How the Anglican
Church in North America Is Creating Obstacles to Its Own Growth – Part 5
By Robin G. Jordan
I am going to jump over how the Anglican Church in North America is erecting barriers to
its own growth in its worship and take a look at another important area in
which the ACNA is erecting such barriers—clergy.
Canon III.5.4 of the ACNA canons creates a fast track to
episcopal ministry in the ACNA for bishops from denominations not in communion
with the ACNA. All that is required is that they receive the consent of the
College of Bishops and the denomination’s canons are followed. The ACNA,
however, has no canons relating to such bishops other than this canon.
The College of Bishop’s recognition of the orders of Bishops
Richard Lepka and Derek Jones and its reception of these two bishops into the
ACNA shows the willingness of ACNA bishops to admit to the episcopal bench
bishops whose orders are not recognized by existing Anglican provinces and who
have no commitment to the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of
the Anglican Church as evidenced in the classic Anglican formularies and
authentic historic Anglicanism. For a further discussion of the issues involved
in the recognition of their orders and their reception, see “More than One Episcopi Vagantes Bishop in the Anglican Church in North America” (Anglicans Ablaze, August 31, 2010)
Other clergy from denominations not in communion with the
ACNA must prove their theological qualifications and satisfactorily complete an
examination in Holy Scripture, Church History, Anglican Church History, Doctrine,
Liturgics, Moral Theology and Ethics, Ascetical Theology, Practical Theology,
and the Missionary Work of the Church. They must be re-ordained if their orders
are not recognized.
The preferential treatment that the Anglican Church in North
America shows bishops, especially bishops of like-mind to the members of the
College of Bishops, is not lost on those who take time to carefully examine
ACNA policies toward clergy of other denominations. The view of episcopal ministry articulated in
Canon II.8.2 of the ACNA canons may in part explain the College of Bishops’
willingness to give special treatment to bishops like Lepka and Jones.
Canon III.8.2 describing the ministry of bishops is a
paraphrase of corresponding canon in the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon
Law and expresses a Roman Catholic view
of episcopal ministry. It takes the view that bishops “are consecrated for the
whole Church and are successors of the Apostles through the grace of the Holy
Spirit given to them.”
This unreformed Catholic view of apostolic succession
appears to carry more weight with ACNA bishops than the English Reformers’
Protestant view of apostolic succession. To the English Reformers bishops stand
in succession to the apostles only in so far as they uphold apostolic doctrine.
In this particular view all ordained clergy and non-ordained
gospel workers who pass on apostolic teaching are successors to the apostles.
What matters most is the soundness of their doctrine.
The ACNA’s preferential treatment of bishops and its
unreformed Catholic doctrinal views are self-imposed barriers to its growth.
They keep away evangelical and Reformed clergy who might have helped the
denomination expand its population base and maintain healthy, long-term growth.
They also discourage from contributing to the ACNA’s church
planting efforts evangelical and Reformed Christians who have previously
pioneered new churches and are experienced gospel workers. These folks can make
a significant difference to a new church plant during its initial years when it
is most vulnerable to failure.
The ACNA constitution and canons prescribe two methods for
choosing bishops. The first method is election of the bishop by the diocese
itself and confirmation of the bishop-elect by the College of Bishops. This
method has a long history in North America and is most ancient of the two
methods of choosing bishops.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this particular
method. When adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the biblically
orthodoxy of the candidates and the electing body and the candidates have been
thoroughly investigated to see that they meet the particular requirements of
the diocese, this method can produce as good a results as any other method if
not better.
A gathering of biblically-orthodox clergy and laity, whether
a diocesan synod or council, diocesan electoral college, or diocesan board of
electors, are just as qualified to choose a bishop for a diocese as the bishops
of the province or a committee of these bishops. A gathering of such clergy and
laity from the local congregations of the diocese will also be more familiar
with the diocese, its problems, and its needs.
The only role that the bishops of the province need to play
in the process is to confirm that the bishop-elect meets the constitutional and
canonical requirements for a bishop and to consecrate the new bishop.
What is notable about the ACNA approach to this particular
method of choosing a bishop is that the canons do not require the College of
Bishops to provide an explanation to a diocese if the College of Bishops does
not confirm the election of a bishop-elect for the diocese. They only require
the College of Bishops to notify the diocese of its action in writing.
Among the latest proposed changes to the canons was a
proposal requiring a diocese to obtain permission from the College of Bishops
in order to elect a bishop. This proposal would further weaken the autonomy of
the several diocese of the Anglican Church in North America.
A noteworthy trend in the Anglican Church in North America
is the provisions in the provincial canons and the model diocesan constitution
and canons and proposed changes to the provincial canons, which encroach upon
diocesan autonomy. The autonomy of the diocese was a major point of contention
between conservative Episcopalians who left the Episcopal Church and formed the
ACNA and liberal Episcopalians who remained in the Episcopal Church.
The autonomy of the diocese is one of the issues in the
property litigation between the Episcopal Church and departing dioceses. Under
the circumstances one would have expected the ACNA to take steps to protect and
strengthen the autonomy of its dioceses. This, however, has not been the case.
The second method is election of the bishop by the College
of Bishops from a slate of two or three candidates nominated by the diocese. The
canons commend this method to dioceses that presently elect their own bishops
and establish it as normative for new dioceses.
This method is sometimes touted as based upon the method of
episcopal election used in the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Church of
Uganda. It, however, has antecedents in the way that bishops are chosen in the
Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The variation of this method used in the Anglican Church of
Rwanda is far from indigenous to Africa. It is traceable to the Roman Catholic
Church. The Rwandan canons were the work of a former Roman Catholic AMiA priest
and incorporate many provisions from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon
Law.
During the ACNA’s Common Cause Partnership phase and before
the AMiA’s break with the ACNA and eventually with the Anglican Church of
Rwanda, members of the High Church party and even self-identified evangelicals
touted what they perceived to be the advantages of “African” models. A
correlation was seen between the biblical orthodoxy of the African provinces,
their explosive growth, and the strong leadership of the African bishops.
Those who admire the strong leadership of the African
bishops do not take into consideration the cultural differences between Africa
and North America. Africa is a subcontinent where traditional “big men” have
maintained sway over all levels of society for thousands of years. They include
district chiefs, sheiks, and other traditional leaders as well as Pharaohs,
kings, paramount chieftains, sultans, dictators, and strongmen. Traditional
African cultural values have shaped the role of archbishop and bishop in the
African Church.
A number of those advocating “African” models appear to be
motivated by a pre-existing inclination toward prelatical episcopacy. The
models that they are advocating prove upon closer examination to have
non-African origins. They owe more to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
Churches and in some cases corporate America than to the African Church.
Presenting them as “African” models appears to be intended to persuade the
gullible into accepting them or to curry favor with the Africans bishops.
The African provinces by their own report are no longer
enjoying the spectacular growth that they once did. The African Church has its
own share of problems. Stephen Noll in an article on his blog warned that the
African bishops have a lot to learn about the use of episcopal authority. Since
2006 a number of cases of African bishops abusing their episcopal authority
have come to light.
Adopting “African” models is not the panacea for the ills of
the Western Church that some naively think it is. This is not to say that we
cannot learn from the Africans but we need to learn from their mistakes as well
as their successes. We also need to recognize that some approaches that may be
effective in Africa are not going to be effective outside of Africa.
As far as bishops were concerned, the 1888 Lambeth
Conference in Resolution 11 stressed the importance of the local adaptation of
the historic episcopate “in the methods of its administration to the varying
needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.”
It recognizes that what may be a workable model for the episcopate in one area
of the world may not in another area of the world.
This is one reason why a wide variation in the way bishops
are chosen is found from province to province, even from diocese to diocese, in
the global Anglican Church. It is also one of the reasons that in some Anglican
provinces and dioceses bishops must retire upon reaching a certain age and may
be limited to a fixed term of office.
While the ACNA canons permit a diocese to nominate a slate
of two or three candidates when the second method of choosing a bishop is used,
the canons do not require the College of Bishops to elect one of these
candidates. The College of Bishops may reject all of the candidates.
The canons do not detail what procedure the College of
Bishops should follow in the event the College does reject the entire slate of
candidates. Presumably a diocese would have to nominate a fresh slate of
candidates if the College of Bishops rejected its first slate of candidates
and to nominate a third slate of
candidates if the College rejected the new slate of candidates.
A diocese might have to nominate several slates of
candidates until the diocese nominates a candidate to the College of Bishop’s
liking. The College of Bishops is not required to provide a written explanation
to the diocese of why the College rejected a candidate.
The canons do not prohibit the College of Bishops from at
some point nominating a candidate of its own for the office of bishop of a
diocese and electing that candidate. While it was argued in the weeks leading
up to the adoption of the draft constitution and canons that Article IV of the
ACNA recognizing the right of dioceses to establish and maintain its own
governance, constitution and canons precluded this development, subsequent
events have shown that the College of Bishops has little respect for the
provisions of the constitution and canons. A case in point is former Archbishop Robert Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Frank Lyons as vicar-general for the Diocese of Western Anglicans.
The canons also require that a diocese’s governance,
constitution, and canons must be consistent with the provisions of the
constitution and canons of the denomination. The ACNA’s present form of
government and its particular way of operating leave open the very real
possibility that “future canons may
require each grouping to write a constitution and canons in support of the
Provincial Constitution and Canons.”
As I noted earlier in this article, a discernible trend in
the ACNA is the erosion of diocesan autonomy. There is a recognizable movement
toward the centralization of authority in the ACNA.
What began as a loose confederation of relatively autonomous
groups of congregations and clergy is being molded into an ecclesiastical
organization that resembles the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Whether the centralization of authority and reorganization along the lines of
these unreformed Catholic denominations will enable the ACNA to plant more
biblically-orthodox, gospel-centered, outward-focused churches, expand its
population base, and enjoy healthy, long-term growth is highly debatable.
As well as greatly weakening the autonomy of dioceses in the
Anglican Church in North America, the second method of choosing bishops gives
the College of Bishops greater control over who became a member of that body.
It allows the College of Bishops to become a self-perpetuating body, admitting to the episcopal bench only those that met its particular requirements, not the needs of the diocese that they are to serve.
This method also reduces the likelihood of meaningful reform in the ACNA. It enables a single faction or party to dominate the episcopate in the
ACNA.
It is not surprisingly that this method is championed by the High
Church party, a special interest group in the ACNA. This special interest group
has been pushing its agenda on the ACNA.
Among the priorities of this special interest group is to
impose a rigid uniformity in doctrine and practice on the ACNA with a Catechism
that teaches unreformed Catholic doctrine or permits the teaching of that
doctrine, as well an Ordinal and a Prayer Book that is unreformed Catholic in
doctrine or open to interpretation in an unreformed Catholic sense and which
mandates unreformed Catholic practices or allows them. This special interest
group seeks to consolidate the churches of the ACNA into geographically
contiguous dioceses with each diocese under the oversight of a bishop picked by the College of
Bishops and canonically obedient to the Archbishop.
The High Church party also seeks to weaken the autonomy of
the dioceses forming the Anglican Church in North America, to increase the
power of the College of Bishops and the Archbishop, and to organize the ACNA
along the lines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. This
special interest group’s aggressive pursuit of its aims is far from altruistic:
It puts its preferences first, not the well-being of the denomination.
All of these developments in the Anglican Church in North
America are erecting barriers of their own to the growth of the ACNA, increasing the difficulty of
expanding its population base and of maintaining healthy, long-term growth.
The kind of church that the High Church party is working
assiduously to create has limited appeal outside of this special interest
group. It is essentially consigning the Anglican Church in North America to a
very small denominational niche.
This is what happened to the Continuing Anglican Churches.
When the tiny segment of the population that formed their base began to dwindle
as the result of ill-health, death, or defection to another denomination, they began
to decline.
In the next article in this series we will examine the ways that the disciplinary canons of the ACNA threaten its growth.
See also
No comments:
Post a Comment