Bishop John Rodgers: The ACNA Constitution - An Evangelical View

Bishop Rogers is correct according to Evangelical Theology, bishops may be discarded.  It would be a bit more difficult to say what Anglican Theology in general has to say about bishops, as it will depend on what time in the Anglican Church one takes as “Anglican Theology in general.” 

If you flip back in the Prayer Book to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and Lambeth Conference of 1888, you will find that the historic episcopate is essential to the restoration of unity.  Of course, today, the church might well remove “historic” in order to promote inter-communion with other shrinking mainline denominations. 

It is also important to remember that the episcopate is the point from which faithful administration of the sacraments flows from Christ to His church by the work of the Holy Spirit.  But, I suppose that is Anglican, though not essentially Evangelical Theology. 

I would say that the ACNA needs to be a church on mission more than America or the world needs ACNA to be a church on mission. We need a church on mission, but it need not necessarily be the ACNA.

Hmmm.  It appears that the argument is that there are a few issues but that entities should go ahead and sign it anyway, and deal with it after signing.

It’s more a bit odd that +Rodgers says it is too late to make changes.  That begs the question, why did the Council not deal with it before?  The issue he is addressing was apparently brought to the attention of the Governance Task Force and yet they made no change (Robin Jordan has been all over this, but I personally know of others of like mind with similar concerns who have been organizing on this and related issues—which is probably why +Rodgers is speaking up so publicly right now). 

Here’s one healthy way to deal with this disagreement: The GTF ought to issue a commentary on the proposed C&C;which reflect their process—especially, how they dealt with Mr. Jordan’s concerns, etc.—and their reasoning.  What do they think that language means, and why are none of the signatory jurisdictions balking, despite vocal opposition?  Their good will at this time to address the concerns of a minority (however significant/insignificant it might be) would exemplify the godly humility in leadership we need in this new Province.  And it might just convince detractors to do as +Rodgers urges—adopt it and change it later.

Thank you Sarah! That is what I have been trying to say but I just do not have the Blarney/eloquence of saying it/typing it. There are a few things that the ACNA is leaving unsettled but yet moving forward. I have not forgotten Bishop Ormobi’s statement at the Anglican Mens Retreat Weekend were he said (and I paraphrase) that he and the other bishops were under pressure for “border crossing”. But from whom and from where? It just feels like this ACNA has been put together for underlying reason without fully looking at everything and working them out first. IMHO Bishops are a must! If we do not have them then we look like any other Protestant denomination. IF I wanted to be Protestant, I know where to find the nearest Mega Church in Fresno ala grape juice and crackers!

BINGO, as usual, TLDillon!  And thank you.

RE: “There are a few things that the ACNA is leaving unsettled but yet moving forward.”

Well, even more interesting, the C&Cs;actually “settles” some things [that other evangelicals don’t want] but Bishop Rodgers is saying to go ahead and sign on anyway, and perhaps things can be changed later by others.

Well, Sarah, having a piece written by the respected Teddie bear +Rogers, you may be correct.

TLDillon@4 On pressure on +Orombi for border crossing.  Where pressure has come from, at least in the record:  The Windsor Report. The Dar-es-Salaam communique. Canterbury letter describing his straw vote of the primates regarding both the response of the TEC HofB BO33 and whether it was enough, mixed, and the border crossings, universally disapproved by all others not engaged in the activity.  It would seem that the actions were discussed at Lambeth, and the Anglican Church of Canada as well as TEC have protested.

The Assembly is just as susceptible to political maneuvering and manipulation as the General Convention albeit it has less powers. Lobbying and pressure groups groups can still persuade the diocesan delegations into voting against the interests of the diocese as has happened in the General Convention. A stronger safeguard would be to transfer the ratification of constitutional changes and canons to the governing bodies of the dioceses themselves.

An interrim instrument of governance can be adopted establishing the ACNA as a church to provide temporary structure and governance to that ecclesial body until the problems with the constitution and the canons are resolved. This is preferable to adopting the existing documents and then trying to piecemeal amend them afterwards. Adoption of the constitution and canons would take away the incentive on the part of some groups within the ACNA to cooperate on the revision of these documents. It would further intensify division over the documents.

It is far from late to make changes at this point. If groups are having difficulty with the language of the Common Cause Partnership, it suggests that the Common Cause Partnership was not fully representative of orthodox North American Anglicans and the concerns of groups over the language of the constitution and canons has brought this to light. A number of the provisions of the CCP Theological Statement give the appearance of having been written to accomodate the concerns of Anglo-Catholics in the CCP but show no sensitivity toward the concerns of Evangelicals. The concerns of Evangelicals relate more than to just to the language of the CCP. They also relate the implications of a number of provisions of the constitution and canons as they are presently written. For example, the constitution does not give metropolitan authority to the Archbishop of the ACNA but the canons would have the bishops of the ACNA treat him as a metropolitan and show canonical obedience to a bishop who under the provisions of the constitution is no different from them other than he performs a number of special functions. This is one of a number of problematic provisions in the canons.

Having secured the ratification of the existing documents what incentive does the Council have to revise them? The task of making much needed revisions is going to be much more difficult and more divisive if the existing documents are ratified. I can hear the arguments already. “If you were willing to ratify them, why aren’t you willing to accept them as they are?” And so forth. There is already resistence in certain quarters to making any changes in the constitution and canons and this is likely to grow. The result will be increased tension between proponents of revision of the documents and opponents to any change and may eventually lead to a major split in the ACNA. It is better to deal with the problems in the constitution and canons now than put them off to later.

The language of Article I.3 may not have been intended to set forth the “esse” position but it is open to that interpretation which is why it needs to be replaced by language that is not open to that interpretation. If two or more parties can interpret the language of a provision of a constitution or canon, then the language is not clear or specific enough, and the provisions needs to be redrafted.

To those who have examined the strengths and weaknesses of similiar ecclesiastical structures and ways of operating to those proposed for the ACNA , 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 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 understood and may not prove as easy to deal with.

Those contemplating joining the ACNA were given no time to study the first provisional constitution and canons that the Common Cause Leadership Council adopted. They were given less than a month to study the documents that the provisional Provincial Council adopted with some amendments as the finalized draft of the constitution and code of canons that would be presented at Bedford in June for ratification. The problem is not that some groups have come up with last minute concerns but the way Common Cause and the provisional Provincial Council has done things. The solution is not to rush into signing two documents that clearly need much more work but to adopt an interrim document that provide temporary structure and governance to the ACNA until these two documents have been thoroughly revised.

Good try EmilyH, but no cigar! if those communiques and documents were really pressure then the GS bishops as well as Bishop Venables from the So. Cone, would not have given shelter to churches and dioceses that seceded from TEc. The pressure is coming form someone(s) and using what I do not know. But I find it interesting that he addresses that now when ACNA is so close to becoming a Province.

A word got omitted from my previous post. “If two or more parties can interpret the language of a provision of a constitution or canon DIFFERENTLY, then the language is not clear or specific enough, and the provisions needs to be redrafted.”

I do not think that there is any dispute over whether the ACNA should have bishops. The issues are how they should be chosen and what their powers and functions should be. On a previous thread a number of posters expressed concern that the mode of choosing bishops that the canons impose on new dioceses and commends to existing ones greatly reduces the involvement of the laity in the episcopal election process, not only a serious departure from the tradition of the past 225 odd years but also the tradition of the primitive Church. The ACNA constitution also places the nomination and election of the Archbishop of the ACNA solely in the hands of the College of Bishops. The ACNA constitution gives the Archbishop of the ACNA very limited powers and functions. On the other hand, the ACNA canons treat him as if he is a metropolitan and gives him all kinds of powers and functions that the constitution does not give to him. In this regard the GTF was not interpreting the constitution as strict constructionists. The title of Archbishop does not carry with it inherent powers. It is simply a designation. Based upon the Archbishop’s limited powers in the constitution the title of Presiding Bishop or Bishop Primus would have been more appropriate.

I do not know how much weight Bishop Rodger’s appeal will have with Evangelicals since he is increasingly seen as too willing to compromise his Evangelical convictions on issues that matter alot to Evangelicals.

From what I gather the AMiA is retaining its existing relationship with the Anglican Church of Rwanda as well as participating in the ACNA. Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganada are releasing the congregations from their American convocations to the ACNA and dissolving these convocations. I have no information on Southern Cone. This suggests that other factors are at work and not pressure from the various bodies of the Anglican Communion. I would suggest that the pressure is internal and not from the outside as far as Bishop Rodger’s statement, either from within the AMiA or the ACNA. Bishop Rodgers has been a longstanding proponent of a new province in North America. He also has credentials as an Evangelical. He may have made the statement on his own initiative. Or he may have been asked to make the statement because of the Evangelical source of the concerns in connection with the ACNA constitution and canons, it being thought that Evangelicals might listen to another Evangelical rather than to another leader.

The process that Common Cause adopted for developing the constitution and canons was flawed as it did not make sufficient provision for all parties with an interest in the new province to study the constitution and canons, to make comments, and to propose changes. It must also be pointed out that a number of groups in the little time that was allowed for public comment did draw attention to the provisions that have been identified as of concern to Evangelicals but the Governance Task Force did nothing to address these concerns, making only a few minor revisions in the documents. This can be seen from a comparison of the drafts of constitution and canons at different stages.The center of resistance to major changes in the doctrinal position, governance and mode of episcopal and primatial election of the ACNA has clearly included leading members of the Governance Task Force. It is also clear from the two documents in their final form that the center of resistance also includes members of the provisional Provincial Council.

I am profoundly disappointed at the tone and substance of the letter published by the Rt. Rev. Dr. John Rodgers in response to the concerns that have been expressed concerning the proposed constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America.  I’ll address each of his points in turn.

His “practical and procedural reason” for supporting the documents boils down to this:  “If we do not agree with the Proposed Constitution at this founding Assembly then no Church is formed at this point.”  If there are concerns, let the Provincial Council know and it will take the concerns under advisement.  It is perplexing to assert that unless these documents are approved in their entirety then “no Church is formed at this point”.  There has been a Church since the first Pentecost, and there will still be one if these documents are amended or rejected.  What is the rush?  There are provisional constitution and canons currently in place, and they can remain so until this is adequately considered, discussed, and resolved.  And why cannot there be discussion and amendment of these proposals before and during the Assembly?  The leadership of ACNA put the cart before the horse: it was premature to schedule a founding Assembly and place ratification of the constitution on the agenda before the constitution and canons had even been written, circulated, commented upon, and revised as necessary.  It is shameful that a failure to plan on the part of our leadership should constitute a sufficient reason to foreclose meaningful participation in the preparation of the constitution and canons by the parishes and individuals (even if they are “various”) that make up ACNA.     

Bishop Rodgers second point is also less than compelling: he asserts “The language found in Article 1 concerning the Historic Episcopate is not intended to set forth an “esse” position.”  The trouble is that Article I unambiguously states that the “Historic Episcopate” is “essential,” “integral,” and “inherent.”  I cannot think of how the drafters could have taken any higher a view of the episcopate than has been taken in those words, and yet we are to believe that the drafters did not intend “to set forth an “esse” position.”  You cannot spell “essential” without “esse.”  What is wrong with an irenic articulation of the Anglican view of the episcopate that does not over-define its importance and relies on historic formulations, as does this proposal rejected by the Governance Task Force:  “We acknowledge that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and we affirm 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.”

The third assertion in this letter is equally unpersuasive:  the proposed governance structure, which vastly over-includes bishops and clergy in the Provincial Assembly, is “novel,” yes, but to their advocates “these new ways bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise.”  The problem with TEC was not the governance structure; it was the governors, i.e., the bishops who sold our inheritance for a bowl of porridge, the bishops who sued me and other vestry members throughout the continent for standing up for orthodoxy, and the bishops who lived in open and notorious sin.  And yet we’re supposed to think that a hyper-clerical governance structure is the answer?  I am not persuaded that this is a prudent future for us in North America. 

In closing, I want to comment on the repeated insinuations that this is all “too little, too late” and offered by fringe elements in North American Anglicanism.  I am a former vestryman at Truro Church in Fairfax, and to my knowledge our parish (one of the largest in CANA) was never consulted about the proposed constitution or canons until mid-April of this year.  When input was provided in accordance with the compressed deadlines established by the Governance Task Force, we were told that it was too late to provide substantive input.  As for the assertion that this language was in the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership, well, parts of it were, but other language was altered, and only certain bishops signed the CCP itself (not the Theological Statement, to the best of my knowledge) and no one in the pews was ever even asked their opinion of the matter.  This cannot be the way we as orthodox Anglicans want to do business.

AnglicansAblaze and Anxious Anglican :  I understand your concerns but believe me there is no way that Bishop Duncan will change on these issues.  The ACNA will be basically an Anglo Catholic church that allows evangelicals in their midst!  (I think Bishop Duncan is the only fomer TEC Bishop in ACNA to ordain women) The four former TEC Bishops were AC and they are the big players in ACNA.  The REC seems split on Evangelical and AC with the AC group increasing.  So good luck to any reformed or evangelical Anglicans in ACNA. 

However the REC will probably have several dioceses in ACNA so maybe if they vote against the current Constitution they can change things.

AnglicansAblaze, you mentioned the terms “Presiding Bishop or Primus.”  Since these terms….at least as far as I’M concerned, anyway….signify persons who have brought discredit upon the Churches which they represent….are anathema to so many….it should come as no surprise that we prefer that the titular head of the ACNA be an archbishop.  You may not agree, and that, of course, is your privilege, but the fact remains that Archbishop-designate Duncan will officially take office in three weeks, and we will move on from there.  He will also remain the Anglican Bishop of Pittsburgh.  Those who take issue with this will have to learn to deal with it, because it will not change.

Thanks for the observation, Eugene.  The ironic thing is that I am a “high-church” type myself (although I prefer the label “anglo-orthodox”).  I am in shock, though, at the centralization of power in the episcopate in the proposed constitution and canons, as well as the strange way in which they have been “privately” drafted and vetted.  I work in the federal government as an attorney, and the basic concept that governs all government rule-making is give the public notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.  Neglect either facet of the process and your credibility with the constituents goes right out the window, and is hard to recover.  I think that ACNA, notwithstanding a bevy of lawyers on the secret Governance Task Force, forgot both those concepts, and has forfeited a bit of institutional good will in their haste to get their particular version of the rules in place.

Cennydd,
Being in the same diocese as yourself and knowing you as well as I do I have to say for myself that I have reservations about ACNA and I am very Anglo-Catholic Orthodox. But I also know that there is nothing that I and many like me can do about it. ACNA is what the CCP and Common Cause Bishops have made it. Do you or anyone else know of any laity that have been in the process of working with these bishops to bring about the C’s & C’s in ACNA from our own diocese or anywhere else in the US? If so, who are they & how did they get chosen? The laity have been ignored and kept in the dark for 30+ years in TEc and some of it is the laity’s own doing yes…but none the less do we want to start off with making similar mistakes just in a different form from where we have left?
It appears that we have no choice if we are to stay in our own diocese and with our own congregations.

I applaud and welcome Bp. Rodgers’ clear, calm, and irenic statement.  I hope those who have qualms about the wisdom of the current ACNA C&C;will heed his sage advice and be content to let the bugs be worked out later.  Whatever is approved later this month in Ft. Worth will be the first word, not the last word, on the structures of this promising new movement.

From my own perspective as someone who ib evangelical, catholic, and charismatic (proud to be both a graduate of evangelical Wheaton College and a loyal son of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany), the bottom line is that the leaders of the ACNA have earned my wholehearted trust and respect.  I think the world of +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, +Jack Iker the Valiant, +Bill Atwood, +John Guernsey, and ++Leronard Riches, etc.  That’s what it all comes down to in the end: I fully trust them.

But just to counterbalance someone like AnglicanAblaze (or Anxious Anglican) above, it may be worthwhile to point out that some of us entering the ACNA are concerned to insure that not only the so-called “Historic Episcopate” but also what might be called the “historic diaconate” is preserved (or even restored) in the ACNA.  Let me explain.

What matters is not what’s historic, but what is apostolic.  What we confess in the Nicene Creed is not that we believe in one, holy, catholic, and historic Church, but in the one, holy, catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church.  That is, speaking personally, I’m fully committed to the idea that the patristic ordering of the church in terms of bishops in apostolic succession, preists, and (permanent, true) deacons is binding and normative as a way of maintaining the apostolicity of the Church, although the precise shape of those three orders and how they function in practice is quite amenable to modification as specific cultural contexts or historical situations may require.

But that immediately points to one of the underlying sources of tension in the ACNA, doesn’t it?  That is, again speaking personally, although I think of myself as an evangelical in the sense of being gospel-centered and gospel-driven, and insisting that everything in the life of the Church must be subordinated to serving the cause of the gospel (the evangelium or evangel), that does NOT imply being more Protestant than Catholic.  Quite the contrary. 

To be more specific, I look primarily to the patristic period and the early Fathers for theological guidance and NOT to the Protestant reformers, although I also value the Reformers (especially Luther) and cherish them as a secondary source of guidance, complementing the Fathers and yes, even correcting them at times (as on the crucial doctrine of justification by faith).  But the Fathers are primary and the Reformers secondary, and not vice versa.  Others will choose differently, of course.

But an awful depends on which group is given the primary place of honor, doesn’t it?  I look to the Fathers for the overall shape and framework of Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship, with the Protestant reformers having a valued but subsidiary place within that catholic framework.  Others, including Bp. Rodgers, would reverse that order and would naturally place the Reformers above the Fathers.

But regardless, there is plenty of common ground that we can all share as orthodox Anglicans.  And what is so encouraging is precisely the fact that the ACNA leadership is concentrating on that common ground and working hard to bring together the scattered fragments of the fractured fellowship of conservative Anglicans in North America in a way that we’ve never seen before. 

Let’s remember that the ACNA is part of a woroldwide movement, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) that’s overwhelmingly dominated by evangelical Africans.  The GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration puts enormous emphasis on the very Protestant 39 Articles.  I don’t think hardcore evangelicals (in the low church, Protestant sense) have anything to fear.

David Handy+

Anxious Anglican (#13),

With regard to your final point, about Truro not having the kind of input you’d like in the process, may I remind you that +Martyn Minns was a major player in drafting the new ACNA Constitution and Canons?  I think Truro was probably well represented by him.

David Handy+

If the Common Cause Partnership theological statement is sacrosanct, could someone please explain why Article I.7 of the ACNA constitution waters down the treatment of the 39 Articles in Article 7 of the CCP statement?

And if it’s too late to be making changes, could someone please explain why in April the ACNA revised the original December 2008 draft of Article I by removing the affirmation of the GAFCON Jersualem Declaration?  They moved it into the preamble, which makes it non-binding rather than “essential for membership.”  (That’s why the current draft of Article I refers to “eight elements” but only actually lists 7.)

Just asking, and trying to understand Bishop Rodgers’ practical-and-procedural logic.

David:  You may remind me of Bishop Minns’ history until the cows come home, but you actually prove my point: I (and others, including the Truro vestry) are uncomfortable with ceding our role in the governance of the ACNA completely to our bishops.  Telling me that my bishop is looking out for me is not a solution to that problem.  Not every bishop will prove to be a godly man like Martyn Minns (e.g., TEC’s House of Bishops), and you have to design a system of governance not for the good man like Martyn but for the bad, i.e., separation of powers (the Assembly formerly had budget control, but does not now), decentralized funding (a mandatory tithe unseen in America since disestabishment in the 19th century is a prominent feature of the c&c;), and accountability (who can remove the archbishop under the current scheme?  Only the bishops).

A further question comes to mind that Matt+ may be able to answer:  Is Bishop Rodgers on the Governance Task Force?  If he is/was, I think that should have been disclosed in the interest of full disclosure.  If he is not, then how can he assert what the drafters intended in Article I, and why put him out front like this?

Anxious Anglican (#21),

Thanks for a polite, yet forceful, response.  I think your concerns are valid, especially about the structures of the ACNA being dominated by the bishops in a way that’s potentially dangerous. 

There are certainly controversial features of the C&C;that will need to be scrutinized and debated and it will doubtless have to be amended in the months and years to come.  But I guess I take Bp. Rodgers’ line in the end, i.e., that the proposed ACNA founding documents are “good enough” to get us started, and the bugs can be worked out later.

I wasn’t privy to the discussions that have taken place by those who worked out this C&C;, but I suspect that some very pragmatic factors help account for this surprisingly dominant role assigned to bishops in the ACNA.  And my guess would be that chief among them might be that there is just too much that needs to happen too fast to follow a more democratic (townhall type) approach, which inevitably slows things down considerably.  The plain fact is that it’s hard enough to build consensus among the leaders of the disparate groups represented by the various factions in the ACNA.  It would multiply exponentially the time and meetings required to allow priests, deacons, and laity from all those diverse groups to fully take part in the initial start up of the ACNA.  The more people you involve in such a complex process, the more difficult and time-consuming it inevitably becomes.

And time is of the essence here.  We just don’t have the luxury of taking several more years to design a more ideal C&C;before moving ahead with getting this new province off the ground.

At least that’s my guess.  But again, thanks for a civil reply, that nonetheless stated your legitimate concerns very clearly and reasonably.

David Handy+

Rev. Handy,

Might there be a distinction between the process that led to the creation of the C&C;, and the structure that that process produced?  You present a credible enough theory for why the former may have been so insular (and was in any event bound to be imperfect), but I’m not sure it follows that the latter needed to have so much “fresh air” for bishops—whether in the doctrinal statement (whose meaning Bp. Rodgers has asserted rather than explained) or in the governance mechanisms.  So I don’t see how a possible defense of the process can be a defense of the result.

TLDillon, you make some very good observations.  The delegates and clergy of the diocesan convention are scheduled to meet at the cathedral August 1st, and I imagine we’ll have an opportunity to ask Bishop Schofield about these concerns.  I too don’t think the laity have been involved enough, and this has to change.  I want the ACNA to succeed and grow, but we need to insist on the inclusion of the laity in the governance of the Church.  However, the last thing I want to see is “Church government by committee,” which is one of the failings of TEC’s government.  What we need is a system of checks and balances….and as far as I can determine, we don’t have that….yet.

1. The language used regarding the episcopate in the Constitution is not new. It was not created by the ACNA…it existed as a point in the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership.

2. I can certainly think of ways that the language could have been made less appealing to evangelicals…it could have explicitly referred to Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands…which it does not. I have less problem with the term “historic episcopate”.

I think the office of episcopoi is certainly “historic” in the sense that it has been an office in the church from the very beginning and both evangelical and catholic branches have established episcopoi although they are known by different names and passed on through different means. I know what Anglo-Catholics mean by the term but I do not think we need to jettison the term because they use it or embrace that meaning.

And because episcopoi is an office established, described and defined in scripture—I have no argument with the assertion that it is an essential one.

The primary difference between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals with regard to episcopoi, as I understand it, does not have to do with the presence of the office but whether apostolic succession by the laying on of hands is essential to it. The ACNA Constitution does not seem to come down on either side. It could have.

3. I need to study the changes that have been made since April more carefully before I say much more, I have been out of the loop since before that time due to parish stuff, but I will say that from what I have read on various threads the readiness with which some have assigned sinister motives to the drafters is troubling and wrong-headed. Nobody is trying to “seize power” for their own nefarious purposes.

Aidan (#24),

Yes, you’ve right, of course.  A defense of the rather swift and carefully controlled process of drafting the C&Cs;need not amount to a defense of the product of that process.  Certainly the two can and should be distinguished. 

But at the same time, I think the same pragmatic concern may lie behind the surprising degree of centralized control by bishops in the ACNA.  That is, the leadership of the new province may be concerned to streamline and thus speed up the decision-making process during the early formative years of this new movement.

That is, I think it’s possible to mount a defense for the top-heavy polity of the ACNA along the same lines that it’s simply impractical to try to get such a motley mix of groups to cooperate effectively if large groups of people have to be involved in all the many, many decisions that will have to be made along the way in the next few years. 

But is that concentration of power in just a few hands dangerous, since there are relatively few checks and balances built into the system?

Oh yeah, there’s no question about that.  The potential for abuse is certainly there.

But again, I think the bottom line is: do we trust these guys or not?  At least enough for getting started. 

And speaking only for myself, I do have a very high degree of trust in the current leaders of the ACNA. 

But even if so, An Anxious Anglican is also right above. When you’re designing the blueprints for a new organization, you have to keep in mind that future leaders may not all be so trustworthy.  And even now, of course, we all remain subject to temptation and fallible.  As the 39 Articles remind us, Councils can and have erred.

But that’s also where the international character of the FCA movement comes in as a valuable safeguard.  Many of the bishops of ACNA have experienced what it’s like to live in submission to godly leaders overseas.  I guess I hope and trust that they’ll continue to maintain that commitment to choosing accountability over autonomy. 

Time will tell.  But your concerns are valid.

David Handy+

The current discussion is reminiscent of the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which coincided with the establishment of the Protestant Episcopal Church. In my view John Rodgers has made a positive contribution to the discussion. He makes a good case for action now rather than procrastination for the same of some ideal beginning of the new province.

His reference to “esse” reminded me of Urban Holmes’ treatment of “the question of whether the episcopacy is of the ‘esse,’ the ‘bene esse,’ or the ‘plene esse.’ That is, does it exist for the being, the well being, or the full being of the church?” [What Is Anglicanism? p. 54] Certainly not an evangelical, Holmes favored the third view.

Historically American Episcopalians have rejected a pure form of episcopal governance for one that also includes presbyterian and perhaps some congregational elements. While the nascent ACNA obviously leans toward greater episcopal governance, the proposed process of selecting a bishop would in practice be based on diocesan decisions representative of clergy and laity alike.

I believe no constitutional structure is going to ensure godly leadership for the new province. In the Anglican tradition we can rely on God to raise up faithful bishops to provide such leadership.

Sarah,

I have posted an article on my websites, Anglicans Ablaze and The Heritage Anglican Network, in which I reply to Bishop Rodger’s article. I am posting links to that article for you and whoever else may be interested in reading it. The article is titled, “An ACNA Constitution – An Evangelical View: A Reply to Bishop John Rodgers” and is on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/06/acna-constitution-evangelical-view.html  and http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/acna-constitution-evangelical-view.html.

Cwnnydd [15]

I have no problem with the title “Archbishop.” However, I do have a problem with the constitution giving him limited powers and functions and the canons giving him powers and functions that that grant of limited powers and functions does not cover. I also have problems with the constitution reserving powers to the dioceses and the canons taking those powers and giving them to the province. I see a striking similarity between these developments and what is happening in TEC. Whoever is behind these developments in both churches may be going about it in a different way but they are doing the same thing. You also forget that the primate of the liberal Anglican Church of Cananda, the liberal Anglican Church of Southern Africa, the liberal Church in Wales, and the liberal Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil is an Archbishop. On the other hand, the chief bishop of the Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America which took your own diocese under its wing is a Presiding Bishop.

The United States Constitution would not have been adopted at The Constitutional Convention in 1787 had the participants insisted upon resolution of the slavery issue.  There would have been no constitution.  There would have been no United States of America.  We might well have avoided the War Between the States, as there would have been no United States.  Would it have been worth it?  Not in my opinion; we had a nation, the United States of America, to save and we saved it.  Is there a lesson here?

Eugene [14]

AnglicansAblaze and Anxious Anglican :  I understand your concerns but believe me there is no way that Bishop Duncan will change on these issues.  The ACNA will be basically an Anglo Catholic church that allows evangelicals in their midst!  (I think Bishop Duncan is the only fomer TEC Bishop in ACNA to ordain women) The four former TEC Bishops were AC and they are the big players in ACNA.  The REC seems split on Evangelical and AC with the AC group increasing.  So good luck to any reformed or evangelical Anglicans in ACNA.

I hope that evangelicals in GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans outside of North America are reading this thread. They may wish to reconsider their support the ACNA as a new North American province and shift their support to a more comprehensive ecclesial body.

Bob [31]
You can stretch that analogy only so far. In this case there is no equivalency between the issue of slavery and the concerns that a number of people have raised on this thread. One of the underlying problems is that the procedure that Common Cause adopted for the drawing up of the proposed constitution and code of canons has been flawed from the outset. It did not make adequate provision for the study of the proposed documents or for comments and recommend changes in connection with their provisions by all interested parties. Rather it chose to unveil the provisional constitution and canons AFTER the Common Cause Leadership Council had adopted them, after they were a fait accompli. The Common Cause Leadership Council, then acting as the provisional Provincial Council, did not authorize the release of the provisional constitution and its proposed amendments and the proposed code of canons until 20 days before the Council was to vote upon their provisions and then gave interested parties only 17 days in which they could make comments and offer suggestions. The Scriptures remind us that we reap what we sew: everything that we do wrong will come back to haunt us.

Fr. Matt (#26),

You wrote: “… I will say that from what I have read on various threads the readiness with which some have assigned sinister motives to the drafters is troubling and wrong-headed. Nobody is trying to “seize power” for their own nefarious purposes.”

Amen!
. NRA (#27),

You wrote:  “…I do have a very high degree of trust in the current leaders of the ACNA.”

Amen!

AnglicansAblaze (#29),

Your suggestion that the delegates to June meeting of the nascent ACNA at Bedford, Texas “insist upon the much needed modifications” before adopting a constitution and canons is very troubling.  In my opinion, a province cannot be effectively and officially formed without a constitution and canons.  When do you predict that we will have the documents with the “much needed modifications”, the perfect documents?  How long must we wait?  How long can we wait?

dw [28]
I would also hope that we learn from the history of the Church of England, the Protestant Episcopal Church, now The Episcopal Church, and other daughter churches of the C of E, as well as from our recent experiences in TEC. I seem to recall a passage in Scripture about putting too much trust in men. God may give the ACNA faithful bishops or he may not. He may give the ACNA unfaithful bishops to teach its people the error of their ways—of putting too much trust in their bishops and not enough trust in Him and His word. He has done it before. The Israelites put their trust in the pharoahs of Egypt to defend them from their enemies instead of relying on God. The message that I gather from the New Testament is not trust in an elder or overseer but in Jesus Christ, God’s own Son whom He sent to be a sacrifice for our sins and by faith in whom we are reconciled to God.

Bob [34]
I never claim that they would be “perfect documents” but I am convinced that if the right modifications were made in the existing documents, the modified documents would be a decided improvement over what we have now. For example, in place of Article 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, 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 to 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 appointment of a bishop or auxiliary bishop made by the College of Bishops for such occasion. Such delegated power and authority may be rescinded by the governing body of the diocese at any time before appointment of a bishop or auxiliary bishop for the aforesaid occasion.
(c) Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed to prohibit a diocese from choosing a different mode of election or appointment for each different occasion that the office of bishop or auxiliary bishop becomes vacant or an additional auxiliary bishop is required.

AnglicansAblaze (#35),

You wrote: “I would also hope that we learn from the history of the Church of England, the Protestant Episcopal Church, now The Episcopal Church, and other daughter churches of the C of E, as well as from our recent experiences in TEC.”

I share your hope, I really share your hope, but I suspect we view the things we might learn differently.  Surely and manifestly, we have learned that a constitution and canons did not, repeat did not, protect the Protestant Episcopal Church and its later forms from certain apostate and heretical deacons, priests, bishops and presiding bishops.

Will you please share with me what language changes in either the constitution or canons of PECUSA, aka ECUSA, aka TEC might have prevented the damage which has been delivered upon what was once a Christian Church.

God bless.

They may wish to reconsider their support the ACNA as a new North American province and shift their support to a more comprehensive ecclesial body.

And what body would that be?

AnglicansAblaze,

I have read your postings on Virtue and the Heritage Anglican Network, as well as here. While I am an Evangelical Catholic myself, I have come to highly respect your positions and I hear your concerns. But what would happen of your concerns are not heard and the Constitution & Canons are adopted as they are written? Will you continue to work for the changes that Evangelicals would like to see, or would you support a call for a seperate province for Evangelicals? I would like to know your insights on the matter.

Interesting stuff! (subscribe)

Anxious Anglican #21, one thing I have come to really appreciate in the LCMS is the bottom up ecclesiology with sufficient oversight from above that a local church will not stray from the message of the Gospel.

#30   The Bishop of Argentina in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas is also the Archbishop of the province; Archbishop Gregory James Venables.  The term “presiding bishop” is used in error.  None of us in this diocese have ever referred to him as “Presiding Bishop,” nor is that title ever used.  He is commonly referred to as “Archbishop Gregory, or Archbishop Venables.”

Maybe “none of us in this diocese” has actually read your province’s constitution, Cennydd?  http://parishtoolbox.org./media/PSCconstitutioncanons.pdf  - numerous references throughout Constitution, beginning Canons 1.7 - “The Metropolitan responsibilities shall be exercised by the Executive Council under the presidency of the Presiding Bishop”.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the PB of the Southern Cone referred to as “archbishop”.

It is common for +Venables to be reffered to as ‘Archbishop’, and he has not raised an objection to the use of that term. Lapinbizarre, however, is correct in that there is no official designation of the lead bishop as archbishop. I would suggest that +Venables is in the effective, although not nominal, position of archbishop. The difference should be looked at in respect to the relationship he has with all the other active bishops in the Southern Cone. Are there any other active bishops in the Southern Cone? I do not know.

Upon reflection, yes I do know. There are multiple bishops in the Southern Cone, and they have an active House of Bishops meeting that has met and affirmed the direction that +Venables has taken.

In Southern Cone the metropolitan authority is not vested in a bishop but in the Provincial Executive Council, a body made up of bishops, clergy, and lay persons. As Presiding Bishop Venables presides over that counciland performs other duties as prescribed by the canons of Southern Cone. He is also the Bishop of the Diocese of Argentina. He, however, is not the metropolitan of Southern Cone. The Southern Cone constitution and canons is on the Internet at: http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/PSCconstitution&canons;.pdf

The link is broken but the first link shown on the Google page will take you to the Southern Cone constitution and canons. They provide a good model of church structure and governance which I believe that the ACNA would have done well to have adopted. Note that Southern Cone’s fundamental declaration is quite simple. In fact in my review of a number of constitutions and canons of a number of Anglican provinces I have come across nothing like the ACNA’s fundamental declarations. This raises the question whether such an elaborate and divisive set of fundamental declarations is really necessary.

When it comes to the constructs of man, ‘perfect’ is the enemy of the good. Only God is perfect. And if a crucial journey must be accomplished in one giant step to gain the support of those who say they love its goals, then that journey will never successfully begin.

I’m having flashbacks to the Continuing Church failures and ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ mule-headedness of the early 80s. We lost our best Anglican priest (Father Rutler) to Rome because of it. Lucky Rome, shame on us.

Dickwire (no. 28): The ratification process of the Constitution led to the Bill of Rights.

Matt K. (no. 26):  Your suggestion of ad hominem attacks on the motives of the drafters of the ACNA may apply to some, but I don’t think I’ve done that.  At least I’ve tried not to.  In any event, my questions are substantive, and I’d appreciate substantive responses when you or others find the time—especially if, as Anxious Anglican has suggested, you had a hand in drafting these documents.

#46:  He does, however, represent the Southern Cone as our Primate, and is recognized as such by Canterbury.

Your link to the S Cone constitution & canons is not working because of the interpolation of a semi-colon in the url, before the period preceding “pdf”, AAlive.  Delete it and the linked document, which is identical with the one I linked above in post#43, will come up.

Here is Dr. Noll’s post on the issues around Fundamental Declaration 1.3 from an earlier discussion on an earlier thread. I whole-heartedly agree with Dr. Noll’s suggestion that the language on the episcopacy would be far better for ACNA Fundamental declaration 1.3. Dr. Noll is correct, that the language for the JD would be more “descriptive - normative” than “prescriptive - normative.” It would allow more room for three different streams or orthodox Anglicanism that make up ACNA.

Evangelicals could affirm the less prescriptive language of the JD on the episcopacy. However, Anglo-Catholics could affirm beyond that language and embrace the “esse” position. This would be the concept of subsidiarity properly applied where a diocese would be free to affirm a more prescriptive standard than ACNA as a whole. By way of example, Fundamental Declaration 1.7 works this way. The affirmation of the 39 Articles has been written in a less prescriptive way than the affirmation in the JD. However, an evangelical diocese could more prescriptive language.

Here’s Dr. Noll’s post from the other thread -

Personally, I prefer the phrasing of JD clause 7:

We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

to Fundamental Declaration 3:

We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.

It seems to me JD #7 is better because it is descriptive-normative rather than prescriptive-normative. Maybe the Anglo-catholic influence in America was more strongly felt in framing the Constitution. However, phrases like “godly” and “historic” episcopate, along with “inherent” and “fullness” are intended to give qualification to a view of purely tactile and instrumental apostolic succession. I know there are Evangelicals who consider the LQ to be the camel’s nose in the tent of true religion, but in the North American context, it has more often served as a defence of the fundamentals.

As to John Rodger’s suggestion to sign now and adjust later - Does anybody think it will be easier to resolve this issue post-ratification the pre-ratification?

As to the sacrosanct nature of the Common Cause Theological Statement, should we not at each stage in our development take the opportunity to evaluate and modify as appropriate. Certainly, the establishment of our constitution represents such a point.

Since the Common Cause Theological Statement has come out, we have had GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration. I was personally very pleased with the Jerusalem Declaration which was agreed to by the Common Cause Partnership and our Global South Primate Benefactors. I had thought that the JD would in some ways supersede the Common Cause Partnership as representing a broader and more consensual representation of what worldwide orthodox Anglicans believed. And so, I thought and think that we should look to modify or condition the Common Cause theological statement in light of the Jerusalem Declaration.

This is one reason why I have been so saddened to see the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from the fundamental declarations (1.8) and it’s re-location to the pre-amble. The point being that when people today or in the future look to see what we believe they are going to look at our fundamental declarations and not our pre-amble.

Do you think that most people are even aware of this move of the affirmation of the JD to the pre-amble?  Was there any sort of Communication from the GTF to the constituent members of the forming ACNA of this very substantial change?

For those interested Bishop Wantland gives the Anglo-Catholic view of the Constitution and Canons of ACNA:

http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2009/06/acna-constitution-anglo-catholic-view.html

For the record he doesn’t even mention Declaration 3.