In Service of Communion: the Interim Report of The General Synod Task Force on Jurisdiction to The Council of General Synod and The Canadian House of Bishops7 March, 2001
The origin of "Jurisdiction" as a feature of the life of the church reach back into the early days of the post-resurrection community in Jerusalem. Jurisdiction of some form is nascently present in the "twelve" who were chosen by Jesus, and who, in the aftermath of the ascension, chose Matthias to make up their number and to take the place of Judas Iscariot.1 It is certainly there in the creation of the ministry of deacons,2 and in the validation of Saul's conversion and calling to preach the gospel to the gentiles.3
Saul's ministry provoked one of the most memorable of the early church's manifestations of apostolic authority issuing in the exercise of jurisdiction in the interests of the growth and nurture of the church. Confronted with the issue of who might be included with the "ecclesia" in the wake of the wholesale conversion of uncircumcised gentiles in Asia minor, the early church met (c.49 CE) for what is now referred to as the Council of Jerusalem. The issues invoked here were aggravated by centuries of ill-will and prejudice. Gentiles were, by definition of Jewish prejudice, unclean, idolatrous and given to unspeakable acts of immorality. The early Christians , all of whom were Jewish, quite simply could not conceive of how such people might be included in the church as full members unless they repudiated their race and culture, submitting to circumcision as the sign of the sincerity of their repentance and inclusion into the covenant of the law as delivered by Moses. The "Judgement of James"4 represents, in the truest sense, the exercise of jurisdiction in the interests of the "communion" of the whole church. It was, in effect a compromise. The Jewish Christians had some of their worst fears about the allegedly unclean lifestyle of gentiles put to rest, while the gentiles were recognized as full members of the church without the prohibitive requirement of circumcision.
That is what "jurisdiction" is all about, the careful and caring exercise of authority to guide and enable the growth and lively faith of the church.
This exercise of authority has its roots in the early church's memory of the promise Jesus gave to His disciples in the "Farewell Discourses" of the gospel according to St. John. There, in response to the disciples' dismay at his immanent departure from their midst, the Christ promises that the Father will send the "Paraclete" (lit: the enabler) "who will lead you into all truth."5 All exercise of authority as jurisdiction within the church proceeds from the church's confidence in the truth of this promise. This does not mean that the church is inerrant or infallible. It can, has, does, and will in the future make mistakes. But the efficacy of the paracletic guidance of God's Church is such that it cannot be in error indefinitely or irretrievably. The Spirit always guides, always corrects, always brings the Church (sometimes slowly and painfully) "into all truth". We either believe in the truth of this promise or should shut up shop tomorrow!
The long view of Church history provides a rich parade of examples of how the Spirit of God has renewed, and redirected, through the ministry of authority exercised as jurisdiction, the practice and doctrinal teaching of the Church. One such example is in the matter of slavery. It is obvious from the evidence of Acts and the letters of St. Paul that the early Christians, while affirming that all baptized persons were "new creations" in God's grace, and brothers and sisters in Christ, nevertheless accepted without protest or comment, the brutal institution of slavery. With rare exceptions, this continued to be the case until the early 1800's, when the convicted witness of William Wilberforce and his colleagues brought about the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Wilberforce acted out of Christian conviction, but was violently opposed by many of his fellow-believers, who argued in support of slavery, citing precedents from scripture. The slavery example is, in some senses, extra-ecclesial, but stands nevertheless as an example of how the Spirit can and does "guide" us into "all truth". In point of fact, however, the established nature of the Church of England sets the Parliament of England as the highest court of the church in that province, so that the passage of the bill abolishing slavery in the British Empire in 1833 may be seen as an action of the Church of England in its role as a integral part of the two houses of Parliament.
More recent examples, within the Anglican Church of Canada, might include the amendment of the Marriage Canon to permit the remarriage of divorced persons and the action of General Synod to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the Episcopate. In both cases, long-entrenched traditional practices and/or doctrinal teachings of the Church were challenged and found wanting, and the exercise of authority as jurisdiction enabled a renewal of the Church in its pastoral and sacramental life.6
None of this happened without debate, argument and disagreement. The Church is not, nor has it ever been a "perfect" institution inhabited by a "perfect" people. The Church as the "bride of Christ,... without spot or wrinkle"7 exists only as an eschatological promise a vision of what we will become in the fullness of God's grace!
What we are now is a company of people whom Jesus has called together into communion, with the intention that the life which we share might nurture us in our journey of faith, and might by example and witness, call others to do so as well. It is in this context, through the tradition of two millennia of grace, that the exercise of authority as jurisdiction can be seen to be the servant of the greater good of communion.
COMMUNION AND AUTHORITY
Our shared communion is one of God's greatest gifts to the Church. This is both literally and figuratively true. The Holy Eucharist stands at the heart of our collective experience as Christians. It is the symbol of our life together, and serves as the touchstone for our wider sense of communion. The Eucharist draws us all together, including those who would otherwise be separated by political belief, social status, economic class, cultural difference, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, to name but a few of our human distinctions. Archbishop Michael Peers has recently suggested that our primary obligation as Christians is to be in communion, and that this obligation requires that our commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy be tempered by an acknowledgment of human fallibility in comprehending the mind of God. In the Primate's words, there is "no absolute other than God".8 Historic Anglicanism has always valued communion over certainty. This was so even in the less-than-charitable times of the late 16th century. When hard-line Calvinists within the church of England pressed her to authorize the enforcement of a detailed confessional statement, after the style of Genevan Protestantism, the Queen, acting as supreme governor of the Church of England, told them that "we do not build windows into men's minds." Four and a half centuries later, the Virginia Report9 suggests that communion aims "to free the people of God to use their Godgiven gifts responsibly and cooperatively, in every way compatible with the gospel and its effective proclamation in word and deed". Communion, then, is about freeing us and enabling us to be the best that we can be. Communion equips us to rise to God's challenge. It allows the Church to be "the effectual sign of the supernatural in the midst of the natural order", to adopt Michael Ramsey's explanation.10
This understanding of the centrality of communion to the life of the Church carries rich implications for our approach to the concept of authority. "Authority" is a complex term. It can be understood in a number of ways. One speaks of authority to do or to compel something. Here "authority" is used synonymously with "power", and can imply dominance. "Authority" can also be a noun: one is an authority on a given subject. Here "authority" relates to learning or to expertise. "Authority" may also be used to describe a person or body whose ideas or decisions are "authoritative". This use of the word implies that the authority is persuasive or, to put it another way. that the pronouncements are perceived by the hearer as legitimate.
If our primary obligation as Christians is to be in communion, and if communion is about freedom and assistance to fulfill God's purpose for our lives, then a Christian understanding of authority would seem to accord most closely with the third definition suggested above: influence flowing from the person or body who is "authoritative". Christian authority is not rooted in hierarchy; nor is it a mere manifestation of power. When James and John asked to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in glory, our Savior replied:
You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.11
Jesus is the pattern of servant leadership for his Church. His authority was not an authority of status or domination, but an authority based on His willingness to share His power with all who would follow Him. Christian authority is life giving, for it is rooted in communion. In the Anglican tradition, the communal understanding of authority has been described by the theologian Bishop Stephen Sykes as "dispersed authority," authority that arises from a continuous process of decision making amongst all participants.12 This conception of authority underlies the synodical governance of the Anglican Church of Canada.
AUTHORITY AS JURISDICTION
Authority and jurisdiction are not synonymous. Jesus is described as speaking with authority but of having no jurisdiction over those to whom he spoke. Jurisdiction is having the legal right to exercise authority. In the polity of the Anglican Church of Canada there are four basic levels of jurisdiction the parish, the diocese, the province and the general synod. Our structure is confederate. When the provinces of Canada and Rupert's Land together with the dioceses of British Columbia, Caledonia and New Westminster came together in the 1890s to form the General Synod, the gathering defined those responsibilities and duties which were within the jurisdictions of the General and Provincial Synods leaving all undefined responsibilities and duties to the jurisdiction of the dioceses.
The Solemn Declaration states that among the responsibilities of the General Synod is "by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same."13
The Declaration of Principles states in Section 6 that "subject to the provisions of Section 7 [which describes the jurisdiction of the provincial Synod] the General Synod shall have authority and jurisdiction in all matters affecting in any way the general interest and well-being of the whole church and in particular:
Sections 6 (Jurisdiction of General Synod) Section 7 (Fundamental principles) and Section 7A (Ecclesiastical Offences and Disciplinary Proceedings) can be amended by a two-thirds majority in each order voting a two successive General Synods but changes cannot be effected without the consent of the provincial synods. Diocesan synods need not be consulted.
Section 11,c,I of the Declaration of Principles states that canons dealing with doctrine, worship or discipline and all alterations to such canons must be referred for considerations (but not approval) to diocesan and provincial synods before coming into force. It seems clear, therefore, that the intention of the founders of General Synod was to place responsibility for matters of doctrine and discipline within the jurisdiction of General Synod.
From time to time, matters which affect the whole church but which are not covered by the canons of General Synod arise. The best example in recent years is the ordination of women to the priesthood. General Synod established a procedure by which the issue could be studied and a decision reached without enacting a canon. If an issue is understood to be one of doctrine or discipline, whether it be already dealt with in the canons or not, it belongs within the jurisdiction of General Synod.
The difficulty lies, of course, in the determination of which matters are of doctrine and discipline. This is a question on which our task force is still working.14 We have found two useful definitions of discipline:
"the totality of ecclesiastical laws and customs regulating the religious and moral life of the church."
We continue to work on the refining of our definitions of doctrine and discipline.
THE SYNODICAL WAY
We are mindful that Anglican development of the received tradition of synodical government has involved our whole Church in the life_giving experience of walking together. In this regard we have noted the explanatory paragraphs in The Gift of Authority16 which calls us to a continual practice of synodality. In The Integrity of Anglicanism17 Stephen Sykes teases out this point when he speaks of the dialectical nature of Anglican theology in which debate and even conflict are part of our Anglican understanding of working our way through issues.
This Anglican method of doing theology involves us in the process of walking together (synod) in the space of the middle way. In this journey, while we bring with us our several differences, yet we infuse our relationship with patience and a loving acceptance of those who hold different viewpoints. Living together in this fashion requires a necessary ambiguity, but it has also enabled us to grow and to move forward along the way of becoming in greater maturity the People of God. The witness of this journey is the discovery that time is needed to reflect together, to live in relationship with one another so as to understand better what it means to be in relationship.
We want to advocate this pattern of civility as the path to continue rather than assent to the temptation of a responsive reaction that declares definitive statements which really have the potential to separate, divide and exclude. The experience of our Anglican way is that decisions which affect the doctrine and discipline of the Church involve a process which demands study, prayer and witness on the part of the whole Church. It must be remembered, however, because of our human limitations those decisions must always be regarded as provisional. In the end the "Gamaliel principle"18 is the one sure test. If a thing is of God it will flourish; if not it will wither.
APPENDIX: JURISDICTIONAL CANONS IN REVIEW
We have reviewed the constitutional documents of the General Synod and the four Provincial Synods as they relate to doctrine and discipline.
The Solemn Declaration adopted by the General Synod in 1893, and expressly accepted by the Provincial Synods of Rupert's Land, Ontario and British Columbia, commits the Church to maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as commanded by Him and as the Church of England had received them and set them forth in its formularies and in the Articles of Religion. The Synod of the Province of Canada made a similar commitment, in different language, in its 1861 Declaration of Principles.
Originally, "matters of doctrine, worship and discipline" were declared to be within the jurisdiction of the General Synod subject to certain rights and canons of the Provincial Synods of Canada and Rupert's Land and of the synods of dioceses outside those provinces.
Now, the Declaration of Principles of the General Synod gives that Synod authority and jurisdiction with respect to "the definition of the doctrines of the Church in harmony with the Solemn Declaration." None of the provincial synod constitutions assert provincial jurisdiction over any matter of doctrine.
The General Synod also has authority and jurisdiction with respect to several aspects of ecclesiastical discipline, i.e. the trial of persons accused of ecclesiastical offences. The constitutional documents of the Synods of the Provinces of Canada, Rupert's Land and Ontario say those synods have authority with respect to the ecclesiastical discipline and trial of bishops. That overlaps, and may conflict with, the authority of the General Synod . Those documents, as well as the Declaration of Principles of the General Synod , give the provincial synods jurisdiction with respect to the Provincial Courts of Appeal, the regulation of the ministrations of clergy and the oaths and subscriptions of clergy. The Constitution of the Provincial Synod of British Columbia neatly defines that Synod's jurisdiction as "the power to deal with all matters affecting general interest of the church within its territorial jurisdiction other than those delegated to the General Synod ." It does not contain any specific reference to either doctrine or discipline.
Canons and resolutions of the General Synod of a coercive character or involving penalties or disabilities are not operative in the Province of Rupert's Land until they are accepted by the synod of that province. The constitution of the Provincial Synod of Rupert's Land also preserves its right to pass on any subject that fell within that synod's jurisdiction in 1893 when the General Synod was created.
Acting under its authority in matters affecting the general interest and well-being of the whole Church, the General Synod has legislated with respect to discipline in the broad sense of the right ordering of Christian life and community, e.g. in certain provisions of the licensing, discipline and marriage canons.
The Most. Rev. David Crawley
The Rev. Canon Dr. Kim Murray (Chair)
The Most. Rev. Arthur Peters
The Hon. Ronald Stevenson
Dr. Stephen Toope
The Hon. John Wright
1 Acts 1:12-26
2 Acts 6
3 Galatians 1:13-24
4 Acts 15:1-21
5 John 16:12
6 See "Authority as Jurisdiction" p.5 below.
7 Ephesians 5:25-28
8Michael Peers, Power in the Church: Prelates. Confessions, Anglicans, Arnold Lecture, 6 December, 2000, Halifax Nova Scotia.
9 The Virginia Report, Inter-Anglican Doctrinal Commission, 1997.
10Michael Ramsay, From Gore to Temple, (London, 1959).
11 Mark 10:42-45
12Stephen W. Sykes, ed., Authority in the Anglican Communion: Essays Presented to Bishop John Howe, (Toronto, 1987).
13Hand Book of General Synod, p.6
14The decision in the recent Righter case in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. made the distinction between core doctrine which is derived from the Gospel preaching, (kerygma) and the Church's teaching (didache), but holds that both are doctrine. The distinction made in that decision, i.e. that heresy relates to core doctrine but not teaching, is not pertinent to our discussion.
15Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed. P. 409, and Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, 1999.
16The Gift of Authority, (Westminster, 1999) 34 to 40.
17Stephen Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism, pp.99-100.
18 Acts 5:34-39
|[ACC Home] [News] [Ministries] [Resources] [Directories] [Sitemap] [search]|
These pages ©1998-2007 the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada