Pages

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

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.

2 comments:

  1. Robyn

    I have been a member of the ACNA College of Bishops for 6 years. There is no argument that our bishops, like all our clergy and laity have a sin nature. So did the apostles and the early church! So does your church. We are all imperfect followers of Jesus. That does not mean we are heretics, hirelings or do not have accountability.

    My first-hand experience in 1000's of hours of meetings, worship times, retreats, missions, teachings, LTF, etc. has been mostly encouraging; I have found, with few exceptions, that the College of Bishops engage each other vigorously but lovingly within the bond of peace. The College spends lot of time in God's Word and corporate worship. I am a VTS and Gordon-Conwell grad from a low church, so I am hardly an "unreformed Catholic."

    Few of the ACNA bishops live in a "palace.'. To be fair, compared to most shepherds in the developing world, ALL other Anglican leaders live in "palaces." The truth is, most ACNA bishops live on a smaller salary and with less benefits then when they were rectors. Our diocesan headquarters is in the bishop's basement! We live frugally so we can give 50% of our diocesan income to church planting. Some ACNA bishops are "tent-makers" or serve part time in another job or ministry. Many of us lost the bulk of our Church Pension Fund retirement and our churches.

    In my diocese, when we visit parishes, we spend three FULL days with our clergy and leaders . . . spending time caring for their souls. We pray for them and with them. We have mentoring and biblical counsel available to any clergy. I can tell you, that level of care did not happen often in the ECUSA or AMIA days.

    The ACNA bishops I know, without exception, love the Lord, love His Word and love His Church. Are a few very opinionated? YES SIR. Are their differences over WO, YOU BET? The Church of Jesus Christ has always had strong differences of opinions (e.g., Galatians 2:11). Our differences in ACNA are all well within the fence of biblical and creedal faith. All within "the faith once delivered to the saints."

    Trying to gather Anglicans of multiple strands/streams has its challenges but the common bond we have is in the Trinity: The Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit; Further, we share a commitment to teaching and preaching the Scriptures, Trinitarian Baptism, Holy Communion, the Creeds, The 39 Articles, the Offices, the Lectionary and common/participatory (Anglican) worship, etc.

    What branch of Anglicanism are you a member of? In the ACNA, we work hard to assume the best and when we have an issue to deal with it privately as laid out in Matthew 18.
    Robin, have you followed Mt 18 to the end in whatever matters you believe are sin? If so, please elaborate.

    Who is your bishop? To whom are you spiritually accountable?


    What is your motivation and end goal? If it is for a healthy Anglican church with healthy relationships, you would be following Jesus’ command in MT. 18 and doing so with a loving and humble heart. The truth is, I now know the ACNA well. I know her strengths and weaknesses. My church did not join ACNA immediately when it was formed but spent 6 months asking questions and praying; we waited to see if Evangelical/Orthodox/Missional congregations would be warmly welcome and ACNA would be mission and kingdom focused. They are!

    To summarize, Jesus lays out a clear principle for believers to deal with sin and conflict. Mt. 18. Writing public, inflaming posts that present one side and paint ACNA and her shepherds in the worst (and mostly inaccurate light) is "missing the mark." Even though you have already jumped to step three of the Mt 18 process, I invite you to meet with me face to face and talk over these matters. Or if your disagreement is with Archbishop Foley Beach or Archbishop Duncan, I will try to arrange a face to face meeting so Christ can be honored. Feel free to email me privately to set up a convenient time: QuiggLawrence@gmail.com

    Peace,

    +Quigg

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quigg,

    In an institution like the College of Bishops it is easy to become caught up in the comradery and bonhomme that the members of such a body enjoy that one can overlook the problems of the institution. The problems to which I am drawing attention are not problems that can be resolved by a Mark 18 solution or by a meeting with a present or former archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, as I think that you well know. They are related to the system itself. They are not matters that can be settled quietly, behind closed doors, out of the public view.

    They are problems that go beyond the College of Bishops doing a better job of policing its own actions and the actions of its own members, which would be a step in the right direction. They are problems that only can be corrected by the reform of the system itself. Their resolution requires free, open, and public discussion.

    As you are a member of the College of Bishops, it is quite understandable that your first impulse would be to defend that body from what you have apparently chosen to view as unfair or unwarranted criticism. You may view any criticism of the College of Bishops as criticism of yourself. But if you ignore this impulse and listen to what I have heard over the past 10 odd years, you would realize that my voice is not a lone one. It may be louder than the rest but it is not a lone voice.

    ACNA’ers who may have once defended the Anglican Church in North America against what they construed to be anything the least bit critical of the ACNA are not happy with developments in the province. ACNA’ers who adamantly disagreed with me in the past now admit that I may have a point.

    Among the developments with which ACNA’ers are unhappy are the College of Bishops expanding its role in the governance of the province beyond the one defined in its constitution and canons. The proposed Prayer Book is another such development. Promises have been made and not kept.

    From where I sit, the College of Bishops appears to have surrounded itself with an echo chamber, which repeats what it says. It is not listening to voices outside that echo chamber.

    I must also point to your attention that if what I am saying is unfounded as you appear to believe, what do you have to fear? Why the urgency to discourage from speaking those who do not agree with your perceptions of the College of Bishops?

    These questions are reasonable ones to ask. They are questions for which our readers might like to hear your answer.

    ReplyDelete