FAQ: Isn’t the ACNA just the CCP with a new name and an Archbishop? What will change?

note: Over the course of the last few weeks I've been posting some answers to commonly heard questions and objections with regard to the provisional Canons and Constitution of the ACNA. The most basic observation that applies to all posts in this series, is that both the Constitution and the collection of Canons remain “provisional”....meaning that while they have been adopted by the Common Cause Council they are not yet the “official” founding documents of the new province. The first Provincial Assembly of the new province must first ratify both documents before they take on official status. This “provisional” status is especially true with regard to the Canons which are not only “provisional” but are also incomplete. Many objections that have already been raised by observers and commenters will no doubt be addressed when a fuller collection of canons is published and ratified.

Finally, these "answers" represent merely my own thoughts and opinions and should not in any way be construed as "official" answers.

Question: Isn't the ACNA just the CCP with a new name and an “Archbishop” instead of a “Moderator”?

No. The ACNA is in the process of becoming a unified church. Whereas the CCP was, rightly, described as a partnership of like-minded jurisdictions, the Provisional Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in America create structures that will, over time, create a unified church out of the present partnership.

Forging a consolidated unity out of a confederated plurality is a perplexing task for any organization, government, business or church, but it is especially so for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) because the ACNA is made up of ten formerly independent churches and ecclesial entities: AMIA, CANA, REC, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Diocese of Quincy, the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Diocese of Fort Worth, the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Province of the Southern Cone, and the Anglican Church of Uganda.

Creating unity out of this particular plurality replete as it is with theological and ecclesiological diversity may seem, at first, an impossible task but a close reading of the Constitution reveals a workable plan for achieving that end.

Here's how it works:

The Provincial Council "in the beginning":

Article VII.1 of the Constitution states that the governing body of the ACNA is the Provincial Council:

“The Provincial Council is the governing body for the Anglican Church in North America and shall have the authority to establish the program and budget of the Province.”

The Provincial Council is at present made up of the former Common Cause Leadership Council which was, in turn, made up of clergy and lay delegates from each Common Cause Partner. The Provincial Council is the only legislative body of the ACNA in which the Common Cause Partners are directly represented:

“Initially, the Provincial Council shall be composed of the members of the Common Cause Leadership Council, as constituted under the Common Cause Articles.” (Article VII.2)

The Provincial Council, “initially”, seems simply to replicate and maintain the divisions of the Common Cause Partnership. But let's take a look at the articles relating to Provincial Assembly.

The Provincial Assembly as Change Agent:

The Provincial Assembly, by contrast, will be made up of delegates from within the present Common Cause Partner jurisdictions who will represent individual dioceses, networks, or clusters (Since the constitution understands these to be equivalent terms, I'll simply use the term “diocese” from this point on).

The Provincial Assembly shall be composed of representatives of all the dioceses, clusters and networks (whether regional or affinity-based) in balance and in number from the laity, bishops and other clergy as from time-to-time determined by canon. (Article VI.4).

Delegates represent their own dioceses rather than the Common Cause Partner to which they belong—unless that partner is itself a single diocese (The Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Quincey, San Joaquin or Ft. Worth for example). What this means is that the large Common Cause jurisdictions like CANA and the REC will not be represented directly on the Provincial Assembly. Each diocese within these larger bodies will elect or appoint its own delegates who will represent the diocese itself.

The make-up of the Assembly, therefore, works to breakdown the structural distinctions and divisions between Common Cause Partners.

This work is supported and furthered by the establishment of provincial standards for defining dioceses and their qualifications for representation on the Assembly.

The Province's definition of a diocese (rather than that of the individual Partners) , articulated in Canon 1 of the Provincial Canons, will govern which entities will be recognized and represented as “dioceses” on the Assembly.

“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.”

Some dioceses currently existing within the larger Partner churches do not meet this standard. They must either consolidate with another diocese (or other dioceses) in order to meet the 12/50/1000 standard before applying for representation as a diocese at Provincial Assembly or they may ask to be “grandfathered” in on the basis of a 2/3 vote from the Provincial Council.

The fact that the province rather than the partners define and determine what makes a diocese eligible for membership in the Assembly represents a shift toward centralized legislative authority. CANA, for example, will not have the authority determine which of its districts are represented on the Assembly. The districts themselves apply independently of CANA and are accepted and/or rejected independently of CANA.

This opens the way for new congregation networks to apply for membership on the Assembly that are not presently affiliated with any of the Common Cause Partners. The constitution, in fact, assumes that new networks will gather by region and/or theological affinity, and apply for membership. There are, indeed, already a number of newly formed presently unaffiliated groupings, like Western Anglicans, expected to apply.

So the Provincial Assembly will include not only delegates from qualifying dioceses within the various Common Cause Partners but also new wholly unaffiliated qualifying dioceses that apply independently of the Common Cause Partners. Groups within the present Common Cause Partner blocs will no longer relate to one another “ecumenically” through the leadership of their Partner organizations and new dioceses will not need to go through one of the Partner jurisdictions to join the ACNA . Instead, ACNA dioceses will relate to one another directly in the same way that they do in any other province of the Communion.

As dioceses begin to relate to dioceses and new dioceses form under provincial guidance, the various Partner distinctions and divisions will become increasingly irrelevant and begin to melt away as the Province itself become the focus of unity.

The Provincial Council "in the end"

But what about the Provincial Council where the Partners are directly represented? Won't direct representation on the Council, the “governing body” of the church tend to solidify the Partners' jurisdictional divisions?

No. Among the most important responsibilities of the Assembly is the election of the Provincial Council:

The Provincial Assembly shall elect the Provincial Council (Article VI.3)

Initially, as noted above, the Partners will be directly represented on the Provincial Council which, essentially, the Common Cause Leadership Council. But this arrangement will come to an end when the Provincial Assembly elects a new Provincial Council in the following manner:

“The Provincial Council shall be composed of an equal number of bishops, clergy and lay persons, chosen by the Provincial Assembly from among its members.” (Article VII.2)

The Assembly will not elect new representatives from each Partner jurisdiction, thus replicating the make-up of the Common Cause Leadership Council, but it will choose bishops, clergy, and laymen from its own members. The members of the next Provincial Council, and every Council thereafter, will not represent the various interests of the different Common Cause Parters but the interests of the Anglican Church of North America as a whole.

The Effect

When the Provincial Assembly chooses the members of the new Provincial Council, direct representation in the legislative councils of the ACNA by former Common Cause Partner jurisdictions will have come to an end. ACNA dioceses will be relate to one another directly, not through their jurisdictional leaders.

Without direct representation, the Common Cause Parters will, for legislative and constitutional purposes, effectively cease to be. This is not accidental but purposeful. The ultimate goal of the leaders of the Anglican Church in North America is not the protection and maintenance of the Common Cause Partnership, but the establishment of a unified church.

end note: This is the fourth in a series of "FAQ" posts regarding the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA. Below are links to past FAQ's:
FAQ: Doesn’t the ACNA 12/50/1000 standard for dioceses penalize small parishes?
FAQ: Aren’t the ACNA property canons designed for a congregational rather than catholic church?
The Question of Female “Bishops” and the Unity of the ACNA

Here are some of the threads and posts that prompted me to start this series:
Constitutional Concerns
Wet Blanket II
The ACNA Constitution and Canons: An Analysis
A Further Look at the ACNA Canons
Further Implications of the ACNA Constitution and Canons

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.