The Anglican Church in North America: What Went Wrong

By Robin G. Jordan

The seeds of the present state of affairs in the Anglican Church in North America were sown well before its formation. They were planted during the days of the Common Cause Partnership.

The direction in which one particular group of leaders in that partnership wanted to take what would become the ACNA were discernible from the very beginning. It was evident in the final draft of the partnership’s Theological Statement as well as its first draft.

The late Peter Toon wrote a series of blog posts critiquing both drafts. I summarize his observations in my articles, “The Late Peter Toon Foresaw the Present State of the Anglican Church in North America”and “The Fundamental Declarations of the Anglican Church in North America: The Insights of the Late Peter Toon.”

Peter recognized that this particular group of leaders was seeking to take the proposed North American province in a direction away from historic Anglicanism and its formularies. He further recognized that the doctrinal positions that they were espousing in the Common Cause Theological Statement would exclude a large segment of conservative Anglicans who do not share those positions, including the English Reformers themselves.

When I attempted to circulate a proposal for an alternative form of governance for the proposed North American province among the Common Cause bishops, I was told that the proposed constitution for that province was “a done deal.” It had the approval of the GAFCON Primates and could not be changed.

Bishop Jack Iker in his response to the proposal demanded to know who had authorized the proposal. The tone of his response suggested that the proposed constitution had been agreed upon beforehand by the interested parties.

One bishop, now deceased, declined to pass on the proposal to the other bishops in his jurisdiction, saying that I had approached the wrong person. As I have written elsewhere, he was the director of communications for his jurisdiction and gatekeeper for his fellow bishops. He was also a member of the Common Cause Governance Task Force. The only truthful thing that he said about being the wrong person to approach was that he was not willing to pass on the proposal.

When the proposed constitution and canons were finally released to the public for feedback, the public was given only a very short period of time to examine their provisions and to make comments. It was totally insufficient for a thorough examination of the two documents.

An ad hoc CANA group which consulted with me on the wording of the proposed Fundamental Declarations met with a negative response from the Governance Task Force when they proposed a number of changes to these declarations which would have made the declarations more comprehensive of a wider range of conservative Anglican doctrinal views. Except for correcting one or two obvious errors in the text of the declarations, the Governance Task Force dismissed their proposals out of hand.

Bishop John Rodgers posted a letter on the Internet, in which he appealed to evangelicals to set aside their misgivings and to support the proposed constitution and canons. He argued that if these governing documents were not adopted, there would be no new North American province. He also said that any problematic provisions in the two documents could be fixed later. Since that time his letter has been removed from the Internet. Later had come and gone and nothing has been fixed.

At the inaugural Provincial Council meeting in Plano, Texas, CANA bishop Martyn Mimms called for changes in the proposed Fundamental Declarations, pointing to the need to make them more comprehensive. Except for changing the date of the Thirty-Nine Articles from 1562 to 1571, Bishop Jack Iker objected to any substantive changes to the declarations, stating that such changes would cause the alliance between Anglo-Catholics and the other parties forming the Common Cause Partnership to unravel. What happened at the inaugural Provincial Council showed the willingness of Anglo-Catholic leaders to hold over other leaders the threat of taking their ball and going home if things did not go their way.

In his speech to the Provincial Council Bishop Robert Duncan, then the Archbishop-Elect of the Anglican Church in North America, sought to portray in a negative light any delegates who may have wanted more explicit governing documents. He likened them to the Israelites who wanted to return to Egypt. It was a blatant attempt to silence any critics of the proposed constitution and canons and to influence the outcome of the vote on their approval.

At the inaugural Provincial Assembly one group of delegates moved to adopt the proposed constitution and canons by acclamation without proper consideration. The chair which Bishop Duncan had surrendered to someone else, however, ruled that the delegates had to vote on the proposed governing documents section by section.

Bishop Duncan’s surrender of the chair was pure theater. His intention was to avoid the appearance of having a special interest in the adoption of the proposed constitution and canons, which was evident anyone who had heard or read his speech.

A time limit was set on how long each delegate could speak in regards to the strengths and weaknesses of each section. Bishop Duncan, however, kept interrupting the deliberations, urging the delegates to finish their work as speakers were waiting to address them.

The delegates were not permitted to propose amendments to the proposed constitution and canons, only to approve a section or send it back to the Governance Task Force for revision. What should have taken the Provincial Assembly several days or even two or more sessions was completed in a few hours.

The delegates essentially rubberstamped the proposed governing documents. A number of delegates admitted afterwards that they had reservations when they voted to approve the two documents.

Bishop Duncan’s tenure as the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America was marked by recurring disregard of the provisions of the new province’s constitution and canons. Under the provisions of these governing documents the archbishop of the ACNA is little more than the presiding bishop and chief spokesman of the province. He has some limited appointive powers.

Through appointment of a dean of the province, an archbishop’s cabinet, and other provincial officers for which the constitution and canons made no provision, he sought to arrogate to the office of archbishop powers that these governing documents do not grant to that office or recognize as inherent in the office. He ignored the provisions of the canons which give the College of Bishops sole authority to elect bishops for special purposes.

During his tenure the College of Bishop began to encroach upon the authority of the Provincial Council. A number of changes that moved the ACNA further in an unreformed Catholic direction were also made in the canons.

When the Catechism Task Force produced To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, and the College of Bishops endorsed the catechism, Bishop Duncan promoted its use not only in the Anglican Church in North America but in other Anglican provinces.

After Bishop Duncan retired as Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, he became the chairman of the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force and assumed a lead role in the production of the proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book. Since he has been chairing the task force, it has produced a number of the more unreformed Catholic sections of the proposed book.

I am not suggesting that Bishop Duncan is primarily responsible for the movement of the Anglican Church in North America in an unreformed Catholic direction in doctrine, worship, and church government. Other leaders of the ACNA have been working to move the province in that direction.

However, Bishop Duncan has played a significant role in moving the ACNA away from historic Anglicanism in the direction of unreformed Catholicism—as Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership, as Archbishop of the province, and as chairman of the Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Task Force.

While Bishop Duncan has described himself as a “High Church Evangelical,” the evidence does not support his description of himself. In his speeches he has called for “a new settlement,” for the return of the Anglican Church to a period in Church history before the English Reformation. He has argued that regression is the only way to deal with the crisis in leadership, doctrine, and morals facing the Anglican Communion.

A genuine Anglican evangelical and a genuine Anglican High Churchman accept the classical Anglican formularies as the longstanding Anglican standard of doctrine and practice. Bishop Duncan, on the other hand, rejects the Elizabethan Settlement which shaped historic Anglicanism and to which its formularies trace their origins.

The Thirty-Nine Articles were adopted during Elizabeth’s reign. 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal are moderate revisions of the Elizabethan Prayer Book and Ordinal.

No genuine Anglican evangelical would have promoted the ACNA’s catechism the way Bishop Duncan has. No genuine Anglican High Churchman would have done so either.

Bishop Duncan and Anglo-Catholic leaders have not always meet eye to eye. Bishop Iker declared that a state of “impaired communion” in the Anglican Church in North America over the issue of women’s ordination. He believed that Bishop Duncan was putting roadblocks in the way of a decision on that issue.

While Bishop Duncan may be credited with playing an important role in the formation of the Anglican Church in North America, he must also bear a good part of the blame for the movement of the ACNA in an unreformed Catholic direction. As they say in the navy, it happened on his watch. It also happened with his involvement.

While Bishop Foley Beach does not appear to be cut from the same cloth as Bishop Duncan, he has not shown any inclination to lead the ACNA back to the genuine Anglican Way since he became the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America. Under his leadership the province has continued to move in the direction of unreformed Catholicism.

As the Anglican Church in North America is presently structured, it is difficult to change the leadership of the ACNA and to get the province on the right course. The College of Bishops determines who may become a member of the College. Bishops form a significant voting bloc in the Provincial Council and influence the Council’s decisions. The clerical and lay delegates to that body serve staggered terms. The ordinary of a diocese is able to exercise considerable influence over whom the synod of his diocese appoints or elects as delegates to the Provincial Council. This structure enables any group dominating the College of Bishops to also dominate the Provincial Council.

The Anglican Church in North America does have a number of dioceses that permit congregations to affiliate with them on the basis of theological affinity and other considerations rather than on the basis of geographical location. While they are able to do so, clergy and congregations that are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism, and its formularies might wish to affiliate with a diocese which shares their commitment.

Dioceses that are fully committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism, and its formularies may wish to take advantage of the constitution’s recognition of groups of dioceses organized into distinct jurisdiction, form such a jurisdiction, and press for their own catechism and Prayer Book. They might also press for an amendment to the constitution permitting that jurisdiction to adopt its own theological statement and devolving the confirmation of election of its bishops to its own synod.

The formation of such a jurisdiction with its own theological statement, synod, catechism, and Prayer Book may be the best way forward under the circumstances for clergy, congregations, and dioceses fully committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism, and its formularies. It is not so much a divorce as a separation, a separation that recognizes ACNA’ers who wish to move in an unreformed Catholic direction and ACNA’ers who wish to remain faithful to the Holy Scriptures, historic Anglicanism, and its formularies have irreconcilable differences. The two group are really unable to live together as long as one partner wants everything their way and is unwilling to enter into the give and take of a real marriage.

Related Articles:
The Doctrine of the Proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book: A Recap
How to Respond to the Proposed 2019 ACNA Prayer Book