Read Part 2
By Robin G. Jordan
The ideas that I presented in Saturday’s article may be implemented in a number of ways. For example, the Anglican Church in North America might be organized into several non-geographic “super-dioceses,” each having its own doctrinal standards and covering Canada and its territories, Mexico, and the United States and its territories. Geographically these dioceses would be divided into areas, each with its own bishop. They would also included networks of churches that are not geographically-based and are organized on the basis of past association or mission or a combination of the two. These networks would also have their own bishops. Clergy and congregations would have the freedom to affiliate with the area or network with which they have the greatest affinity.
This approach would not require the dissolving of existing dioceses and networks. Existing geographic dioceses would become areas in a “super-diocese.” Their bishops would become area bishops. However, it would involve the realignment of a number of clergy and congregations with an area or network with which they have the greatest affinity. New areas and networks might also be formed.
Each “super-diocese” would be free to develop, adapt, and adopt its own catechism and other Christian education material provided such material conformed to the doctrinal standards of the diocese. Each “super-diocese” would be free to develop, adapt, and adopt worship resources for the use of its clergy and congregations provided that such resources conformed to the diocese's doctrinal standards. The areas and networks forming the diocese would be free to modify these worship resources as long as such modifications conformed to the same doctrinal standards.
The basic idea is to organize the province on the basis of theological affinity, relationship, and mission with far less emphasis on territoriality and physical geography as has been the case in the past. This is a far more realistic basis for cooperation among the constituent members of a network of churches than close proximity to each other. The doctrinal differences between the theological traditions represented in the province are significant.
While no research to my knowledge has been done into why the non-geographic based dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America are enjoying more growth than the geographic-based dioceses, I would hazard that a common theology, relationships, and a shared commitment to mission are major contributing factors. In the church networks that are enjoying the most growth outside the ACNA these factors are contributing their growth. Some are regional but others are not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the same factors may be contributing to the growth of the ACNA’s non-geographic dioceses. In the digital age close proximity is not the critical factor that it was at one time.
It is my considered opinion that segments of the ACNA, particularly those wed to a particular ecclesiology and praxis, have not come to terms with the realities of the twenty-first century. We are not living in the medieval times when the cathedral was the center of the spiritual life of a particular geographic area and a bishop exercised control and influence over the spiritual lives of its human inhabitants by asserting ecclesiastical control over this area. This view of episcopacy is outmoded albeit it continues to influence the thinking of those wed to the aforementioned ecclesiology and praxis.
A more realistic model may be that of the ancient Celtic Church. It consisted of expanding networks of Christian communities that were united by a common theology, relationships, and a shared commitment to mission. These communities were monastic in the sense that their members had committed their lives to Christ and included men and women who practiced celibacy. They also included married men and women. They were not cloistered. Their members interacted with the pagan population of the geographic area in which they were located, shared the gospel with the members of that population, baptized converts, and instructed them in the Christian faith. The head of these communities was an abbot and in some cases an abbess. The relationship of deacons, priests, and bishops to these communities was ancillary. The priests administered the sacrament of Holy Communion and the bishops ordained new priests and consecrated new bishops.
Patrick would try to establish a diocesan system in Ireland. However, it quickly disappeared after his death. It was not sustainable on an island in which the population lived in small rural communities. The Romans had never conquered Ireland. Ireland had no towns and cities like Britain and Gaul. Roman ideas of civil administration that form the basis of the diocesan system were alien to the Irish. The Celtic monastic community, however, thrived in this environment.
The form that the ancient Celtic Church took illustrates how the Church can adapt to conditions on the mission field without compromise the message of the gospel or the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. The diocesan system is not a part of the gospel message or an essential Christian belief. Despite what the ACNA’s Anglo-Catholic-philo-Orthodox wing believes, bishops are not essential for salvation. Nowhere in the Bible do we find such a claim. The reformed Anglican Church retained the office of bishop because it is, in the words of John Jewel, “ancient and allowable” and not out of the belief that it was essential to the existence of the Church, much less necessary to salvation.
The notion that bishops are successors to the apostles by virtue of a line of consecrators stretching back to the apostles has no basis in Scripture. As the English Reformers pointed out, the apostles, unlike bishops, had a peripatetic ministry. They traveled from place to place. They ministered or were based in various places for relatively short periods of time. The English Reformers also pointed out that the line of consecrators that the Roman Catholic Church claimed stretched back to the apostle Peter had been interrupted several times. Most importantly the English Reformers pointed out that a bishop is only a successor to the apostles in so far as he remains faithful to the teaching of the apostles. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, however, had not remained faithful to apostolic teaching. Rather they had substituted their own traditions for that teaching.
In the New Testament the words presbyter, or elder, and bishop, or overseer, are used interchangeably. They refer to the same office—that of a leader of local congregation. While we do find some evidence of the emergence of one of the elders or overseers leading a congregation becoming its lead elder or overseer and the emergence of loose associations of local congregations in a particular region, we find nothing that remotely approximates the form which the office of bishop and his sphere of ministry would take in post-apostolic times and later. Among the cultural influences that would shape the episcopate are the roles of the Roman magistrate, the feudal lord, and more recently the corporate executive. These roles are a far cry from the role of the apostle in apostolic times. As the apostles traveled from place to place, they proclaimed the gospel, won converts, planted new churches, and strengthened the churches that they or others had planted. They recruited others to join them in their ministry, mentored them, and offered those whom they had recruited further encouragement and guidance when these individuals embarked on a ministry of their own, corresponding with them. The apostles left the governing of the local congregations to others. With some notable exceptions, the ministry of modern-day bishops does not even approach that of the apostles.
Only when a bishop is teaching what the apostles taught and engaging in a ministry like that of the apostles can he be regarded in any sense a successor to the apostles. The rub is that any disciple of Jesus Christ can do these things. A Christian does not have to be ordained, much less a bishop.
A bishop, however, is in a unique position due to the moral and spiritual authority that Anglicans vest in that office to influence those within his sphere of ministry through his teaching and his leadership. He can teach and encourage others to teach what the apostles taught. He can take the lead in evangelizing the unchurched, planting new churches, and remissioning existing churches. He can offer encouragement and guidance to those planting new churches and those pioneering them. He can be a pastor to the pastors.
The moral and spiritual authority that a bishop may exercise is not inherent in his office. He can squander that authority and lose the good will of those within his sphere of ministry. He can become preoccupied with administrative duties and responsibilities that have become attached to the office of bishop but are incongruent with the role of a moral and spiritual leader. If a judicatory needs an administrator, it should hire a competent professional. The primary responsibility of a bishop is to provide moral and spiritual leadership.
For this reason any role that bishops should play in the governance of a province and its judicatories should be advisory. Their advice should be sought on a range of matters but the actual governing of the province and its judicatories should be left to others. Bishops should be free to lead the Church in its fulfillment of the Great Commission.
The Anglican Church in North America has three organs to which rightly belongs the primary responsibility for the governance of the province—the Provincial Assembly, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee. At the present time the Provincial Assembly is essentially a meeting aimed at inspiring enthusiasm for the ACNA in its attendees. In other words, it is an overblown pep rally. It has a very circumscribed role in the governance of the province. It may ratify but not initiate or amend legislation or substitute proposed legislation of its own for proposals submitted to it. In other Anglican provinces the Provincial Assembly is the highest legislative authority in the province.
The Provincial Council at least on paper is the governing body of the province but the College of Bishops has increasingly encroached upon its authority since the formation of the ACNA. In other Anglican provinces the Provincial Council is typically an administrative and executive body of the Provincial Assembly, elected by the Provincial Assembly and accountable to it. Its functions and powers are determined by the Provincial Assembly and are delineated in the province’s canons. It does not initiate or enact legislation but it may make recommendations to the Provincial Assembly.
The Executive Committee is typically a smaller working group of the Provincial Council. In the ACNA it serves as the board of directors of the non-profit corporation which the ACNA is under Canadian and US law. Other Anglican provinces have trustees who serve in this capacity. These trustees are appointed by the Provincial Assembly.
As one can see, the governing structure of the ACNA is not that of a typical Anglican province. Its constitution and canons have been cobbled together from a number of other governance documents, including the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. The latter’s influence is discernible in number of their provisions. They suffer from a number of weaknesses. Among their shortcomings is that they are not explicit where they need to be explicit. They also contain significant omissions and lack important safeguards. They fare poorly when compared to the governance documents of a number of denominations as well as those of other Anglican provinces.
To give the Anglican Church in North America a functioning synodical government, the provisions of its constitution and canons relating to these three bodies need a major haul. So do the provisions relating to the College of Bishops. A number of other sections of these governance documents also need extensive revision. In other words, the ACNA needs a new constitution and a new set of canons.
North America does not need another backward-looking Anglo-Catholic jurisdiction. It already has a number of them. None of these jurisdictions is evidencing significant growth. What North America needs are expanding networks of dynamic Anglican churches that are fully committed to biblical Christianity, historic Anglicanism, and the Great Commission and which are multiplying like dandelions in a lawn or garden. They are everywhere and every year there is more of them than there was the year before. The Anglican Church in North America with a new constitution and a new set of canons can be the umbrella organization for these networks. It can be like the wind blowing dandelion seeds to all points of the compass, helping these Anglican churches to multiply across the land, reaching and engaging unchurched people in every community and in the sparsely-populated areas in between.
No comments:
Post a Comment