From the ACNA site:
Bishop Harvey, who has nearly fifty years of ordained ministry, has worked closely with Archbishop Duncan for many years.
January 11, 2010
Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, has been appointed Dean of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) by Archbishop Robert Duncan. This appointment was unanimously ratified by the ACNA Executive Committee. As dean, Bishop Harvey will support the Primate by representing Archbishop Duncan at various events and meetings both within North America and internationally when the Primate is unable to attend.
The December meetings of the ACNA College of Bishops and Provincial Council identified the need for a dean to support the Primate and ease what was quickly becoming an overwhelming engagement schedule. In his new capacity as dean, Bishop Harvey will work closely with Archbishop Duncan and will be available to represent the Primate and ACNA when needed.
Bishop Harvey, who has nearly fifty years of ordained ministry, has worked closely with Archbishop Duncan for many years, as they together with others provided leadership to Biblically-faithful North America Anglicans and Episcopalians. He is well known and respected by global Anglican leaders and has built relationships with a number of Primates.
“I am delighted that Bishop Harvey has agreed to take on this new responsibility,” said Archbishop Duncan. “When the Executive Committee unanimously recommended that we create the role of “Dean of the Province”, and the Provincial Council concurred, I immediately began sounding out the members of the Executive Committee. There was unanimous sentiment among all consulted that the one senior bishop who could most easily and acceptably stand in my place was Bishop Donald Harvey.”
While Bishop Harvey will continue as Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), the recent appointment of three suffragan bishops for ANiC provides him with the flexibility to support Archbishop Duncan in the role of ACNA dean.
The Anglican Church in North America was launched in June of 2009, uniting 12 distinct Anglican groups and 703 arishes. Today, ACNA comprises some 100,000 Anglicans more than 765 parishes organized into 28 dioceses and spans the Canadian-United States border.
I thought he was supposed to have a lighter workload since the new suffragans were consecrated.
On a different note, 62 new parishes since June in ACNA. Maybe our goals for expansion of the Kingdom are not as ambitious as we once thought.
Ha. This is Bishop Don we are talking about!
Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Harvey as the Dean of the Anglican Church in North America is contrary to the constitution and canons of the AC-NA. In agreeing to that appointment the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council also violated the AC-NA constitution and canons. See my article, “Recent appointment of a Dean of the ACNA raise serious constitutional questions,” on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2010/01/recent-appointment-of-dean-of-acna.html
During the brief period of public comment on the proposed AC-NA constitution and canons it was drawn to the attention of the Governance Task Force that they were ascribing to the Primate of the AC-NA rights, authorities and powers that the constitution did not recognize as inherent in his office and that the constitution did not give to him. The Governance Task Force hastily altered the proposed constitution to permit the Provincial Council to delineate by canon the duties and responsibilities of the Archbishop. The present canons of the AC-NA, however, contain no provision for the office of Dean of the Province, much less his appointment by the Primate of the Province.
A review of the constitutions of several provinces of the Anglican Communion shows that typically provision for the office of dean of the province is made in the provincial constitution due to the importance of the office. The dean of the province is also typically elected from the bishops of the province by his fellow bishops.
It would appear from this appointment that the AC-NA leadership is emulating the TEC leadership and ignoring the church’s constitution and canons.
And so, what positive suggestions would you have, what would you propose to have done, in order to “ease what was quickly becoming an overwhelming engagement schedule”?
Kate,
Please read my article. The Provincial Council could have taken steps to create the office of Dean of the AC-NA and provide for his election in a constitutional manner, calling a special meeting of the Provincial Council to adopt the an amendment to the constitution and a special meeting of the Provincial Assembly to ratify it. “An overwhelming engagement schedule” does not justify ignoring the constitution.
Historically the AC-NA leadership have not been open and transparent with the membership and the public in general. For example, the provisional constitution and canons were not released until AFTER they were adopted. In light of past experience, one must ask is “an overwhelming engagement schedule” the real reason for the appointment. Developments such as Archbishop Duncan’s recent refusal to endorse the admission of an anti-women’s ordination bishop and his jurisdiction into the AC-NA; his failure to issue both a Christmas and New Year’s message, unusual for a leader in his position; and now his unconstitutional appointment as provincial dean a long-time friend who like himself is pro-women’s ordination suggests that there may be more to this appointment than easing “an overwhelming engagement schedule.” It suggests that Archbishop Duncan or the other AC-NA leaders may be attempting to avert a succession crisis in event he becomes too disabled to perform the duties and responsibilities of his office. This, however, still does not justify an unconstitutional appointment.
We have all seen what has happened in The Episcopal Church when its national leadership have ignored the TEC constitution and canons. The way the AC-NA is presently structered, its form of ecclesiastical governance at the provincial level is even more vulnerable to manipulation by one party seeking to impose its agenda upon the province. The AC-NA constitution and canons provide minimal checks and balances and other safeguards at best and what have been touted as safeguards really are not.
Robin (#5), if we were dealing with a secular organization, what you are saying would make more sense to me. Although constitutions and canons may be necessary in an ecclesial structure, they will never protect a church from spiritual corruption. Putting one’s hope in man made rules will only lead to disappointment. I suspect that TEC would have ended up in the same place even if the constitution and all of the canons had been adhered to fastidiously. It is what is going on in the hearts of the leaders that really counts. A constitution and canons may be technically necessary for church discipline to be exercised, but, unless the elders (and I use that in a broad sense to include clergy at all levels of the hierarchy as well as lay leaders) are in right relationship with God, and are faithfully seeking to be obedient to his Word, effective discipline will not occur.
In a Christian church, I would reserve the word “serious” for much more important spiritual issues than the wording of a constitution. For that matter, any church that gets too wrapped around the axle concerning the constitution is not a church for me.
Warren (#6),
Is that how you justify this unconstitutional appointment in your mind. How far are you willing to go before you say, “Wait a minute! They have gone to far!!”
Remember that the Scriptures teach us that the human heart is not to be trusted: Numbers 15:39, Deuteronomy 11:16; Proverbs 7:25; Jeremiah 17:9.
The Thirty-Nine Articles draw to our attention, “General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God….” (Article XXI)
The Ordinal in Form and Manner of Ordaining a Priest has this question, “Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?” The ordinand’s commitment to apply himself thereto, with God’s help, does not cease when he becomes a bishop. Indeed, he must even more so be a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ.
While it may have seemed expedient to Archbishop Duncan and those who concurred with his appointment to take this unconstitutional action, it reveals an underlying moral weakness, a willingness to put themselves above what are commonly agreed rules and standards by which the AC-NA is supposed to operate. The attitude that rules and standards apply to others and not to us further reveals a world character. They are hardly setting a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ.
Correction: “worldly character” not “world character.”
I believe that applies to scripture, not to man made rules. And I am still unconvinced a) that they did in fact break the rules and b) if they did, that there was malice or a lack of strength of character behind it.
Why do your “developments” suggest something sinister in Bishop Don’s appointment? I see no real connection between them, and the appointment of Bishop Don.
Further, are you sure that the reason the bishop wasn’t admitted to ACNA was his anti WO position? The Reformed Episcopal Church is part of ACNA, and they don’t ordain women. Do you have a link, or some reference?
Kate,
I do not have a link about “Developments such as Archbishop Duncan’s recent refusal to endorse the admission of an anti-women’s ordination bishop and his jurisdiction into the AC-NA…”. It was obtained from a confidential source: From what I gather Archbishop Duncan’s motive was to maintain a balance between groupings of congregations and clergy joining the AC-NA that support women’s ordination and those that do not.
The expectation of the Ordinal is that clergy are wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ. Ignoring rules and standards that they themselves agreed to, whatever justification they may have come up with in their own minds, cannot be explained away as acceptable behavior. I am not suggesting that there is any underlying malice but I do believe that the attitude underlying their actions should be a source of concern. It displays a willingness to set aside rules and standards when it is deemed expedient, a willingness that does not bode well for the AC-NA. It is the kind of willingness that is associated with worldly rather than godly leaders. It suggests that for those at the top of the AC-NA hierarchy the constitution and canons is just window dressing. A willingness to set aside rules and standards in one area eventually results in a willingness to ignore rules and standards in other areas. In taking such actions the AC-NA leadership is also abandoning the moral high ground. How can it draw attention to the misconduct of the TEC leadership when it does the same sort of thing?
If Archbishop Duncan desperately needed an assistant, the College of Bishops under the present canons could have with the concurrence of the Executive Committee created an office of Bishop for Special Missions to assist the Archbishop and have nominated and elected one of its members to carry out that duty and responsibility under its supervision as provided by the canons. This bishop would have functioned like a Canon to the Ordinary, except that he would have ultimately been under the authority of the College of Bishops and not the Primate.
Well, perhaps your confidential source was wrong; in any event, I don’t think it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.
So, is your objection not to Bishop Harvey’s appointment, but rather that they called his position the wrong thing, and did it the wrong way? Personally, I don’t think that is as grave a character flaw, or as serious, as you do, even if you are correct. It could have been an honest mistake, or perhaps they interpret the cannons differently than you do. I confess, legal language makes my head spin, I can quite understand making an honest mistake regarding its interpretation.
Kate,
I am not taking issue with the particular choice of Bishop Harvey as I am with the manner of his appointment. The issue of women’s ordination does help to explain the manner of the appointment. Election of a Bishop for Special Missions to assist the Primate would have placed the choice of the assistant in the hands of the College of Bishops and his ministry under the supervision of that body.
The issue of women’s ordination is a potential fracture line in the AC-NA. The “catholicizing” party in the AC-NA, represented by Forward in Faith North America, three of the breakaway Episcopal dioceses, and Anglo-Catholics in the various other dioceses would do away with women’s ordination in the AC-NA. As you pointed out. REC is also opposed to women’s ordination. Adding more groupings of congregations and clergy that were opposed to women’s ordination would increase the pressure in the AC-NA to do away with women’s ordination and would likely result in a split in the church.
Kate,
A strict interpretation of the AC-NA constitution and canons based upon a plain reading of their provisions does not support this kind of appointment.
Robin (#7), I am not an academic, and make no pretensions about being one. I think I’m a reasonably well informed layman, with a passable knowledge of Scripture and church history. I hold presuppositions that some may call Van Tilian. What probably sets me apart from everyone else who posts on this blog is the range of churches and denominations I have been directly involved with over the past 40 years (whether or not this is a good thing is a whole other question). I find that I have a perspective on many things that I know I would never have developed had I remained in one denomination. I can observe trends and patterns, that cross denominational lines, that many of my fellow church goers seem oblivious to. I also find that I’ve become more tolerant on certain issues and less so on others. I also have a tendency to speak my mind. So, I’m going to speak my mind.
I observe an element in the Anglican Church for whom women’s ordination (WO) seems to be the most important issue. They believe it is wrong as (or more) strongly than many others believe that SSBs are wrong. Although they vary widely, I have observed touch-stone issues in many churches and denominations (and even got involved in a few in my younger days). Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but my hunch is that this group would be largely satisfied if the Anglican Church could just get it “right” on WO – even if plenty of errors were being made elsewhere. I sense that tone in your writing and wonder if you would be less concerned about the constitution if a Primate/Bishop were in place who were committed to eliminating WO? If I’m wrong, I deserve a kick in the pants.
I suppose, in a sense, I’m a one issue guy too; that issue being the authority of Scripture. I don’t expect to ever find a church with which I am in complete agreement, but, if there is clearly a desire to be obedient to God’s Word, in all areas, and to subordinate personal and cultural preference to Scripture, I can be comfortable and fellowship. My biggest beef with the ACoC is the wide-spread rejection of inerrancy and, I suspect, a significant rejection of infallibility and inspiration. 200+ years ago, I suspect that most Anglican churchmen would have been reasonably comfortable in signing the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (although they doubtlessly would have liked to tweak some of the wording). Today, I suspect that most ACoC churchmen (and women) would spurn it outright as anachronistic, naive, and completely out of touch with modern scholarship. I don’t believe that this would be the case with ACNA churchmen (and women), even though I suspect that some would be uncomfortable in going quite as far as the statement. For this reason, and this reason alone, I am willing to cut the leaders of the fledging ACNA slack in many areas, and trust that, with God’s help, they are committed to building a biblically faithful church filled with men, women and children who seek to honour God and spread the good news of gospel to their friends and neighbours.
By the way, why do you insist on hyphenating ACNA? ACNA is used on the ACNA website, so why not go with the flow?
Based on the assumption that an unknown bishop was refused entrance to ACNA for the rumoured reason that he was pro WO? I find that unconvincing.
And why would that be necessary? I think that Bishop Duncan is quite capable of exercising godly authority over Bishop Harvey. Further, the appointment was unanimously ratified by the executive committee, which speak for the house of bishops between meetings, correct?
#15 Obviously our House of Bishops and Bishop Duncan don’t agree with you.
Amen. (And what does Van Tilian mean?)
In #19 Kate said:
A discussion of the theologian Corneliu Van Til and his presuppositional approach to apologetics goes way beyond the scope of this thread. In short, he believed that certain biblical truths had to be presupposed and were not up for debate with unbelievers (this is a gross oversimplification). Here is one summary:
I’m sure Van Til’s approach would be widely rejected and even denounced in the ACoC. His ideas, however, would be well known to (and I think endorsed by) a mutual friend we have in Southern California.
I wish I could go visit that Californian friend right about now. The weather in Ottawa is actively miserable.
We’re at 55 F and sunny right now. Going to BBQ later. Sorry.
Warren, you shouldn’t tempt me to use unChristian language.
Right now, the weather can’t decide if it wants to rain or snow. On the positive side, the canal opened up for skating yesterday.
Robin,
Some questions:
Do you think a church can be worth supporting in spite of what may appear to be flaws in its organisational structure or even “theological bias”?
Do you think a church can be worth supporting even you don’t agree with everything it espouses?
In spite of what you see as flaws in the organisation or operation of the ACNA, are you still hoping that it succeeds where TEC and the ACoC have failed – in reaching the lost for Christ, for example?
If ACNA falls apart will you be sorry or will you feel vindicated?
On the particular point about Don Harvey, I apologise in advance for taking it as seriously as I think it deserves to be taken, rather than with the gravity which you seem to believe it merits.
First of all, I have no idea whether your contention that Duncan broke the rules of the constitution is accurate or not; and I don’t particularly care that much. To put your argument into simple terms that even I can understand, it appears to be along the lines of: today a non-kosher appointment, next year rampant heresy. Or:
Look at that Mr. Jones; he calls himself a Christian and only the other day I caught him speeding; I know he was speeding because I was right behind him. If he’s prepared to go 60 mph in a 50 mph zone, not only is he a hypocrite, but next he’ll be committing adultery and maybe even murder.
Even though I used to own a 400hp Camaro, I would never advocate speeding. Ever. Really.
For you, is this really all about speeding – sorry, women’s ordination?
David (#24), I want to hear more about your Camaro sometime. Was it a late model or early model? I had a ’69 Superbee for 10 years (which got me into some trouble).
Warren,
A late model – 1998. It went very fast in a moderately straight line. I traded it in for a Miata which goes very fast on a very curvy line. I still have the Miata; it goes sideways in snow.
I find the new Camaro very tempting (idolatry?).
If I was going to buy a toy car it would be a Bugeye Sprite, or a british racing green MG or MGB.
Robin et al,
It’s business as usual with these guys. This apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.
Warren [#27],
Yes, I dribbled visibly when I first saw it. Then my wife noticed and I had to pull myself together.
Kate [#28],
The Miata is a bit like an MG except it starts in the rain.
R. M. Bruton [#29],
Huh?
I think R.M. Bruton is making reference to similarity between the 69 Camaro and the 09 model.
Oh good grief, how could you possibly compare the Miata and the MG? Besides, it doesn’t come in british racing green with the offcentre gold stripes!
Kate (#17)
The Executive Committee does not speak for the House of Bishops between its meetings. The Executive Committee is a committee of the Provincial Council. Article VII. 10 states:
“The Provincial Council shall have an Executive Committee, whose membership and duties may be established by canon. Initially the Executive Committee shall be composed of the
members of the Common Cause Executive Committee, as constituted under the Common Cause Articles.”
Title I.1.4 of the canons states:
“The Council shall have an Executive Committee which shall be the Board of Directors of the Anglican Church in North America, a non-profit corporation. The Executive Committee shall set the agenda for meetings of the Provincial Council. Any ten members of the Council may have an item of business placed on the agenda for consideration. The members of the Executive Committee shall be the Archbishop, who shall be chairman, and twelve (12) other members, six (6) ordained and six (6) lay, elected by the Council from among its members. The Executive Committee may elect a replacement for any member of the Executive Committee who does not serve for his or her full term of office. The Executive Committee shall have custody of documents and other property of the Church not vested in any other body or person. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the initial Executive Committee shall be as provided in Article VII.10 of the Constitution and shall continue in office until its successors are elected.
Under the provisions of the present canons the Executive Committee can authorize the creation of the office of Bishop for Special Missions but not Dean of the Province. The constitution and canons do not recognize the Executive Committee as having any authority to change the constitution or canons between the meetings of the Provincial Council and the Provincial Assembly nor do they give the Executive Committee such authority.
David (#24)
Eve to Adam: “Have a bite-just one little taste. What harm can that do?”
From W. H.Griffith-Thomas’ The Work of Ministry
“III. The Wrestler (v. 5).
Here we have the thought of life as an arena in which the Christian athlete is engaged. Christian life involves contest ; Christian service requires struggle and effort. And it behoves the Christian man, and especially the Christian minister, to play the game. He must strive lawfully. His methods must be straight and true, and nothing must be said or done in our service for God which cannot bear the searching gaze and test of the Great Taskmaster.”
Robin [#34],
Which rather reinforces my point, I should have thought: eating the apple was an act of direct disobedience of God’s law, signifying mankind’s rebellion against him. Something of cosmic significance.
Otoh, what we are discussing here are pettifogging institutional prescriptions.
Robin (#35), given your quotation of W.H. Griffith-Thomas, I was wondering if you hold to a dispensationalist position? At the Bible Institute where my wife and I are currently taking courses, all of the teachers hold to a strong pre-mill, dispensational position (of the MacArthur variety). As I hold to a covenental position, it makes for some lively discussion. I think DTS has produced some excellent men, though.
Robin
How about answering David’s questions?
re #35 I’m sure that what our leaders have done will stand the scrutiny of the great taskmaster. Jesus had quite a lot to say about putting more importance on human laws than on God’s laws, after all.
As I have stated in earlier streams and been criticized for it, A high ranking bishop in ACNA shared with me that “There is an elephant in the room” that elephant is not in itself WO but the circumstance that keeps us from “likemindedness. Until this “elephant” is “put down” its tusks will continue to grow. For the sake of our New/Old way (ACNA) Any comment or idea that lends itself pro or con needs to be dealt with patience, openess and a truthful journey to “oneness.” If Robin is knowledgeable (I’m not) accurate, and passionate about his observation than he should pursue it until resolution is found. I do not see any of this in his dissenters.
I sincerely hope this is the last time I hear criticism from our Blog masters about not staying within the stream. But since you mentioned it I bought a new “71 Super-Bee” (Charger) got 11 tickets in the first year. Fortunately I sold it without a loss early in the second year, and bought a Corrola 1200, nary a ticket with no change in driving habits.
See comment #19. I don’t think the “elephant in the room” analogy applies; I don’t think our leaders are afraid to deal with the WO issue. If they had been, I don’t think ACNA would ever have got off the ground in the first place.
Stuck (#39) was your Super Bee plum crazy metallic by any chance? I liked that colour along with green go.
Robin
The office of Dean is not defined in either the Constitution or the Canons. The Constitution requires certain officers, but does not seem to make that list definitive. Further:
Therefore, I don’t see where the Council is forbidden from appointing an assistant to Archbishop Duncan. I also don’t see where it is forbidden for Archbishop Duncan to appoint any fellow bishop to represent him on an ad hoc basis. The title of Dean may be awkward because there will be presuppositions about what Deans do – I like your proposed title better – but I’m not convinced that this action is against the canons.
If, as Robin contends, Bsp Harvey’s appointment was contrary to the constitution and I’m not really sure, my mind tended to fog over when I was reading the parts of the constitution which have been copied into this discussion, then he is also correct that the situation needs to be rectified. I’m not really worried about mistakes. Mistakes happen all the time by everybody, what is important is how you respond with the mistake is discovered. I will not make a judgment regarding motive. On the other hand any organizational structure needs to retain some flexibility so it can easily adapt to changing circumstances.
We don’t have a car, they are too expensive, we take TTC everywhere.
Kate #40 thank you for your response. When persons agree to disagree they do so for a greater cause. That does not eliminate the emotions that may be attached to individual or corporate interpretation. The analagy does not necessarly apply to our leaders fears as much as it represents a “thin edge of the wedge” for Loosafur. This is one of the reasons scripture so loudly calls for Unity and likemindedness.
Warren, nah it was that almost lime green colour but it did have the air scoop with the raised lettering “MAGNUM” in stainless steel.
Actually now that I think about it perhaps it just looked like stainless steel.
Kate (#38)
How the leaders of an ecclesial organization act, how they go about doing things, reflects upon their own spiritual condition and in turn the spiritual condition of the church. One cannot be disconnected from the other. One cannot claim that an ecclesial organization is very “spiritual” when its leaders act in a worldly manner.
Jesus’ warning about making too much of human teaching does not justify questionable conduct on the part of church leaders. That is a misapplication of what Jesus said. What you are trying to justify are not only actions that violate the AC-NA constitution and canons but also are unworthy of anyone entrusted with shepherding Christ’s flock. They are morally and consequently spiritually wrong.
Cathy (#43)
The appointment needs to be referred to the Provincial Tribunal for a ruling on its constitutionality. In the Anglican Church of Australia, this would have been done before the appointment was made. What you see happening is Archbishop Duncan, the Executive Committee, and the Provincial Council interpreting the office of Primate to have powers that the constitution do not recognize and the canons do not give. Instead of obtaining a ruling on the constitutionality of the appointment, they proceeded with it, testing the limits so to speak. If no one takes issue with the appointment, then they will continue to misinterpret the constitution and canons, arrogating rights, authorities, and powers to that office which have no constitutional and canonical basis. We have all seen the direction that has taken in The Episcopal Church. It leads to the abuse of power.
Robin – I am not trying to justify anything because I think you are wrong, and I don’t think our leaders did anything wrong. Furthermore, even if you are correct, I think you are attributing malice and power hunger to Bishop Duncan when the most likely explanation is a simple mistake. That is what I meant when I said that I am sure that their actions would stand the scrutiny of the great taskmaster.
Besides, is a blog forum really the right place for this? Shouldn’t you have written to Bishop Duncan in private, and asked him what was going on, rather than question his motives and drag his name through the mud in the blogosphere? Is this conversation building anybody up, or doing ACNA any good at all?
And you still haven’t answered David’s questions, or addressed what Bill said. I think it only fair that you shed some light on your own motives, since you seem so keen Bishop Duncan’s motives.
My second paragraph in #47 is a rhetorical question, meant to provide food for thought. I’m not sure what the answer to it is. On the one hand, we question the actions of ACoC leaders all the time – but I believe we are long past the point of being able to offer private correction. On the other hand, I really think, Robin, that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and at the very least ought to have taken this up through proper channels – and the blogosphere certainly isn’t “proper channels”. Did you contact Bishop Duncan in private before you wrote your blog post?