From the Frying Pan into the Fire: The North American Anglican Dilemma

By Robin G. Jordan

The reform of the Anglican Church in North America’s system of church government is not a matter for the “Matthew 18 process.” It is a matter for free, open, and public discussion both inside and outside of the ACNA. The constitution and canons of the ACNA are clumsy, amateurish documents. They were cobbled together from a number of different sources, including the Code of Canons of the Roman Catholic Church. They need a serious overhaul.

At the time of the organization of the Anglican Church in North America former Archbishop Bob Duncan was very outspoken in promoting what he described as “minimalist” governing documents for the new province. Theoretically the idea of a “minimalist” constitution and set of canons is not a bad one. In practice, however, it suffers from a number of serious defects. These defects are very evident in the ACNA constitution and canons.

During his tenure as ACNA’s chief bishop it became quite apparent that Duncan’s real objection to a more detailed and more specific constitution and set of canons was that he did not like the restraints that these governing documents would place upon him. He would disregard the provisions of the ACNA’s “minimalist” constitution and canons and act as if he was “above the law.” What was even more scandalous was the College of Bishops refused to rein him in but went along with his extra-constitutional and extra-canonical acts. Or they looked the other way.

Among the defects of the ACNA’s “minimalist” governing documents is that they do not provide essential details where they need to provide such details. They fail to be specific where they need to be specific. They do not set necessary boundaries. They also do not provide important safeguards. Sections of these two documents may be compared to Swiss cheese except that they have more holes than cheese.

I have examined a number of governing documents of Anglican provinces. All of them have a clearly-defined procedure for adopting and revising a Prayer Book for the province. The exception is the Anglican Church in North America. It is one of the most glaring omissions in its governing documents. Was this omission an oversight? Or was it deliberate? In any case the College of Bishops has sought to take advantage of this omission and arrogate to itself authority to approve a Prayer Book for the province, an assumption of authority for which no real justification exists in the ACNA’s constitution and canons. It did the same thing with the ACNA’s ordinal and its catechism. In the case of ordinal, the College of Bishops went as far as declaring the further revision of the ordinal was off-limits.

If one searches the ACNA constitution and canons, one will find no provision which gives the College of Bishops any authority in these matters. One will find a provision that gives the Provincial Council such authority. The College of Bishops is essentially usurping the Provincial Council’s authority. The ACNA constitution and canons further stipulate that any action that the Provincial Council in relation to these matters must be ratified by the Provincial Assembly. Otherwise, the action of the Provincial Council has no force. What the College of Bishops is doing is both unconstitutional and uncanonical.

The College of Bishop’s usurpation of the Provincial Council’s authority has been a longstanding problem in the Anglican Church in North America. Initially the College of Bishops was content to let the Provincial Council function as a rubber stamp for the College of Bishops and the Provincial Assembly to function as a rubber stamp for the Provincial Council.

But as the College of Bishops has increasingly encroached upon the Provincial Council’s authority, the function of the Council has become more and more cosmetic. Since the bishops dominate the Provincial Council, its function was largely cosmetic in the first place. This has in all likelihood emboldened the bishops—this and the lack of serious pushback from the rank and file.

In a number of ways the Anglican Church in North America like a corporation in which the directors can do as they please and the stockholders’ meeting is powerless to do anything about it. In a number of ways it is also like the Roman Catholic Church and the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union. The important decisions are made by a small group of people at the top and then submitted to larger bodies of people for their automatic approval. The sole purpose of the approval of these bodies is to lend an air of legitimacy to the decisions of the church or party’s top leaders. In such a system the rank and file, the Roman Catholic parishioner and the Communist Party member, have little input into decisions that affect them.

As long as the Provincial Assembly cannot give proper consideration to the legislation submitted to the Assembly—debate the legislation at length, appoint task forces to study the legislation and report their findings to the Assembly, to amend legislation, and even to initiate legislation of its own—and to function as the central authority of the province in other ways, the College of Bishops can be expected to encroach further on the authority of not just the Provincial Council but the other organs of governance in the Anglican Church in North America. A strong Provincial Assembly would serve as a counter-balance to the College of Bishops, a check to its ambitions, and mechanism of accountability for it.

In the original proposal for the governance of the Anglican Church in North America the Provincial Council was elected by the Provincial Assembly and therefore was accountable to it. While this proposal did not go as far as authorizing the Provincial Council to serve as an interim body to the Provincial Assembly between its sessions and limiting its functions to those delegated by the Provincial Assembly, this is the role that similar bodies play in other Anglican provinces. It is a form of synodical government that the ACNA might have adopted (and still could).

A critical element that is missing from the Anglican Church in North America is accountability. Denominations that lack accountability mechanisms are likely to experience not only abuse of ecclesiastical authority but also theological drift. If ACNA’ers remove their rose-colored glasses and take a good hard look at their province, they will see that both are happening in the ACNA today. They did not leave the abuse of ecclesiastical authority and theological drift behind when they left the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada. They simply traded one kind of abuse and drift for another kind.