcopate in the ACNA.

Governance

In this report the rationales for the proposed changes to the ACNA governing documents are offered. They warrant attention as they are likely to be used as talking points by ACNA leaders promoting these changes.

It is noteworthy that the present archbishop is a member of the Governance Task Force

Order for Confirmation

In the Preface in the proposed Order for Confirmation no mention is made of the need for those coming to the age of discretion and having learned what their sponsors promised for them in baptism, with their own mouth, and with their own consent, openly before the church to confirm and ratify these promises, and to promise by the grace of God to endeavor themselves faithfully observe and keep what they have assented to. This is essential to a proper Anglican understanding of the rite of Confirmation. The rite of Confirmation provides an opportunity for those baptized in infancy to make a profession of faith before the assembled church and to receive its prayers. This is how the English Reformers understood the rite and why they retained it. They rejected any notion that it was a sacrament.

The Preface claims that “Confirmation is evident in Scripture” and that the apostles practiced the rite. It further asserts that Confirmation is a sacrament—“this outward sign, the laying on of hands with prayer, has an inward grace, the strengthening of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

This same view is one of the reasons why the English Parliament rejected the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book: It was Anglo-Catholic in its theology of Confirmation. None of the historic Anglican formularies—the Articles of Religion of 1571, The Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, The Homily Concerning the Coming Down of the Holy Ghost and the Manifold Gifts of the Same for Whitsunday, and the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 support the notion that Confirmation is a sacrament.

In Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs J. I. Packer points out that it is a medieval mistake” to classify Confirmation as a sacrament. In Growing in Christ Packer further points out that Confirmation is not a part of scriptural initiation, noting that it “is not a biblical ordinance at all.”

The proposed Order for Confirmation clearly takes a partisan view of the rite of Confirmation, a view that is objectionable to Anglicans in the Reformed tradition.

For a brief examination of the origin of the rite of Confirmation, see my article, What does the new ACNA catechism teach about the sacraments? (Part 4).

Order for the Sacrament of Holy Baptism

The proposed Order for the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is problematic in a number of ways. The Exhortation infers that regeneration occurs at baptism, not upon coming to faith, as the new ACNA catechism teaches. Both views conflict with the Reformed view that the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration precede faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration are not tied to baptism. The new ACNA catechism ties the gift of the Holy Spirit to baptism, ignoring the scriptural teaching that the gift of Holy Spirit may be received apart from baptism.

The language of the Flood Prayer has been criticized by conservative evangelicals as suggesting that the water itself washes away sin. In the 1959 Free Church of England Prayer Book the Flood Prayer is omitted altogether. In Church Society’s An English Prayer Book (1994) the words of the 1662 baptismal rite, “…didst sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin” are replaced by these words: “…sanctified water to represent the washing away of sin….” 

The proposed ACNA baptismal rite’s version of the Flood Prayer omits the word “mystical,” strengthening the notion that the water itself washes away sin. This is consistent with the Anglo-Catholic notion that the Holy Spirit infuses the water in the font with the power to regenerate those baptized in it.

Compare this view with the historic Anglican view articulated in the 1552, 1559, and 1604 baptismal rites: “…grant that all thy servants which shall be baptized in this water, may receive the fullness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children….”  It parallels the view articulated in the Prayer of Consecration in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 communion services. Neither view ties the grace of the sacrament to the matter of the sacrament, water in the case of Baptism and the bread and wine in the case of the Holy Communion. They are consistent with a Reformed understanding of the sacraments.

The Prayer over the Water in the Font, like that prayer in the 1979 baptismal rite, is modeled upon a Eucharistic Prayer, or Prayer of Consecration. This prayer implies that the water undergoes a change when the prayer is said over it. It also infers that the consecrated water regenerates those baptized in it.

The post-baptismal prayer, “Heavenly Father, we thank you…” also infers that the newly baptized are regenerate by virtue of their baptism. This view, while consistent with the Anglo-Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, is not consistent with the teaching of the new ACNA catechism. It ties regeneration to faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit to baptism. Both views exclude the Reformed view that regeneration precedes faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit may be received apart from baptism.

It deserves special mention that the new ACNA baptismal rite incorporates elements that Bishop George David Cummins and the founders of the Reformed Episcopal Church viewed as evidence of incipient Roman Catholic doctrine in the 1789 baptismal rite. This was one of the reasons that they seceded from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church.

Like the proposed Order for Confirmation, the Order for the Sacrament of Holy Baptism takes a partisan view of the rite of Baptism.  This view is also objectionable to Anglicans in the Reformed tradition.

For a baptismal rite developed by Anglicans in the Reformed tradition, see A Service of Baptism for Infants and Children in the Diocese of Sydney’s Common Prayer: Resources for Gospel-Centered Gatherings (2012). The service begins on page 59.

Prayer Book & Liturgy

In its report the Prayer Book and Liturgy Taskforce acknowledge the need for further work on the proposed rites. Even a cursory examination of these rites like the one in this article points to the need for extensive revision of these rites if they are to be acceptable to Anglicans who subscribe to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies and stand in the Reformed tradition.

With these documents enough pieces of the puzzle have been put in place to have a clear picture of the present direction of the Anglican Church in North America. Those who believe that they can maintain an enclave for Anglicans in the Reformed tradition in the ACNA need to think again. The proposals contained in the reports in the Provincial Meeting Journal would make the maintenance of such an enclave an impossibility. Anglicans in the Reformed tradition clearly need to be taking concrete steps to establish a Reformed Anglican Church in the United States and Canada. The Anglican Church in North America displays no willingness to make room for them in that denomination.

See also
Issues Dividing the Anglican Church in North America
Assembly 2014: What’s to Celebrate?