Post & Courier Article on ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas

Steve,

At the Constitutional Convention that finalized the constitution and canons of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, representatives of the ACNA Governance Task Force actively discouraging a number of proposals protecting diocesan autonomy that were put forward. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were told that if they adopted these proposals, the Provincial Council would not recognize the new diocese.

The Constitutional Convention revealed a divide in the ACNA that extends beyond the former Anglican District of Virgina–a divide between those support a Catholic form of ecclesiastical governance in which the diocesan bishop plays a dominant role and an Anglican synodical form of ecclesistical governance in which the bishop shares governance with a synod and various other bodies composed of clergy and lay persons. It also revealed that some delegates’ ideas of Anglicanism and ecclesiastical governance had been influenced by the nineteenth century Catholic revival in the North American Anglican Church. They were not familiar with the history of synodicalism in the North American Anglican Church nor the principles upon which the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA had been founded. These principles form a part of the legacy of the PECUSA that is worth preserving.

Among these principles that the denomination is a voluntary association of automonous judicatories that retain all authority not explicitly vested in the denomination by the governing documents that they have draw up and to which they have assented. The judicatory is itself a voluntary association of autonomous parishes and exists to provide support and assistance to the parishes in their fulfillment of Church’s mission. The judicatory is a creature of the parishes forming it and not visa versa. The parishes forming the judicatory retain all authority not vested in the judicatory by its governing documents. The bishop is elected by the judicatory and his authority is limited. It is defined by the judictory’s governing documents. The governing body of the judictory consists of the bishop, clergy, and lay representatives, the latter chosen by ther respective parishes. Ecclesiastical authority is shared by the bishop with an elected standing committee, the latter exercising the functions of the bishop except confirmation and ordination in the absence of the bishop or his disability or a vacancy in the office of the bishop. Individual parishes are governed by a vestry consisting of the parish’s senior minister, church wardens, and elected representatives. In a small church the entire congregation might act as the vestry. The Catholic revival would introduce a different view of ecclesiology and ecclesiastical governance into the PECUSA in the nineteenth century. This view was centered upon the episcopate and took the position that all authority as well as the existence of the judictory was derived from the bishop. Parishes were creatures of the judicatory and parish pastors were assistants to the bishop, exercising functions delegated to them.

I am planning to review on Anglicans Ablaze the model diocesan governing documents that the ACNA provided the committee that drew up the draft constitution. This past summer I completed an indepth study of the Rwandan canons which in a number of places strongly influence the ACNA canons. It supported the findings of my preliminary study of the Rwandan canons that the Rwandan canons are heavily dependent upon the doctrine, language, norms, and principles of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The former Episcopal priest now in the AMiA, who was largely responsible for drafting the Rwandan canons also served on the Common Cause Governance Task Force that drew up the ACNA canons. The ACNA canons show the strong influence of the Rwandan canons and the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law.

‘scrutining’ should have been ‘scrutinizing.’ Unfortunately your blog template does not have an edit or correct feature. Neither does mine.