Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Governance Task Force membership published

Here's the membership list of the Anglican Church of North American (ACNA) Governance Task Force which has prepared a draft Constitution and Canons for ratification at the ACNA Assembly later this month.

Governance Task Force

Hugo Blankingship, Esq., Chair, CANA
Philip Ashey+, Esq., Secretary, AAC
Larry Bausch+ FIFNA
Travis Boline+ KENYA
Jerry Cimijotti+ S. CONE
+Robert Duncan S. CONE
Cheryl Chang, Esq. ANIC
Bill Gandenberger+ S. CONE
+Royal Grote REC
+John Guernsey UGANDA
Matt Kennedy+ AAC
+Martyn Minns CANA

+Bill Murdoch KENYA
Jim McCaslin+ KENYA
Ron Speers, Esq. UGANDA
Scott Ward, Esq. CANA
Barclay Mayo+ ACiC
Wick Stephens, Esq. S. CONE
Scott Ward, Esq. CANA
Robert Weaver, Esq. S. CONE


Heritage Anglicans said...

I read the list with interest. Six members of the task force are bishops; nine, other clergy, and six, laypersons, in other words a ratio of five clergy to every two laypersons. In most churches the clergy, including bishops, if a church has bishops, forms less than ten percent of the church membership. This means that the clergy were over-represented on the task force and the laity were under-represented. It goes a long way to explain the particular form of church governance that the task force settled on, as well as the modes of episcopal and primatial election.

The AMiA has posted the Canons and Constitutions of the Province of Rwanda on its website with ACanonical Charter for Ministry of the Anglican Mission in the Americas. These documents offer insights into a number of provisions of the ACNA constitution and canons and their interpretation. They are on the Internet at:

I especially recommend reading the sections of the Rwandan canons on the powers and functions of a primatial vicar, the appointment of missionary bishops and the election of bishops and the section of the AMiA canonical charter on the nomination of missionary bishops. I have only made a cursory examination of the Rwandan canons but this examination revealed that is one of the sources of the ACNA canons. The age requirement for ACNA bishops is the age requirement for Rwandan missionary bishops. The introduction to the ACNA canons' section on bishops is adapted from as similar section in the Rwandan canons. Both make reference to a doctrine of apostolic succession over which orthodox Anglicans historically have been divided and continue to be divided to this date. The second mode of episcopal election in the ACNA canons, the one that the canons impose on all new dioceses and commend to dioceses that presently elect their own bishops is adapted from the mode of episcopal election for the Rwandan bishops.

The AMiA canonical charter is insightful into what the ACNA constitution and canons permit in terms of diocesan goverance. The AMiA has no synod or representative governing body. The Primatial Vicar is the supreme executive and legislative authority of the AMiA, governing with the assistance of the Council of Missionary Bishops. The Council nominates candidates for the office of Missionary Bishop; the Primatial Vicar must approve all nominations.

Kevin said...


I'd have to disagree with you on several fronts. I'll leave the lay v clergy one alone at the moment, mostly because there is more lay involvement in ACNA now than when it was the CCP council of bishops and Dr. Toon+ was criticizing that their was no laity (I'd say the present is no dictate on the future).

AMiA and the ACNA C & C ...

I really must confess that I think you are trying to state your opinion then try find something to back it up. If you look at the list AMiA is very under represented (probably by choice of some (I repeat some) AMiA bishops). It would be easier to make the old +Minns is trying to take over argument, which I also do not believe, but the facts would lend themselves to support better than your AMiA being the basis for ACNA C & C.

Per no Governing Body ... er ... you are very much incorrect! However, once again it shows how little you know of it's internal workings (hint, it does not go by the name you are looking for but did produce a BCP).

I'm sorry, but not getting the basic facts down, your post is nonsensical.


Who might knows a little about internal workings of a few in ACNA, but all, yet enough to call out error ...

Unknown said...

Let's the leave the dueling to Hamilton and Burr. ;-)

I was surprised how heavily the Rwandan model was used rather than the American one. This has been a bit of a surprise. It does behoove us to read the original Rwandan texts. While an attempt is being made for balance, it does seem that the current GTF Draft does lean heavy to the bishops and to the clerical orders.

It does seem that this current draft is a work-in-progress. It's an amazing accomplishment to bring so many diverse groups together - quite frankly, it's an extraordinary work. That flaws are pointed out does not indicate disloyalty but of an indication of a lack of apathy. Critics, while disruptive, perhaps, are necessary. It is the lone voice crying in the dessert that we should not so quickly dismiss. We may rule them out, but we need to do all we can to hear them. They could be crying out for the cliff that is ahead of us.

That being said - for the long-term - we will need to see this as a work in progress. That can be frustrating to some that just want this all sealed up and ready to go - and it can that for a while, but they will be tested and how much they are able to keep the historic issue of of the separation of powers will need to be carefully discerned.


Kevin said...


I wouldn't say the Rwandan model though, the ACNA is using one more Anglican wide. [Yet, an apology to Robin, if he's never encountered any other outside the US]. Remember, Americans are unique in the AC, we rebelled from the crown but the Anglican wanted to still be Anglican, thus re-attached. +Minns was correct in saying that GC runs much more like the Congress, for good reason, many were the exact same folks. This is not so elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, which is jolting to some, but not others.

I'd not credit +Chuck with that much power, especially with the internal pressures he faces inside AMiA (such as from what I can tell, my bishop). However, as Rwanda is like Uganda is like Kenya and Nigeria, there is more a traditional (ie canons of the first 7 Councils) view. Laity is not shut out (especially in practice inside Rwanda, that's for sure) but not the democratic systems of PECUSA.

Per criticisms, I more trust those that do not name individual parties (in this case the evidence is opposite), as I've reference one other above, +Minns controlling everything, which is laughable with such a diverse group. Wild accusations with names are not usually constructive unless there is clear evidence (a proportionally heavy presence of ADV in proceeding doesn't count in my books either). It maybe a tad defensive, but it's not the same type of criticism as from the ACI (fissuepossitness or 'missions by mitosis') I consider wounds of a faithful brother, but notice the difference in them - one I think Bucolically we should reject immediately, while the other should be as you suggested, "while disruptive, perhaps, are necessary."


Anonymous said...

Just a nit...

Hugo Blankingship should also have "Esq" associated with his name. I'm not sure why it would have been left off, other than oversight.

Unknown said...

I added "Esq." to Hugo Blankingship's name in this post. It wasn't on the official copy - but he is the former chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia. ;-)

Thanks, Anon!


Anonymous said...

So, only ONE woman was involved in this? There might be more, I am just guessing based on names, and realize I could be wrong. Just seems odd that this whole endeavor is being spear headed by men - there are plenty of great women out there, non-ordained. It would have been wise, and help out our argument to have had some more women on the board. I hope this isn't how ACNA is going to function from this point forward! Let's not make yet another "all boys club" religion.