The Episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

In this third article in my series on the provisional constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America I examine the provisions of these documents as they relate to the episcopate. The purpose of this series is to shed more light on the ecclesiastical structure that has been named “The Anglican Church in North America.” In the provisional constitution and canons the ACNA leadership introduces a number of radical changes in ecclesiastical governance in North American Anglicanism. My aim is to raise the awareness of North American Anglicans of these changes and their implications for Anglicanism in North America.

Article IX of the provisional constitution establishes the office of Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America:

“1. The Archbishop will be known as the Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America. The Archbishop will be elected by the College of Bishops.

“2. The person elected as Archbishop will hold office for a term of five years concluding at the end of the meeting of the College of Bishops which elects the next Archbishop. An Archbishop who has served one term of office may be elected for a second term of office but not a third. Initially, the Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership shall serve as Archbishop and Primate of the Province.

“3. The Archbishop convenes the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops and represents the Province in the Councils of the Church.”

The first thing that one notices in examining this article is the title and designation of “Archbishop.” This title and designation is generally used for a chief bishop who has authority over the bishops of a province. It hints at a much more hierarchical relationship between the bishop with this title and designation and the other bishops of an ecclesiastical body than titles and designations like “Bishop Primus” or “Presiding Bishop” do. “Bishop Primus,” or “Primus,” conveys the idea of a bishop who is a first among equals; “Presiding Bishop,” the idea of a bishop who performs a specific function. The Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church was given that title and designation because he did just that—presided at meetings of the House of Bishops and the General Convention.

The second thing one notices is that the Provincial College of Bishops elects the Archbishop of the ACNA. A comparison of this method of primatial election with that of a number of Anglican provinces reveals something of the implications of this particular method of selection. What follows is a brief description of the primatial election methods in ten Anglican provinces. In all cases except three—the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Melanesia, and the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda—the description is taken from the province’s constitution and canons. In the case of the Australian Church it is taken from newspaper article and a canon revising the procedure. In the case of the Melanesian Church it is taken from a newspaper article; in the case of the Ugandan Church it is taken from a newspaper article and supported by the provisions of the constitution of one of the dioceses of Ugandan Church—West Ankole.

When it is necessary to elect a new Primate in Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, any member of the General Synod may move that the General Synod proceed to the election of a new primate. The bishops present and qualified to vote in the General Synod nominate a bishop to fill the office of primate. If the nomination is confirmed by the clergy and lay members of the General Synod, the bishop nominated becomes the Primate. If the nomination by the bishops is not confirmed, the procedure is repeated. If the second nomination is not confirmed, an Acting Primate performs the duties of Primate until the General Synod has elected a Primate. In this process non-episcopal clergy and laity have a significant role.

In the Anglican Church of Australia the office of Primate is held by a diocesan bishop. A Board of Electors for the Primate elects the primate. This board consists of all the members of the House of Bishops of the General Synod and twelve members of the clergy and twelve members of the laity. The twelve members of the clergy are elected by the House of Clergy and the twelve members of the laity by the House of Laity of the General Synod. The Primate or the Acting Primate in the case of an unexpected vacancy in the office of Primate convenes by summons a meeting of the Board to elect a new Primate. If in the opinion of the Standing Committee of the General Synod the Primate or the Acting Primate as the case may be fails to issue a summons or to cause a summons to be served as required by canon, the Standing Committee may direct the General Secretary of the General Synod to issue and cause to be served a summons for the Board to meet. The board elects its chair from among the members of the clergy or the members of the laity. In the first ballot all eligible bishops are candidates. If on the first ballot an eligible bishop is elected Primate but he refuses to accept the office, the first ballot is repeated but the person is not a candidate. If he does not refuse to accept the office, the Primate Canon Amendment Canon 2007 states:

“The General Secretary must forthwith disclose to the members of the Board the content (if any) of the National Register insofar as it concerns the eligible bishop so elected, and the Episcopal Standards Director must disclose to members of the Board the substance of any complaint or information relating to the eligible bishop as elected insofar as it has been communicated to the eligible bishop…”

If there is nothing to disclose and he accepts the office, he becomes Primate. If something is disclosed and he has been given an opportunity to respond to the disclosure, his name is submitted to a further ballot. If he on the further ballot receives the requisite majority and accepts the office, he becomes Primate; but otherwise, the process proceeds to a second ballot. Before the second ballot the General Secretary and the Episcopal Standards Director are required to make to the members of the Board the same kind of disclosures that were made after the first ballot but for each of the candidates for that ballot. Each candidate is given an opportunity to respond to the any disclosure affecting himself. The balloting is repeated until a Primate is elected. If the list of candidates is reduced to two and if three ballots are held on that reduced list without a bishop receiving the votes of a requisite majority, the Board may, by a simple majority of the members present and voting, decide to revert to a ballot at which all diocesan bishops are candidates This ballot is treated as if it were a first ballot.

In the Anglican Church of Canada a meeting of the Order (House) of Bishops selects up to five nominees for Primate. On the day of the primatial election the Order of Bishops withdraws from the General Synod and sits separately. The Orders of Clergy vote on the nominations made by the bishops. Votes are taken by order and continue until there is an election. An election occurs when a nominee receives a majority of the votes of the members of the Order of Clergy present and the members of the Order of Laity present. Either the Order of Clergy or the Order of Laity may, after the second vote is taken, by resolution request further nominations from the Order of Bishops. When, after the number of nominees has been reduced to two, an election has not occurred after three successive votes, and no requests for additional nominations have been made, the Order of Bishops is notified that the Order of Clergy and the Order of Laity is unable to elect. When the Order of Bishops is so notified, the members of the Order of Bishops proceed to vote on the two remaining nominees. An election occurs when one of the nominees receives a majority of the votes of the members of the Order of Bishops present. When an election occurs, the order of Bishops returns and sits with the orders of Clergy and Laity and the Acting Primate formally proclaims the elected person to be the Primate of The Anglican Church of Canada.

In the Anglican Church of Melanesia a Primatial Election Board elects the Primate as in the Anglican Church of Australia. I was not able to ascertain the composition of the Board, how its members are chosen, and what procedure the Board follows. I was not able to determine to what extent the clergy and the laity participates in the selection of the Primate of that province.

In the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of the Provincial Synod is composed of the representatives from each diocese who are the bishop and one clergy representative and one lay representative elected by the diocesan synod. The Provincial Synod is the official body for “representation, direction, and general decisions” of the province. The Provincial Synod elects the Provincial Executive Council from the representatives of the Provincial Synod. The number of Provincial Executive Council members is the same as the number of dioceses in the province, plus one. There is the same number of bishops, other clergy, and lay members. The position of Presiding Bishop is named from within the officers of the Provincial Executive Council. The Provincial Executive Council performs the executive and administrative functions of the Provincial Synod. It also exercises the metropolitan powers of the province, subject to the direction of the Provincial Synod.

In the Church in Wales a diocesan bishop holds the office of Primate. The Primate is elected by a Primatial Electoral College consisting of the bishops of the province and the first three clergy and the first three lay episcopal electors on the list of each diocese in the province. Each newly elected diocesan conference (synod), at its first meeting appoints twelve episcopal electors, six clergy and six laypersons, the clergy electors being appointed by the clergy members and the lay electors by the lay members of the conference. The senior diocesan bishop summons each member of the Electoral College to the meeting of the Electoral College for the purpose of electing a new Primate. The voting is by ballot. There are no votes by orders. If at the end of three consecutive days no candidate has received a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, the election passes to the bishops and the candidate elected by them is declared to be Primate. If the Electoral College has not elected any candidate as Primate within three months of the upon which it was first possible for them to have done so, the election passes to the bishops and the candidate elected by them is declared by them to be Primate-elect. If a candidate received a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, the candidate is declared by the bishops to be Primate-elect.

In the Church of Ireland the Archbishop of Amargh is also the Primate of All Ireland. On the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Amargh the House of Bishops meets and by a majority of the votes of those present and voting elects one of its members to be Primate. The House of Bishops determines the date, within a period of three months from the date of the election, upon which this translation takes effect. The Archbishop of Dublin and the other bishops of the Church of Ireland are elected by an Episcopal Electoral College that consists of the President of the Episcopal Electoral College who usually is the archbishop of the province that includes the diocese of which the see is vacant, except in the case of an election of an archbishop of Dublin; three members of the House of Bishops nominated by that House; twelve diocesan clerical and twelve diocesan lay episcopal electors from the diocese of which the see is vacant; when the diocese of which the see is vacant is situated in the province of Armagh, two diocesan clerical and two diocesan lay episcopal electors from each of the other dioceses in the province; when the diocese of which the see is vacant is situated in the province of Dublin, three diocesan clerical and three diocesan lay episcopal electors from each of the other dioceses in the province; ) in the case of an election in either province to fill a vacancy in a see due to the archbishop or bishop of the province having been elected to the archbishopric of Armagh, six diocesan clerical and six diocesan lay episcopal electors from the diocese of Armagh. In the case of the election of an archbishop of Dublin, the Archbishop of Amargh is the President of the Episcopal Electoral College. The diocesan synod of Armagh every three years elect from among its members six clerical and six lay episcopal electors and a number of supplemental clerical and lay episcopal electors as it may determine. The synod of every other diocese every three years elects from among its members twelve clerical and twelve lay episcopal electors and a number of supplemental clerical and lay episcopal electors as it may determine.

At every meeting of an Electoral College there is initially an informal discussion, after which any member of the College may propose a qualified candidate for consideration by the College. All voting is by orders, the bishops if they wish to vote voting as members of the clerical order. The President is entitled to vote in the same way as other members of the College. The voting in conducted in such manner as the President may determine, and may be repeated once or more often. Informal discussion may likewise precede the taking of any repeated vote. The President’s decision regarding any dispute as to the voting is final. The President may adjourn the meeting from time to time.

If, on the taking of any vote, any person receives two-thirds of the votes of the members of each order present and voting, that person is declared elected. If after the taking of several votes no person has received the requisite majority, the College may by a simple majority pass a resolution that no further vote be taken, and the appointment then passes to the House of Bishops.

Whenever the appointment of an archbishop of Dublin or a bishop has passed to the House of Bishops, the House of Bishops by a majority of the votes of the archbishops and bishops present and voting at a meeting duly convened for the purpose, elects a qualified candidate to the vacant see. In the case of a translation, the House of Bishops determines the date, within a period of three months from the date of the election, upon which the translation shall take effect. At the meeting there is laid before the House of Bishops a record of the proceedings of the Electoral College.

I include the procedure for the election of an archbishop of Dublin or a diocesan bishop at this point because it shows that with the exception of the Archbishop of Amargh the role of non-episcopal clergy and laity in the selection of bishops of the Church of Ireland is substantial. Since the Archbishop of Amargh is elected from the members of the House of Bishops, the non-episcopal clergy and the laity are indirectly involved in his selection.

In the Church of Nigeria the Primate is a Provincial Archbishop. The Primate is elected by the Episcopal Synod, or House of Bishops of the General Synod, as are the Provincial Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops. An advisory committee composed of one clergy member and one lay member elected by each diocesan synod advises the Episcopal Synod on the qualifications and qualities required in a Primate, submitting its recommendations in writing by a delegate of the committee before the Episcopal Synod sits to elect the Primate. This is the extent of the non-episcopal clergy and lay participation in the selection of the Primate, which is negligible.

In the Church of Uganda the Primate is also elected by the House of Bishops. I was not able to determine the extent of the participation of the non-episcopal clergy and laity in the primatial election process. The procedure for the election of a diocesan bishop (see below) does suggest that it is quite limited.

At each General Convention in The Episcopal Church the House of Deputies elects one clergy deputy and one lay deputy from each Province as members of the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop. A deputy from a particular Province may be nominated only by another deputy from the same Province, but the election of each member of the Committee is by the entire membership of the House of Deputies, with a majority of those voting necessary for election. Prior to the election, the clergy and lay deputies from each Province hold a caucus, at which two clergy deputies and two lay deputies as nominees are selected by the caucus, and these are the only nominees upon which the House of Deputies votes in electing the members of the Joint Nominating Committee. The President of the House of Deputies, after consultation with representatives of youth, appoints two persons, age 16-21, as members of the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop.

At each General Convention the House of Bishops elects one bishop from each Province as a member of the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop. A bishop from a particular Province may be nominated only by another bishop from the same Province, but the election of each member of the Committee is by the entire membership of the House of Bishops, with a majority of those voting necessary for election. Prior to the election, the bishops from each Province shall hold a caucus, at which two bishops as nominees are selected by the caucus, and these are the only nominees upon which the House of Bishops votes in electing the members of the Joint Nominating Committee.

At the General Convention at which a Presiding Bishop is to be elected, the Joint Nominating Committee presents to the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies in joint session the names of not fewer than three members of the House of Bishops for the consideration of the two Houses in the choice of a Presiding Bishop. At the joint session to which the Joint Nominating Committee reports, any bishop or deputy may nominate any other member of the House of Bishops for the consideration of the two Houses in the choice of a Presiding Bishop, and there may be discussion of all nominees. Commencing on the day following the joint session, election is by the House of Bishops from among such nominees. If the House of Bishops finds itself unable to elect a Presiding Bishop from among such nominees, another joint session is held, at which additional nominations may be received, and on the following day, election is held by the House of Bishops from among all of the nominees. After the election by the House of Bishops, report of the result of the election, including the number of votes cast for each nominee on each ballot, is made to the House of Deputies which votes to confirm or not to confirm the choice of Presiding Bishop.

In the event a vacancy in the office of Presiding Bishop occurs in the interim between meetings of the General Convention, the Joint Nominating Committee submits to the secretary of the House of Bishops the names of not fewer than three members of the House of Bishops for the consideration by that House in the choice of a Presiding Bishop to fill the vacancy, and simultaneously transmits a copy of the report to the secretary of the House of Deputies for mailing to all deputies. The report is also released to the Church and secular press. After the release of the report the House of Bishops holds a special meeting for the purpose of electing a Presiding Bishop to fill the vacancy, and, in this election, the vote is upon the nominees of the Joint Nominating Committee and any further nominations made by any voting member of the House of Bishops. Immediately following the election by the House of Bishops, the secretary of the House of Bishops informs the president and secretary of each diocesan standing committee, requesting a meeting at the earliest possible date to consider approval. Upon receipt of the approval of a majority of the standing committees of the dioceses, the Presiding Bishop Elect is declared elected.

In The Episcopal Church’s procedure for the election of a Presiding Bishop the non-episcopal clergy and laity have a substantial role. They nominate candidates for Presiding Bishop. The House of Deputies or the diocesan standing committees confirm the choice of Presiding Bishop.

As we have seen from this examination of primatial election procedures, the ACNA has adopted a method of election for its Archbishop that is close to that of the African provinces and may be reflective of their influence. A number of factors account for the episcopal election procedures of these provinces. All of these provinces were originally extraterritorial provinces of the Church of England and their bishops were chosen by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The nations and regions in which these provinces were established are former parts of the colonial empires of Great Britain and other European nations. They were governed by colonial administrators who were appointed by the governments of these nations. The local church had little if any say in who was appointed their bishop. The local population also had little or no say in who governed them and how they were governed. A prominent feature of traditional African society is the king or paramount chieftain, the tribal or clan chieftain, and the village headman. These leaders are normally advised by a council of lesser chieftains or elders. This traditional role has been carried over into national and regional politics and explains in part the large number of African strongmen. It also has been carried over into the African church where archbishops functions as paramount chieftains and bishops as lesser chieftains. Indeed the hierarchical church is more compatible with traditional African society than it is with western society. The African view of the episcopate is largely that of a self-perpetuating hierarchy, in which members of the hierarchy choose new members of the hierarchy. The Africans also have a much more authoritarian view of the episcopate and episcopacy. The colonial church, colonialism, and traditional African society have helped to shape this view. The only way a diocese in a number of African provinces can reject a bishop is for its people to refuse to welcome him, to boycott his enthronement in the diocesan cathedral, to refuse to attend church services at which he is present, and to lock the doors of church buildings to prevent his use of them. This has happened to a number of African bishops in recent years.

The primatial election method adopted by the ACNA is also remarkably similar to the method by which the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is chosen. Major differences are that a College of Cardinals elects the Pope, instead of a Provincial College of Bishops, and the Pope is the head of a major branch of the Western Church while the Archbishop of the ACNA is the leader of an emerging Anglican entity with aspirations to become a province of the Anglican Communion.

Article X establishes a Provincial College of Bishop:

“1. The chief work of the College of Bishops shall be the propagation and defense of the Faith and Order of the Church, and in service as the visible sign and expression of the Unity of the Church.

“2. Each bishop in active episcopal ministry shall be included in the College of Bishops as provided by canon.

“3. The College of Bishops shall elect the Archbishop from among its members.

“4. The College of Bishops will meet with such frequency as best serves its chief work, and at the call of the Archbishop or of the episcopal members of the Provincial Council.

“5. The College of Bishops shall have authority in the election of bishops of the Province which may be: a) consent to an election from a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), or b) the actual choice and consent from among two or more nominees put forward by a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), in the manner set forward by canon.”

It must be noted that Article X, Section 2 reiterates word for word what was already stated in Article IV, Section 5. “Each bishop in active episcopal ministry shall be included in a Provincial College of Bishops as provided by canon.” One or the other of these two sections is redundant and unnecessary. Article X, Section 3 also reiterates the last sentence of Article IX, Section 1 and then adds “from among its members.” This redundancy is unnecessary and could have been avoided by adding “from among its members” to Article IX, Section 1. These and other sections of the provisional constitution and canons suggest that they were hastily put together documents and their drafters did not exercise a lot of care in their drafting. Our main concern at this point in our examination of the provisional constitution and canons, however, is Article X, Section 5:

“5. The College of Bishops shall have authority in the election of bishops of the Province which may be: a) consent to an election from a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), or b) the actual choice and consent from among two or more nominees put forward by a diocese, cluster or network (whether regional or affinity-based), in the manner set forward by canon.”

This section gives the College of Bishops authority to consent to the election of the principal bishop and any auxiliary bishops of a diocese, cluster or network in the Anglican Church in North America. But even more importantly as we shall see, it also gives the College of Bishops authority to choose a bishop or bishops for a diocese, cluster or network of the ACNA from among two or more nominees proposed by the diocese, cluster or network. It goes on to state that the manner in which the College of Bishops will confirm the election of a bishop of an ACNA judicatory or will choose a bishop for an ACNA judicatory will be prescribed by canon. The provisions of this section are important ones, as we shall see when we examine Canon 4.

It must be noted that it was unnecessary to add the phrase “(whether regional or affinity-based)” to each reference to an ACNA diocese, cluster, or network. This section also uses the phrase “set forward” instead of the phrase “set forth” more commonly used in constitutions, canons, bylaws, ordinances, and regulations. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines “set forward” as “to assist the progress of.” “Set forth,” on the other hand, means “to expound,” or to explain. One sets forward a clock. One sets forth the procedure for confirming the election of a bishop or choosing a bishop. These are just further examples of the apparent lack of care in the drafting of the provisional constitution and canons.

Canon 3 states, “A diocese, cluster or network "in formation" may apply to the Provincial Council for temporary "in formation" status. If the application is approved by a majority vote of the Provincial Council, the Archbishop may appoint a Vicar General to assist in leading the diocese, cluster or network "in formation" to final qualification as a diocese, cluster or network in the Province.”

This canon gives the Archbishop the authority to appoint a vicar general for each diocese, cluster, or network in formation. A vicar general is an assistant to an archbishop in ecclesiastical causes. A vicar general is typically an experienced presbyter who is appointed to administer a diocese until a new diocesan bishop is elected. He may also be a layperson. His duties are administrative; he does not confirm or ordain. The canon, however, does not specify the qualifications of a vicar general a diocese, cluster, or network in formation. Nor does it specify the functions of a vicar general for a diocese, cluster, or network in formation other than “to assist in leading” the judicatory in formation “to final qualification” as an ACNA judicatory. In a canon one might expect a more detailed description of the vicar general’s qualifications and functions.

Canon 4 states:

“Bishops shall be chosen by a diocese, cluster or network in conformance with their respective procedures and consistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Province. Eligibility for bishop must include being a duly ordained male presbyter of at least 35 years of age, who possesses those qualities for a bishop which are in accordance with Scriptural principles, and who has fully embraced the Fundamental Declarations of this Province.

“An electing body shall certify the election of a bishop for consent by the College of Bishops, or may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the diocese, cluster or network.

“Where the originating body is "in formation," that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates, from whom the College of Bishops may select one.

“Consent or, choice and consent, shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of the College of Bishops, which consent shall be given within 60 days and in writing.

“Upon the consent or choice of a bishop-elect by the College of Bishops, the Archbishop shall take order for the consecration and/or installation of such bishop.

“In the event the bishop-elect or the nominees are rejected by the College of Bishops, the College shall so inform the originating body in writing.”

Canon 4 deserves our close attention. The first section of the canon prescribes the manner in which bishops of the Anglican Church in North America will be chosen. It also prescribes the qualifications of a bishop of the ACNA. Note the language of the first sentence of this section: “Bishops shall be chosen by a diocese, cluster or network in conformance with their respective procedures and consistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Province.” “Chosen” is a keyword. This can be seen from an examination of the procedures by which bishops are selected in a number of the founding entities of the ACNA.

The Anglican Mission in Americas (AMiA) is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, formerly the Episcopal Church of Rwanda. Article 9 of the AMiA Charter states:

Section 1: In the event of a vacancy of the office of the Primatial Vicar, the Council of Missionary Bishops shall identify and elect one of their members to temporarily serve as the Chair of the Council of Missionary Bishops, the Board of Directors, and all other administrative bodies of the Anglican Mission, until the Primate of the Province designates another to the office of
Primatial Vicar.

Section 2: If a Missionary Episcopate becomes vacant, or additional Missionary Bishops are needed for the advancement of the Anglican Mission, the Primatial Vicar with the Council of Missionary Bishops shall serve as Episcopal Consulters to the Primate with regard to the selection of candidates suitable for the Missionary Episcopate. The Episcopal Consulters may consult with the Network Leaders and the Board of Directors, and the Primatial Vicar may assemble a College of Presbyters or other appropriate
body to assist in the identification of suitable candidates.

Section 3: The Council of Missionary Bishops shall elect candidates for consideration before the Provincial House of Bishops as set forth in Title I, Canon 6, Sections 3, 4, 5. This vote shall be a super majority (at least two thirds) of the Council of Missionary Bishops. The Primatial Vicar will present such names to the Primate and to the Provincial House of Bishops for their consideration. The Primatial Vicar may veto a name for reasons of pastoral or administrative concern, as set forth in the canons. Those priests nominated by the Council of Missionary Bishops are presented in accord with the canonical norms of the Province (cf. Title 1, Canon 6, Section 13, Title III, Canon 23, Section 2).

Section 4: The Primatial Vicar, or another Missionary Bishop designated by him, shall see to any episcopal needs within a vacant seat, until a Missionary Bishop is elected and takes canonical possession of that seat.

The entire AMiA charter is on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/assets/AMiA%20Charter%20Dec%202008-Final%20Draft.pdf

As can be seen from the charter, the Primatial Vicar is vested with considerable power and authority. The College of Presbyters is a purely advisory body and is convened solely on the call of the Primatial Vicar. The charter alludes to “various other assemblies and convocations of Lay and Ordained Leaders” that the Primatial Vicar may call together “to take counsel and work for the common good of the Anglican Mission.” However, the charter does not establish any standing body of this kind. The role of non-episcopal clergy and laity play in the episcopal election process is at best negligible.

The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) is a missionary jurisdiction of the Church of Nigeria. Its bishops are chosen under the constitution and canons of the Church of Nigeria. The procedure for the election of a diocesan bishop in the Church of Nigeria is similar to that for the election of the Primate and a Provincial Archbishop. A bishop for any diocese in the Church of Nigeria may be elected from among the bishops or clergy of any diocese of the Church of Nigeria, or of any other diocese in communion with that Church. There is in each diocese of the Church of Nigeria an advisory committee appointed by the synod of the diocese to advise the Primate on the appointment of a diocesan bishop when a vacancy occurs in the see of the diocese. This committee consists of four clergy and five lay members of the synod of the diocese. The lay members must include one woman and also the chancellor of the diocese who is the chairman of the committee. When a vacancy in the see of a diocese occurs the Primate instructs the advisory committee of the diocese concerned to meet and forward to the Primate in writing the views of the committee in general terms on the qualifications (including level of education, parish experience, commitment, acceptability, etc.) required in the bishop to be elected for the consideration of the Episcopal Synod (House of Bishops).

Upon receiving the views of the advisory committee, the Primate conveys them in writing to the members of the Episcopal Synod. The Primate summons the Episcopal Synod to meet at such place and time as he appoints, and the Episcopal Synod elects a new bishop to the vacant see. At the election, nominations are made by the Primate and Bishops. The election is by secret ballot. An elector may, if unable to be present, send his nomination and/or vote, in writing signed and witnessed, to the Primate. The election is determined by a two-thirds majority of the total membership including those absent as well as those present whether voting or not voting. If the election is not decided upon the first ballot, a second ballot shall be taken on the two candidates with the highest number of votes and it is decided by a simple majority of those present and voting. In the event of a tie, the Primate or bishop presiding has a casting vote. The Primate or bishop presiding over the election of a new Bishop notifies the person so elected. Before confirming the election, the Primate examine or cause to be examined by a chancellor or registrar of any diocese of the province the birth certificate or other proof, certificates or other proof of baptism and confirmation, letters of orders, and letters commendatory or dismissory from the bishop of his diocese or the archbishop of his province of the bishop-elect. Upon receiving the acceptance of the offer, the Primate confirms the appointment and informs the vicar-general of the diocese concerned.

Valid objection to the election of a bishop of a diocese may be made on the grounds either that the see is not canonically vacant or that the election was unconstitutional, or that the person elected is under thirty years of age, and has not been a priest for six years; is not of competent learning, or of sound faith, or of good morals, or is otherwise canonically disqualified, or that he is under such liabilities or contracts as not to be a free agent. If any canonical objection to the election is offered, the Primate, together with his diocesan chancellor, examines the objection. Objections may only be offered by a communicant member of the Church of Nigeria, of an honest life and good report, who must supply sufficient certificates to that effect, and who must subscribe a declaration that he will accept the decision of the Primate as final. In the examination of a canonical objection, the decision of the Primate is final.

If the Primate is satisfied that the documents presented by the bishop-elect are sufficient, and that no canonical objection which may have been offered to the election is valid, he confirms the election and issues the instrument of confirmation to the vicar-general. He transmits the name of the person elected to the other Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion.

When a diocesan bishop deems it necessary for the good of the church that a suffragan bishop should be appointed to assist him in the work of his diocese, he, with the concurrence of the diocesan synod by resolution, makes application to Episcopal Synod through the Primate for leave to appoint a suffragan bishop. On receiving the application, the Episcopal Synod takes into consideration the state of the diocese and enquires into the question whether adequate provision has been made in the diocese concerned for the housing and maintenance of a suffragan bishop, and may either grant or withhold their consent to such appointment being made. When the office of suffragan bishop in any diocese falls vacant, the Episcopal Synod may alone authorize the bishop of the diocese to proceed to fill the vacancy except no vacancy may be filled by the diocesan bishop without full consultation with his diocesan board. Whenever an appointment of any suffragan bishop is made, the diocesan bishop nominate a person to the Primate of the Church of Nigeria after consultation in his diocese for election to the office. The Primate after consultation with the diocesan bishop, may, in his discretion, either issue his summons to attend the Episcopal Synod to consider the nomination, or cause a postal ballot of all those entitled to attend to be held. If the nomination is approved by a simple majority of the diocesan bishops either at a meeting or by postal ballot, the person in question is declared elected subject to the canonical confirmation of the election by the Primate through the diocesan bishop. The verification of all relevant documents of a suffragan bishop, the confirmation of his appointment, notice of the election, objections to the appointment, examination of objection, decision and promulgation is as in the case of a bishop except that the instrument of confirmation is sent to the diocesan bishop concerned.

Serving on the advisory committee appointed by the synod of the diocese and making a canonical objection to the election of a diocesan bishop of the diocese is the extent of clergy and lay participation in the process of election of a diocesan bishop in the Church of Nigeria. The extent to which the clergy and laity participate in the diocesan synod, diocesan board, and the diocesan bishop’s consultation in his diocese is the determining factor of the extent to which clergy and laity participate in the process of appointment of a suffragan bishop in the Church of Nigeria. As in the case of a diocesan bishop, they may make a canonical objection to the appointment.

Chapter IX, Section 39 (c) of the Constitution of the Church of Nigeria gives the General Synod of the Church of Nigeria power “to create convocations, chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria and to appoint persons within or outside Nigeria to administer them…” Section 39 (c) further states that the Primate shall provide episcopal oversight.” The constitution and canons of the Church of Nigeria make no provision for the representation of the non-episcopal clergy and laity in these extraterritorial convocations and chaplaincies in the General Synod. The non-episcopal clergy and laity in these bodies play no role in the appointment process. Whether the bishops of CANA are chosen under the Nigerian canonical provisions for diocesan and suffragan bishops or the provisions of this section, the role of non-episcopal clergy and laity in CANA in the process is extremely circumscribed if not non-existent.

The Missionary Convocation of Kenya is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Kenya. Its bishops are elected by the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Church of Kenya. I was not able to ascertain the extent to which non-episcopal clergy and laity participates in the episcopal election process. Since the non-episcopal clergy and laity in the Missionary Convocation of Kenya appear not to be represented in the Provincial Synod, they do no appear to play any role in the process at all.

The Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America. The canons of the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone permit each diocese to have, in addition to the diocesan bishop, with the consent of the diocesan bishop, the Provincial Executive Council, and the other diocesan bishops, one or more qualified bishops elected to serve as auxiliary or regional bishops.

When there is a vacancy in the office of a diocesan bishop of a diocese, the diocese notifies the Presiding Bishop and requests his authorization to hold
an election. Upon obtaining that authorization, the diocese nominates one or more candidates and proceeds with the election in accordance with the canons of that diocese. The diocese may seek the assistance and counsel of the Provincial Executive Council in conducting the election process. Additionally, it may seek episcopal assistance during the period of the vacancy. Once an election has been completed in a diocese, the diocese communicates the results to the Provisional Executive Council and the bishops in the province, and sends them the appropriate documents
about the bishop-elect, and finally the diocese provides the necessary information that permit the other bishops of the province to confirm the election of the bishop-elect based on extensive knowledge of the person.
The Provincial Registrar shall send a notice to the Presiding Bishop certifying whether the election process was conducted in accordance with the canons. The Presiding Bishop then informs the Provincial Executive Council and the other bishops of the province. The Provincial Executive Council, in conjunction with all of the bishops of the province, confirms the election by a simple majority in the course of a meeting of the Provincial Executive Council and the provincial bishops. Voting is by secret ballot. When it is necessary to make this decision prior to a meeting of the Provincial Executive Council and the provincial bishops, voting may be done by mail or e-mail. Each voting member mails his vote to the Presiding Bishop, who when he receives it does so in the strictest confidence. The Presiding Bishop then communicates the final results to the appropriate parties. If the Provincial Executive Council and the bishops of the province do not confirm the election of the bishop-elect, the diocese has the right to ask them to reconsider. If a subsequent decision fails to confirm the election of the bishop-elect the diocese must conduct a new election.

If a year after a vacancy has been declared there has been no election of a bishop nor has there been a request for a designation of a bishop, the Provincial Executive Council is authorized to provide whatever episcopal assistance it deems necessary and advisable.

When a diocese fails to elect a bishop after two attempts, it may request that
the province designate a bishop. In any case, if a diocese has not elected a diocesan bishop within two years after the vacancy in the office of diocesan bishop occurred, the province elects the diocesan bishop. When a diocese requests that the province designate a new diocesan bishop, or if the diocese fails to elect a diocesan bishop within two years after the occurrence of the vacancy in the office of diocesan bishop, the Provincial Executive Council assumes the role of the diocesan synod in the search and election procedure for a diocesan bishop. It does so with the participation of all its members, and may designate from among them a nominations committee to carryout the search process. The Provincial Executive Council or the nominations committee, whichever is the case, interviews the candidate or candidates who best appear to possess the required qualities defined by the profile of the diocese, or by any recommendations of the Provincial Executive Council to accomplish a pre-selection. When the Provincial Executive Council or the nominations committee has completed a pre-selection and believes that the time has arrived to conduct an election, all documents pertinent to the candidates are sent to the members of the Provincial Executive Council and the bishops of the province along with detailed information regarding
the interviews. When the pre-selection has been conducted by the nominations committee, one or more of the candidates may be summoned to appear before a full meeting of the Provincial Executive Council, if at least two members of that body request it. The election of a diocesan bishop by the Provincial Executive Council is conducted during a regular meeting of that body or during a special meeting of that body called for that purpose.
Voting is by secret ballot. A vote of two-thirds of the members of the Provincial Executive Council is required to elect a diocesan bishop. After the Provincial Executive Council has elected a bishop-elect, the Provincial Executive Council notifies the bishops of the province. If the bishops of the province confirm the election of the bishop-elect, he becomes the diocesan bishop of the diocese. The bishop-elect may be confirmed by the bishops of the province during a meeting in full of the bishops of the province, by secret ballot, or by mail or e-mail, as a written vote sent to the Presiding Bishop, who receives it in the strictest confidence and communicates the final result to the appropriate parties.
.
When there is a vacancy in the office of an auxiliary bishop of a diocese,
the procedure is the same as that for a diocesan except that episcopal assistance during the vacancy of the auxiliary bishop is normally provided by the diocesan bishop of the affected diocese; and the vote by the Provincial Executive Council in conjunction with that of the provincial bishops to confirm the election includes the official votes of the diocesan bishop and the other bishops, if there are any, of the diocese affected.

When the diocesan council or equivalent executive body within a diocese requests the Provincial Executive Council in writing for the creation of the office of auxiliary bishop or regional bishop to carry out the responsibilities previously established in the diocese, the Provincial Executive Council ascertains that the process is following the diocesan canons. Once the Provincial Executive Council approves the creation of the office, the norms that have been established in the provincial and diocesan canons for the election of a diocesan bishop are followed.

The canons of the province require that each diocese of the province must, for judicial and administrative purposes, establish a diocesan synod as a legislative body and a diocesan council as the executive instrument of the diocesan synod and corporate advisor for the diocesan bishop of the diocese.

In the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America clergy and laity appear to play substantial role in the episcopal electoral process.

The Missionary Convocation of Uganda is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda and therefore is subject to constitution and canons of that province. In the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda diocesan bishops and suffragan or auxiliary bishops are chosen by the House of Bishops and appointed by the Archbishop. When there is or a likelihood of a vacancy in the see of a diocese, a nominations committee elected by the diocesan synod for that purpose, nominates two candidates for diocesan bishop and submits them to the House of Bishops. The Archbishop with the House of the Bishops may consider these names. If they think fit they refer the matter back to the nominations committee for further nominations. After referring the matter back to the nominations committee but not later than one year from the date of the vacancy, the House of Bishops, in consultation with the Archbishop and subject to his final consent, nominates a person for him to appoint and if need be for consecration.

The nominations committee is composed of fifteen members excluding the chancellor. The fifteen members include both clergy and the laity. It is elected at every new diocesan synod. It nominates two candidates for diocesan bishop and submits their names to the House of Bishops. From these candidates the House of Bishops may elect one to be the bishop of the diocese. The nominations committee is presided over by the diocesan chancellor, who is a non-voting member.

When the synod decides to have a suffragan or assistant bishop, the nominations committee nominates two candidates whose names are submitted by the bishop to the Archbishop for election by the House of Bishops. If the House of Bishops thinks fit, they follow the same procedure as in the election of a diocesan bishop.

Clergy and lay participation in the election of a diocesan bishop or suffragan or assistant bishop is limited to election of the nominations committee as a member of the diocesan synod and nomination of candidates as a member of the nomination committee.

The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) is the oldest surviving ecclesiastical body to have broken away from the former Protestant Episcopal Church. Assistant Bishop of Kentucky George David Cummins and a group of conservative evangelical Episcopalians organized the REC in 1873. In the twentieth century the REC drifted away from the Protestant and evangelical principles of its founders and underwent a number of significant changes in doctrine and practice. These changes are reflected in that body’s revised Prayer Book of 2005 and its revised constitution and canons of 2005. Under the revised canons of the REC the diocesan bishop of a diocese is elected by the diocesan synod or council. If the election takes place within six months before a meeting of the General Council, the legislative body of the REC, the standing committee of the diocese must submit to the General Council evidence of the election of the bishop-elect, evidence of his ordination as a deacon and presbyter, and a testimonial signed by a constitutional majority of the diocesan synod or council. If the General Council consents, by a simple majority of both the clergy and the laity, to the consecration of the bishop-elect, it sends a notice of its consent to the Council of Bishops with the aforementioned documents. If the election takes place more than six months before a meeting of the General Council, the standing committee of the diocese immediately sends a certificate of the election to the standing committees of the other dioceses with copies of the requisite documents. If a majority of the standing committees of all the dioceses consent to the consecration of the bishop-elect, the standing committee of the diocese then sends evidence of this consent to the Presiding Bishop who immediately communicates the same to every bishop of the REC. If the majority of the REC bishops consent to the consecration, the Presiding Bishop notifies the standing committee of the diocese and the bishop-elect, and upon notification of his acceptance of the election, the Presiding Bishop takes order for the consecration of the bishop-elect. If the Presiding Bishop does not receive the consent of the majority of the bishops of the REC within three months of his notice to them, he then notifies the standing committee of the diocese. When a majority of all the standing committees of the dioceses of the REC do not consent to the consecration of a bishop-elect within the period of six months from the date of the notification of the election by the standing committee of the diocese, or when a majority of all the bishops do not consent within the period of three months from the date of notification to them by the Presiding Bishop of the election, the Presiding Bishop declares the election null and void, and the diocesan synod or council of the diocese may then conduct a new election.

The REC canons also make provision for the election of coadjutor and suffragan bishops. The procedure for the election of a coadjutor bishop is identical to that for the election of the diocesan bishop except that before the election of a bishop coadjutor, the consent of the General Council, or during the recess of the General Council, the consent of a majority of the REC bishops having jurisdiction in the United States and Canada and a majority of the REC diocesan standing committees must be obtained. The diocesan bishop of the diocese must also give his written consent to the election. If the diocesan bishop is unable to do so, the standing committee of the diocese may request that the diocesan synod or council act without this consent, accompanying its request with certificates from physicians as to the inability of the diocesan bishop of the diocese to give his written consent. The procedure for the election of a suffragan bishop is identical to that for the election of the diocesan bishop except that the diocesan bishop must in every case take the initiative by asking for the assistance of a suffragan. A diocese may have only two suffragan bishops (one if there is a coadjutor bishop) unless the diocese obtains the special consent of the General Council for an additional suffragan.

The REC canons further provide for the establishment of missionary dioceses and the election of missionary bishops. The latter are chosen by the Council of Bishops. The choice is subject to the confirmation of the General Council during its triennial sessions, and at other times to confirmation by a majority of the diocesan standing committees and a majority of the General Committee.

In the REC non-episcopal clergy and laity appear to play a substantial role in the episcopal election procedure.

As we have seen, a sizable number of the ACNA bishops are chosen by the provincial bishops of a foreign jurisdiction in a process in which non-episcopal clergy and laity take very little if any part. The election of the bishops of the Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone requires the confirmation of the Provincial Executive Council and provincial bishops of a foreign jurisdiction. This raises a number of questions related to the autonomy of the Anglican Church in North America and the participation of non-episcopal clergy and laity in the ecclesiastical governance of that body. I will take a look at these issues later in this article.

This section of Canon 4 also contains a provision that is generating controversy on both sides of the issue of the ordination of women. Those who support women’s ordination take the position that this provision, which restricts the episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America to men, unnecessarily limits the role of women in the ACNA. On the other hand, those who are opposed to women’s ordination believe that in placing this provision in the canons of the ACNA and not in the constitution, the ACNA leadership has provide a loophole through which women bishops may eventually be introduced into the ACNA episcopate. Over time the supporters of women’s ordination may come to dominate the Provincial Council and the Provincial College of Bishops, amend the canons, and confirm a women bishop. It must be noted that the other qualifications of bishops are also prescribed in the canons and a similar scenario can be envisioned for the introduction of actively homosexual bishops in the ACNA episcopate at some point in the future. As the ecclesiastical government of the ACNA is presently constituted, a group that gained control of the Provincial Council and the Provincial College of Bishop would also be in a position to ensure that the Provincial Assembly ratified any changes in the canons. Unlike the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, the provisional constitution of the ACNA has no provisions under which certain categories of canons require the assent of the diocese before a canon in these categories is binding upon the diocese and under which if the diocese withdraws its assent to the canon at a later date, the canon is no longer binding upon the diocese (See my previous article, “Ecclesiastical Government in the Anglican Church in North America on the Internet at: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/03/ecclesiastical-government-in-anglican.html ). These provisions in the Anglican Church of Australia preserve the autonomy of the diocese in that province to a much greater extent than does the terms of the provisional constitution of the ACNA. In the event that a group dominating the Provincial Council and the Provincial College of Bishops introduced women bishops or actively homosexual bishops into the ACNA episcopate, the only recourse that an ACNA judicatory (diocese, cluster, or network) would have is to withdraw from the ACNA and to become an independent ecclesiastical body.

In addition this section of Canon 4 raises the minimum age requirement for a bishop from 30 years of age to 35 years of age. Based upon studies of psychological maturity of men, a 35-year-old man is no more mature in his judgment than a 30-year-old man. The ACNA leadership offers no rationale for this change any more than they offer for the other innovations that they are introducing in ecclesiastical governance in North American Anglicanism.

A survey of eight provinces of the Anglican Communion—the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Nigeria, and The Episcopal Church—reveals a common minimal age requirement for a bishop of at least 30 years of age. This survey is by no means exhaustive but it does suggest that in raising the minimum age requirement for a bishop this section of Canon 4 is breaking with a long-established precedent.

The second paragraph or section stipulates, “An electing body shall certify the election of a bishop for consent by the College of Bishops…” It further stipulates that an electing body “may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the diocese, cluster or network.” This paragraph is poorly worded. The first part of the section is apparently intended to mean that “an electing body” must submit with the name of the bishop-elect certification of the election of the bishop-elect when it submits the name of the bishop-elect to the College of Bishops for its consent to the election. The “electing body” in the case of the African missionary jurisdictions is the House of Bishops or Provincial General Synod of an African province. In the case of Missionary Convocation of Southern Cone and the Reformed Episcopal Church, it is the diocesan synod or council that elected the bishop-elect. As we have seen, the election must also be confirmed under the canons of the provinces of which the founding entities of the Anglican Church in North America are missionary jurisdictions. Then the College of Bishops of the ACNA must confirm the election.

The second part of the paragraph is more poorly worded than the first. What is meant by “…may certify two or three nominees from which the College of Bishops may select one for the diocese, cluster or network.” The meaning is not clear. The College of Bishops may select one of the two or three nominees that the “electing body” presents to that body but for what? One presumes that it is for bishop of the judicatory but the second part of the paragraph does not actually say so.

A key word in this part of the paragraph is “may.” The College of Bishops is not constrained by the provisions of Canon 4 to select a nominee that the “electing body” of a judicatory proposes. It is free to choose a nominee that the Archbishop, one of its members, or a church leader of another ecclesiastical body proposes. There is no provision that in the event none of the nominees are acceptable to the College of Bishops, that body must request further nominations from the “electing body.”

The third paragraph suffers from the same lack of clarity as the second part of the second paragraph:

“Where the originating body is "in formation," that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates, from whom the College of Bishops may select one.

Candidates for what? Select one for what? The phrase “shall normally nominate” may indicate one of two things. It may mean that judicatories in formation cannot elect their own bishop. The College of Bishops selects a bishop for these judicatories. Or it may mean that a judicatory in formation normally can nominate only two to three candidates from which the College of Bishop selects its bishop. If the College of Bishops rejects these candidates, it does not have the option of nominating additional candidates. It may need to obtain special consent of the College of Bishops to make additional nominations. However, the third paragraph does not say so. The third paragraph does not clearly state what it means.

The provisions of the third paragraph of Canon 4 also conflicts with the provisions of Canon 3 that state the Archbishop may appoint a vicar-general to lead a judicatory in formation to “final qualification as a diocese, cluster, or network in the Province.” If the judicatory in formation already has a vicar-general, why then does it need a bishop? The vicar-general performs the functions of a bishop except for confirmations and ordinations.

The provisional canons do not spell out what such “final qualification” entails. Presumably at this stage the judicatory would be recognized by the Provincial Council as a member judicatory of the ACNA and would no longer be regarded as a judicatory in formation.

In the Anglican Church of Australia of Australia, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, and other Anglican provinces a new diocese elects its own bishop. With the formation of a new self-governing diocese in the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, for example, the office of diocesan bishop is automatically created and the Provincial Executive Council is required to authorizes an election in accordance with the provincial canons and the provisional constitution and canons of the new diocese that have been previously approved by the Provincial Executive Council. The process of electing a Bishop is conducted by the provincial registrar and the diocesan bishop or bishops of the diocese in whose territory the new diocese is being formed. The diocese begins its formal existence with the consecration or proclamation of the diocesan bishop, who is expected to convene the first diocesan synod immediately so that the new Constitution and Canons may be approved.

Only in a number of African provinces does the House of Bishops choose a bishop for the new diocese. In these provinces the House of Bishops also chooses his successor and in turn his successor and so on. Are the provisions of the third paragraph of Canon 4 intended to introduce the African process of selecting bishops into the new judicatories of the ACNA? This will have tremendous ramifications if it is the case.

As in the second part of the second paragraph of Canon 4, a key word in the third paragraph is “may.” The College of Bishops may choose a nominee from those proposed by the judicatory. They, however, are not bound to do so. They may choose the nominee of the Archbishop, their own nominee, or the nominee of the church leader of another ecclesiastical body.

The fourth paragraph of Canon 4 like the preceding paragraphs is poorly worded.

“Consent or, choice and consent, shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of the College of Bishops, which consent shall be given within 60 days and in writing.

Indeed the entire canon has the appearance of notes that were taken at a meeting and then adopted as a proposed provisional canon, as do the other provisional canons. Due to the possibility of misinterpretation canons are usually more specific and more detailed. Presumably this paragraph is intended to mean that consent to the election of a bishop-elect of a judicatory requires a vote of two-thirds of the members of the College of Bishops. If the election fails to receive the requisite vote, the election is null and void. When the College of Bishops elects a bishop for a judicatory, the candidate who receives a vote of two-third of the members of the College of Bishops is declared the bishop-elect of the judicatory. It is unnecessary in that case to say anything about the consent of the College of Bishops to the election since the College of Bishops is the electing body. It makes no sense.

The drafters of the provisional constitution and canons tried to say too much with too few words. In this instant they would have done better to divide this paragraph into two or three parts. In one part they could have stipulated that the College of Bishops would be required to give its consent to the election of a bishop-elect and to notify the electing body of its decision in writing within 60 days of the receipt of the certificate of election. In the other part they could have stipulated that when the College of Bishops received nominations for the office of bishop of a judicatory, the College of Bishops would be required to act on those nominations and to notify the judicatory of its decision in writing within 60 days of the receipt of the nominations.

The fifth paragraph of canon 4 is also poorly written.

“Upon the consent or choice of a bishop-elect by the College of Bishops, the Archbishop shall take order for the consecration and/or installation of such bishop.

It would make much more sense to say, “Once the College of Bishops has given consent to the election of a bishop-elect of a diocese, cluster, or network, or has chosen a bishop-elect of a diocese, cluster, or network, the Archbishop shall, except when the bishop-elect is a consecrated bishop, take order for the consecration of the bishop-elect, and shall make arrangements for his installation.” To this sentence might be added a second sentence, adding, “A bishop-elect of a judicatory shall upon his consecration, if applicable, and installation become the bishop of the judicatory.” Here again the drafters tried to say too much with too few words.

Conspicuously absent from this paragraph is any requirement that the newly elected bishop must subscribe to the declaration in Canon 7 before he may be installed. One must wonder why bishops of the ACNA are exempt from making such a subscription, which is a common canonical requirement in the provinces of the Anglican Communion. Is it because the newly elected bishops of a missionary jurisdiction of a province of the Anglican Communion are required to subscribe to the declaration in the canons of that province? Or is it simply an oversight? The lack of a provision of this type does raise an important question. To which ecclesiastical body does a newly elected bishop of a missionary jurisdiction of a province, which is also a constituent body of the ACNA, owe loyalty—to the province that elected him or the ACNA?

The final paragraph of Canon 4 not only could say more but also it should say more.

“In the event the bishop-elect or the nominees are rejected by the College of Bishops, the College shall so inform the originating body in writing.”

This paragraph does not require the College of Bishops to provide the judicatory with an explanation of why that body has rejected the election of the bishop-elect or the nominees of the judicatory for bishop of the judicatory. The canons of a number of ecclesiastical bodies list the specific grounds upon which the body that consents to the election of a bishop-elect can refuse to consent to the election of a bishop-elect. The body cannot arbitrarily refuse to consent to the election. The paragraph also does not state what is the next step of a judicatory if the College of Bishops does not consent to the election of its bishop-elect or elect one of its nominees for bishop. The judicatory is left in the dark.

What is going to happen if a bishop is elected and confirmed under the canons of the province of which his judicatory is a missionary jurisdiction and the College of Bishops refuses to consent to the election? Or will the College of Bishops confirm as a matter of routine all African appointments to the episcopate of the ACNA? What autonomy then does the ACNA have in the selection of its bishops?

If out of courtesy the Africans routinely elect and confirm the candidates for bishop that the bishops of their missionary jurisdictions recommend to them, this puts the bishops of these missionary jurisdictions in the position of choosing the bishops of their respective judicatories and becoming a self-perpetuating episcopal hierarchy. They would determine who becomes a member of their exclusive club in their particular judicatory. As members of the College of Bishops they have the say in deciding who is accepted into that exclusive club. The provisional constitution and canons of the ACNA do not make any provision for the Provincial Assembly or the standing committees or the equivalent of the judicatories of the ACNA to consent to the election of a bishop, including the election of a bishop by the College of Bishops. Whatever role non-episcopal clergy and laity play in the election of a bishop is within their particular judicatory. They have no role outside that judicatory. The episcopate in the ACNA is much more a self-perpetuating hierarchy than it is in a number of Anglican provinces, and promises to become even more so.

This development is attributable to the African influence. ACNA leaders looks at the African provinces, their conservatism, their growth, and their relatively closed episcopal hierarchies and conclude that if they want to preserve orthodoxy and see growth in the North American Anglican Church, they must emulate the Africans. As the leaders of North American missionary jurisdictions of African provinces they have assimilated African ideas and values or found congruence between these ideas and values and their own.

A second influence to which this development can also be attributed is what may be described as the “Roman” influence—the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. There has been an ongoing debate on and off the Internet over whether the Anglican Communion needs a magisterium and a Holy See like that of the Roman Catholic Church. A number of conservative Anglicans, including ACNA leaders, look at the official conservatism of the Roman Catholic Church, its growth in the global South, and its closed episcopal hierarchy and draw the conclusion that if conservative Anglicans are to contain liberalism and revisionism in the western provinces and to enjoy the kind of growth the global South provinces have been experiencing, they need to put into place a similar system. This viewpoint has its adherents among those desiring to see a renewal of Catholic order and tradition in North American Anglicanism but it is not confined to this group.

What we are seeing in the ACNA is a convergence of these two influences. A third contributing factor is the high view of episcopacy evidenced in that segment of North American Anglicans who have been influenced by the writings of the nineteenth century Tractarians and their successors. While adherents of this view treat their view as if it is the only view of episcopacy in Anglicanism, the reality is that it is just one view. The place of bishops in the church and the nature of apostolic succession have been the subject of intense and at times furious debate from the English Reformation on. There are three recognized positions on episcopacy in Anglicanism. The first is that it is divinely established institution and therefore is of the essence of the church. The second is that while it is an ancient institution and desirable, it is not essential. The third is that it is of the fullness of the church: a church can still be a church without it but a church would be more fully a church with it.

In embodying a fairly high view of episcopacy, the provisional constitution and canons of the ACNA belie the claim of ACNA spokesmen and supporters that there is room for all kinds of conservative North American Anglicans in the ACNA. This claim is like the one that spokesmen and supporters of The Episcopal Church make, that is to say, there is room in TEC for the adherents of a wide variety of theological views. What they do not say is that there is room for them as long as they accept or tolerate the position of the liberals and the revisionists on a number of key issues. In the case of the ACNA there is room for all kinds of conservative Anglicans provided they accede to the provisional constitutions and canons and the particular view of episcopacy and the particular form of ecclesiastical governance that they embody—a closed episcopal hierarchy and the vesting of executive and legislative powers in a small clergy-dominated body that is not accountable to the larger body that elects it.

It is highly debatable whether a more open episcopal hierarchy and a more synodical form of ecclesiastical governance are responsible for the present conditions in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church had the mechanisms to discipline the bishops who approved or tolerated same sex blessings, ordained non-celibate gays and lesbians, and advocated and taught heresy but lacked the will to use these mechanisms. In the nineteenth century the High Church party in the Protestant Episcopal Church showed no such qualms, adopted a canon prohibiting Episcopal clergy from preaching in churches of other denominations or even attending church services in those denominations, and prosecuted a number of Evangelical Episcopal clergy under this canon and stripped them of their offices and their holy orders. The zeal of the High Church party in these prosecutions was one of the factors that prompted conservative Evangelical Episcopalians to form the Reformed Episcopal Church.

A number of factors explain the slow growth of The Episcopal Church during its two hundred and fifty-five odd year history. One of these factors has been the general lack of enthusiasm among clergy and laity for evangelism. During the twentieth century the Episcopal Church built its identity around the rejection of everything that might be considered evangelical. This included evangelism. The High Church ethos and worship of the Episcopal Church and its Anglo-Catholic and more recently liberal theology also do not appeal to large segments of the unchurched population. A number of Episcopal churches are hopelessly mismatched with the communities in which they are located, as are a number of the Continuing Anglican churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church.

At this point we need to take a look at two critical issues—the autonomy of the Anglican Church in North America and the participation of non-episcopal clergy and laity in the ecclesiastical governance of that body. The degree to which a particular or national church is autonomous has been the subject of heated debate since The Episcopal Church’s consecration of a sexually active homosexual bishop in 2003. The Episcopal Church asserts that as an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion it had the right to take that action. The global South provinces and world Anglicans opposed to the consecration assert that The Episcopal Church should not have acted unilaterally, that it should have consulted the other provinces of the Anglican Communion and should have considered the effects of such a unilateral action upon the other provinces. One thing on which both sides in this debate agree is that a particular or national church is autonomous in matters of ecclesiastical governance and ceremonial and ritual. Autonomy of a particular church or national church in matters of ecclesiastical governance is a foundational principle of Anglicanism. It is a part of its Reformation heritage. One of the factors behind the English Reformation was the struggle for the local control of the English Church. A foreign pope was appointing foreign bishops to English bishoprics. In the sixteenth century Henry VIII and the English Parliament declared the English Church to be independent of the Church of Rome and the decrees of the Bishop of Rome to have no authority in the English Church. Henry VIII asserted the ancient right of a prince to govern the Church in his realm, a right first exercised by the Emperors in the Eastern Roman Empire. This included choosing the bishops of the Church in his realm. During the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I the English Reformers recognized the right of the reformed Churches on the European continent to govern themselves—to establish their own form of ecclesiastical governance, including abolishing episcopacy if they saw fit. In contrast to the Church of Geneva the Elizabethan Reformers took the view of the other Swiss Reformed Churches that the magistrate, in England represented by the Queen, governed the Church and in turn the Church acted as the conscience of the magistrate. The Church of Geneva, like the Church of Rome, held that the state was subordinate to the Church. In Geneva Calvin established a theocracy. The Elizabethan Reformers rejected both the Genevan and Roman positions. Indeed the claim that episcopacy was a divine institution was not pressed until late in the reign of Elizabeth I and then in reaction to the growing Puritan claim that presbyterianism was divinely instituted.

In the Anglican Church in North America the foundational Anglican principle of autonomy and self-governance, if it is not being ignored all together, is being bent beyond recognition. It is one thing to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury who has no ecclesiastical authority outside the Church of England and any remaining extraterritorial jurisdictions of that Church. It is another thing to be an ecclesiastical body that is composed of a number of judicatories in which the Primates of the provinces of which these judicatories are missionary jurisdictions has ecclesiastical authority. For example, the chairman of the AMiA is also the primatial vicar of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The developments that we are observing might be described as the “Africanization” of North American Anglicanism. It also might be described as the “Romanization” of North American Anglicanism. I am reluctant to use the latter term since it might be confused with the controversies of the nineteenth century over the introduction of doctrines, ceremonial and ritual of the Roman Catholic Church into the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church. The current developments, however, do involve the introduction of a hierarchy that like that of the Roman Catholic Church is closed, self-perpetuating, and foreign-dominated. While in the Roman Catholic Church in North America groups are calling for lay involvement in the selection of the bishops of that Church in the wake of the scandals of recent years, the ACNA has to a large extent done away with lay involvement in the selection of its bishops and curtailed non-episcopal clergy involvement. This leads to the second critical issue—the participation of non-episcopal clergy and laity in the ecclesiastical governance of the ACNA.

In 1641 Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher put forward a proposal for the synodical government of the Church of England, “The Reduction of the Episcopacy unto the Form of Synodical Government, Received in the Ancient Church.” Archbishop Ussher’s proposal contains the essence of what has evolved as the form of ecclesiastical governance in most of the Anglican Communion.

Ussher’s original proposal gave non-episcopal clergy a share in the governance of the church with the bishop. Ussher was renowned scholar of his day. From his extensive study of Patristic writings he had shown that the form of church government in the primitive Church was synodical. However, his proposal was too little, too late. The laity was also demanding a share in the governance of the church. With the defeat of the Royalist forces and the execution of Archbishop Laud and Charles I episcopacy and the Prayer Book were abolished in the Church of England. Episcopacy and the Prayer Book would be restored with the monarchy twenty years later. But the reform Ussher had proposed would wait until the establishment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the late eighteenth century and the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in the nineteenth century. Both churches would adopt synodical forms of church government and give the laity a share in the governance of the church with bishops and non-episcopal clergy.

In “The Rights and Duties of Lay Churchmen,” the substance of which was originally preached as a sermon in Winchester Cathedral on April 2, 1886, Bishop of Liverpool J. C. Ryle, a leading Evangelical of his day, calls for the reform and strengthening of the Church of England through the placing of the laity in their rightful position in the management of the English Church. He writes:

“You may lay it down as an infallible rule, that the best way to make a man feel an interest in a business is to make him a ‘part of the concern.’ This rule applies to ecclesiastical corporations as well as to commercial one.”

He goes on to write:

“I plead for the general recognition of the mighty principle, that nothing ought to be done in the Church without the laity, in things great and in things small. I contend that the laity ought to have a part, and voice, and hand, and vote, in everything that the Church says or does, except ordaining and ministering in the congregation. I contend that the voice of the Church of England ought to be not merely the voice of the bishops and presbyters, but the voice of the laity as well, and that no Church action should ever be taken, and no expression of Church opinion ever put forth, in which the laity have not an equal share with the clergy. Such a reform would be a return to New Testament principles. Such a reform would increase a hundredfold the strength of the Church of England.”

A number of the specifics of the reform that he advocated have been implemented since his time. His heart would have been warmed if he had seen them come to pass. But I suspect that if Bishop Ryle was with us today, he would greatly concerned by what is happening in the ACNA. The ACNA is moving in the opposite direction to what he advocated: it is cutting back the laity’s share in the governance of the church and with that non-episcopal clergy’s share but to a lesser degree.

The ACNA can be compared to a car with the bishops behind the wheel and the non-episcopal clergy in the front passenger seat and the laity in the backseat, the bishops picking the roads that they take and the non-episcopal clergy giving them advice. When the car needs gas, the laity must pump the gas and pay the gas station attendant. When the bishops and the non-episcopal clergy up front are hungry, the laity must dig money out of their wallets to pay for lunch at the roadside restaurant. If bishops picks the wrong road and the car hits a pothole and has a flat, the laity must climb out of the car, open the trunk, take out of the jack and the spare, jack up the car, and replace the tire while the bishops and the non-episcopal clergy stand over them and supervise or take a nap in the car. If the engine splutters to a stop, the laity must get out of the car in the rain and look under the hood. They are the one who gets oily and dirty making whatever repairs can be made, or walk to the nearest town for help. This is not a very flattering picture of bishops and non-episcopal clergy in the ACNA. (Most ACNA bishops and non-episcopal clergy to my knowledge are hard working.) But it does draw attention to the type of role to which the ACNA provisional constitution and canons assign the laity.

In my study of the episcopate in the Anglican Church in North America what made my task more difficult was that a number of the founding entities of the ACNA and the African provinces of which they are missionary jurisdictions do not have web sites on the Internet. Of those that do, only the AMiA has its canonical charter and the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America and the Church of Nigeria, their constitution and canons on the Internet. There is a lack of openness and transparency in the ACNA that is difficult to account for. The ACNA leadership does not appear to feel a need to make public the inner workings of their respective organizations.

The ACNA leadership is presenting a code of canons for the consideration of the Inaugural Provincial Assembly for ratification on June 22, 2009. From what I understand this code of canons will be an expansion of the provisional canons. I must admit that I do not have high hopes that it will be an improvement upon the provisional canons.

The constitution and canons of an ecclesiastical body do more than provide rules for the operation of that organization. They embody its vision, the direction that it is taking. While the Anglican Church in North America’s aspiration to preserve orthodox Christianity and to reach the lost must be commended, it is in my considered opinion on the wrong track. I am gratefully to the global South provinces that intervened in North America when an intervention was needed. At the same time I do not believe what North American Anglicanism needs is a second Church of Nigeria or Church of Uganda or a second Roman Catholic Church. If the ACNA continues on its present track, I do see a need for a robust alternative to the ACNA and to the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church from which the founding entities of the ACNA broke away. In my next article in this series on the ACNA provisional constitution and canons I examine a number of proposals for putting the ACNA on the right track.