By Jason G. Antonio
Canadian bishops can hire priests from the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), should they choose, after receiving clarity about what it means to bring in clergy who are “in good standing.”
Delegates to the Anglican Church of Canada’s 2023 General Synod in Calgary, AB, discussed a motion to amend Canon XVII — on the licensing of clergy — on the last day of a busy synod. This was the first of two readings since the motion dealt with church discipline; the second reading will occur in 2025.
The original recommendation proposed adding four sections to the canon, including defining what “in good standing” meant, preventing bishops from hiring anyone not ordained in and in good standing with the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) or in full communion partnership, allowing bishops to license priests from the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches and forbidding bishops from transferring or accepting the transfer of anyone not in good standing.
According to the motion, “in good standing” means a bishop, priest or deacon is not “inhibited from, suspended from, deprived of or deposed from ministry due to a disciplinary matter, and who has not relinquished or abandoned the exercise of the ordained ministry without being reinstated thereto.”
Chancellor David Jones moved the motion and General Secretary Alan Perry seconded it.
An amendment — moved by John Boyd of the Territory of the People and seconded by Bishop Joey Royal of the Diocese of the Arctic — eliminated the second and third clauses and kept the definition of “in good standing” and transfer prohibition.
Delegates approved the amended motion, with two-thirds of each order — laity, clergy and bishops — in favour.
Targeting ACNA clergy
The first clause’s definition of “in good standing” — specifically, those who relinquish or abandon their ordained ministry — clearly targets priests from ACNA, Bishop Royal said during the discussion.
This was problematic since the Diocese of the Arctic struggles to find ministers, the ministry demands are heavy, and the organization is under-resourced. Moreover, the motion negatively affects Northern and Indigenous communities the most.
“I really don’t want our hands tied as far as who we can and cannot license … ,” Royal said, noting he hoped the motion didn’t forbid ACoC bishops from hiring ACNA priests.
Jones shook his head, replying, “What paragraph 1 does is to add a definition of good standing. It doesn’t relate to the entity (with which) the person would have been in good standing. It doesn’t identify (that) these (priests) are OK and these aren’t.”
Royal then directly asked whether ACoC bishops would violate clause 1 if they hired and licensed ACNA clergy.
“There may be other concerns. But … as long as they were in good standing with the entity you described, this would not affect what we’re talking about because this is a definition of good standing,” said Jones.
“I understand the Anglican Church in North America is not somebody whose orders we’ve recognized, but that’s a different issue. This is purely about good standing … .”
The See of Canterbury recognizes ACNA’s orders, Royal pointed out. Meanwhile, he wondered whether the situation in the Diocese of Caledonia a few years ago with Jacob Worley was related to this motion.
There are two issues that “swirl” around ACNA as an organization–namely, the recognition of its orders and whether a person from there is in good standing, Jones said.
“Our paragraph 1 … deals with good standing and basically is a safeguarding issue,” he added.
Further discussion
The discussion about licensing clergy continued for almost an hour, with most delegates speaking against the motion.
Bishop David Parsons from the Arctic opposed the motion since he thought “in good standing” was open to interpretation. Moreover, he thought it prevented him from hiring outside priests and deacons — he recognized ACNA as part of the Anglican Communion — even though anyone he hires must sign a document agreeing to follow the canons and doctrines of the diocese.
“I do not want to be prevented as the bishop of the Arctic from whom I can and cannot bring,” he added.
Stephen Connor from the Diocese of Quebec opposed the motion, pointing out the message delegates heard continually during General Synod focused on the sharing of ministry, resources, capacity and expertise. This motion contradicts that message, while it would imperil the parishes in his diocese.
Recalling a conversation he had with Parsons, Connor said that the ACoC “needs to be about expansion and not repression or regression.”
Bishop Lynne MacNaughton from the Diocese of Kootenay also opposed the motion since it jeopardized in her diocese two of the oldest shared ecumenical ministries in Canada — over 55 years — and two of the newest such ministries, all with the United Church.
“That kind of fluidity about how we create a Christian identity in small communities, I see this as … regressive,” she said. “It sets us back in terms of the shared ministries we have and the ones we’re working towards (with organizations like the United Church).”
Bishop Dave Greenwood from the Diocese of Athabasca thought the motion was “a solution looking for a problem,” a statement with which numerous other delegates concurred.
In the end, when the motion passed, some concerns still remained, but delegates had received some clarity from the Chancellor about its scope, while the most controversial elements had been removed.
Closing the debate, Perry said this motion clarifies the rules around licensing people and provides safeguards for the future. TAP