By Robin G. Jordan
In my previous article I suggested that if a denomination is not doing an effective job of developing tools for mission and marshalling resources for mission, it may be time to form a new organization that does. In making that suggestion I was not necessarily proposing the replacement of an existing denominational structure but rather its reorganization and the creation of new structures to augment the reorganized structure.
The original proposed constitution of the Anglican Church in North America made provision for networks of churches and clusters of churches organized for the purposes of mission and united by a common set of beliefs and values. These structures were subsequently replaced by a more conventional system of geographic-based dioceses, not because this system was more effective but because it was more in line with a particular ecclesiology to which the proponents of this system were wed. It was a case of putting ecclesial praxis before missional engagement. The main argument in support of the diocesan system was “it is the way that we have always done things.” In other words, its proponents could not imagine any other way of doing things. One might say that they were stuck in an ecclesiastic rut.
However, if one looks at the history of the diocesan system in Canada and the United States, it has not proven to be the most effective way of mobilizing manpower and other resources for mission. Some dioceses have been composed of small, widely scattered congregations with limited resources. Even when they have pooled their resources, they have not made much headway in advancing the gospel within the boundaries of the diocese. Other dioceses have been composed of concentrations of churches in the larger population centers of the diocese. These churches, while resource rich, have focused their missionary efforts in these population centers rather than the less densely populated areas of the diocese. To offset this imbalance various missionary societies, mission boards, and the like, which operate outside the diocesan system, have been created. Their effectiveness has been largely determined by the support that they have garnered and the missionary methods that they have employed. The need for these organizations has highlighted the ineffectiveness of the diocesan system.
The original Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) in place of a diocesan system adopted a system of church planting networks each headed by a missionary bishop and contributing a fixed percentage of their revenues to a central fund. Monies for various church planting projects were disbursed to individual networks and churches from this fund.
The downside of this funding method was that it was highly vulnerable to various forms of abuse. A board was responsible for evaluating and approving requests for monies from the fund. The chairman of the board made the final decision on all such requests. Despite the worthwhileness of a project a network or church might be denied monies for the project because the network or church was not lined up with board’s chairman on unrelated issues. The board’s chairman was not under the oversight of the churches contributing to the central fund or accountable to them. He was under the oversight of the primate of the Anglican province of which the AMiA was an extraterritorial missionary district and solely accountable to him. Monies from the fund might have easily been diverted to improper uses.
The establishment of a central fund to which all churches must contribute is a workable method of funding church plants and otherwise furthering the mission of the Church provided necessary safeguards are incorporated into the system to prevent misuse of the fund. This includes genuine oversight of the fund by the churches contributing to the fund and full accountability of the agency or board distributing monies from the fund to participating networks and churches to the contributing churches. The contributing churches should also approve the policies of the agency or board in regards to eligible recipients for monies from the fund. The establishment of an appeals mechanism might be appropriate.
The Southern Baptist Convention in its Cooperative Program has adopted a different method of funding the missionary activities of that denomination. Local congregations make voluntary contributions to their respective state conventions and the state conventions forward a portion of these contributions to the SBC which at its annual meeting determines how they will be used. Individual churches, local associations of churches, and state conventions may also fund church planting projects. This approach also has its strengths and weaknesses. Membership in a state convention is voluntary. The local church decides how much money it is going to contribute to the state convention. The SBC also has its theological divisions which sometimes affect cooperation between its member churches.
As in the case of the diocesan system the state conventions of states that have large concentrations of SBC churches are likely to have access to more resources than the state conventions of states in which SBC churches are not a strong presence. The extent of church planting is often dependent upon how mission-minded the individual churches, local associations of churches, and state conventions are.
Among recent developments have been the formation of church planting networks that are not connected to a denomination and which are independently funded. Their primary purpose is recruiting and training church planters and planting and growing new churches. The larger of these networks have been described as micro-denominations. Unlike denominational church planting networks they do not hand off the churches that they have planted to the judicatory of the denomination within which these churches have been planted. Rather they enfold them in an expanding network of churches devoted to mission.
While one might mistakenly conclude from the Anglican Church in North America’s existing and proposed formularies that the province is relatively homogenous, this is far from the case. These formularies give a central place to the form of doctrine and practices of one segment of the province. This form of doctrine and practices is not representative of the entire province.
Church planting presents a real challenge for ACNA clergy and congregations that are committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures and historic Anglican beliefs and practices. By historic Anglican beliefs and practices I am referring to those beliefs and practices which are in step with the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, the Books of Common Prayer of 1552 and 1662, the Ordinals of 1552 and 1661, the Homilies of Edward VI and Elizabeth I, and the central Anglican theological tradition. If they are a part of a ACNA diocese that does not share their convictions and they are successful in launching a new congregation, they are faced with the choice of handing off the new congregation to the diocese and of seeing the bishop of a diocese install a priest as the pastor of the new congregation who also does not share their convictions. This pastor may lead the new congregation in an entirely different theological direction and undo the work that they have done. The knowledge that clergy who do not share their convictions are going to reap the benefits of their hard work is likely to have a dampening effect upon their church planting efforts.
As the Anglican Church in North America is presently organized, the College of Bishops has the final decision in determining who may become the new bishop of a diocese. The ACNA governing documents do not prescribe what criteria the College of Bishops must follow in making that decision. It is not prevented from making the decision solely on the compatibility of the candidate’s theological outlook with that of the church party that exercises the most influence in the College of Bishops. It is within the realm of possibility that the College of Bishops may reject a candidate for the episcopate because he is too orthodox from a historic Anglican perspective. A diocese cannot appeal the decision of the College of Bishops. It can only keep submitting candidates until one meets with the approbation of the College of Bishops. This applies to candidates for the episcopate elected by the relevant diocesan authority as well as those nominated by such an authority. Nothing in the ACNA governing documents prevents the College of Bishops from nominating and appointing its own candidate as the new bishop of the diocese.
ACNA clergy and congregations that are committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures and historic Anglican beliefs and practices have no assurance that their diocese will always be led by a bishop who shares their convictions. If one lesson can be learned from what happened in the Episcopal Church, it is the role that bishops played in the province’s movement away from historic Anglicanism. Liberal bishops appoint liberal clergy as vicars or priest-in-charge of missions. They send postulants to liberal seminaries. They make the final decision on whether or not to ordain a candidate. They license liberal clergy to minister in their dioceses. They take other steps to move their dioceses in a more liberal direction such as approving same sex marriage in the diocese. A liberal House of Bishops assigns liberal bishops to mentor new bishops.
Whether they are conservative or liberal, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, or evangelical, bishops have a strong influence on the direction of their diocese. In provinces like the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America, which have a negligible commitment to historic Anglicanism at the provincial level and do not require their bishops and other clergy to adhere to historic Anglican doctrinal standards, this characteristic of the diocesan system can be a serious problem.
ACNA clergy and congregations that are committed to remaining faithful to the Holy Scriptures and historic Anglican beliefs and practices also have no guarantee that the money they are contributing to various denominational funds will be used to train clergy who share their convictions or to plant churches that will be faithful to the biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism. The existing and proposed formularies of the Anglican Church in North America inspire little confidence that they will.
A fourth problem area is that dioceses have little incentive to plant new churches in areas of the diocese where they might prove to be a drain upon the resources of the diocese. A contributing factor to this problem is pre-conceived notions of what form a church should take. Thinking in the Anglican Church in North America, judging from its existing and proposed formularies, the diocesan constitutions and canons that I have examined, and a survey of diocesan and church websites, to a large extent is dominated by the conventional ideas of the parish church. This is not to say that thinking in the ACNA is confined to this one model. Other models are being tried with varying degrees of success. However, the parish model gets top billing. What may account for the emphasis that this model is given is not only its familiarity but also the tendency to place ecclesial praxis before missional engagement in the ACNA. For example, the services of the 2019 Proposed ACNA Prayer Book are designed more for the traditional settings of cathedrals, seminary chapels, and parish churches than they are for non-traditional settings in which congregations worship on the mission field. They also ignore the fact that many ACNA congregations are using borrowed or rented facilities. They do not have buildings of their own. Like the diocesan system the parish model fits with the ecclesiology that receives favorable treatment in the ACNA’s existing and proposed formularies.
One way to address these problem areas is to reorganize the Anglican Church in North America and to give it a different configuration. This might include the establishment of a number of non-geographic ecclesiastical provinces based upon theological affinity within the ACNA and the devolution of the confirmation of episcopal elections to these provinces. These provinces would overlap and would incorporate clergy and congregations who accept the same doctrinal standards. Developing worship resources would be devolved to these provinces along with facilitating church planting, recognizing new dioceses and church networks, and other areas of denominational life. They would cooperate on matters such as clergy pensions and health insurance.
Such a configuration would recognize that real differences do exist in the Anglican Church in North America and these differences can interfere with its fulfillment of the Great Commission. These differences go well beyond differences of emphasis. They involve primary matters and not just secondary matters on which Anglicans can agree to disagree.
A reconfiguration of the Anglican Church in North America would enable clergy and congregations committed to fulfilling the Great Commission to plant new churches without having to worry about changes in leadership at the diocesan and local levels. Congregations would know that the money they are contributing for the training of clergy and the planting of new churches would be used to train biblically-faithful, mission-minded Anglican clergy and to plant biblically-faithful, gospel-sharing Anglican churches. It would enable ACNA clergy and congregations spearheading the planting of new churches to develop, adopt, and adapt worship resources that genuinely met their needs rather relying upon worship resources that were developed for an entirely different purpose than the mission of the Church—the promotion of Catholic doctrine, order, and practices—and which force their worship into the same Procrustean mold.
In addition to reconfiguring the Anglican Church in North America along the lines that I have suggested, I see the need for the creation of three new structures to augment the reorganized structure of the ACNA. The first structure would be a central synod consisting of representatives from each non-geographic ecclesiastical province forming the reorganized structure of the denomination. It would legislate on matters that affect the entire denomination and which have not been devolved to its ecclesiastical provinces. This structure would include a standing committee of the central synod, which would be elected by the central synod and would be accountable to it. It would meet between the sessions of the central synod, oversee any cooperative agencies such as a pension fund and the group health insurance fund for clergy and church employees, make recommendations to the central synod, and performs such other functions as the central synod might delegate to it. . The chairmanship of the central synod and the standing committee would be rotated among the provinces. This structure would also include a secretariat headed by a general secretary elected by the central synod. The secretariat would maintain the records of the central synod and conducts its official correspondence with other ecclesiastical bodies.
The second structure would be the collaborative agencies. These agencies would be created by special agreements between the provinces which would jointly operate and fund them.
The third structure would be a bishops’ advisory council that would make recommends in regard to existing and possible areas of cooperation between the provinces and such other matters that might be referred to that body by the central synod. Its chairman would also be rotated among the provinces.
Each ecclesiastical province would be structured along the same lines as the denomination.
These changes would give the Anglican Church in North America a flatter, more horizontal structure and eliminate or reduce a number of obstacles to mission inherent in its present structure. They would foster the kind of environment that encourages clergy and congregations to employ greater creativity and innovativeness in reaching and engaging the unchurched without sacrificing fidelity to the Holy Scriptures and historic Anglican beliefs and practices. In other words, they would make the ACNA more mission-shaped.
Transitioning to the reorganized structure would not be as difficult as one might think. Dioceses, clergy, and congregations that have a theological affinity with each other have already established informal connections with each other. These connections could be used to facilitate the formation of the proposed ecclesiastical provinces. By general agreement between the existing dioceses clergy and congregations that are not affiliated with a diocese with which they have a theological affinity could be given an opportunity to affiliate with a diocese with which they do have a theological affinity or to form a new diocese. The existing requirements for a new diocese would be waived and the canonicity of the election of its newly-elected bishop would be confirmed by the provincial representative governing body, by its standing committee, or by the chancellor of the diocese. Following this realignment each province would formally constitute itself. The provinces would then draw up an agreement identifying where they would cooperate and where they operate independently, establishing the central synod, its standing committee, and its secretariat, and the bishops’ advisory council, and making provision for the creation of cooperative agencies by special agreement between the provinces. This agreement would serve as the governing document of the Anglican Church in North America, replacing its present constitution and canons.
This proposed restructuring of the Anglican Church in North America would give the ACNA a form of church governance that is much closer to that of the reformed Anglican Church than its present form of church governance which is modeled upon that of the Roman Catholic Church. While the reformed Anglican church retained episcopacy, it was a modified episcopacy in which the magistracy in the form of the English monarch and the English parliament played a significant role in the appointment of bishops and the determination of church doctrine and practices. At the Restoration the government of the church solely by bishops was rejected along with the governance of the church by pastors and elders. The locus of magisterial authority would shift in the early twentieth century from the monarch and parliament to the Church Assembly and then later in the century to General Synod. This authority is not clerical but lay. A form of episcopal government that gives bishops extensive authority over the appointment of bishops and the determination of church doctrine and practices is arguably not Anglican.
For the sake of clarity I have added a brief explanation of the terms used in this article.
Central synod is the term used to describe the deliberative and legislative organ of the Province of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. The province is divided into four dioceses and covers a large swath of the Mid-East and North Africa. It also included the island of Cyprus.
The type of standing committee described in this article is similar to that of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia. See Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia.
The secretariat refers to the office of the general secretary, any assistant general secretaries, and their staff. The general secretary would elected or appointed by the central synod. The functions of the general secretary would include writing or preparing reports, organizing and scheduling the sessions of the central synod and the meetings of the standing committee, compiling the official journal of the central synod, preparing agendas for the sessions of the central synod and meetings of the standing committee, conducting research, preparing correspondence with other ecclesiastical bodies, and performing such other functions as may be determined by the central synod. The general secretary would work closely with the chairmen of the central synod, the standing committee, and the committees and task forces of these two bodies.
A cooperative agency is basically a multi-stakeholder cooperative organized for a specific purpose and whose ownership is shared between different stakeholder groups, in this particular case the parallel provinces forming the reorganized ACNA. Among the specific purposes for which such agencies might be organized would be managing a clergy and church employee pension fund and a clergy and church employ group insurance fund, publishing, and other areas in which the parallel provinces would have a common interest and where the organization of a cooperative agency might prove more cost-effective and otherwise beneficial than operating their own agency. Each cooperative agency would be established by a special agreement between the stakeholder provinces, would have a board consisting of representation from each stakeholder province, and would be under the general oversight of the central synod and its standing committee.
Bishops advisory council is a term used for a number of bodies in various denominations. It is a body of bishops whose primary function is advisory. For example, the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church may be described as a bishops advisory council because its function is primarily advisory. A bishops advisory council may offer guidance on a range of matters but its recommendations and suggestions are not binding. I chose this particular term because it emphasizes that the function of the bishops at the denominational and provincial levels is advisory.
No comments:
Post a Comment