By Robin G. Jordan
The communiqué from the Anglican Church in North America’s College
of Bishops’ recent Orlando meeting included under the heading of “College
Affairs” this statement:
We then turned our attention to the development of a process for the care of a bishop’s soul should discipline be required for an act committed against our Lord and His Church. More information about the process can be found at this link. No member of the College is presently under disciplinary measures, thus making it a helpful time to develop a pastoral process.
What struck me about this process was its high potential for
abuse. This particular section merits comment.
Then, when deemed right by the Archbishop, an appointed time is determined for the reconciliation of the bishop and his reception back into the fellowship of bishops.
And, if deemed appropriate by the Archbishop, with the College of Bishops in agreement, the full and complete restoration of the bishop to his office.
The provisions of the Anglican Church in North America’s
constitution and canons do not give the College of Bishops the authority to
make this kind of rule nor do the provisions of these governing documents
recognize this authority as inherent in the College of Bishops. Under the terms of Canon I.3.1 the College of
Bishops “may order its life and develop such rules and procedures as it deems
appropriate for its life and work.” What the College of Bishops is proposing to
do in this resolution goes beyond the scope of Canon I.3.1. It is matter that
should be dealt with in a canon, adopted by the Provincial Council, and ratified
by the Provincial Assembly.
The provisions of ACNA’s governing documents do not give the
Archbishop authority to determine the time for the reconciliation of a bishop
and his reception back into the College of Bishops nor do they recognize this
authority as inherent in the office of Archbishop. They also do not give the
College of Bishops authority to sanction such an action nor do they recognize
this authority as inherent in the College of Bishops.
With this resolution the College of Bishops is essential
arrogating to the Archbishop and itself authority to which the Archbishop and
the College of Bishops have no legitimate claim. Should the Archbishop and the
College of Bishops apply this procedure in the case of a bishop under
disciplinary measures, they themselves would be contravening the constitution
and violating the canons and would guilty of a chargeable offense under the
provisions of these governing documents.
This is not the first time that the College of Bishops has
sought to arrogate to itself authority that it has no legitimate right to
claim. I have in a number of previous articles documented several instances
where the College of Bishops has colluded with the Archbishop and contravened
the constitution and violated the canons. Disregard for constitutionalism and
the rule of law appears to have become a part of the leadership culture of the
Anglican Church in North America as has a lack of transparency.
The Anglican Church in North America has its share of dishonest,
unscrupulous bishops. I have received credible reports about bishops who were
not straightforward with people in their dealings, who have discriminated against
ordination candidates because of their adherence to the Protestant and Reformed
principles of the Anglican Church, principles which are based on the Scriptures
and articulated in the Anglican formularies, and who have attempted to replace
pastors who held to these principles with Anglo-Catholic clergy.
I personally have had dealings with a ACNA bishop who lied
to me in such an easy, smooth way to suggest that I was not the first person to
whom he had lied nor that it was the first occasion on which he had told a lie.
The same bishop now occupies a high position in the ACNA hierarchy.
I cringe at every reference to the Anglican Church in North
America’s “godly bishops” that I read on the Internet. The Scriptures do not
identify a lying tongue as a mark of godliness. Hosea 4:2 lists widespread
lying as an indicator of the degraded state into which the people of Israel
have fallen. In his letter to the Church at Ephesus Paul urges the Ephesians, “Since
you put away lying, Speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are
members of one another” (Ephesians 4:25). In Revelation 22:15 we read that not
only “the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers” and “the idolaters”
will be barred from the heavenly city but also “everyone who loves and
practices lying.”
The Anglican Church in North America’s bishops do not
deserve the adulation that they receive from certain quarters of the ACNA. They
are fallible men like everyone else. They are inclined to sin like everyone
else. They can and do make mistakes. They can and do sin.
The College of Bishops has shown no inclination to charge
any of its members with what the canons identify as chargeable offenses, which
include contravention of the constitution and violation of the canons. Arguably
it would take a loud public outcry to force the College of Bishops to take such
action against one of the bishops. To date the bishops’ cavalier attitude
toward the province’s governing documents has not prompted such an outcry. Even
if that should eventually happen, who is going to inhibit the College of
Bishops, file presentments against it, and try it—the bishops themselves? Irreparable
damage has already been done to the Anglican Church in North America’s leadership
culture.
One way to require greater accountability from the College
of Bishops would be change the provisions of Article X.5 and limit the College
of Bishops to confirming that a bishop-elect meets the canonical requirements
for the office of bishop and to appointing a new bishop for a diocese only in
the case where the diocese is unable to agree on a new bishop and asks the
College of Bishops to select a new bishop for it or where a diocese fails to elect
a new bishop in a reasonable period of time such as within two years after a
vacancy occurs. Such a constitutional change would be in keeping with the
principle of subsidiarity to which the College of Bishops gives lip service but
which it ignores in practice. A mandatory retirement age should also be
incorporated into the constitution and the freedom of dioceses to impose other
term limits on their bishops recognized and affirmed. This includes requiring
periodic reviews of a bishop’s performance and the extension of a bishop’s term
of office on the basis of the outcome of that review and with the agreement of
the diocesan synod.
A practice that might also be implemented at the diocesan
level is the requirement that a bishop-elect sign a letter of resignation and
submit it to the diocese’s chancellor. In the event a bishop’s performance
review was unsatisfactory and the diocesan synod determined not to extend his
term of office, it would vote to accept the bishop’s resignation and initiate
the procedure leading up to the election of a new bishop. In the case of a
diocesan bishop a diocesan administrator appointed by the diocesan synod would
carry out the administrative duties of the diocesan bishop until his successor
was elected and took office.
Such provisions would give the diocese other options to rid
itself of an unsatisfactory bishop beside presentment, trial, and removal of a
bishop for a chargeable offense. A diocesan synod can call for a bishop’s
resignation but it cannot force his resignation. No diocese should have to endure
a bishop who shows himself to be unsuited for this important position of
leadership in the diocese. Every diocese should have a procedure by which it
can terminate its relationship with a bishop if it needs to take that step. The
final decision on who should serve as a bishop of the diocese should be the
diocese’s.
Such provisions would also ensure a steady flow of fresh
leaders at the provincial and diocesan levels. They would not allow a
particular group or party to dominate the College of Bishops and control who
becomes a member of that body.
The problem is that the College of Bishops controls the
legislative process in the Anglican Church in North America. Only legislation
that it endorses is brought before the Provincial Council and eventually to the
Provincial Assembly. There is no likelihood that the College of Bishops would
permit the introduction of such a reform package, much less its approval,
ratification, and implementation.
Congregations and clergy who do not hold to the ideology
that the College of Bishops espouses and do not agree with the way that it is
running the province have one choice. They can withdraw from the Anglican
Church in North America and form a second alternative North American Anglican province,
affiliate with another denomination, or become an independent Anglican church.
This may be more difficult for some congregations than others as property
canons vary from diocese to diocese and Article XII protects property rights of
a congregation against the claims of the province but not those of the diocese.
Secession from the diocese and secession from the Anglican
Church in North America is at the present time the only disciplinary measure
that congregations and clergy in the ACNA can take against individual bishops
and the College of Bishops. It is also the only way that they can register a
vote of no-confidence against individual bishops and the College of Bishops.
After the experience of leaving the Anglican Church of
Canada or the Episcopal Church in the USA, congregations and clergy that are
unhappy with developments in the ACNA may be reluctant to break with the ACNA.
The College of Bishops is presently taking advantage of their reluctance to impose
an unreformed Catholic ideology upon the denomination, an ideology that affects
the important areas of faith, doctrine, liturgy, and governance. If they do not
want to be a part of such an ideological system, they have at this stage little
choice but to leave. They have no hope of changing it from within.
It should be quite evident by now that the major goal of the
Anglican Church in North America’s present leadership is to gradually rid the
denomination of those who defend and uphold the Protestant and Reformed
principles of the Anglican Church, which are based on the Scriptures and are
articulated in the Anglican formularies. They clearly discriminated against this
group of congregations and clergy in the ACNA’s liturgy and catechism.
It should be equally as evident that the ACNA’s present
leadership also not interested in making room in the ACNA for those who are
committed to the principle that the government of the Christian community
properly belongs under God to the Church as a whole, both clergy and laity
together, and not exclusively to the office of bishop or to any other
particular office. The College of Bishops has arrogated to itself authority
that the constitution and canons do not give the College of Bishops or
recognize as inherent in the College of Bishops. The College of Bishops has
usurped the role of the Provincial Council, the ACNA’s official governing body,
in a number of key areas. The College of Bishops has representatives in all of
the important committees and taskforces including the Executive Committee, as
well as representatives in the Provincial Council. It vets all legislation that
is brought before the Provincial Council.
On the other hand, the Anglican Church in North America’s
largest representative body, the Provincial Assembly, plays a negligible role
in the governance of the province. It rubber-stamps legislation that the College
of Bishops has vetted and the Provincial Council approved. It has no
legislative powers of its own. It cannot initiate legislation or modify
legislation brought before it. It can make recommendations but it cannot
appoint committees or conduct investigations or studies, thereby greatly
limiting its ability to put forward meaningful suggestions. The Archbishop
serves as its presiding office or someone appointed by him and controls its proceedings.
The Anglican Church in North America operates more like a
Roman Catholic province than an Anglican one, with the College of Bishops
acting like a Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops.
While the Anglican Church in North America may contain congregations
that are genuinely Anglican, maintaining the Protestant, Reformed, and
evangelical character of the Anglican Church, the Anglican identity of the
province itself is debatable. If the marks of a genuine Anglican province are
full acceptance of the authority of the Scriptures and the Anglican formularies
and the implementation of a real synodical form of church government, the ACNA
does not by any stretch of the imagination fit the bill.
Also see
The Draft Preface to the Proposed ACNA Rite of Confirmation: An Evaluation
Thank you, Robin.
ReplyDelete