Is It Time to Reform the ACNA’s College of Bishops?

By Robin G. Jordan

Making exaggerated claims, misrepresenting the contents of a catechism and a Prayer Book, arrogating to themselves authority that has been entrusted to others, and generally acting as if they are not bound by the rules that bind their fellow Christians does not reflect well upon the bishops of the Anglican Church in North America. It suggests that the College of Bishops has developed an unhealthy culture that encourages less than sterling behavior on the part of the bishops. Every individual and every group has blind spots. This may be the blind spot of the College of Bishops. However, it does not excuse such conduct.

As Christian leaders bishops are expected to live by a much higher standard than everyone else. As the apostle Peter wrote in his first epistle, they should act as shepherds of God’s flock, not lording it over those entrusted to them, but being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3). Our Lord called his disciples aside and taught them:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave—(Matthew 20:25-27)

Bishops who see themselves as princes of the Church do not have a true understanding of their calling. A shepherd does not live in a palace. He does not command an army of servants. When he became a shepherd, he exchanged the comfort of a fixed abode for the cold of the hillside. A shepherd sleeps with the flock that he guards and tends. His bed is a cloak spread on the hard ground. The stars are the roof over his head. His only companion is a sheepdog, a fellow-labourer and not a servant.

As preparation for the office of bishop, it might be better for a man to herd sheep on the hills for a year or more rather than serve as a parish minister, a seminary professor, a commissary, or an assistant bishop. It would give him a real appreciation of what it means to be a shepherd.

In my dealings with the bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, I have had the experience of being lied to. The bishop in question may have been lying to me the way the Jesuits were trained to lie before they were sent to England in the sixteenth century. What he was saying was partially the truth and therefore not fully a lie. Such hair-splitting was intended to ease the conscience and to mitigate the sinfulness of the act.

This particular bishop was the director of communications of the jurisdiction of which he was a bishop and the gatekeeper for the other bishops of that jurisdiction. Those seeking to communicate with these bishops had to go through him. He was also a member of the Governance Task Force. He, however, claimed that he was the wrong person to talk to.

This claim was partially true. He was not willing to convey my proposal to his fellow bishops or the Governance Task Force. So he was in that sense the wrong person to talk to. Otherwise he was the right person to talk to as the director of communications and as a member of the Governance Task Force.

Since that time I have gathered from other people who have had dealings with bishops of the Anglican Church in North America that my experience was not an isolated one. A number of the bishops are in the habit of lying to people or otherwise not being entirely honest or transparent with them.

The conduct of these bishops falls short of what one might expect from a pastor of the Church. It creates a negative impression of the Anglican Church in North America with those with whom they are dishonest. It does not foster trust in the province's leadership and damages the credibility of fellow-bishops.

What makes matters worse, the fear of creating such an impression does not appear to deter them from behaving the way they do. This suggests that they do not value highly the person with whom they are dealing, a reprehensible attitude for a pastor of Christ’s flock. An untroubled conscience can also be evidence of a seared conscience, a conscience that no longer feels qualms when an individual does evil.

When ACNA’ers have prattled on about how the ACNA is different from other Anglican entities because it has “godly bishops,” I have been forced to suppress the urge to lambast them for their naivety. Bishops are human beings like everyone else. They have shortcomings and weaknesses like you and I. Being consecrated a bishop does not wipe away human nature’s inclination to evil. Indeed being made a bishop increases not only the temptation to sin but also to rationalize wrongful attitudes and deeds.

If bishops are members of a particular institution that has an unhealthy culture, they can be influenced by that culture. They may recognize that the culture of that institution is unhealthy and seek to avoid its harmful influence but they will not escape its influence entirely.

As in the case of General Councils, the College of Bishops is capable of erring and has erred because it is “an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and the Word of God” (Article XXI). It is not infallible.

One way that ACNA’ers can help their bishops to avoid the temptations of their positions of leadership is to establish clear boundaries regarding what they can do and what they cannot do, where they have a measure of discretion and where they have no freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation. They can also help them by holding them strictly accountable when they stray outside of these boundaries. Providing greater structure and setting and enforcing limits will help them to develop restraint and to avoid any unintentional or deliberate misuse of ecclesiastical authority.

As for the unhealthy culture of the College of Bishops, the bishops themselves should be given an opportunity to deal with that problem. Establishing clear boundaries for the bishops and demanding strict accountability from them should provide an incentive to do something about it. If, however, they show an unwillingness to put their house in order, outside intervention may be warranted.

Ideally it would be better for the bishops themselves to make changes in the culture of the College of Bishops and to give that body a healthier culture. The Anglican Church in North America does not need a College of Bishops that is like a group of rebellious children who get into mischief every time their parents’ backs are turned.

Some bishops can be expected to balk at what they may perceive as restriction of their freedom and infringement upon their prerogatives. These bishops may need reminding that oxen are yoked at the neck to enable them to pull a plough. The yoke limits their movements but it combines their strength. Otherwise, the plough would not break the sod and make furrows for planting. This is something that earlier generations of Christians knew, living as they did close to the earth. They may need help in seeing that the loss of what they claim is their freedom and prerogatives serves the kingdom and that it is a sacrifice that they should be willing to make. If they are not willing to make this sacrifice, then they should not be serving as bishops.