Reformed Christians Study 'Third Wave Pentecostalism'

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090617/reformed-christians-study-third-wave-pentecostalism/index.html

[The Christian Post] 20 June 2009--The highest governing body of the Christian Reformed Church on Tuesday approved a report on the "Third Wave" movement of the Holy Spirit and recommended sending it to member congregations for study.

The report asks churches to accept the different ways in which the Pentecostal-like movement manifests the work of the Spirit while cautioning members against misuses and placing too much emphasis on spiritual gifts and experiences.

Coined by C. Peter Wagner, founder of Global Harvest Ministries, the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit is similar to the Pentecostal and charismatic waves that preceded it but with important differences, the report – drawn up by a CRC study committee – states.

While the earlier movements emphasize baptism with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, the third wave focuses on multiple fillings of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion with emphasis on "the more evangelically acceptable area of spiritual gifts for ministry," such as prophecy, inner healing, powerful prayer and the reality of spiritual warfare.

Also, the CRC committee offers the third wave as a predominantly evangelical phenomenon that has not, for the most part, caused division in church communities, unlike the preceding waves.

The Doctrine of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America

http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/doctrine-of-constitution-of-anglican.html

[The Heritage Anglican Network] 16 June 2009--In this first of a series of two articles on the doctrine of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America, I examine the doctrinal positions that the Constitution takes on a number of issues and their implications. Why is the doctrine of these two documents important? Philip Ashey in his contribution to the paper, “An Overview of the Work of the Governance Task Force on the Constitution and Canons for the Anglican Church in North America” provides an answer.

“These declarations or ‘confessions’ are so fundamental to our identity as Anglicans that it is the duty of every member of the Province to engage regularly in the reading and study of the Doctrine of the Church as found in Article I of the Constitution (Canon I.10.2). Congregations become members when their Vestry or comparable governing board certifies that they have subscribed to the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA—including Article I (Appendix A Guidelines, No. 9) All ordinands to the diaconate and presbyterate are required to swear an oath to “solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them”—which includes the received Fundamental Declarations in Article 1 (Canons III. 3.2 and III.4.3, emphasis added). Bishops are also required to make the same declaration at their consecration (Canon III.8.5) and may be presented and deposed for violation of this vow (Canon IV.2.3)”

With his answer in mind, let us take a look at the doctrine of the ACNA Constitution....

Watertown's Christ Church to shut doors next month

http://www.rep-am.com/News/420032.txt

[Republican American] 16 June 2009--Eighty-nine years ago, Shirley Palmer was baptized at Christ Church. She was married there and saw her son baptized and confirmed there. Nineteen years ago she attended her husband's funeral at the 245-year-old building on the town Green.

And last year Palmer was there when nearly all of the congregation left to form their own church because of the national Episcopal Church's stance on gays and other issues.

On Sunday, Bishop Laura J. Ahrens of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut told the congregation the final services in the building will be July 26.

It is closing.

"It sort of broke your heart," Palmer said. "But you have to go on."

Clergy go on strike after Archbishop’s removal

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4573

[Religious Intelligence] 16 June 2009--The Roman Catholic clergy of the Central Africa Republic (CAR) staged a one-day strike last week to protest the removal by the Vatican of the Archbishop of Bangui, Mgr Paulin Pomodimo, for violating his vow of chastity.

Appointed to oversee the country’s nine Roman Catholic dioceses in 2003, the 54-year-old archbishop resigned on May 27 after he was found by the Vatican to possess "a moral attitude which is not always in conformity with his commitments to follow Christ in chastity, poverty and obedience."

The archbishop’s resignation follows that of the former president of CAR’s episcopal conference, Bishop François-Xavier Yombandje of Bossangoa, who stepped down on May 16 after a Vatican fact-finding mission faulted him for having a common law wife.

Henry VIII Divorce Plea Reproduced

http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-06-16_116394451.html

[ANSA] 16 June 2009--An Italian publisher has produced a scaled-down replica of the massive petition written by English lords in 1530 to try to persuade the pope to let Henry VIII get a divorce.

The Venice-based publisher, Scrinium, was given unprecedented access to the Causa Anglica letter which has been kept in the Vatican's secret archive for almost 500 years.

Scrinium's replica will be unveiled at Rome's Palazzo della Cancellertia, the former papal chancellery, on June 23 - the anniversary of the eve of Henry's incoronation on June 24, 1509.

The company used the skills of Venetian glass-workers to reproduce the 85 seals on the letter.

5 Truths Churches Struggle to Accept

http://www.buildingforministry.com/2009/06/5_truths_churches_struggle_to.html

[Christianity Today] 16 June 2009--I help churches navigate change. As a Transforming Church consultant, I meet with leaders of churches and non-profit organizations across the country and help them through a journey of discovery, vision clarity, personal transformation, and community impact. No matter how diverse their situations, they share one thing in common: they all struggle to admit certain truths. Here are five of them that, once understood, may set you free:

Bishop laments ‘silencing of religious language’

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4565

[Religious Intelligence] 16 June 2009--The "language of God" - common in public life for centuries - "is now muted, if not almost silent," in this country, according to a leading English bishop.

The lament was voiced by the Rt Rev Martin Wharton, Bishop of Newcastle, who said the mood was famously summed up by Alistair Campbell, press aide to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, with the words "We don't do God".

This meant that if a politician referred to God at all it was in a "half-embarrassed kind of way," the bishop told his diocesan synod.

Bishop Wharton said: "Religion is seen as something which may be privately engaged in - but publicly irrelevant."

Or worse, it could been seen as "dangerous, emotional, and the cause of wars and terrorism," said the 64-year-old church leader, a former Bishop of Kingston-upon-Thames.

Navajoland Declines P.B.’s Choice for Interim Bishop

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/16/navajoland-declines-pbs-choice-for-interim-bishop

[The Living Church] 16 June 2009--The annual convocation of the Navajoland Area Mission adopted overwhelmingly an amended resolution to defer the election of an interim bishop until September. The convocation met June 12-14 at Good Shepherd Mission in Fort Defiance, Ariz.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori presided and officiated at the opening Eucharist, which was attended by about 150 persons, including 40 delegates. Prior to the start of the convocation, Bishop Jefferts Schori had nominated the Rev. Canon David Bailey, canon to the ordinary for the Diocese of Utah, as a possible choice for interim bishop. Her proposal also included identifying and training Navajo leadership, and fund raising in conjunction with the Episcopal Church Foundation.

But during debate, several speakers said they felt that the proposal had not been discussed adequately within Navajoland. Others asked whether it would be possible for the Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, National Indigenous Bishop for the Anglican Church of Canada, to continue serving as assisting Bishop of Navajoland, a role he has held since 2006. Bishop Jefferts Schori said that Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of Canada, had said previously that he wants Bishop MacDonald working in Canada on a full-time basis.

Proposed Amendments to the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America

The following proposals are companion proposals to those in the document, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America.” A number of these proposals bring provisions of the canons into conformity with the provisions of the constitutional amendments proposed in that document. A number of the proposals address other provisions of the canons that are the cause of concern. Attention is in several instances drawn to canonical provisions in need of being changed but no specific additions, alterations, or omissions are proposed. It is hoped that this document, like “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America,” will help delegates to see that the foundational documents being presented for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas on June 22-25, 2009 are in need of serious revision. Ratification of the ACNA constitution and canons in their present form at that meeting is not only premature but it is also likely to make the much needed revision of these foundational documents more difficult. A temporary delay in their ratification is warranted until their provisions can be more thoroughly examined, their implications for North American Anglicanism more carefully studied, and critical revisions adopted.

To read the proposed amendments to the ACNA canons, click here.
To read the proposed amendments to the ACNA constitution, click here or here.
To read a series of articles related to the ACNA constitution and canons, click here.

Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America

The following proposals have been put together to address the concerns of a number of groups and individuals in and outside the Anglican Church in North America in connection with the provisions of the ACNA constitution to be presented for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas on June 22-25, 2009. They have also been compiled to draw the attention of the delegates to the Provincial Assembly to those parts of the constitution that are in serious need of revision and to offer in their place suitable alternative provisions. A good foundation and framework are essential to a well-built house. Without them those living in the house may discover in a few years that they need to make costly repairs. They may even have to tear down part or all of the house and rebuild it. With these proposals we hope to provide that foundation and framework for the Anglican Church in North America.

I.3 We take our place with generations of Anglicans in recognizing that “from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” which “Offices” are always to be held in “reverent estimation”; and join with the 1888 Lambeth Conference in expressing the opinion that “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church” supplies an important part of the basis on which approach may be made toward the reunification of the Church.

The existing section of the constitution excludes from the constitution’s official definition of Anglican orthodoxy the longstanding views on episcopacy of orthodox Anglicans in the evangelical and Reformed tradition and takes an unnecessarily narrow and partisan doctrinal stance. This proposed amendment substitutes a statement relating to Christian ministry and the historic episcopate upon which all three orthodox theological streams represented in the ACNA can agree. The first part of the statement paraphrases the Preface of the 1550 Ordinal and the second part, Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference.

I.8 We unite with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in solemnly declaring the fourteen tenets of orthodoxy that are set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration and which underpin our Anglican identity.

This proposed amendment incorporates the fourteen tenets set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration into constitution’s official definition of Anglican orthodoxy and closes the gap between the constitution’s definition of Anglican orthodoxy and the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition.

II.2 Groups of congregations and their clergy may be recognized as member dioceses of this Church by action of the Provincial Synod in accordance with such procedures as shall be delineated in the Canons of this Province.

This proposed amendment is clearer, more specific and more detailed in its language. It replaces “added” with “recognized,” acknowledging the autonomous character of the groups of congregations and clergy forming member dioceses of the ACNA. It replaces “Provincial Council” with “Provincial Synod,” bringing the language of this section into conformity with that of IV.6.

IV. 2 The Anglican Church in North America is a voluntary association of autonomous (or self-governing) groups of local congregations and their clergy, each group organized on the basis of geographic proximity, shared positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues, or existing relationship or any combination thereof, and having its own bishop and auxiliary bishops, that have banded together for common mission and mutual support, and have entered into a compact for this purpose, as represented by this Constitution.

This proposed amendment further acknowledges the autonomous character of the member dioceses of the ACNA and the voluntary nature of their association together as the ACNA. It recognizes four bases for the organization of a member diocese: geographic proximity, a common theology and ecclesiology, or existing relationship or a combination of two or more of the three. The amendment is an important safeguard against what has happened in TEC where the diocese is treated as a state or regional branch of the national church and therefore subordinate to the national church rather than as an autonomous entity voluntarily joined with similar entities for mutually-defined purposes. It also makes clearer the bases on which groups of congregations and their clergy may organize as autonomous dioceses. Under its provisions a group of congregations and their clergy standing in one particular tradition may organize as separate autonomous diocese on the basis of their common theology and ecclesiology instead of joining a regional-based autonomous diocese in which another tradition is dominant. A group of congregations and their clergy scattered across North America and standing in the same tradition may also organize as an autonomous diocese. As the history of TEC has shown, dioceses in which two or three theological streams are represented are more likely to experience serious power struggles and theological disputes than those that are homogenous.

IV. 3 Repeal. See VI.

IV. 4 Member dioceses may, at the sub-Provincial level, form distinct jurisdictions or voluntary associations for common mission and mutual support and such bodies may adopt and amend their own constitutions and canons.

This proposed amendment brings the language of this section into conformity with that of the proposed amendment to IV.2. Under the provisions of this section several dioceses standing in the same tradition may form a distinct jurisdiction.

IV.6 There shall a Provincial Synod as provided by Article VII and by Canon.

This proposed amendment transforms the Provincial Council into a Provincial Synod and make it the primary representative body as well as the governing body of the province.

IV.7 This Constitution recognizes the right of each diocese, whether organized on the basis of geographic proximity, shared positions on key theological and ecclesiological issues, or existing relationship or any combination thereof, to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Province.

This proposed amendment brings the language of this section into conformity with that of the proposed amendment to IV.2.

V.1 The Provincial Synod, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, has power to make canons ordering the common life of this Province in respect to the following matters:1. The Faith and Order of the Province2. The Mission of the Province3. Forms of Service authorized for use in the Province and other matters relating to worship, the sacraments, and the pastoral offices.4. Standards for Ordination5. Discipline, support, and transfer of Clergy6. Ecumenical and international relations7. Norms for Holy Matrimony8. The proper administration of the Province

This proposed amendment modifies the language of the existing section, eliminating unnecessary wording, and making other changes in the wording of the section. It adds a clause subjecting the Provincial Synod’s canon-making power to the provisions of the constitution. See V.2 for the provisions of the constitution affecting the Provisional Synod’s canon-making power.

V.2 All proposed canons must be circulated among the member dioceses at least ninety (90) days before the regular or special meeting of the Provincial Synod at which they will be considered. If a proposed canon is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, it shall be submitted to each member diocese for ratification. Each member diocese shall send its decision in writing to the Chair of the Provincial Synod, who shall inform the member dioceses of the results, and if approved by two-thirds of the member dioceses, the canon shall take effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the canon. If the proposed canon is not ratified, it may be resubmitted at the next Provincial Synod.

This proposed amendment requires the circulation of proposed canons among the member dioceses well ahead of meetings of the Provincial Assembly and the member dioceses’ ratification of any proposed canon adopted by the Provincial Synod. It is an important safeguard of the autonomy and interests of the member dioceses.

VI. Repeal. The Provincial Assembly is largely titular, having no real power beyond ratifying constitutional changes and canons. Due to its unwieldy size it is highly susceptible to co-option. Persuasive speakers and experienced lobbying groups could easily sway the delegations of the member dioceses to the Assembly to vote against the interests of their respective dioceses. Regular mission conferences could perform the function of strengthening the mission of the province. They could deliberate upon matters referred to them and make recommendations to the member dioceses, the Provincial Synod, the Provincial Executive Council, and the College of Bishops.

VII. Change title to “The Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

VII.1-4 Change all references to “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” These proposed amendments are self-explanatory.

VII.5 Repeal. The need for the co-option of additional members to the Provincial Synod is highly questionable.

VII.6-7 Change all references to “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

VII.8 Special meetings of the Provincial Synod may be called by the Chair and shall be called at the request of two dioceses or one-third of the members of the Provincial Synod.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the calling of special meetings of the Provincial Synod at the request of two dioceses as well as one-third of the members of the Provincial Synod.

VII.9 The Chair with the assistance of the Provincial Executive Council will be responsible for the preparation of the agenda of each Provincial Synod meeting.

This proposed amendment brings the language of VII.9 into conformity with that of VII.10.

VII.10 There is hereby established a Provincial Executive Council, the membership, term of office, manner of election, and duties of which shall be established by canon. Initially the Provincial Executive Council shall be composed of the members of the Common Cause Executive Committee, as constituted under the Common Cause Articles.

This proposed amendment establishes a Provincial Executive Council to replace the Executive Committee and to serve as the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America, Inc.

VIII. 1 The member dioceses retain all authority that they do not delegate to this Province by this Constitution. The powers not delegated to the Province by this Constitution nor prohibited by this Constitution to the member dioceses are reserved to the member dioceses and may be exercised by each such diocese independently or in conjunction with one or more other such dioceses.

The proposed amendment alters the language of VIII.1 to make it clearer that the powers that the province and its institutions may exercise are limited. Under its provisions any canon arrogating powers to the province or its institutions that are not specifically delegated to them would be unconstitutional—a safeguard against any encroachment of the province and its institutions upon the powers of the diocese.

VIII. 2 The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member diocese or distinctive jurisdiction or voluntary association for common mission and mutual support formed by the member dioceses with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate.

This proposed amendment brings the language of VIII.2 into conformity with the language of the other proposed amendments.

IX. 1 The Archbishop will be known as the ‘Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America.’ The Archbishop will be elected, in accordance with such procedures as shall be prescribed by Canon, by a Primatial Electoral College consisting of the bishops in active service of the Province and such clerical and lay electors as shall be provided by Canon.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the election of the Archbishop by a Primatial Electoral College that includes clerical and lay electors as well as the College of Bishops, giving the clergy and laity a role in the election of the Archbishop, restoring not only what has been the historic practice in North America but also was the practice of the early church . Retaining clergy and lay involvement in the election of the primate is even more important given the Archbishop’s duties as Primate—a recent and critical development in the Anglican Communion.

IX. 2 The person elected as Archbishop will hold office for a term of five years concluding at the end of the meeting of the Primatial Electoral College at which his successor is elected. An Archbishop who has served one term of office may be elected for a second term of office. No bishop who has not served as a bishop with jurisdiction for a period of at least six years shall be eligible for election as Archbishop. Any bishop who is elected to the office of Archbishop shall retain his see as a bishop with jurisdiction and continue to discharge his duties as such bishop. Initially, the Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership shall serve as Archbishop and Primate of the Province.

As well as prescribing the term of office of the Archbishop, this proposed amendment establishes the requirements that only those who have been a bishop with jurisdiction for at least six years may serve as Archbishop and the Archbishop must retain his diocesan responsibilities. The first requirement is a hedging of the position of Archbishop against ambitious office seekers and the accompanying politics. The second requirement recognizes that the separation of TEC’s Presiding Bishop from diocesan responsibilities has not been a healthy development for TEC and the primate’s retention of diocesan responsibilities is not an uncommon practice, for example the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Australia and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church of the Province of Southern Cone.

IX. 3 The Archbishop shall convenes the meetings of the Provincial Synod, Provincial Executive Council, and College of Bishops, preside at such meetings, certify the election of new bishops, arrange for their consecration if they have not been previously consecrated, participate in such consecrations or designate another bishop to act in his stead, represent the Province in the Councils of the Church, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by Canon.

The existing section gives limited authority to the Archbishop while the canons give him many additional powers and responsibilities that exceed this limited authority as well as the powers that the Presiding Bishop exercises in TEC. While some of these additional powers and responsibilities may not be objectionable on the merits, the canons giving them to the Archbishop violate the constitution, setting a bad precedent and resembling the current TEC Presiding Bishop’ exceeding of her authority. This proposed amendment prescribed the duties of the Archbishop, listing those historically associated with that office. It also makes provision for the prescription of additional duties by canon.

X.1 The chief work of the College of Bishops shall be to propagate and defend the faith and order of the Church and to serve as the visible sign and expression of the unity of the Church.

This proposed amendment slightly alters the language of the existing section and makes it clearer.

X.3 The College of Bishops may by two-thirds vote of its members, suspend or remove the Archbishop from office for cause.

This proposed amendment makes provision for the suspension or removal of the Archbishop by a two-third vote of the members of the College of Bishops. The Archbishop’s suspension or removal would not prevent him from performing his diocesan responsibilities.

X.4 Change “Provincial Council” to “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

X.5 (a) The College of Bishops shall have authority to confirm the election of bishops of the Province and to consent to their consecration if they have not previously been consecrated. Upon electing a bishop or auxiliary bishop a diocese shall report the election to the College of Bishops in order to obtain confirmation of the election, and consent for consecration of the bishop elect if applicable. If the election is not confirmed by the College of Bishops, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
(b) It is competent for the governing body of a diocese, in accordance with the constitution and canons of the diocese, to either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose delegate the power and authority of the diocese to elect a bishop or auxiliary bishop to the College of Bishops. The delegated power and authority referred to above shall cease with the election of a bishop or auxiliary bishop by the College of Bishops for such occasion and upon confirmation of the election by the governing body of the diocese. Such delegated power and authority may be rescinded by the governing body of the diocese at any time before the election of a bishop or auxiliary bishop for the aforesaid occasion. If the election is not confirmed by the governing body of the diocese, the election is null and void and the procedure must be repeated as if the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop had become vacant at the time that the election became null and void.
(c) Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed to prohibit a diocese from choosing a different mode of election for each different occasion that the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop becomes vacant or an additional auxiliary bishop is required.

The existing section permits and the canons impose upon new dioceses a mode of episcopal election that is alien to North American Anglican practice and to the practice of the early church in which that practice is rooted. The canons also commend this mode of episcopal election to founding entities that presently elect their own bishops. The longstanding practice in North American Anglicanism is that the diocese elects its own bishop and the bishops of the province and the General Convention or standing committees of the province (United States) or the metropolitan and the bishops of the ecclesiastic province (Canada) confirm the election. Notwithstanding the problems with episcopacy in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, they cannot be ascribed to this practice that predates the decline of the last forty years. The origins of the practice of dioceses electing and the province sanctioning bishops can be traced to the fifth century AD. In the historical context of North American Anglicanism the practice of the College of Bishop’s election of the bishop of a diocese is an innovation and is made at the expense of the clergy, laity and individual diocese. Even outside of North America it is of relatively recent origin in Anglican practice and bears a strong resemblance to the Roman Catholic practice of English and Irish dioceses nominating candidates for the office of bishop of a vacant see and submitting their names to the archbishop of the province who then submits the names with his recommendations to the Holy See. The Holy See is not juridically bound to appoint one of the nominees.

This proposed amendment preserves the historical North American Anglican –early church practice of dioceses electing their own bishops and the province confirming their election. At the same time it permits the governing body of a diocese to either absolutely or subject to any conditions it may think fit to impose delegate the power and authority of the diocese to elect a bishop to the College of Bishops for a particular occasion. The election of the bishop so elected must be confirmed by the governing body of the diocese. If a diocese delegates its power and authority to elect a bishop to the College of Bishops on one occasion, it is not bound to do so on a subsequent occasion but may elect his successor itself. Both options are open to new dioceses: they may elect their own bishop or delegate their power and authority to elect their first bishop to the College of Bishops. The proposed amendment safeguards the autonomy of the members dioceses, new as well as existing, in the choice of their bishops.

The flexibility of the provisions of the proposed amendment enable a diocese to try both modes of election and to decide which mode works best for the diocese. It also allows a diocese to revisit an earlier decision that the diocese had made in connection with how the bishops of the diocese would be elected and change the mode of episcopal election. If a diocese opts to elect its own bishop, the manner of how the bishop is elected--by a synod of the diocese, an episcopal electoral college, a board of electors, or any other method consistent with Anglican practice--is left to the diocese.

X.6 The College of Bishops may develop such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for the conduct of its business and shall have such other powers as shall be prescribed by Canon.

This proposed amendment is a corrective. The constitution does not delegate to the College of Bishops all the powers that the canons give to that body. As in the case of the canons giving the Archbishop many additional powers and responsibilities that exceed the limited authority that the constitution gives him, the canons violate the constitution and set a bad precedent.

XI Replace “Provincial Council” with “Provincial Synod.” This proposed amendment is self-explanatory.

XII All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be subject to any trust interest in favor of the Province, a member diocese, or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province or any member diocese thereof. Where property used by a local congregation is held in a different manner by any diocese such property shall be transferred to the local congregation, within five years of the adoption of this Constitution, under such terms and conditions as the diocese and the local congregation agree upon. A local congregation may dispose of its property as it determines, subject to any self-accepted indebtedness or other self-accepted restrictions. Nothing in this article shall be construed to abrogate or curtail the right of this Church or a member diocese thereof to own, hold, manage, and convey property in its own name for the purpose of carrying out ecclesiastical programs.

This proposed amendment abolished the practice of dioceses holding property in trust altogether and makes provision for the orderly transfer of any property held in trust from the diocese to the local congregation.

XIII Each member diocese or any group of dioceses organized into a distinct jurisdiction agree to share the cost of operating the Province as provided by Canon.

This proposed amendment brings the language of XIII into conformity with the language of the other proposed amendments.

XIV As may be provided by canon, a member diocese or any group of dioceses organized into a distinct jurisdiction may be removed from membership in the Province, after due warning from the Provincial Executive Council, if agreed to by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Executive Council present and voting, and a vote of at least a majority of the members of the Provincial Synod in each of the three orders of bishops, clergy and laity.

This proposed amendment requires a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Executive Council present and voting, and a vote of at least a majority of the members of the Provincial Synod in each of the three orders of bishops, clergy and laity to expel a member diocese or jurisdiction from the ACNA.

XV.1 Repeal. See XV. 2

XV.2 For any changes or amendments to this Constitution the following procedure shall be used: Any proposed change shall be sent by a member diocese to the Provincial Executive Council which shall circulate it among the member dioceses not less than ninety (90) days before the next meeting of the Provincial Synod. If the proposed change is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Synod, it shall be submitted to the governing bodies of the member dioceses for ratification. The governing bodies of the member dioceses shall send a written notice of their approval to the Archbishop who shall then inform them of the results. If approved unanimously by the member dioceses, the approved proposed amendment shall be placed into force.

This proposed amendment establishes a procedure for adopting amendments to the constitution and ratifying them similar to that for adopting canons and ratifying them except that the ratification of a constitutional amendment requires the approval of all the governing bodies of the member dioceses. As in the case of proposed canons this type of procedure not only safeguards the interests of the member dioceses but also discourages hastily conceived constitutional amendments. They encourage those seeking to propose constitutional amendments to consult with all the governing bodies of the member dioceses beforehand and to work out with these governing bodies proposals that are agreeable to them.

A Response to ‘An Introduction to the ACNA Constitution and Canons – By Bishop Robert Duncan’

By Robin G. Jordan

Whatever questions may have been posed at the deliberations of the Governance Task Force and the wider consultations that Governance Task Force undertook, the answers of the Governance Task Force appear to have been influenced by preconceived notions that members of the Governance Task Force brought to those deliberations and consultations. One set of questions that was apparently not asked is how in our attempts to resolve one set of problems can we keep from replacing them with another set of problems? In adopting the practices of “the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion” are we trading one set of problems for another? From where did they acquire these practices and what historically have been the problems associated with such practice? What newer problems are manifesting themselves in connection with the same practices? These important questions and other questions as equally as important do not appear to have been asked. Perhaps they were. However, it is not evident from the finalized version of the ACNA constitution and canons.

What is missing from the principles that Bishop outlined as necessary to understand “why something had been done in the way proposed,” as opposed to the way it has historically been done in North American Anglicanism, is a serious commitment on the part of the Governance Task Force and the Common Cause Leadership Council to the preservation, renewal, and strengthening of four vital elements of the North American Anglican heritage—a synodical form of church government, substantial lay involvement in the governance of the church and the selection of church leaders, the autonomy of the diocese particularly in its choice of bishops (subject to the province’s confirmation of the canonical eligibility of the bishop-elect), and the concept of the province as a voluntary association of equal dioceses over which the province has limited, constitutionally-defined authority. Noticeably lacking is also a commitment to the degree of clarity, specificity, and detail in the language of the two documents essential to preventing any misunderstanding of their provisions and to avoiding the kinds of irregularities that are apt to beset a church when such documents are not sufficiently clear, specific, and detailed.

The skeleton that the Governing Task Force has provided for the ACNA contains a number of provisions that do not need to be included in the constitution and canons of a church. This is readily seen when the ACNA constitution and canons are compared with those of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone and other Anglican provinces. At the same time that skeleton omits a number of provisions that should have been included. The work of the Governing Task Force might have been really strengthened if the other interested parties beside the Common Cause Leadership Council had been given an opportunity to make their own contribution to that work. The provisional constitution and canons were not made public until after the Leadership Council had adopted them in December. Interested parties were given only seventeen days to make comments and offer suggestions in connection with the proposed amendments to the provisional constitution and the draft code of canons made public in April.

Rather than giving “far more place to the laity,” the ACNA constitution and canons actually give the laity a limited role in the governance of the ACNA. First, while the lay members may form one half of the members of the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council, they form substantially more than half the membership of the ACNA. In proportion to the laity the bishops and the clergy of the ACNA form a very small part of the church.

Second, the constitution and canons permit the dioceses to adopt forms of governance like that of the AMiA in which the laity does not even have a token role in the governance of that “sub-provincial jurisdiction” and the role of the clergy is not much better. As the AMiA is presently organized, the bishops of that jurisdiction will select the bishop, the clergy, and laity that will represent the AMIA in the Provincial Council and the clergy, laity, and youth who will represent the AMiA in the Provincial Assembly. The ACNA constitution and canons contain no provisions that guarantee the laity any role in the nomination and election of the clerical and lay members of these two bodies. This is left solely to the discretion of the member dioceses.

Third, while the Provincial Assembly may have a large number of lay members, including voting youth members, the Assembly has no real power. The Assembly may receive reports, deliberate, recommend, and ratify but it may not initiate legislation, conduct investigations, censure, or remove from office. It is largely titular. In the hands of lobbying groups the Assembly has a high potential to become a rubber stamp for whatever faction dominates the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council.

Fourth, what role the laity has in the nomination and election of the bishops of a diocese depends upon the diocese. Under the ACNA constitution and canons they are not guaranteed any role at all. The canons permit dioceses to continue to operate under the constitution and canons of the parent Provinces. Under the canonical charter of the AMiA the Council of Missionary Bishops nominates candidates for the office of bishop. All candidates must be approved by the Primatial Vicar. The names of the candidates with their curricula vitae are then submitted to the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops for their consideration.

The ACNA canons requires that all new dioceses to nominate two or three candidates for the office of bishop and to submit their names to the College of Bishops for consideration. The canons state that the College of Bishops may elect one of the candidates but they contain no provision that juridically binds the College of Bishops to elect any of the candidates. They are silent on whether, if the College of Bishops rejects all three candidates, the diocese may nominate additional candidates. The canons commend this mode of choosing bishops to founding entities that continue to elect their own bishops. It is strikingly similar to the way that bishops are chosen in the Anglican Church of Rwanda (see Title I, Canon 6, Sections 3, 4, 5and 6, and Title III, Canon 23, Section 3 of the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/Final%20Edition%20of%20the%20Canons%20of%20the%20Province%20of%20Rwanda.pdf ) and in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Ireland (see "Bishops: Present Legislation," Catholic Encyclopedia on the Internet at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm). The way the canons are worded procedures followed in these churches could also be followed in the ACNA.

Neither the clergy nor the laity has any role in the election of the titular Archbishop of the ACNA, who is chosen solely by the College of Bishops.

Bishop Duncan claims, “…the bishops don’t own the property.” However, the ACNA constitution does permit dioceses holding property in trust to continue to do. It does not abolish the practice. The ACNA canons also allow dioceses to take property into trust with the written consent of the local congregation.

Bishop Duncan goes on to say, “Giving is a free exercise, the tithe is upheld, force is not a way forward.” On the other hand, the instructions for the application for recognition as an ACNA diocese state, “While acknowledging the tithe as the underlying principle of the new province, it is accepted that some ACNA jurisdictions already have a giving procedure in place that cannot be immediately altered easily. Permission is therefore given to continue those current systems of giving that it is understood must stay in place for now, but with intentional steps and designs in place to move into the uniformity of the tithe as the standard for all the province. Congregations moving into new groupings are encouraged to give ten percent of local income to the new grouping, while each new grouping is encouraged to give ten percent of group income to the support of the cost of operating the Province.” If giving is voluntary, why is permission required to continue current systems of giving? Tithing also represents an innovation in the United States, particularly at the national church level but also at the diocesan and local congregational level where proportional giving has generally been the rule. The question arises why the national church would require ten percent of the revenues of a diocese in a church in which the diocese is “a grouping of congregations gathered for mission” and “the local congregation is the fundamental agency of mission.”

Bishop Duncan’s comment, “under stress, regress” is not very reassuring. The first question that comes to mind is to “regress” to what—some imagined golden age in Anglicanism? If one looks at the different periods in Anglican Church history, they all had their share of problems—authoritarian episcopacy and prelacy in the seventeenth century, clashes over doctrine and churchmanship in the nineteenth century, and so on. Regression in the face of stress is not a healthy response.

All of the bodies that the ACNA constitution and canons establish, the Provincial Assembly, the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Provincial Tribunal are highly susceptible to political maneuvering and manipulation. The two documents contain few checks and balances, guarantees, and safeguards. As far as protecting the interests of the member dioceses transferring the ratification of constitutional changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would provide greater security than an assembly in which a persuasive speaker or two, working in concert with an experienced pressure group, could sway the diocesan delegations to vote against their respective dioceses’ interests.

The need for a more exciting pair of documents is not what is prompting orthodox North American Anglicans to draw attention to troublesome provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons. They have been thoughtfully examining the two documents and weighing their implications. They recognize that the documents provide more than a framework. They provide a vision of a church’s future, of the direction in which church leaders are taking the church. They see the principles reflected in the documents other than the six that Bishop Duncan mentions:

1. Partisanship. The constitution and canons contain dogmatic statements that are related to ecclesiological and theological issues over which orthodox Anglicans has historically been divided, and which take a particular side in these controversies. The presence of these statements belies any assurances from ACNA leaders that the ACNA is committed to a genuine comprehensiveness that truly embraces all three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical--in North America.

2. Centralization of authority, with the canons arrogating to such bodies as the Provincial Council and the College of Bishops, powers and functions that the constitution does not give to them. The canons place the making of major decisions affecting the faith and order of the church into the hands of what has a high potential of becoming a small, closed, self-perpetuating group.

3. Lessening of the autonomy of the diocese. Despite constitutional provisions that appear to protect diocesan autonomy, the canons arrogate to the province powers and functions that North American dioceses have historically exercised, including the establishment of norms in such matters as the criterion for self-supporting parishes and standards for lay ministry. A critical area in which the canons reduce diocesan autonomy is the election of the bishops of the diocese, commending to the founding entities of the ACNA a practice in which the College of Bishops elects the bishops of the diocese in place of the diocese itself. The instructions for applications for recognition as an ACNA diocese point to a future reduction of diocesan autonomy: “Article IV recognized the right of each grouping to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Province. While not required at this time, future canons may require each grouping to write a constitution and canons in support of the Provincial Constitution and Canons.”

4. Diminution of lay involvement in ecclesiastical governance and selection of church leaders. The ACNA constitution and canons abandon centuries of hard-won lay involvement in these areas of church life. Lay members of the ACNA are treated as less than full partners and stakeholders in the ACNA.

Whether what we are witnessing and the finalized version of the ACNA constitution and canons represents is “the rebirth of the biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America” remains to be seen. A number of the provisions of the two documents are already the cause of division. As people come to fully understand their implications, they are likely to cause further division. Instead of ratifying the documents, the member dioceses of the ACNA needs to defer action upon them, giving themselves time to carefully examine the constitution and canons, weigh their implications, and make substantive changes. An interim instrument of governance can be drafted and adopted to provide for the government of the ACNA and the management of its affairs during this period of review. If they are ratified in their present form, the two documents will be an ongoing source of tension and conflict and eventually may precipitate the dissolution of the ACNA.

U.S. Evangelicals Pessimistic about Christianity in America

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090603/u-s-evangelicals-pessimistic-about-christianity-in-america/index.html

[The Christian Post] 9 June 2009--A survey of some of the top evangelical leaders in the nation found that while there is overwhelming optimism on the growth of Christianity in the world, there is mostly pessimism when it comes to the future of the faith in America.

“Evangelical leaders are very bullish on the future growth of Christianity, except in America,” said Leith Anderson, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

In the latest Evangelical Leaders Survey, released Tuesday, respondents said they overwhelmingly (94 percent) believe the number of Christians worldwide will increase in the next ten years. A mere four percent of respondents said the number of Christians will stay the same, while two percent said they are unsure.

No one predicted the number of Christians will decrease.

The expectations for Christianity’s growth, however, focused on the global south where the religion is currently blossoming.

Fitting sendoff for ACK prelate

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/607976/-/ujs349/-/

[Daily Nation] 9 June 2009--I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith,” was how Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi summed up his 31 years in the pulpit.

The quote from Second Timothy 4:7 was the theme of the retirement service of the fourth archbishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya on Sunday.

Pomp and colour marked the celebrations to honour the service of Dr Nzimbi at the All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi. And gifts flowed, including a brand new car to symbolically give the archbishop a smooth ride into retirement.

As the service committee had anticipated, hundreds of faithful gathered at the cathedral, and many followed the farewell service on screens from tents outside the church.

Stop the body count

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/evangelism/ministry_casualties_of_body_counts/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 9 June 2009--In Vietnam, the US army used body counts to show it was winning the war. Measuring progress was difficult but the body count made it simple. The public quickly doubted the veracity and usefulness of these figures.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US General Tommy Franks famously said, ‘We don’t do body counts.’ Maybe they were worried about bad publicity, maybe they had learned lessons about how to assess progress.

Churches do body counts. The most common description of a church is its size. How else could you measure progress? The body count is simple. More people are coming last year than this year - that’s got to be a win doesn’t it?

Here are some of the problems about measuring success by attendance

An Introduction to the Constitution and Canons - By Bishop Robert Duncan

http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2009/06/introduction-constitution-and-canons-bishop-robert.html

[The Common Cause Partnership] 9 June 2009--Editor's Note:Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Common Cause Partnership gives his view on the proposed Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America

How do we renew what was best about the tradition that produced us? How do we not repeat the patterns that subverted our life as a biblical and missionary province? How do we adapt learnings from the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion? How do we restore our role as the bridge among and between the various denominational expressions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? How do we have both freedom and accountability? How can we be truly catholic, truly evangelical, truly charismatic and truly conciliar in a 21st century context – both North American and global? These are all questions that shaped the deliberations of the Governance Task Force, and the wider consultations the Governance Task Force undertook, and that resulted in the Constitution and Canons proposed for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.

Bishop Gulick Extends Term in Forth Worth

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/6/8/bishop-gulick-extends-term-in-forth-worth

[The Living Church] 9 June 2009--The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., has agreed to extend a six-month term as provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth in The Episcopal Church until at least the conclusion of the annual convention scheduled for mid-November, according to a statement from the diocese.

The original agreement called for Bishop Gulick to remain as provisional bishop until the conclusion of General Convention in mid-July. In addition to serving as provisional Bishop of Fort Worth, Bishop Gulick also continues as Bishop of Kentucky, a position he has held since 1994. He has been dividing his time between the two dioceses.

A Plea for a Moratorium on the Ratification of the ACNA Constitution and Canons

By Robin G. Jordan

Readers of Anglicans Ablaze may have been following the discussion on Stand Firm in connection with the thread titled “Can Evangelicals Accept the Historic Episcopate?” In a number of posts Matt Kennedy argues that evangelicals can accept the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America without compromising their “evangelical principles.” This argument, while it may convince some evangelicals, does not convince others or even Anglicans who do not identify themselves as evangelicals.

The language of Article I, Section 3 is decidedly partisan. Both Bishop John Rodgers and Stephen Noll in their own way have acknowledged this. Bishop Rodgers has stated that the concern regarding the language of the section is "significant" and needs "to be resolved." Dr. Noll has described the language of the section as "prescriptive-normative" rather than "descriptive normative,"noting, "...maybe the Anglo-Catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution." Philip Ashey has linked the section to the decidedly partisan Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral resolution of the 1886 Episcopal House of Bishops. The arguments of a number of posters in support of the retention of the section point to its partisanship. Kennedy’s own suggestion that Anglo-Catholics might take offense at its removal from the Fundamental Declarations does the same.

Several posters have built the case that the doctrine articulated in the section is one over which Anglicans have historically been divided. Two traditions exist in Anglicanism. In the view of one tradition the episcopacy is seen as being of the essence of the Church. The most extreme proponents of this view have argued that the Church cannot exist without it. In the nineteenth century they unchurched a number of denominations solely on the basis that they did not have an episcopal form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the Church of Rome, the seventeenth century Catholic Reaction, the nineteenth century Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism.

In the view of the other tradition the episcopacy, while it is a very ancient and commendable form of church government, is not a divine institution. The Scriptures do not prescribe any particular form of church government. This view has historically been identified with the English Reformers, the Elizabethan Settlement, the Evangelical Revival, and classical evangelical Anglicanism.

Both traditions have historically been represented in North American Anglicanism, the first notably by Bishop Samuel Seabury and the second notably by Bishop William White. Both views have their contemporary proponents in and outside of North America.

The question has been raised whether such partisan statements of doctrine rightfully belong in the constitution and code of canons of a church that is comprised of not one but three orthodox theological streams—Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, and evangelical—and is supposed to embody Anglican comprehensiveness. Posters who embrace a vision of the Anglican Church in North America in which all three streams are given ample room to flourish have argued that they do not. On the other hand, posters who have been for a large part Anglo-Catholic in theological outlook have opposed their removal.

While the inclusion of partisan doctrinal statements in the ACNA constitution and code of canons is a serious problem, it represents the tip of the iceberg. It is one of a number of problems that are manifesting themselves in the ACNA. Some of these problems are connected to the provisions of the constitution and canons; others are not. These problems include but are not limited to:

· The abandonment of centuries of hard-won lay involvement in church government and the election of bishops, including the primate.
· The centralization of power in the national church, in the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, the College of Bishops, and the Archbishop.
· A revival of prelacy and authoritarian forms of church government.
· The revival of an episcopal patronage system and the problems and abuses inherent in such a system.
· A resurgence of clericism and the unbiblical subordination of the laity to the bishops and clergy.
· A lack of any safeguards against episcopal and clerical power and their abuse.
· The inadequate treatment of the laity as full partners and stakeholders in the church.
· A significant reduction in the autonomy of the diocese, primarily manifest in the College of Bishops’ election of diocesan and auxiliary bishops and the canons’ arrogation to the national church powers and functions that the diocese has historically exercised and which the constitution does not delegate to the national church or prohibit to the diocese.
· The canons’ arrogation to a titular archbishop of powers and functions, including metropolitan authority, which the constitution does not give him.
· A weak commitment to the local congregation’s ownership of local church property evident in constitutional and canonical provisions permitting a diocese to hold property in trust.

The large role that the ACNA constitution and code of canons gives to bishops is surprising since serious theological disputes between congregations and clergy and their bishops and the abuse of episcopal power were high on the lists of reasons that congregations and clergy left The Episcopal Church, establishing the need for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. The growing centralization of power and the encroachment of the national church upon the autonomy of the diocese are major causes for concern of orthodox Anglicans remaining in The Episcopal Church. So is the Presiding Bishop’s arrogation of powers and functions that the church’s constitution and canons does not give her. With TEC suing bishops, clergy, and other church leaders and even members of the congregations that have left TEC and in some cases pursuing criminal charges against them, one would have expected a stronger commitment to a local congregation’s ownership of property.

Checks and balances and other safeguards are noticeably missing from the ACNA constitution and code of canons. The lessons that the leaders of the ACNA have learned from the events of the past forty years are not what we might have hoped that they would learn. For example, the ACNA canons contain a provision that enables a bishop to request the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate suspected rumors in respect to his character. This provision has a high potential for abuse. It could be used to suppress legitimate dissent. The argument that one hears from the more enthusiastic supporters of the ACNA that the ACNA has godly bishops while TEC does not, is rather thin, and offers little comfort.

Both the ACNA constitution and code of canons need a complete overhaul and a major revision. Refusing to ratify the two documents until they are overhauled and revised is the only way to ensure that they are changed. Dioceses that want to see changes in the documents but choose to ratify them are going to discover that the changes they desire will not be forthcoming. Only a small number of changes were made in the documents at the April meeting of the Provincial Council. The paucity of these changes suggests that the ACNA leadership has an investment in keeping the documents as they are. If the ACNA leadership is not inclined to change them before ratification, they are certainly not likely to become more inclined to change them once they are ratified. Hence, the need for a moratorium on their ratification until they can be examined thoroughly and needed alterations and additions made.

Basic etiquette for cross-cultural ministry

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/marketing/basic_etiquette_for_cross_cultural_ministry/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 6 Jun 2009-- have been surprised to discover that many Sydney Anglicans are not aware of the basic rules when relating to people of other languages and cultures. Our best attempts to reach out cross-culturally can be undermined by not appreciating and understanding these.

1. “They” are not deaf.
When someone from a non-English-speaking background is trying to understand what you are saying, raising the volume of your voice does not help. People of cultures other than your’s are not cursed with deaf ears. You may just need to be aware that the Aussie accent can make it challenging to understand your English. Even friends who have studied English overseas before coming to Australia can struggle, as they may have learned English taught in an American or British or other accent.

Even Christian ministers can be guilty of this. I was shocked to observe a fellow minister attempt to engage a Thai university student in conversation, and after repeating himself twice (the second time at higher volume), roll his eyes, huff and walk off in disgust when the young man failed to fully comprehend him.

Building Healthy Churches

http://acl.asn.au/building-healthy-churches/

[Anglican Church League] 6 Jun 2009--The audio files from the just-concluded Toronto Pastors Fellowship conference are now available. The theme?’Building Healthy Churches’.

Mark Dever and Matt Schmucker were the main speakers. (h/t Tim Challies.)

The marks of a true church are seen in ACNA - Bishop John Ellison

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11536#more-11536

[Anglican Mainstream] 6 Jun 2009--As I have been thinking about the first Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) I have wondered how leaders, especially those bishops in the Church of England who have been invited, will in fact respond. Will we as a church make sure we are represented? My firm conviction is that the ACNA shows the marks of the true church as affirmed by the Nicene and the Niceno Constantinoplan Creeds, that it to say apostolicity, catholicity, holiness and unity.

1. The mark of apostolicity. Then as now apostolicity links the contemporary church with the Apostles of the New Testament and ensures that the church is both earthed historically as well as establishing the vital link of continuity. To speak of apostolicity is to affirm that there is a clearly definable content to the Bible which is not ours to tamper with. The ACNA in its commitment to Scripture and apostolic teaching is clearly worthy of our encouragement and support.

2. The mark of catholicity. Catholicity speaks to us of the church worldwide across national and international boundaries, as well as temporally across the centuries. “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church”, famously wrote Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. Here is the vital safeguard against parochialism, being concerned only with the local and negligent of the wider church catholic. “Those to whom God is Father, the church may also be Mother”, wrote John Calvin (Institutes 4.1.1) He added “One may not put asunder what God has joined together”. As English Christians we should rejoice in the coming together of so many different expressions of North American Anglicanism embracing the vision of both Ignatius and John Calvin. At a time when TEC is sadly but relentlessly turning its back on the wider Anglican Communion, we should be glad to know of the continuing witness to the church both catholic and reformed that is represented within the ACNA and give it our support.

Bishop John Ellison is the former Bishop of the Iglesia Anglicana Paraguaya, a diocese of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.

New Westminster – New Gospel; the ANiC trial

http://www.anglicanspread.org/?p=203

[SPREAD] 6 Jun 2009--Court cases between orthodox parishes and revisionist dioceses have, sadly, become something of a commonplace in North America, but the current court battle in the Supreme Court of British Columbia between four Anglican Network in Canada parishes, including St John’s Shaughnessy, and the Anglican Church of Canada’s Diocese of New Westminster led by Bishop Michael Ingham is proving to be very revealing.

This is the first time a Canadian court has been asked to rule on the question of overall control of Anglican church property. The trial itself began on 25th May and has some time to go, with judgement not expected until late summer, but whether they win or lose, the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) has already done orthodox Anglicans – if they take notice - a great service by this bold decision to take a legal stand.

The ANiC parishes’ case is essentially very simple; that the Diocese of New Westminster under Bishop Michael Ingham no longer holds to the central doctrines of the Christian faith; it has reinvented the gospel and the presenting issue, the blessing of same sex unions, is simply a symptom of this deeper malaise. In evidence at the trial on day three , a member of one of the ANiC congregations spoke of her shock as far back as 1994 when Bishop Michael Ingham denied the uniqueness of Jesus as the only saviour and in 1997 he subsequently enlarged on this theme in his book ‘Mansions of the Spirit’. As members of the ANiC, they are aligned with the orthodox majority in the Anglican Communion through the GAFCON movement and see that they have a duty to ensure that historic assets are protected and held in trust for orthodox Anglican ministry. In essence, their argument turns on a confessional understanding of the church – that a valid Anglican Church is one which is faithful to historic and orthodox Anglican doctrine and practice.

An ACNA Constitution – An Evangelical View: A Reply to Bishop John Rodgers

By Robin G. Jordan

As much as I respect Bishop John Rodgers, I must strongly disagree with the position he has taken on the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA. Here is why.

The Provincial Assembly is a titular body. Beyond ratification of the legislative acts of the Council the Assembly has no real powers: It can discuss matters of faith and mission and make recommendations. The limitation of its powers to the ratification of constitutional changes and canons does not eliminate any susceptibility to political maneuvering and manipulation. Lobbying and pressure groups can persuade the delegates of diocese to vote against the interests of the diocese just as easily in the Assembly as they did in the General Convention. The Provincial Council is also susceptible to such maneuvering and manipulation. The form of ecclesiastical governance and modes of ecclesiastical and primatial election that the proposed constitution and code of canons of the ACNA establish in actuality make it easier for one faction to dominate the ACNA and to establish its hegemony over the church. Abolishing the Assembly, transforming the Council into a Provincial Synod and the Executive Committee into a Provincial Executive Council, increasing the size of the delegation of each diocese to the Synod in proportion to the total ASA of the diocese, capping the size of the diocesan delegations to keep the Synod from becoming too large and unwieldy a body, and transferring the ratification of constitution changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses would create important safeguards that are missing from the proposed constitution and code of canons. They would be a major step toward the avoidance of the replication in the ACNA of conditions that exist in TEC. All of these recommended changes to the proposed constitution and code of canons were submitted to the ACNA Governance Task Force but none of them were incorporated in the few amendments that the Governance Task Force did recommend to the Council in April.

If the groups of congregations that are meeting in Bedford, Texas this month do not sign the proposed constitution and code of canons, it does not mean as Bishop Rodgers suggests that there will be no church. Instead of these two highly flawed documents they can adopt resolutions establishing a new Governance Task Force to prepare a new draft constitution and code of canons for the ACNA and an Interim Instrument of Governance to provide temporary structure and governance for the ACNA until such constitution and code of canons have been drafted, studied, revised, adopted, and ratified.

Anyone who has worked with people in crisis knows that the crisis gives to the people it is affecting incentive or motivation to change. Remove the crisis and those affected by the crisis loose their incentive or motivation to change. Crises put people in a state of disequilibria and they will seek to regain their equilibrium. Once they have regained their equilibrium either by the removal of the crisis or by adjustment to the crisis, their incentive or motivation for change evaporates. Ratification of the proposed constitution and code of canons would remove the crisis that some people are experiencing over the prospect of these two documents not being ratified. Whatever incentive or motivation they may have to support any changes in the two documents would disappear.

From their actions the ACNA Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council give no indication of any real desire upon their part to make any substantive changes in the proposed constitution and code of canons related doctrinal, governance, and other concerns. While individual members of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have shown themselves open to listening to concerns, the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council have collectively shown themselves unwilling to countenance substantive changes in these two documents in connection with these concerns. Ratifying the proposed constitution and code of canons is highly unlikely to make the two bodies more amenable to substantive changes in the two documents in respect to such concerns. The notion that these concerns can be addressed and the provisions of the constitution and code of canons amended after the proposed constitution and code of canons are ratified ring hollow. The window of opportunity for revising these two documents is now. That window of opportunity will slam shut as soon as they are ratified.

Having secured the ratification of the existing documents what incentive or motivation does the Governance Task Force or the Provincial Council have to revise them? Once they are ratified, the task of making much needed revisions will be much more difficult and much more divisive. I can hear the arguments already. “If you were willing to ratify them, why aren’t you willing to accept them as they are?” “You signed them so why are you wanting to change them so soon?” And so forth. As I have noted, a segment of the Governance Task Force and the Provincial Council is resistant to any major changes in the substance of the constitution and the code of canons and they appear to have the ear of the other members of these bodies. Their resistance is not likely to disappear. Instead it is likely to grow. This resistance to any change in the two documents is not confined to these bodies. The result will be increasing tension between proponents of revision of the documents and opponents to any change in documents and may eventually lead to a major split in the ACNA. It is better to deal with the concerns related to the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons now than put them off to later.

Is it really too late to make changes at this point? The language of the Fundamental Declarations may be the language of the Common Cause Theological Statement but that does not make it representative of all orthodox North American Anglicans, only those who were represented on the drafting group that drew up the statement and those represented in the Common Cause Leadership Council that adopted the statement. What it does suggest that at least one orthodox Anglican theological stream was not adequately represented on that drafting group or in the adopting Common Cause Leadership Council. If one carefully examines the language of the Fundamental Declarations, one thing is apparent. They were written to accommodate the Anglo-Catholic position on a number of matters—the Councils of the Church, the Anglican formularies–the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and the historic episcopate. They do not display the same sensitivity toward the Evangelical position upon these matters. As Ephraim Radner has pointed to our attention, they make room for other sources of authority beside the Articles and the Prayer Book.

Bishop Rodgers claims that the language of Article 1, Section 3 of the ACNA proposed constitution was not intended to set forth the “esse” position on the historic episcopate. Whatever the intentions of the drafters of the Common Cause Theological Statement from which the Fundamental Declarations were taken, this section is open to the interpretation as representing that position: “…a godly historic episcopate is an inherent part of the apostolic doctrine and practice….” “Inherent” means “essential” and “essential” means “of, constituting of a thing’s essence” and “an indispensable element.” In other words, “a godly historic episcopate” constitutes a part of the essence of the apostolic doctrine and practice; it is an indispensable element of that doctrine and practice. This is certainly open to interpretation as expressive of the “esse” position, a doctrinal position over which orthodox Anglicans have historically divided and over which they continue to be divided to this day. In a church that is supposed to be committed to providing a home for all three orthodox Anglican theological streams such a doctrinal position is out of place. In response to the assertion that reading Article I, Section 3 of the ACNA constitution as a statement of the “esse” position on the historic episcopate is a misinterpretation of that section, it must also be noted that any provision of a constitution or canon that is open to two or more interpretations is in need of revision: its language is not clear or specific enough to prevent it from being susceptible to more than one interpretation.

It must also be noted that two changes have already been made in the Fundamental Declarations. The Fundamental Declarations now refer to the 1571 Articles instead of the 1562 Articles. The affirmation of the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration were dropped from the Fundamental Declarations and placed in the Preface where they are not as binding upon the ACNA as they would be in the Fundamental Declarations. The explanation that was offered Stephen Noll for this change was that the Fundamental Declarations were more ancient than the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration, an apparent reference to the positions that the Fundamental Declarations take on the Councils of the Church, the historic episcopate, and the like. More plainly put, the ACNA has chosen to adopt the Catholic position on these matters over the Evangelical position due to the supposed antiquity of that position even though the English Reformers and classical Anglicanism--the Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Settlement—rejected the Catholic position as not only contrary to the word of God but also to the writings of the Church Fathers, and conservative Evangelicals reject this position to this day.

It must be further noted that Evangelicals have not being calling for the adoption of Evangelical positions on such matters but positions on which Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are not historically divided and upon which both theological streams agree. If the ACNA is to be truly a comprehensive church for all three orthodox theological streams in North American Anglicanism, then the language of the Fundamental Declarations needs to be much more comprehensive. For example, one suggestion for an alternative version of Article I, Section 3 of the proposed constitution is as follows. It is a restatement of parts of the Preface to the 1550 Ordinal and Resolution 11 of the third Lambeth Conference, staying fairly close to the original wording. It is one of several similar proposals, the major difference being that it is wordier than these proposals:

“We take our place with generations of Anglicans in recognizing that ‘from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” which “Offices” are always to be held in ‘reverent estimation’; and join with the 1888 Lambeth Conference in expressing the opinion that “the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church” supplies an important part of the basis on which approach may be made toward the reunification of the Church.

The concerns that have been presented to the Governance Task Force do not represent those of isolated individuals but of groups in and outside of the ACNA. Some of these groups identify themselves as Evangelical in their theological orientation and others do not but nonetheless share the concerns of their Evangelical brothers and sisters. Their concerns go beyond the language of the Fundamental Declarations. They ask why have the drafters of the proposed constitution and code of canons abandoned a two hundred and twenty-five odd year tradition in North American Anglicanism of a diocese electing its own bishops, a practice that not only has its roots in the practice of the early Church but is also a fundamental component of diocesan autonomy at a time when conservative bishops in the Episcopal Church are fighting to preserve the autonomy of the diocese in that church? . Why have they turned their backs on the centuries of hard-won lay involvement in the governance of the church and the episcopal and primatial nomination and election process at a time when Roman Catholics are calling for lay involvement in the very same areas of their church due to recent disclosures in that church? Why do the proposed code of canons give all kinds of powers and functions to the Archbishop of the ACNA, treat him as a metropolitan, and require canonical obedience to the Archbishop from the other bishops of the church when the proposed constitution gives very limited powers and functions to the Archbishop and does not give him metropolitan authority over the other bishops of the church? These questions represent just a few of the concerns that they have been voicing. Space prevents me from listing all of them.

To those like myself who have examined similar ecclesiastical structures and ways of operating to the ones that the proposed constitution and code of canons would impose upon the ACNA, evaluated their merits, and weighed their short-term and long-term ramifications, these so-called “new ways” do not “bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise.” They suffer from their own particular set of problems as well as are susceptible to problems that beset more familiar patterns of structure and governance. There is an old proverbial saying: “It is better to deal with the devil you do know than the one you don’t know.” The more familiar patterns of structure and governance do have their share of problems but they are problems that are understood and can be readily dealt with.

The so-called “new ways” bring with them a host of problems that are not yet fully understood and may not prove as easy to deal with. They not only substantially restrict the autonomy of the diocese but they also greatly reduce the role of the laity in church government and number of other areas. While the proposed constitution reserves to the dioceses the powers that the constitution does not delegate to the province church or prohibit to the dioceses, the proposed code of canons takes powers that dioceses normally exercise and which the constitution does not delegate to the province and arrogates them to the province. The centralization of authority is a pattern that runs throughout the canons. Despite constitutional and canonical provisions that appear at first glance to preserve the autonomy of the diocese, so is the restriction of diocesan autonomy. A number of provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons reveal a decided bias against lay participation in such major decisions as the choice of a bishop or a primate. While bishops and clergy have largely been responsible for the drift of the Episcopal Church away from orthodoxy, the proposed constitution and code of canons treat the laity as the weak link in the chain.

The question has been raised as to why those who are expressing their reservations about the proposed constitution and code of canons and calling for substantive changes in these documents have not said anything before now. The reality is that they did draw the attention of the Governance Task Force to troublesome provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons within the extremely limited time that was permitted for public comment. Interested parties were given no opportunity to study the draft of the provisional constitution and canons that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted in December 2008. They were not released for public comment until after they were adopted. Interested parties were given seventeen days to study the documents that the Common Cause Leadership Council, acting as the provisional Provincial Council, adopted with some amendments as the finalized draft of the proposed constitution and code canons to be presented for ratification at the Inaugural Provincial Assembly in Bedford, Texas this month. At the time that the documents were released for public comment, Bishop Bob Duncan said pretty much what Bishop Rodgers has said. The documents were not perfect. They could be fixed later. Indeed, this has become a favorite talking point of leaders and proponents of the ACNA. They keep promising a better constitution and code of canons will be adopted at a later date if people accept the existing documents. Bishop Rodgers is really not saying anything new.

It may be helpful to read what was the experience of one individual who shared his concerns with his bishop and posted an account of what happened on the Internet. He was told that the way that North American Anglicans have historically choosing their bishops was “an innovation” and not the practice that the canons were imposing upon new dioceses and commending to founding entities that elect their bishops. The practice of the College of Bishop’s choosing the primate of the province, as well as the bishops of the dioceses, he was told would bring the ACNA in line with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The bishop in question failed to mention that the practice that he dismissed as an “innovation” had its roots in the practice of the early Church and had been preserved in the English practice of the canons of the cathedral chapter electing the bishop of the vacant see. The Anglican Communion has as many ways of choosing bishops and primates as it has provinces, and in the case of bishops, even dioceses. This anecdote suggests that at least one bishop has sought to put a lid on any dissent from the provisions of the existing documents and further suggests a vested interest in these documents.

Another anecdote also points to why some people have not taken issue with the provisions of the proposed constitution and code of canons. Another individual shared the view on the Internet that he saw no point in reading the two documents because if he drew attention of his bishop to their troublesome provisions, he did not expect his bishop to pay him any heed. If his bishop did listen to his concerns, took them to heart, and shared them as his own with the other bishops of the ACNA, they would nod their heads and smile and then ignore his concerns, doing things just as they had been doing. This particular individual felt so powerless that he did not even bother to read the documents.

Both anecdotes point to the existence of conditions in the ACNA not unlike those in the Episcopal Church. The proposed constitution and code of canons as they are presently written will, once they are ratified, contribute to the further development of such conditions. This is one of the concerns that is being expressed in respect to a number of provisions of these documents, for example the canonical provision that permits the appointment of a board of inquiry to investigate rumors circulating relating to the character of a bishop and to bring charges against whoever is circulating the rumors. This provision is not found in the canons of any Anglican province that I have reviewed. It has a high potential for abuse.

I do not believe that Bishop Rodgers would sign a contract without closely reading the fine print and then after finding a number of troublesome provisions, sign it on the assurances of the person trying to get him to sign the contract that the terms of the contract with which he had trouble would be modified later. I do not believe that any good lawyer would counsel him to sign the contract. Rather he would insist upon the signature, witnessing, and attachment of the necessary legal documents modifying these terms before signing it. The proposed constitution and code of canons are contracts. Before signing them, the groups of congregations that are being asked to ratify them should study them carefully and insist upon the much needed modifications and not let themselves be rushed into signing the documents on the promise that the troublesome provisions will be “fixed” at some vague future date.

Overcoming schism - the nettle Protestantism must grasp

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/06/overcoming-schism-nettle-protestantism.html

[The Ugley Vicar] 1 June 2009--These three suggestions —that bishops should call their clergy and people back to the Anglican heritage, that ministerial candidates should have engaged with the theology of the Articles, and that those candidates should also be made practically familiar with the Prayer Book —would go some considerable way to establishing that Anglicanism is a confessional faith. The denial of this is surely one of the great myths of our time. Indeed, the suggestion that Anglicanism is not a confessional faith, and specifically a Protestant confession, would have come as a surprise to the compilers of the Articles and the Prayer Book, the Marian martyrs and, not least, to John Henry Newman, who once wrote,

... it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants and intended for the establishment of Protestantism ...

This is why the establishment of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is so important. It is not just about ‘politics’, it is about theology —or rather two theologies, one that sees the individual as the final judge in matters of faith and doctrine, to be decided privately between himself and God, the other that sees the individual as the recipient of both faith and doctrine through means instituted by Christ, but reliant on others.

Bishop Frederic Barker on leaving the Church

http://acl.asn.au/bishop-barker-on-leaving-the-church/

[Anglican Church League] 1 June 2009--Frederic Barker, second bishop in Sydney, addressed the Diocesan Synod in 1877 in words which are strikingly relevant today in many parts of the Anglican Communion.

‘It is quite true that an occasion may arise for the exercise of our liberty of action. If it should, I trust not to be found backward in asserting our independence of a Church which had fallen from the faith, but so long as the Church of England remains what she is, I know no reason why we should not act otherwise than as dutiful and loving members of a true branch of the one Catholic Church.

If she, like the Churches of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria should apostatise from the true faith, she would leave us. If the Ritualism which infects a portion of the Church of England became its normal condition, and that which some are striving after, to substitute the mass for the communion, was effected, and formularies and articles were so interpreted and used as to legalise false doctrine it would be time to assert our independence and to allow a body deeply tainted with Romish heresy to exclude us from its communion.’

ACC-14: Did the Members Know What They Were Voting On?

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/05/acc-14-did-the-members-know-what-they-were-voting-on/

[Anglican Communion Institute] 1 June 2009--A transcript of the proceedings at ACC-14 on May 8, 2009, when the Council voted in conflicting ways on key votes, raises the important question of how many of its members, including officers and proponents of key amendments, understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment intended to open Section 4 of the Anglican Communion Covenant to “possible revision.”

The source of the confusion arose from multiple attempts by a minority of members generally opposed to the covenant to derail Section 4, a key section. Their first attempt was a resolution, Resolution A, that would have removed Section 4 and sent the Covenant to the provinces without that section. Resolution A had been debated and was pending before the Council when it broke for lunch. Even supporters of the efforts of The Episcopal Church to remove this section acknowledged at the lunch break that the tide was against The Episcopal Church. (The post acknowledging this has since been removed from the website where it was posted.)

Following lunch, a new tactic was unveiled. Duplicative resolutions and amendments were presented to the members, at first simultaneously and later sequentially, to defeat or delay Section 4. But Resolution A had already been introduced by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as the proposed vehicle for making the key decision on whether or not Section 4 should be included in the text that would go to the provinces. And when Resolution A was finally put to a vote, it was voted down overwhelmingly. Indeed, after that vote, the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee noted that despite confusion on the multiple other amendments and resolutions, Resolution A was understood....

How many in mainline? Categories vary in surveys

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=7152

[The Christian Century] 1 June 2009--Americans who identify with mainline churches make up either 18 percent of the U.S. population or 13 percent, according to two large-scale surveys taken within recent years. Which is right?

Both are, say some researchers. The statistical variations typically depend on what questions are asked and how the mainline is defined.

Few doubt that the graying of members, low birth rates and various controversies have contributed to the diminishing numbers of mainline Protestants found in the United Methodist Church, the Evan gelical Luth eran Church in America, the Pres byterian Church (U.S.A.), the Epis copal Church, the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ.

But has the slippage become precipitous, threatening to reduce mainline Protestants ever closer to remnant status? "A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States," said Mark Silk, who helped design the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS).

That survey, which polled more than 54,000 adults, reported in March that the number of mainline Christians had slipped to 12.9 percent of adult Americans—down from 17.2 percent in 2001 and 18.7 percent in 1990—as evangelical numbers grew.

By contrast, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study, after polling 35,000 adults in 2007, reported last year that 18.1 percent of adults said they were affiliated with "mainline Protestant" churches.

Asked about this 5 percent difference, senior fellow John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life said, "It isn't that our numbers are more right than [ARIS's] numbers . . . but how one conceptualizes the group."

Christians risk rejection and discrimination for their faith, a study claims

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5413311/Christians-risk-rejection-and-discrimination-for-their-faith-a-study-claims.html

[Telegraph] 1 June 2009--The first poll of Britain's churchgoers, carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, found that thousands of them believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.

One in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.

More than half of them revealed that they had suffered some form of persecution for being a Christian.

The findings suggest a growing hostility towards religion in this country, which has been highlighted by a series of clashes between churchgoers and their employers.