Episcopacy Out of Control in the Anglican Church in North America

How the Anglican Church in North America Is Creating Obstacles to Its Own Growth – Part 4

By Robin G. Jordan

In addition to a Provincial Assembly and a Provincial Council (see my previous article, "Introducing the ACNA's High Church Party"), the Anglican Church in North America has an Executive Committee, an Archbishop, and a College of Bishops. The Executive Committee is the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America’s non-profit corporation.

The Executive Committee consists of six clergy directors and six lay directors, elected by the Provincial Council from among its members. Their term of office is three years.

No elected member of the Executive Committee may serve more than two consecutive terms.

The staggering of its members’ terms of office precludes the Executive Committee’s introducing any meaningful reform. It also enables one faction or party to dominate the Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee is chaired by the Archbishop. The other denominational officers serve as ex officio non-voting members of the Executive Committee. Among its responsibilities the Executive Committee sets the agenda of the Provincial Council meetings.

Under the provisions of Article XIV of the ACNA constitution the Executive Committee is charged with warning dioceses and sub-provinces of the possibility of their expulsion from the Anglican Church in North America. (Unless specified otherwise, my use of the terms diocese or diocese in this article also includes affinity networks.) This gives muscle to a proposed canonical change authorizing the Executive Committee to “open conversations” with dioceses that in it estimation do not fit the criteria of sustainability.

The same proposal leaves the determination of these criteria to the Executive Committee. Presumably these criteria will primarily consist of the diocese's ability to support the office of its bishop and its ability to pay its share of the cost of operating the denomination.

This proposal enables the Executive Committee to pressure dioceses into transferring their clergy and congregations to another diocese and dissolving or merging with another diocese on the basis that they do not meet its criteria for sustainability. It gives the Executive Committee leverage over dioceses that refuse to pay their share of denominational operating costs in protest of developments in the ACNA.

Another proposed canonical change would make recognition as a new diocese of the ACNA contingent upon the recommendation of the Executive Committee. A third proposal tightens the requirements for recognition.

These last two proposals raise the bar for groups of congregations and their clergy seeking recognition as new ACNA dioceses and encourage them to join existing ACNA dioceses.

All three proposals represent a major step to consolidate ACNA churches into geographically contiguous dioceses and to abolish affinity networks.

The ACNA has not posted on its website what proposed constitutional and canonical changes were ratified by the 2014 Provincial Assembly. Based upon past experience, I am assuming that none were rejected.

Article IX of the ACNA establishes the office of Archbishop, his official designation, and the manner of his election. It sets his term of office and delineates his duties and responsibilities. The latter consist of convening the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops, representing the denomination “in the Councils of the Church,” and performing “such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

Nowhere in Article IX or elsewhere in the constitution is the Archbishop recognized as being the metropolitan of the Anglican Church in North America or as having metropolitical authority over the other bishops of the ACNA. Yet in the ACNA canons the Governance Task Force included a provision requiring the other ACNA bishops to take an oath of obedience to the Archbishop and in the canons and the model diocesan governing documents included provisions that give to the Archbishop powers, not “duties and responsibilities,” which exceed those of the typical Anglican metropolitan.

As I noted in my previous article the Governance Task Force is a main locus of influence for the special interest group that may be described as the High Church party in the ACNA.

Former Archbishop Duncan was not shy in claiming broad reserve or discretionary powers for himself during his term of office—powers that the constitution and canons did not grant the office of Archbishop or recognizing as inherent in that office. Both the Governance Task Force and former Archbishop Duncan sought to expand the role of Archbishop well beyond the role contemplated by Article IX.

The constitution of Anglican Provinces in which the Archbishop is a metropolitan formally recognize the Archbishop as being the metropolitan of the province and having metropolitical authority over the other bishops of the province. It is clearly stated in this governing document. The exception is the Church of England, which does not have a written constitution and which formally recognizes the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as being metropolitans of their respective provinces and having metropolitical authority over their respective provinces in its canons.

A similar provision could be incorporated into the ACNA constitution but for some reason the Governance Task Force has been reluctant to propose such a provision. The task force has to date offered no explanation for its hesitance. 

With the adoption of a solemn conclave to elect a new Archbishop, modeled upon the conclave of the Roman Catholic Church's College of Cardinals used to choose a new Pope, the aggrandizement of the Archbishop in the ACNA is getting out of hand.

The College of Bishops consists of all the bishops active in episcopal ministry in the Anglican Church in North America. The College of Bishops is another major locus of influence for the High Church party. The influence of this special interest group is behind the College of Bishops’ claiming for itself decision-making powers that the constitution does not grant to the College or recognize as belonging by nature to that body.

Article X.1 of ACNA constitution identifies the chief work of the College of Bishops as propagating and defending the faith and order of the Church” and serving as “the visible sign and expression of the unity of the Church.” Article X.3 empowers the College of Bishops to elect an Archbishop from the active bishops in the denomination and Article X.5 empowers the College to confirm the election of a bishop elected by a diocese and in certain cases to elect a bishop for a diocese from a slate of two or three candidates nominated by the diocese. This is the extent of its powers.

Canon I.3.1 authorizes the College “to order its life and develop such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for its life and work.” Canon II.2.2 states:

“It is understood that there is a diversity of uses in the Province. In order to use these rich liturgies most advantageously, it is the responsibility of the Bishop with jurisdiction to ensure that the forms used in Public Worship and the Administration of the Sacraments be in accordance with Anglican Faith and Order and that nothing be established that is contrary to the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”

The provisions of Canon II.2.2 apply to the rites and services presently in use in the denomination. They charge the ordinary of the diocese with ensuring the rites and services used in his diocese are “in accordance with Anglican faith and order” and their doctrine is agreeable “to the Word of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures,” an unfortunate choice of phrase as it suggests that the Bible contains the Word of God, a liberal view of the Bible, rather is the Word of God written, the view of the Articles of Religion.

A diligent search of the ACNA constitution and canons reveals no provision granting the College of Bishops authority to delegate to any commission, committee, or task force the development of rites and services for the denomination, the establishment of guidelines for ordination in the denomination, or the drafting of a catechism for the denomination. Nor does it reveal any provision granting the College of Bishops authority to supervise the work of such commissions, committees, and task forces, to approve the end-products of that work, and to require the use of these end-products throughout the denomination. The constitution, however, clearly and unequivocally grants this authority to the Provincial Council (Article V).

In wrongfully taking the authority of the Provincial Council, the College of Bishops is arguably liable for violation of the provisions of the constitution and contravention of the canons. However, I do not see the bishops making presentments against themselves any time in the foreseeable future.

While the College of Bishops may claim that its decisions have legal efficacy or force, they are not binding upon the denomination under the provisions of its constitution and canons. To have that effect, they must be incorporated into a canon and the canon approved by the Provincial Council and ratified by the Provincial Assembly. Individual bishops may try to enforce the decisions of the College of Bishops within their own jurisdiction but even in their own diocese they are not on firm ground.

Nothing in the ACNA constitution and canons, however, prevents a diocesan synod or its equivalent from incorporating a decision of the College of Bishops into the governing documents of the diocese but this action only makes that particular decision binding upon the diocese.

Members of the College of Bishops may appeal to the precedent of the councils of the early Church. However, the College is not a council of the early Church. It is subject to the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America and is legally and morally bound by these governing documents.

The College of Bishops cannot, like a conference of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, issue binding decrees. Even in the Roman Catholic Church such decrees must be issued in accordance with canon law and require the approval of the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church—the Pope.

What we have here is the reappearance of an old problem that has beset the Anglican Church since the seventeenth century, bishops seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of another duly-constituted body that has authority over the Church. In the seventeenth century, that body was Parliament.

The Anglican Church in North America has two types of middle judicatories—the diocese and the network. The ACNA originally had a third type of middle judicatory—the cluster. Among the latest proposals for amending the ACNA constitution was a proposal that eliminated this type of middle judicatory. I am presuming that this proposal was adopted by the Provincial Council and ratified by the Provincial Assembly this past June.

“A middle judicatory is an administrative structure or organization found in a religious denominations between the local congregation and the widest or highest national or international level. The term is meant to be neutral with regard to polity, though it derives from Presbyterianism where the local, regional and national bodies are themselves respectively higher courts.

Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication.”

Those who identify themselves as Anglicans have historically been divided into two schools of thought on the relationship of middle judicatories and local congregations in the Anglican Church. Those who are unreformed Catholic in their beliefs hold that the local congregation derives its existence from the diocese and is subordinate to the diocese.

In this view the local congregation is an extension of the diocese and is ancillary to the diocese. In the latter role the local congregation provides necessary support to the primary activities or operation of the diocese.

The diocese itself is a particular district over which a bishop exercises authority and provides oversight. The diocese derives its existence from the bishop.

The ministry of the clergy in the diocese, in this view, is an extension of the ministry of the bishop. They essentially function as his assistants.

The bishop ultimately derives his authority from the apostles to whom he is a successor, receiving this authority in the form of a special anointing or gift of the Holy Spirit at his consecration through the laying on hands by bishops who stand in an unbroken line of succession from the apostles.

The High Church party in the Anglican Church in North America to a large part holds this view or it has influenced their thinking.

This view, I would add, has no real Scriptural basis. It is an example of what Tractarian-turned-Roman Catholic John Henry Newman described as doctrinal development. Newman used this theory to justify unreformed Catholic beliefs and practices that his critics dismissed as innovations or corruptions.

Those who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their beliefs hold that a diocese is the creature of the local congregations forming the diocese and is an instrument of these congregations. It is basically a voluntary association of local congregations established for commonly-agreed-upon purposes.

Among its primary functions is to support the ministry and mission of the local congregations constituting the diocese, to expand their ministry and mission, and thereby to enable the local congregations to be more effective and have greater impact.

The role of the bishop is defined in the instruments of governance adopted by the associated congregations. The bishop typically has limited authority and his exercise of authority is subject to constitutional and canonical restraints. He is not above the law but must operate within the law.

Like the English Reformers those who hold this view find nothing in Scripture mandating episcopacy or any other form of church government. Like the benchmark Anglican divine Richard Hooker, they do not believe that episcopacy belongs to “the essence of Christianity.” At the same time they find nothing in the Scriptures that precludes the retention of bishops.

Those who hold this view also find nothing in the Scriptures mandating a particular way of aligning congregations within a denomination. Indeed the concept of a denomination is not discernible in the Bible. Only local congregations and loose associations of these congregations are mentioned in the New Testament. On the other hand, the Bible does not prohibit the organization of local congregations into denominations and middle judicatories.

What the Bible does mandate is proclaiming the gospel to all humanity and making disciples of all people groups. What best enables local congregations to fulfill this divine mandate is the guiding biblical principle for organizing local congregations into larger groupings.

Dioceses in the Anglican Church in North America are organized on the basis of territory. Each diocese comprises a particular region of North America. Networks, on the other hand, are organized on the basis of affinity—a pre-existing relationship between the local congregations forming the network. The governing documents of the ACNA do not make provision for the formation of networks on the basis of common vision and goals or particular theological stands.

Within the Anglican Church in North America is a movement to consolidate all local congregations into geographically contiguous dioceses, to abolish existing affinity networks, and to discourage the formation of affinity networks in the future. This is evident in the latest proposed changes to the ACNA constitution and canons. Considering the role that the High Church party is playing in spearheading this movement and the references to “catholicity” in the arguments of those promoting its objectives, the motivation for seeking these changes appears to primarily ecclesiological.

The special interest group that stands to benefit the most from such changes is also the High Church party. Part of its agenda is to impose a rigid doctrinal uniformity upon the ACNA and the reorganization of the ACNA along these lines would go a long way toward helping it achieve this goal. It would also strengthen the grip of the High Church party on the College of Bishops and the Provincial Council. It would eliminate even remotest possibility of opposition to its agenda developing in the Provincial Assembly.

Whether such reorganization would help the ACNA to plant more biblically-orthodox, gospel-centered, outward-focused congregations and to expand its population base is doubtful. On the contrary, it is likely to have the opposite effect.

The elimination of existing and future affinity networks would prevent local congregations and their clergy from pulling out of the Anglican Church in North America together and would force them to leave individually.

It is often argued that local congregations and their clergy are free to leave the ACNA, taking their buildings and other property with them, and the possibility of losing local congregations and their clergy acts as a check upon those who are seeking to move the denomination further in a particular direction that others do not welcome or accept.

To date this possibility has not served as the deterrent that some claim that it is. The reorganization of the ACNA along exclusively diocesan lines would further weaken its deterrent value. 

The challenges of functioning as a completely independent local congregation are daunting enough to act as a deterrent to local congregations and their clergy leaving the ACNA.

It also should be noted that Article XII of the ACNA constitution does not entirely prohibit a diocese from seizing the property of a departing congregation.

“Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.”

Article IV.4 of the ACNA constitution permits the middle judicatories of the Anglican Church in North America to band together for common mission, or as distinct jurisdictions at the sub-Provincial level. The ACNA has three such sub-provinces—the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), PEAR-USA, and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).

A number of voices in various quarters of the ACNA are calling for the dissolution of these sub-provinces and the full integration of their congregations and clergy into the ACNA. Support for this change is not entirely confined to the High Church party, which appears to be one of its leading supporters.

Whether dissolution of these sub-provinces would help the ACNA to plant more biblically-orthodox, gospel-centered, outward-focused congregations and to expand its population base is also doubtful. It would, however, discourage local congregations and their clergy from leaving the ACNA over future developments in the denomination as well as further the agenda of the High Church party.

Through its form of government, the actions of its Archbishop and its College of Bishops and the acquiescence or active cooperation of the Provincial Council in these actions the Anglican Church in North America is hampering its ability to expand its population base and to maintain healthy, long-term growth.

Prospective members of the ACNA who take the time to closely examine the province-in-formation’s form of government and how operates are likely to think twice about joining the ACNA if how a denomination is governed matters to them. If they value constitutionalism and the rule of law and the sharing of the governance of the Church by the whole Body of Christ, clergy and laity together, they are likely to conclude that the ACNA is not the denomination for them.

Those who join the ACNA without examining the province-in-formation’s form of government and how it operates are likely to draw the same conclusions over time. They may persuade themselves at first that it does not matter. What matters is that the denomination is planting new churches.

But eventually it will become clear to them that a denomination which has a low regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law and is unwilling to give to the laity a significant role in its governance really does not value those that its churches are ostensibly seeking to evangelize and disciple. They are primarily prospective giving units and pew occupants.

It will also become clear to those who join the ACNA without examining the denomination's form of government and its way of operating that the denomination does not value them either and sees them in the same light.

Prospective and existing members of the ACNA who take the time to compare the province-in-formation’s form of government and how it operates with the forms of government of other denominations and how they operate cannot help but note the similarities between the way that the ACNA is governed and the way that the Roman Catholic Church is governed. As I have previously noted, the Roman Catholic Church does not give its laity a significant role in the governance of the denomination.

Since the revelation that the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy deliberately concealed the wide-spread sexual abuse of children by clergy of that denomination, concerned laity have called for a greater role for the laity in the governance of the denomination at the parish, diocesan, and archdiocesan levels.

Defenders of prelacy in the Roman Catholic Church have responded by pointing to the Anglican Church and its problems and blaming these problems on the role that the Anglican Church gives to the laity in ecclesiastical governance. The Roman Catholic Church’s present form of church government they argue has prevented these problems from occurring in the Roman Catholic Church.

During the Common Cause Partnership phase of the Anglican Church in North America members of the ACNA High Church party championing the proposed constitution and canons also blamed the laity for developments in the Episcopal Church. They either downplayed or ignored the substantial role that the bishops and other clergy of the Episcopal Church had played in these developments.

Liberal bishops violated the canons of that denomination and ordained openly gay clergy and permitted the blessing of same sex liaisons in their dioceses. The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops refused to discipline them. Liberal seminary professors taught liberal theology to seminarians and liberal clergy taught this theology to their parishioners.

What happened in the Episcopal Church points to the need not for a prelatical form of church government but the teaching of biblical doctrine, the subscription of clergy and other church leaders to historic Anglican doctrinal standards, and the enforcement of church discipline. The ACNA’s prelatical form of church government has to date failed to meet this need.

As can be seen, the form of church government that the Anglican Church in North America has adopted and how it operates is erecting a number of barriers to the expansion of the denomination’s population base and its maintenance of healthy, long-term growth. It discourages people from becoming a part of the ACNA and if they are already a part of the ACNA from remaining a part of the denomination.

The more the High Church party seeks to impose its agenda on the ACNA, the greater the likelihood we will begin to see the wholesale exodus of clergy and congregations. Such an exodus would draw attention to the problems of the ACNA and would affect its public image.

Right now clergy and congregations no longer happy and willing to support ACNA leaders and the direction in which they are taking the denomination have nowhere to go. This could change with the creation of a viable alternative to the ACNA, an alternative that makes ample room for Anglicans who are Reformed or otherwise Protestant in their beliefs and displays a genuine commitment to the Great Commission as well as is synodical in its form of church government and values constitutionalism and the rule of law and the sharing of the governance of the Church by the entire Body of Christ.

See also

Introducing the ACNA's High Church Party

"But Are They Bible Christians?"

How the Anglican Church in North America Is Creating Obstacles to Its Own Growth - Part 1