In the Name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
We are Anglicans in North America united by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures and presently members of the Common Cause Partnership.
We know ourselves to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
We are grieved by the current state of brokenness within the Anglican Communion prompted by those who have embraced erroneous teaching and who have rejected a repeated call to repentance.
We are grateful for the encouragement of Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion who gathered at Jerusalem in June 2008 and called on us to establish a new Province in North America.
We believe that this Constitution is faithful to that call and consistent with the Historic Faith and Order of the Church and we invite the prayers of all faithful Anglicans as we seek to be obedient disciples of Jesus Christ our One Lord and Savior.
Article IV.7 says: “This Constitution recognizes the right of each diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based) to establish and maintain its own governance, constitution and canons not inconsistent with the provisions of“.
The paragraph ends there (shades of Mark’s shorter ending?). Presumably, what the drafters intended was to end the sentence with “not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Province.”
But wait: Provincial supremacy is the very ecclesiology that +Iker, +Schofield, etc., rejected — at least when the province (TEC) wasn’t to their liking.
These guys are all about power and ego: “I’m going to do what I think is right.”
DCT – you seem to miss the accountability, subsidiarity, and interdependence issues addressed. But, then, that’s the problem with ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC , too, so I am not surprised.
But good catch on the shorter ending. Are you a literal fundamentalist sort in this regard? Because if so, you are sadly in the one institution with a proven track record for not being such in its applications of its own allegedly important constitution and canons.
Try for the spirit of the thingy among people of good will rather than a will to power and one agenda item to supplant all others.
Actually, as I see it anyway, the ending of Article IV 7 flows naturally into Article V. So you could read it as “not inconsistent with the provisions of Article V etc.â€
It’s an interesting document and contains much with which I wholeheartedly agree. Still it is a document that a number of faithful Anglicans will be unable to sign on to in good conscience including yours truly. Of course, I have no intention of signing on anyway since I have no reason yet to abandon the inside approach. Article 1:3, for instance, goes too far in my opinion. As far as the historic episcopate is concerned I can go no further than Wycliffe College’s 5th principle which says that the historic episcopate is “a primitive and effective instrument for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church” with the rider that “Non-Anglicans should note that the fifth principle does not assert the exclusive validity of an episcopal polity.”
In addition, the canon restricting the episcopate to male presbyters alone will keep other faithful Anglicans from jumping on board. A couple of the most godly bishops I know are female.
Having read the constitution and cannons I am now very confused. It would appear that someone can be a member of the Anglican Church of North America and at the same time be a member of The Episcopal Church. In fact, are there now network bishops who will now be members of both the house of bishop of TEC and ACNA? Furthermore, what if one of these bishops wishes to ordain a deacon or priest? What church are they ordained into? What authority does the Archbishop of ACNA have over a network TEC bishop? Also, what about those network parishes in TEC dioceses? Are they now members of ACNA but report to a TEC bishop? Also, since AMIA, CANA, and the rest have parishes in the same towns does the ACNA parish across the street report to a different bishop than yours? Where is the unity? And given such confusion over authority how can the Anglican Communion support this? The polity and structure is not really that of a unified church it is still that of a federation of churches and theological clusters.
Just a question of clarification: has anyone picked up on what kind of office the Archbishop and Primate will be? Specifically I’m curious as to whether this constitution envisions a standalone office à la TEC or a diocesan office like in most places (I would assume the latter, but the text is unclear to me).
I noticed the omission #1 noted as well. They also seem to have missed the Holy Spirit in the Baptismal language in Article III.
There is indeed tension between the autonomy of the congregation (Article IV.1, Article XII) and the summary powers of the Provincial Council (Article XIV). The non-regional nature of dioceses, etc. leave questions of authority rather messy… I’m surprised that the Diocese is not established as the primary unit of the church (I know they used different language in Article IV, but I suspect that this article still effects an ecclesiological shift).