Last week I attended an informational meeting about the possibility of forming an ACNA diocese in the Chicago area. Around 100 individuals representing about 20 lifeboat Anglican communities attended. Just about all the Common Cause elements have some presence in the area, and most of those were represented at the meeting. Some folks came from as far away as Madison WI on a snowy weekday evening to attend the meeting.
The ACNA leadership has, it seems, devised an application and a package of information for the aid of its developing communities. It's supposed to be available on the Common Cause website, but I haven't been able to make the link work. The application was discussed in some detail. We were also told that the time line for appplying, being accepted, and having representation at the first Provincial meeting in June is pretty ferocious. The application is supposed to be in by mid to late March for consideration by the ACNA leadership at a meeting in April. Because of the many, many steps involved, I think it accurate to say that the group was somewhat discouraged. No template or pattern was suggested for getting the work done. The meeting dissolved with gathering email addresses, and some folks volunteering to work on a task force for developing a process for moving ahead. Concerns about the proposed Constitution were not discussed. Of course, someone brought up women's ordination, but the topic was dodged. I didn't realize until later that the application process contains at least one little time bomb which I must quote:
9. Vestry Verification
a. This is a simple certification that the vestry or comparable governing board of each congregation in the grouping has officially subscribed to the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
This is odd, because ACNA does not yet have a Constitution and Canons and won't until June. It has a Proposed Constitution and Canons, a Proposed Constitution and Canons to which as yet, as a vestry member, cannot subscribe (see the last paragraph). It's not so simple.
In the aftermath, I felt that a geographic diocese could be assembled only with great openness and immense mutual respect. These are not always Anglican traits, but the result could be worth while. The building process would require that every voice be heard and respected, and a process designed to allow that while also establishing a time line to deal with the many actions necessary. It's to be expected that as the process required by ACNA is followed, we would find other actions to be necessary.
I was a little discouraged to find later in the week some clear evidence that one of the groups is closing ranks to gain control of the process. There was a certain winnowing of the task force membership and some other information management efforts. No one in this area has any executive authority nor did the meeting last week have authority to appoint such, and I hope we are able to fight off this natural but destructive tendency to insure that the development process remains open to all who wish to be involved. It doesn't seem to be a time for sharp elbows. Few things will be more destructive to this great effort upon which we are ventured than secrecy and back room politics.
If personal and parish differences can be sunk in a regard for mutual effort and support, a geographically assembled diocese has the greatest potential for outreach and mission, I think. Such a diocese can't be built in an atmosphere is exclusion and control, however. So we'll see.
As to my current set of constitutional concerns:
- The Provincial legislature is to be unicameral, with bishops, other clergy, and laity meeting as one chamber. This is not a bad idea at all, but I am concerned that the representation of laity is too low. Proposed Canon 2 states that "Every diocese, cluster or network has representation at the Provincial
Assembly at the basic level of its bishop(s), two clergy and two laypersons.
For dioceses, clusters or networks with an ASA in multiples of 1,000, there will
be an additional cleric and lay person for each additional 1000 ASA." In terms of proportion, the laity is not represented at anywhere near the rate at which the ordained leadership is represented. This needs to be thought through a little: the laity is apt to be more conservative than the clergy, if history is any guide.
- The Provincial Council is to be elected from among the members of the Provincial Assembly (Constitution, Article VII.2). This seems quite unnecessary, and could become a mechanism for marginalizing voices that should be heard. Since the Council rather than the Assembly is the governing body of ACNA (Consitution, Article VII.2), membership should not be so circumscribed. While Article VII.5 permits the Council to appoint "up to six persons as full members," the qualifications of those members is not discussed. And once again, since "The Provincial Council shall be composed of an equal number of bishops, clergy, and lay persons," the laity is under-represented in the governing body of ACNA. The size of the Council is not set in either Constitution or Canon, and larger the Council is, the greater the under-representation. This really needs some thought.
- While the Provincial Assembly is to be unicameral, there is still to be a College of Bishops whose powers and responsibilities are not fully described.
- Both Constitution and Canons refer to an Executive Council that will run things between meetings of the Provincial Council. Neither Constitution nor Canon describes how the Executive Council is to be chosen, its size, nor its precise powers.
No doubt some will answer that these things can be gone into at the Assembly in June. There's no certainty that this will happen, just as there doesn't seem to be any process for commenting on the Proposed Constitution and Canons. And by the way, the Constitution says that the Assembly "The Provincial Assembly shall ratify Constitutional amendments and Canons
adopted by the Provincial Council. The process of ratification is set forth by
canon." Well, the process of ratification is not set forth by canon at the moment, nor does the Constitution directly state that the Council is empowered to propose, much less adopt, amendments and canons. Since the language of the Constitution is that the Council adopts rather than proposes, it's not clear to me what might be the status of the amendments or canons after adoption and before ratification, nor what happens if the Assembly refuses to ratify. Can we get a good constitutional lawyer in on this? Maybe I am being finical, but it seems to me that the time to be
finical is before adoption, lest we be stuck not with a Constitution, but with Articles of Confederation.
