Consolidation of the Anglican Church in North America—a Recipe for Disaster?

By Robin G. Jordan

I was reading the comment thread to a blog posted on Stand Firm in which one of the people leaving a comment made the assertion that clergy, congregations, and individuals dissatisfied with a particular ACNA bishop could transfer to the jurisdiction of another bishop. The proposed changes to the ACNA constitution and canons posted on the Internet barely a week before Assembly 2014, however, suggest that the days of this option are numbered. While clergy may continue to be able to transfer to another diocese and individuals to another church under the jurisdiction of a different bishop, congregations are going to find transferring to the jurisdiction of another bishop more difficult. The view expressed in this comment does not take into consideration changing realities in the Anglican Church in North America.

As I have noted in previous articles, a movement is discernible in the ACNA toward the consolidation of churches into geographically contiguous dioceses and the abolition of affinity networks. This includes the elimination of the option of affiliating with a diocese outside the territory (or geographic area) in which a church is located. To my knowledge the Diocese of Quincy and the Diocese of the Gulf South have provisions in their governing documents under which churches not within the territorial limits of the diocese may affiliate with the diocese.

The blog itself is related to the emergence of a culture in the Anglican Church in North America, which discourages the members of that denomination from drawing attention to problematic developments in the denomination or its mission partners and subjecting them to public scrutiny. The ACNA leadership has shown a willingness to go to great lengths to control and influence the perceptions of the ACNA members and outsiders of the denomination.

The ACNA leadership has to my knowledge (in a separate case from the one reported in the blog) pressured one member of the media to cease from publishing articles that it perceived as not supportive of its vision for the denomination and enlisted another such person to write an article supporting the denomination’s claim to be genuinely Anglican in the face of criticism that the denomination was emerging as an Independent Catholic Church. Since the publication of that article a growing body of evidence has shown that this criticism was justified.

The ACNA leadership has a longstanding problem with being open and transparent, which goes as far back as the days of the Common Cause Partnership. The ACNA leadership has kept the denomination’s membership in the dark about various proposals it has under consideration until it has acted on these proposals, preventing any organized opposition to develop to the proposals and leaving those affected by them with no choice but to accept them.

While consolidation in the Anglican Church in North America is in its very earliest stages, it can be expected to eventually lead to the merging of two or more dioceses by the dissolution of existing ones and creation of a single new diocese. A number of the proposals for changes to the ACNA canons that were unveiled in Constitution and Canons and Governance Task Force Reports in the 2014 Provincial Meetings Journal laid the groundwork for such consolidation.

These proposed changes to the ACNA canons included a proposal requiring dioceses to obtain prior approval of the College of Bishops before electing a new bishop, a proposal authorizing the Executive Committee to develop and enforce sustainability standards for dioceses,  a proposal making the recognition of a new diocese contingent upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee, a proposal outlining the procedure for the establishment of missionary districts, and a proposal changing the guidelines for the recognition of new dioceses, which discourages groups of churches from seeking recognition as a new diocese and encourages them to seek admission to an existing diocese. The ACNA has not yet announced on its website whether these proposals were approved by the Provincial Council and/or ratified by the Provincial Assembly.

All these proposals give the top ACNA leaders, those in the inner leadership circle, greater control over both existing and new dioceses in the ACNA. I suspect that some ACNA leaders, those not in this elite group, have not fully grasped the implications of these proposals and how they may affect their particular diocese.

Consolidation will not enhance the ability of the ACNA to plant more churches and to expand its population base. It will, however, simplify the task of imposing a rigid doctrinal uniformity on the denomination.

To date the ACNA College of Bishops has endorsed a number of documents that establish a form of unreformed Catholicism as the official doctrine of the denomination. They include the ACNA Catechism and the ACNA Texts for Common Prayer.

Among the reports in 2014 Provincial Meetings Journal were three reports containing proposed rites of admission of catechumens, baptism, and confirmation for use in the ACNA. These proposed rites are also unreformed Catholic in doctrine.

The use of the ACNA Catechism and the ACNA Texts for Common Prayer have not so far been mandated by canon and their use is not yet legally binding upon ACNA clergy and congregations. A bishop may seek to enforce their use within his jurisdiction but he does so on his own personal authority. He does not have the weight of provincial or diocesan canon behind him.

The provisions of Canon II.2.2 do not apply the ACNA Catechism and the language of the canon appears also rule out its application to the ACNA Texts for Common Prayer. The canon is so worded to allow the bishop to prohibit the use of certain rites and services but it does not authorize him to require the use of a particular service book.

Once the ACNA leadership takes steps to enact the use of the ACNA Catechism and the ACNA Texts for Common Prayer or its successor into canon law, requiring their use throughout the denomination, consolidation would facilitate the task of enforcing their use. Bishops who have reservations about their doctrine and are hesitant to use them in their dioceses would face not only pressure from their fellow bishops in the College of Bishops but a variety of sanctions.

They would be faced with the very real possibility that their diocese would be dissolved in the name of consolidation and its clergy and congregations incorporated into a newly-created diocese. Or their diocese would be forced to merge with another diocese and they would no longer be the bishop with jurisdiction over the diocese.

Clergy and congregations would find themselves in a diocese with a different culture from that of their previous diocese. They might also find themselves under the oversight of a bishop far less tolerant than their previous bishop.

The ACNA leadership is not known for its high regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. This deficit can be expected to add to the resulting tensions within the denomination.  

Congregations would no longer have the option of transferring to a friendlier diocese. They would be faced with the tough choice of abandoning their convictions and conforming to the official doctrine of the ACNA or withdrawing from the denomination.

While the ACNA canons permit congregations to transfer to another diocese or withdraw from the denomination, the ACNA constitution does not guarantee this right to congregations. It only guarantees to dioceses and sub-provinces the right to withdraw from the denomination (Article II.3). This right is not extended to missionary districts.

I do not know how many congregations have actually taken advantage of this option. The transfer of a congregation from one diocese to another requires the permission of the bishops involved (Canon I.6.9). A congregation must consult its bishop before it may withdraw from the denomination. This provision furnishes its bishop with the opportunity to take steps to discourage its withdrawal. This provision also increases the likelihood of a split in the congregation over whether it should withdraw from the denomination.

Consolidation would eliminate overlapping jurisdictions in the same territory (or geographic area).  It would in effect nullify the transfer provisions of Canon I.6.9. Only in a few rare cases would a congregation be able to transfer, such as if it moved to a different locality that was within the territorial limits of another diocese.

Article XII of the ACNA constitution does not entirely prohibit dioceses from holding the property of congregations in trust and making a claim of ownership if a congregation withdraws from the denomination. It only prohibits the denomination itself from holding property in trust and making such a claim.

The provisions of Article VIII and Article XII of the ACNA constitution make no mention of missionary districts and as a consequence may be interpreted as not applying to missionary districts. Indeed the fact missionary districts are not mentioned in the ACNA constitution raises question as to the constitutionality of their creation. While Article V empowers the Provincial Council to make canons ordering the common life of the denomination in respect to the proper administration of the denomination, it is debatable whether the creation of missionary districts falls under the provisions of this Article.

Clergy transferring to another diocese must present to its bishop a letter of transfer setting out their standing and character and signed by the bishop or standing committee of the diocese or other judicatory in which they were last canonically resident (Canon III.6.2.1) The transferring bishop must disclose to the accepting bishop any past or existing disciplinary matter or other impediment affecting the transferring clergy member’s ministry. (Canon III.6.2.2). The transferring bishop can be expected to inform the accepting bishop of any disagreements with the transferring clergy member over doctrine or other matters.

The outward appearance of unity that ACNA leaders have sought to maintain, in some cases at the expense of their integrity and the biblical orthodoxy and confessional Anglicanism of clergy and congregations in their charge, will begin to unravel. It will reveal itself for what it is—a costly façade.

Some ACNA leaders may explain away or rationalize the tensions resulting from the consolidation of ACNA churches into geographically contiguous dioceses and the imposition of rigid doctrinal uniformity on the denomination as “growing pains.” Others will seek to shift the blame from themselves to those most upset by these changes.

The ACNA may weather this crisis. The cost, however, is likely to be prohibitive in terms of damage to the denomination’s public image and reduction of its population base.