Doesn’t the 12/50/1000 standard for dioceses penalize small parishes?
The question refers to Canon 1 of the Provisional Canons of the Anglican Church in North America which reads:
“A diocese, cluster or network is a grouping gathered for mission under the oversight of a bishop consisting of a minimum of twelve congregations with an Average Sunday Attendance (“ASA” calendar year) of at least fifty each and a collective ASA of at least 1,000. These requirements may be modified on a case-by-case basis by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Council.”
The Canons and Constitution are designed to encourage the growth and development not only of existing dioceses, networks, and clusters (I’ll be using one word, “diocese” from this point on, because dioceses, networks and clusters are used as equivalent terms) but also to provide incentives for the creation of new ones. The hope is that congregations across North America will form regional and/or theological affinity groups for the purpose of growing into a diocese and applying for representation in the Provincial Assembly.
But unless some kind of measurable standard for the size and shape of dioceses is established at the outset there could be at least tfour negative consequences.
First, the Provincial Assembly (in which every ACNA diocese is represented by a minimum of a bishop two clergy and two members of the laity) could easily cease to fulfill its representative function. Delegations from dioceses with say 10 parishes of less than 20 people at worship each might have the same legislative clout as delegations from diocese with 15 parishes of over 60 worshipers apiece.
Second, the legitimacy of the province could be called into question by the inclusion of paper “dioceses” in the Provincial Assembly. There is an unfortunate tendency among some Anglican groups to consecrate bishops for and form “dioceses” comprised of small numbers of small congregations. A province made up of “dioceses” like this would be more pretense than province.
Third, there could be a proliferation of bishops. The unregulated proliferation of bishops or, for lack of a better phrase, “episcopal inflation” plagues conservative Anglican bodies in North America. Some bishops exercise their “jurisdiction” over little more than a handful of parishioners. Episcopal inflation within an ecclesial body tends to de-legitimize the body as a whole and produce damaging cynicism in onlookers both within the and outside the organization.
Lastly, the ACNA is presently made up of a number of existing Common Cause jurisdictions that hold to a variety of sometimes conflicting theological principles. Without measurable standards for the creation of dioceses, jurisdictions could be accused of “stocking” the Assembly for the sake of gaining legislative power.
The benefits of the 12/50/1000 standard are fairly evident by contrast with the negative consequences that have already been described, so I’ll name only a few of that are not implied above. The 12/50/1000 standard:
1.Promotes unity in the ACNA through the breakdown of existing jurisdictions. For the first few years after the formal establishment of the ACNA, jurisdictions like CANA and the REC will be formally represented on the Provincial Council. Afterwards, the Provincial council will be elected by the delegates to the Provincial Assembly. Representation in the Assembly, from the start, will be by diocese, in accordance with the 12/50/1000 standard, not jurisdiction. CANA, for example, will not be represented as CANA. Instead each group within CANA meeting the 12/50/1000 standard will apply for representation on the Assembly. If successful, the various jurisdiction blocs within ACNA will, over time, melt away and dioceses will become the building blocks of the province
2. Provides for honest self-assessments. Some have questioned the use of Average Sunday Attendance to measure the size of a congregation and diocese. The ASA standard is not perfect. My own congregation, for example, probably has about 110-115 regular worshipers, people who attend at least twice a month. But our present ASA is around 90-100 because a good portion of our regulars have jobs that require them to work on Sundays and others are college students who go home for weekends and holidays. So ASA does not provide a perfect measure of a congregation’s size and health because the actual numbers can be depressed by various circumstantial absences but it far exceeds the other commonly used measures. “Membership” and “Communicant” numbers are far too unreliable. Many congregations boast membership numbers that dwarf the actual worshiping congregation. The temptation for leaders to console themselves with membership numbers while the actual Sunday worship crowd dwindles is great. ASA provides an honest assessment of size and health in precisely the venue that matters…the pews. And it will hopefully discourage mission complacency on the part of highly endowed, high membership parishes.
3.Creates incentive for newly forming dioceses. The 12/50/1000 standard provides a goal toward which any group of congregations, anywhere in North America, organized regionally or by theological affinity can strive. Once the 12/50/1000 measure is met a grouping of congregations willing to live within the Constitution and Canons of the Province can apply with great confidence for representation in the Provincial Assembly.
Finally, some have mistakenly assumed that the 12/50/1000 somehow prevents dioceses from including small parishes and congregations as “congregations” or “parishes” in their polity. This is not true. The standard has nothing to do with the internal definitions or standards for parishes within various dioceses. It is assumed that dioceses that meet the 12/50/1000 standard will include any number of smaller congregations. The standard is s provincial measure only. It does not define or describe what constitutes a parish on the diocesan level.
The 12/50/1000 standard, then, is not a “penalty.” Rather, it is a measurable way to ensure the legitimacy, quality, and the mission focus of dioceses within the new province and the province as a whole.
16 Comments •
This was one of the better decisions I see from the C&C;‘s of the ACNA. It really forces public clarity and at least establishes a standard for the future.
I think one addendum that’s going to need to be spelled out—as TEC did—was how to calculate ASA and measure it for every parish. The tendency will be for some hopeful-bishops-to-be to “eyeball it” and “eyeballing it” as we all know can end up being more the triumph of hope and fantasy rather than reality.
Another prospect for the ACNA to consider is . . . [drum roll] what happens 15 years from now when some dioceses have 20,000 ASA. ; > )
You’ve set the minimum standard—but will there be, as the ACNA grows, some future standards that prevent the debacle of a diocese with an ASA like that of Texas to have the same number of deputies as a debacle with an ASA of like, say, that of New Hampshire. ; > )