ACNA faces conflict over chaplains’ attempt to withdraw

There’s an unfortunate conflict underway in the ACNA involving the organization’s Special Jurisdiction for the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, which is the umbrella under which chaplains serve. We’re going to do our best to summarize what’s going on and what the Episcopal Church can learn from the situation.

What is the SJAFC?

The SJAFC is a ministry of ACNA that serves the women and men in uniform. It was created by church canon but is neither a diocese nor a parish. Instead, it is a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation controlled by ACNA.

These are important distinctions, as we’ll see in a minute.

The run-up to the uproar

As with most situations involving church conflict, there’s a backstory here.

While we’re not privy to all the details, things first got ugly when ACNA lowered the boom on Bishop Derek Jones, who was, until recently, in charge of the SJAFC.

At issue were allegations that Jones had engaged in abuses of power under ACNA’s Title IV, the denomination’s clergy disciplinary canons.

ACNA archbishop The Most Rev. Steve Wood directed Jones to cooperate with the ensuing investigation, which the latter declined to do. As a result, Wood inhibited Jones, who responded by trying to remove SJAFC from the denomination.

A copy of the letter from the SJAFC follows:

The fallout

Following Jones’ decision to unilaterally withdraw from ACNA, there’s been a flurry of coverage in our sister online publications. All raise a key point, which is that the chaplaincy is a ministry of ACNA, not a parish or diocese. As such, SJAFC has no authority to remove itself from the denomination, nor can the organization terminate the relationship between its chaplain members and ACNA

Additionally, Archbishop Wood and others have issued pastoral letters trying to assuage anxiety within ACNA.

Our take

Before we go further, let’s deal with the elephant in the living room.

Specifically, ACNA is dealing with integrity issues in a way that the Episcopal Church never will. Indeed, we have yet to see a situation in which the Episcopal Church has been willing to deal in any meaningful way with abuse of power, spiritual abuse, or the myriad non-sexual ways in which the episcopacy harms church members. Indeed, right now, myriad Episcopal bishops should be subject to clergy disciplinary proceedings, including but not limited to:

• Former presiding bishop Michael Curry.
• Former Alabama bishop Glenda Curry.
• Chicago bishop Paula Clark.
• Retired bishop Chilton Knudsen.
• Current New York bishop Matthew Heyd (a particularly loathsome and corrupt excuse for a bishop).
• Current El Camino Real bishop Lucinda Ashby.
• Bishop Todd Ousley, now serving as the bishop provisional of Wyoming.
• Easton Bishop Santosh Marray.

So, we applaud ACNA for recognizing that the vast majority of abuse in churches is non-sexual. Relatedly — and we’ll talk more about this in a future post — the Episcopal Church’s days are fast coming to a close over its refusal to treat non-sexual abuse as serious and actionable under Title IV.

That said, we have real concerns about the law in this situation and its potential implications for all involved.

Legal issues

To be clear, SJAFC erred when it cited the ACNA constitution as its basis for the decision to separate. Indeed, Article II.3 of the ACNA constitution, which SJAFC cites as the basis of its decision to separate, expressly applies only to dioceses and provinces.

Thus, as near as we can tell, ACNA’s internal documents appear to be silent on the ability of individual ministries to separate from the denomination.

Absent this written guidance on ACNA polity, we must turn to the governing documents of the SJAFC 501(c)(3), or the corporate entity that makes up SJAFC.

In this regard, we’ve contacted SJAFC seeking a copy of the organization’s articles of incorporation, so we can see where they are incorporated and which provisions of law may apply. Assuming we get that information, we’ll do a deeper dive into the specifics.

Possible waiver of Canon 11

There’s another wrinkle in all of this: Per SJACF, ACNA allegedly agreed to waive provincial Canon 11 when SJACF came to ACNA from the Diocese of Nigeria/CANA.

According to a video posted by SJAFC, the organization was originally founded as part of CANA and was a diocese within CANA. As such, it predated the formation of ACNA.

The details of the ensuing relationship between ACNA and SJAFC are too convoluted to report at length. Still, it’s fair to say they reflect the elevated levels of conflict between CANA, or the Church of Nigeria, and what ultimately became ACNA.

So, did ACNA waive Canon 11? We can’t say without access to the relevant documents.

What we can say, though, is that if SJAFC’s board of directors supports the organization’s departure from ACNA, and there is nothing in SJAFC’s corporate documents to prohibit this, it will be very difficult for ACNA to retain control over the organization.

That said, a successful SJAFC departure may prove a Pyrrhic victory, for it’s too small to exist as an independent diocese, and does not have the funding to hire its own chaplains.

Let’s hope our ACNA friends can find a way to resolve this situation in a way that is fair to all involved, while preserving ACNA’s integrity in addressing all forms of alleged abuse, versus the Episcopal Church’s no-blood, no-foul approach to non-sexual abuse.