Author’s Note: Due to its subject matter, this article is quite lengthy. However, those who take the time to read it will learn a great deal about the strengths, weaknesses, and problems of the disciplinary canons of the Anglican Church in North America, and if they are clergy in the ACNA, how these canons are going to affect them.
By Robin G. Jordan
Introduction. In this fifth article of my series, “Authority, Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America,” I take a close look at the canons of the Anglican Church in North America relating to ecclesiastical discipline. My examination of the disciplinary canons offers insight into how the canons of the ACNA were put together. In a number of places the disciplinary canons borrow provisions from the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and other Anglican bodies. I have whenever possible identified these provisions and the canons of the Anglican body from which they were borrowed.
In examining the disciplinary canons of the ACNA I also describe whenever possible how the Church of England deals with similar matters. I am use as my primary source, Ecclesiastical Law, being a reprint of the title Ecclesiastical Law from Halsbury’s Laws of England. The law stated in this volume is in general that in force in October 1955. While a number of changes may have been made in English ecclesiastical law since that time, Ecclesiastical Law offers a reasonably accurate picture of the Church of England deals with these matters. I believe that the comparison is useful in evaluating the ACNA’s handling of ecclesiastical discipline.
At one time almost all ecclesiastical offences by clergy in the Church of England fell within the cognizance of the Church Discipline Act of 1840. The Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 removed the majority of offences from its sphere of competence and the Incumbents (Discipline) Measures of 1947 to 1953 created a separate disciplinary system for beneficed clergy. The comparison that I will be making will be largely between the provisions of the ACNA disciplinary canons and the provisions of the latter but will include the provisions of the other two Acts where they may be applicable. In the case of bishops, I will be comparing the ACNA disciplinary canons with the Bishops (Retirement) Measure of 1951.
Canon C 17, Of Archbishops, of the Church of England recognizes the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to be metropolitans of their respective provinces and therefore chief bishop over the bishops of their respective provinces. Canon C 17 (2) states:
The archbishop has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom.
Canon C 17 (3) goes on to state:
Such jurisdiction is exercised by the archbishop himself, or by a Vicar- General, official, or other commissary to whom authority in that behalf shall have been formally committed by the archbishop concerned.
Canon C 17 (4) further states:
The archbishop is, within his province, the principal minister, and to belongs the right of confirming the election of every person to a bishopric, of being the chief consecrator at the consecration of every bishop, of receiving such appeals in his provincial court as may be provided by law, of holding metropolitical visitations at times or places limited by law or custom, and of presiding in the Convocation of the province either in person or by such deputy as he may lawfully appoint. In the province of Canterbury, the Bishop of London or, in his absence, the Bishop of Winchester, has the right to be so appointed; and in their absence the archbishop shall appoint some other diocesan bishop of the province. The two archbishops are joint presidents of the General Synod.
The Anglican Church of Australia is divided into provinces. Each province has metropolitan (called an archbishop) who is also a diocesan bishop. The metropolitan of each province hold office as prescribed by Act of Parliament or by the constitution of the province or by ordinance of the provincial synod. During any vacancy in the office or incapacity of the metropolitan of a province, or during his absence from the province for a period exceeding thirty days the senior diocesan bishop of the province by the date of consecration exercises metropolitical authority in the province. The Anglican Church of Australia has a Primate who is elected and holds office as prescribed by canon of the General Synod. He is usually elected from the metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Australia and once elected continues to function as metropolitan of a province and a bishop of a diocese. “During any vacancy in the office or incapacity of the primate or during his absence from Australia for a period exceeding thirty days,” the duties and responsibilities of the Primate under the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia are “exercised by the senior metropolitan at the time in Australia able and willing to act, or if there is no metropolitan able and willing to act, then by the senior diocesan bishop at the time in Australia able and willing to act, seniority in every case being determined by the date of consecration.” As the metropolitan of a province of the Anglican Church of Australia the Primate exercises all the rights and performs all the duties of the metropolitan of that province. However, his election as Primate does not give him metropolitical authority over all the archbishops and bishops of the Anglican Church of Australia. He only exercises metropolitical authority over the diocesan and suffragan bishops of his province.
In the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone of America “metropolitan responsibilities” are exercised collectively by its Provincial Executive Council. Canon 1.7 of Southern Cone’s canons states:
The Metropolitan responsibilities shall be exercised by the Executive Council under the presidency of the Presiding Bishop and whenever such responsibilities are delegated or where Canons so assign responsibility.
Under the provisions of the constitution of the Anglican Church of North America, the Archbishop of the ACNA, while he is primate and archbishop of the province, is not the metropolitan of the province and therefore does not have metropolitical authority. In examining the ACNA disciplinary canons, it is important to not loose sight of this fact. As noted in the fourth article in this series, the canons of the ACNA attempt to arrogate metropolitical authority to the Archbishop in a number of places. This includes Title IV, Ecclesiastical Discipline, as we shall see.
General Provisions. Canon IV.1, On the Nature of Discipline in the Church, is adapted from Canon 29, a canon with the same title, in the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Rwandan canons are on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/am_cms_media/canonsoftheprovinceofrwanda.pdf The Rwandan Canons and the proposed constitution and canons of the Anglican Mission Province of North America, an earlier proposal for a new North American province drawn by leaders of the then Anglican in Mission in North America, have influenced a number of the provisions of the canons of the Anglican Church in North America.
Canon IV.2, Of Charges against Bishops, Presbyters, or Deacons, is an adaptation of Section 1, Array of Offenses, of Canon 30, Of Offenses against Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, of the Rwandan canons.
Disciplinary Proceedings against Deacons and Presbyters. In regards to holding a deacon or presbyter accountable for misconduct or any other offense specified in Canon IV.2, the bishop with jurisdiction over the deacon or presbyter has discretion to dismiss the accusation or accusations as frivolous or to order an investigation into the matter. Note the order in which Canon IV.3.1 lists the options available to a bishop. If the bishop chooses to dismiss the accusation or accusations as frivolous, those making the accusation or accusations have no further recourse. There is no mechanism for referring the accusation or accusations to an independent panel to review the decision of the bishop and to overrule the bishop’s decision if the panel concludes the matter merits investigation. Considering the number of cases in which not only Roman Catholic bishops but also Anglican bishops have not properly handled accusations against sexually predatory priests and failed to discipline them, such a mechanism is warranted. Alternately decisions regarding whether allegations of misconduct or other offenses specified in Canon IV.2 against a deacon or presbyter merit investigation might be made jointly by the bishop and a board of assessors made up of other clergy and lay persons.
Section 3, Canonical Investigation, of Canon 30 of the Rwandan canons was adapted and used in Canon IV.3.3. In adapting this section the use of a canonical investigator was confined to deacons and presbyters. The procedural protections that the Rwandan canon extended to bishops as well as deacons and presbyters were limited to deacons and presbyters. Canon IV.3.3 states:
1. Each Diocese shall appoint a canonical investigator to ascertain the merit of the accusations and make a recommendation to the diocesan authority as to whether further juridical process should be pursued.
2. (a) No presentment shall be made or conviction had for any offense under Canon IV.2 unless the offense shall have been committed within five years immediately preceding the time of the presentment. Such time may be extended by written permission of the Archbishop.
(b) For any offense covered by Canon IV.2.5, a presentment may also be made at any time within one year after such conviction.
3. The accused shall be entitled to notice of an ongoing investigation and to have the aid of counsel or an agent and may submit his defense in writing. The presenters also may be aided by counsel, and be represented by any agent they may appoint.
4. If it is determined by the diocesan authority that a trial should occur, then a presentment shall be prepared and procedures followed according to the norms of ecclesiastical law.
5. Each Diocese shall have a person (lay or ordained) appointed by the Bishop for the drafting of presentments and the presentation of the same before the diocesan trial court.
6. Each Diocese shall appoint an advisor to assist the Presbyter or Deacon who is the subject of an accusation and his or her counsel or agent. The advisor shall be knowledgeable in canon law and shall be available to advise the Presbyter or Deacon and his or her counsel or agent on issues relating thereto. All such advice as shall be given shall be confidential to the accused and his or her counsel or agent.
Compare the foregoing with Canon 30, Section 3, of the Rwandan canons:
1. Each Diocese and/or the Province shall appoint a canonical investigator to ascertain the worth of the accusations and make a recommendation to the ecclesiastical authorities as to whether further juridical process should be pursued.
2. No presentment shall be made or conviction had for any offense, unless the offense shall have been committed within three years immediately preceding the time of the presentment.
(a) Except that in a case of a conviction in a Civil Court of Record exercising criminal jurisdiction.
(b) In such circumstances a presentment may be made at any time within one year after such conviction notwithstanding five years may have elapsed since the commission of the offense.
3. The accused shall be entitled to have the aid of counsel or an agent and may submit his defense in writing. The presenters also may be aided by counsel, and be represented by any agent they may appoint.
4. If it is assessed by the investigators and the assessors that a trial should occur then a date shall be established and procedures followed according to he norms of ecclesiastical law.
Note that Canon 30, Section 3 of the Rwandan canons applies to bishops as well as deacons and presbyters.
The extension of time in Canon IV.3.3.2(a) appears to have been adapted from Section 2, Limitation of Three Years, of Canon XIV, Of Ecclesiastical Discipline, of the canons of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion):
No original proceedings shall be instituted before any Tribunal of the Church of Nigeria if more than three years have elapsed since the date of the alleged offence, except leave be given for a further extension of time by the Primate under his hand and seal…[my emphasis].
Canon IV.3.4 is adapted from Section 2, Articles of Presentment, of Canon 30 of the Rwandan canons. Canon IV.3.4 states:
1. When, after investigation of an accusation, the diocesan authority has determined that the matter should proceed forward, Articles of Presentment shall be prepared and personally served upon the Presbyter or Deacon against whom the accusation has been made.
2. The Articles of Presentment shall be made in a writing signed by a representative of the diocesan authority, wherein shall be specified all particulars of time, place, and circumstances alleged.
Compare it with Canon 30, Section 2, of the Rwandan canons:
1. The accusation shall be entitled "Articles of Presentment."
2. The Articles of Presentment shall be made in a document signed by the presenters, wherein shall be specified all particulars of time, place, and circumstances alleged by them, along with the name and address of some person, to whom all necessary communications in the cause shall be made as the agent of the presenters.
Note that Canon 30, Section 2 of the Rwandan canons applies to bishops as well as deacons and presbyters. It is a part of the procedural protections that the Rwandan canons extend to all clergy.
The ACNA canons do not give the accused an opportunity to discuss the complaint with the bishop before the bishop determines how he will deal with the complaint—whether he will dismiss the accusation or accusations as frivolous or refer them to a canonical investigator. They only require the accused to be notified of “an ongoing investigation” and not any preliminary investigation into the complaint. He is not given any opportunity to object to the particular canonical investigator assigned to ascertain the merits of the complaint and to make recommendations in regards to the need for further proceedings.
Under English ecclesiastical law if a charge is made against a clergyman alleging his commission of an offence against the laws ecclesiastical that is not within the provision of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 or there is scandal or evil report concerning the cleric in respect to his commission of such an offence, proceedings may be initiated against the clergyman under the Church Discipline Act of 1840. The bishop of the diocese in which the offence is alleged to have been committed is empowered, on the application of a complaining party, or if he thinks fit, of his own motion, to issue a commission to five persons, one of whom must be the chancellor or an archdeacon or rural dean of the diocese, to inquire as to the grounds of the charge or report. As used in this Act, the word “bishop” comprehends “archbishop.” The commissioners have power to examine witnesses on oath, or solemn affirmation. Notice of the time and place of the meeting must be given in writing to the accused at least 7 days before the meeting. The accused or his agent may attend and examine any of the witnesses. The proceedings must be in public unless on the special application of the accused the commissioners direct otherwise. When the proceedings, whether public or private have been closed, the commissioners must openly and publicly declare the opinion of the majority as to whether or not there is sufficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceedings. They are also required to transmit to the bishop the depositions and their reports.
The proceedings must be commenced within two years after the commission of the offence, except where proceedings are brought in respect of an offence for which there has been a conviction in the temporal courts, they may be brought against the person convicted at any time within 6 months after the conviction although more than two years have elapsed since the commission of the offence.
Where the commissioners report there is sufficient prima facie ground for proceedings, and the bishop of any diocese within which the accused clerk holds preferment, or the accusing party (if any), thinks fit to proceed, articles are drawn up which together with a copy of the depositions taken by the commissioners must be filed in the diocesan registry. If an accused party thinks fit to proceed, the bishop must allow the case to go on. A copy of the articles must be served forthwith upon the party accused. It is not lawful to proceed upon the articles until after the expiration of 14 days from the date of service. When, however, this period has elapsed the bishop may by writing require the accused either in person or by his agent to appear before him at any place within the diocese and to answer the articles within such time as seems reasonable to the bishop.
Under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 any clergyman who is convicted by a temporal court of an act which is an ecclesiastical offence, whether it is or is not an offence against morality, or is alleged to have been guilty of any immoral act, conduct, or habit, or an offence against the laws ecclesiastical which is also an offence against morality (but not a question of doctrine or ritual), including acts, conduct and habits proscribed by the Canons Ecclesiastical of 1603, may be prosecuted by any of the parishioners in the parish where he holds preferment, or the bishop of the diocese or a person approved by him, and tried in the consistory court of the diocese. If, however, the complaint against the clergyman appears to the bishop to be too vague or frivolous to justify proceedings he must disallow the prosecution.
A clergyman who holds no preferment may if he resides or is alleged to have committed an offence in England or Wales be prosecuted in the consistory court of the diocese in which he resides or in which the offence is alleged to have been committed as if held preferment in that diocese.
A complaint for an offence must not be made after five years from the date of the offence or of the last of a series of acts alleged as part of the offence, except that a complaint may be made within two years after a conviction by a temporal court becomes conclusive.
Under the provisions of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measures, 1947 to 1953, any person appointed for the purpose for each occasion by the bishop, a churchwarden of any a parish in which the incumbent has a cure of souls, the patron of any benefice held by the incumbent, and any three communicants of 21 years of age and upwards on the electoral role of any parish where the incumbent has a cure of souls may institute proceedings against the incumbent of any benefice in respect to conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in holy orders, or serious, persistent or continuous neglect of duty, whether or not cognizable under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 or any other Act or Measure. Any of these persons wishing to institute proceedings against an incumbent must in the first instance make a complaint in writing to the bishop.
The bishop has the option of determining whether he should deal with a complaint satisfactorily without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. He is required to give the accused an opportunity to discuss the complaint with him. If after this interview, he is of the opinion that the ministerial committee of the diocese should consider the matter, he may refer the complaint to the ministerial committee and must inform the accused of the names of its ordinary and reserve members. The accused is given a 7-day period within which he can state his written objection to one or more members. If the bishop approves the reasons for the objection, he may disqualify the member or members from serving on that occasion.
The ministerial committee of a diocese consists of twelve clerks in holy orders who are elected by the clerks beneficed, or licensed under seal to officiate, in the diocese from among themselves. None of these clerks may be an archdeacon. Elections are held every three years according to the principles of proportional representation, according to rules approved by the archbishop of the province. The candidates who obtain the six highest places are ordinary members of the committee. The next six are reserve members who may be nominated to take the place of an ordinary member who vacates his office or is unable or unwilling to act in a particular case. Everything that the committee is empowered to do is done by the six ordinary members or such reserve members who may be nominated. Five of these members are a quorum. Except as otherwise provided every question must be decided by a majority of votes, of those present, the chairman, who is elected by the members of the committee, having a casting vote. All proceedings at any meeting of the committee must be held in private. The committee has no power to administer oaths or to compel the production of documents or attendance of witnesses.
When the bishop refers a complaint to the ministerial committee, it must consider it and invite the incumbent against whom the complaint has been made and the person or persons who made the complaint to confer with it, either separately or together. After such conference or reasonable opportunity for holding it the ministerial committee must in writing either inform the bishop, the person or persons who made the complaint, and the incumbent against whom the complaint was made that in its opinion there is nothing in the complaint which would justify further proceedings or request the complainant or complainants to specify his or their charges in the required manner for their trial by a special court and notify the incumbent that such request has been made.
The charges are specified in a written statement called the “information” that must state that the incumbent is charged with one or more of the following offenses: conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in holy orders, serious neglect of duty, persistent neglect of duty; continuous neglect of duty. In respect of each offense the information must state with sufficient particularity the facts relied on in support of the charge.
Where a clerk is accused of heresy, the articles of the charge must distinctly state the obnoxious opinions and the exact terms in which he has uttered or published them.
If the person or persons who made the complaint within one month so specifies the charges, the committee must consider them, and if in its opinion the charges should be tried by a special court, must send a copy of the charges to the bishop with the recommendation that the charges be dealt with by a special court. This recommendation cannot be made unless at least four members of the committee have voted in favor of it. Copies of the report made to the bishop must be sent by the committee to the accused and the accuser or accusers at the same time as the report is sent to the bishop.
All meetings of the ministerial committee must be held outside the parish where the parish where the accused is the incumbent. Any meeting to which the accused and his accuser or accusers are invited, either may, if he or they so desire, be assisted or represented by a friend or adviser.
Within 15 days after the accused receives the report of the committee, the accused must deliver to the bishop his answer to the charges. The bishop has discretion to extend this period. Within 15 days following the receipt of the answer of the accused to the charges, the bishop may give the accuser or accusers and the accused notice of his attention to refer the charges to a special court.
In the event the charges are referred by the bishop to a special court, the bishop must authorize the complainant, or, with the consent of the complainant, any other person or persons, to conduct the proceedings as promoters.
Within 15 days of the date of the service of the bishop’s intention to refer the complaint to a special court, the accused may in writing request the bishop himself deal with the charges.
If the bishop, after consultation with the complainant or complainants, is willing to deal with the charges himself he must not constitute a special court. After he has given the accuser or accusers and the accused an opportunity to confer with him, separately or together, and after he has considered the charges in person, he must decide whether any of the charges have been admitted or proved. The proceedings are private and informal and conducted in such manner as the bishop thinks fit.
What is noticeable about these proceedings is that they involve some form of the jury in the investigation of the complaint or report of misconduct and in the determination of probable cause, a result of the influence of English common law and jurisprudence with its presumption of innocence until proven guilty. On the other hand, Rwandan disciplinary proceedings employ a canonical investigator reflecting the influence of the Code Napoleon and French jurisprudence with its investigating magistrate and its presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Rwanda is a former French African colony. In the investigative phase of the disciplinary proceedings against deacons and presbyters the ACNA, in adopting the use of a canonical investigator, has abandoned its English heritage for a French one.
Disciplinary Proceedings against Bishops. The requirements for the presentation of a bishop are much more stringent and make it much more difficult to hold a bishop accountable for misconduct or any other offense specified Canon IV.2. Canon IV.4.1 states:
“A Bishop may be charged under Canon IV.2 by three Bishops of this Church with jurisdiction, or by not fewer than ten Presbyters, Deacons, or adult baptized members of this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Presbyters. One Presbyter and not fewer than six lay persons shall belong either to the Diocese in which the alleged offense was committed or to the Diocese in which the Bishop is canonically resident. Such charges shall be in writing, signed and sworn to by all the accusers and shall be presented to the Archbishop, the Archbishop’s delegate, or the College of Bishops. The grounds of accusation must be set forth with reasonable certainty of time, place and circumstance. The charges shall be referred to the Board of Inquiry.”
Who may charge bishops with offenses in this canon is taken from Canon IV.3.23 (a)(1) and(2) of the canons of the Episcopal Church, which states:
A Bishop may be charged with any one or more of the Offenses other than Offenses specified in Canon IV.3.21(c) by
(1) three Bishops; or
(2) ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Priests. One Priest and not less than six Lay Persons shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent is canonically resident; or…
The Episcopal Church has adopted a complicated procedure for charging bishops with offenses specified in Canon IV.3.21 (c), that is, “ for holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.” The House of Bishops must first issue a statement of disassociation from the doctrine alleged to be contrary to be held by the Episcopal Church before a bishop may be charged with such offenses. A request for a statement of disassociation signed by ten bishops and accompanied by the proposed statement of disassociation and a supporting brief must be filed with the Presiding Bishop who must serve copies of these documents upon the bishop who has been charged and send copies of them to each member of the House of Bishops. Upon the House of Bishops’ issuance of a statement of disassociation ten bishop may file a presentment. If the House of Bishops does not issue a statement of disassociation, there are no further proceedings. Even if the House of Bishops does issue a statement of disassociation and ten bishops file a presentment, the written consent of one-third of the voting members of the House of Bishops is required before the proceedings may continue.
One of the problems that have beset the Episcopal Church has been the difficulty of holding bishops accountable for apostasy from the Christian faith, heresy or false doctrine, and abuse of ecclesiastical power due to these requirements. This problem has been further complicated by the lack of clear doctrinal statements in the Episcopal Church. Such statements are also lacking in the Anglican Church in North America.
It is noteworthy that the ACNA canons omit the special provision of Canon IV.3.23 (a) (3):
…in a case when the Offense alleged is the Offense of Crime, Immorality or Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy, as specified in (1) or (2) or by any adult who is (i) the alleged Victim, or (ii) a parent or guardian of an alleged minor Victim or of an alleged Victim who is under a disability, or (iii) the spouse or adult child of an alleged Victim.
Considering the number of cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct in Anglican and non-Anglican churches that have come to light during recent years, such a provision is warranted, and its omission is irresponsible.
With the exception of the referral to the Board of Inquiry, the remaining language of Canon IV.4.1 is taken from Section 2, Requirements for Presentment, of Canon 32, Of Presentments in the Episcopate, of the Rwandan canons:
Such charges shall be in writing, signed and sworn to by all the accusers and shall be presented to the Primate or his delegate, otherwise the College of Bishops. The grounds of accusation must be set forth with reasonable certainty of time, place and circumstance.
Before drawing the conclusion that the ACNA canons make it easier to charge a bishop with offenses specified in Canon IV.2, we need to consider who may make charges against a bishop under the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and other Anglican bodies, both in and outside the Anglican Communion.
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia:
Any person may make a complaint against a Bishop of this Church for any breach of duty required, or of ethical standards, under Canon I Part A.
No complaint against a Bishop other than a complaint for sexual or other harassment shall be received unless it proceeds from six baptised members of this Church of whom two at least shall be licensed priests. Canon II, Sections 3-3.1
Anglican Church of Kenya:
No charge shall be received against a bishop of the province unless it be preferred by at least ten (10) priests licensed in the church or by five (5) bishops of the church, or if it relates to matters other than faith and doctrine, by at least five (5) priests and three (3) lay representatives in the synod of the diocese of the accused bishop. Canon XVII, Section 1
Anglican Church of Rwanda:
A bishop may be presented by any bishop of this Church exercising jurisdiction, or ten or more communicants of' this church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be priests: one priest and not fewer than six communicants shall belong to the diocese in which he has domicile. Canon 32, Section 2
Anglican Province of America:
In the event the charged party is a bishop, the presentment shall be endorsed and certified by the affidavit of one bishop, by no less than three priests, and no less than five members in good standing of the laity of the church. Canon 29, Section 7
Church of Ireland:
Any bishop or any member of the clergy or any lay member of the Church of Ireland who has a proper interest may bring to the attention of the Complaints Administrator any complaint in respect of a bishop by means of a written submission signed by such person.
Any such written submission must be accompanied by the sum of £600 or €1,000 (or such other sum as the Rules Committee may from time to time prescribe). Such sum shall be held by the Complaints Administrator and shall be returned to the Complainant unless the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to section 27(a), 28(a) or the Complaints Committee is of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out in respect of the Complaint. Where such a written submission is made by a lay member or members of the Church of Ireland, it must incorporate a written confirmation on the part of each such lay member that he or she is a member of the Church of Ireland. Chapter VIII.1. 26 (b)-(c)
Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion):
No charge shall be received against a Bishop of the Church unless it be preferred, if it relates to a matter of Faith and Doctrine, by at least five Priests of the Diocese, or by a Bishop of the Church or, if it relates to other matters, by at least three Priests of the Diocese and also three Lay Representatives in the Synod of the Diocese of the accused Bishop. Canon XIV, Section 23
Reformed Episcopal Church:
In the event the charged party is a bishop, the presentment shall be endorsed and certified by the affidavit of at least one bishop, by no less than two presbyters, and no less than five communicant members in good standing of the laity of the Church. Canon 29, Section 7
Scottish Episcopal Church:
Any person admitted to the Roll of Communicants of a congregation in terms of Canon 41, Section 2, or who is entitled to be so admitted, or the Provincial Officer for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults appointed under Canon 65 may bring an accusation in the form prescribed in Section 4 of this Canon against a Bishop, Priest or Deacon holding any form of authorisation to minister in the Scottish Episcopal Church alleging that an offence has been committed by such accused under Section 2 of this Canon. Canon 54, Section 3
As we can see from this sampling of provisions of the canons of several Anglican bodies specifying who can make charges against a bishop in the province or body, the requirements of the ACNA canons, while not the most difficult, are among the more difficult of the requirements that were sampled.
Under the provisions of the canons it is not only difficult to bring a presentment against a bishop, it is also difficult for a bishop to get a fair shake. Note that neither in this section or elsewhere in the canons is there a provision requiring the articles of presentment to be served upon the bishop or the names of those making the charges to be provided to him. The bishop and his legal counsel would need such information to prepare an adequate defense. The bishop and his legal counsel is not given an opportunity to discuss the charges with the Board of Inquiry and to challenge the members of the Board of Inquiry. Under the provisions of the canons the Board of Inquiry can conduct its investigation without the bishop’s knowledge. The Archbishop is not required to inform the bishop of the appointment of the Board of Inquiry. If the Board of Inquiry completes its investigation and determines the existence of no probable cause to try the bishop for violation of Canon IV.2, it is not required to inform the bishop that he has been subject of an investigation. The Archbishop is also not required to inform the bishop. The Board of Inquiry is required to make a public declaration of its findings if it finds in the course of its investigation probable cause to put the bishop on trial for violation of Canon IV.2. It is not required to provide the bishop and his legal counsel with the record of its investigation, the testimony that it gathered, and the conclusions that it drew from this testimony, all of which the bishop and his legal counsel would also need to prepare an adequate defense.
While the canons require judicatories to provide an adviser to deacons and presbyters and their legal counsel to assist them in their defense, they make no such provisions for bishops.
While, as we shall see the canons make provision for the inhibition of a bishop under presentment, they do not require it. In the case of minor violations of Canon IV.2 the requisite number of senior bishops may choose not to inhibit the bishop pending the outcome of the investigation of the Board of Inquiry. The lack of any provision to notify the bishop of the charges made against him or inform him of the appointment of a Board of Inquiry cannot be justified on the grounds that he would learn of the charges and the appointment of the Board of Inquiry at the time he was inhibited. The canons do not require the inhibiting bishops to inform the accused bishop of why they are inhibiting him.
Under English ecclesiastical law, under the provisions of the Bishops (Retirement) Measure of 1951, if a complaint is sent to the archbishop of a province that a bishop of a diocese in the province or a suffragan bishop commissioned by a bishop of a diocese in the province has been guilty of an offense or offenses, and the complaint if it is signed by five beneficed clergy in the diocese and by five lay members of the diocesan conference of that diocese, or if the archbishop is otherwise satisfied that it is worthy of investigation, he must call into consultation three bishops of his selection from a panel of bishops appointed by the Upper House of Convocation of the province to consider it; if he and they, or a majority of them, decide that the complaint is serious and the matter is not one which can otherwise be dealt with satisfactorily, the archbishop must refer the complain to the Upper House of Convocation for inquiry and report. That House, unless of the opinion that the complaint is unfounded must refer the complaint to a commission appointed by them for the purpose, consisting of, unless they otherwise determine, members of the Upper House who must invite to act as their legal assessor the official principal, or judge, of the province or a deputy nominated by him and approved by the archbishop. This deputy must be person holding or having high judicial office or be a barrister of not less than ten years’ standing.
The archbishop must authorize the complainants if they are willing, or if none is willing, some other person or persons to conduct the proceedings before the commission as promoters.
The registrar of the province must give to the promoters and to the bishop against whom the complaint is made not less than 15 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing of the complaint. At the hearing the commission must inquire into the complaint. The commission has power to regulate its own procedure, subject to any directions given by the Upper House of Convocation. The proceedings, however, must, in general, be public. The commission has the same power of administering oaths and requiring the production of documents as the High Court may exercise. The commission may award costs against either party.
The decision of the commission must be that of a majority of the members. The report must be sent to the Upper House of Convocation of the province through the president. It must state whether the complaint is founded or whether any of the charges contained in the complaint have been admitted by or proved against the bishop, and if so which of them. A copy of the report must be sent to the bishop.
If the commission reports that the complaint is unfounded the Upper House of Convocation must declare it to be unfounded. In any other case the Upper House of Convocation may decide to take no further action, censure the bishop, or request the archbishop to declare the bishopric vacant. In the latter case the archbishop may declare the bishopric vacant but the declaration is not effective unless and until confirmed by Her Majesty the Queen in Council.
If a complaint alleging that the archbishop has been guilty of conduct unbecoming the office and work of an archbishop or of serious persistent or continuous neglect of duty is sent to the two senior diocesan bishops of his province and the complaint is signed by five clergymen holding benefices in the diocese of the archbishop against whom the complaint is made and five lay members of the diocesan conference of that diocese, or if the two senior bishops are otherwise satisfied that the complaint is worthy of investigation they must call into consultation such three bishops from the panel as they may select. If the five bishops thus constituted or a majority of them determine that the complaint is serious and that the matter cannot otherwise dealt with satisfactorily the two senior bishops must refer the complaint to the Upper House of Convocation of the archbishop’s province for inquiry and report.
Only complaints that might be entertained against a bishop may be entertained against an archbishop. The subsequent proceedings and powers of the Upper House and of any commission appointed by the Upper House are the same as in the case of a bishop, except that all the functions, powers, and duties performed and exercised by the archbishop when there has been a complaint against a bishop are performed by the two senior diocesan bishops of the province.
If, after investigation of the complaint the Upper House requests the two senior bishops to declare the archbishopric of the archbishop vacant they may do so, but such declaration does not take effect unless and until it is confirmed by Order in Council.
The Canonical Provision for the Investigation of Rumors affecting a Bishop’s Character. While it may not be easy to bring a presentment against an ACNA bishop, ACNA bishops may, with the agreement of two of their fellow bishops, demand an investigation if he has “reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting his personal or official character.” He may make this demand to the Archbishop, the Archbishop’s delegate, or the College of Bishops. Upon receipt of this demand the Archbishop must appoint a Board of Inquiry. This is an unusual canonical provision not found in the existing constitutions and canons of the Anglican provinces that I have examined other than the canons of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Rwanda. According to the provisions of Canon IV.3.23 (c) of the Episcopal Church’s canons a bishop may, “with the advice and consent of any two bishops” of the Episcopal Church, demand such an investigation from the Presiding Bishop who is required to cause the matter to be investigated and to report the results to the requesting bishop. It does not specify how the investigation should be conducted. I also found similar provisions for the investigation of rumors and reports in the Rwandan canons. Canon IV.4.2-5 appears to be adapted from these provisions, from the provisions of Sections 3-7 of Canon 32, Of Presentments in the Episcopate, of the Rwandan canons:
Section 3 – Response to Rumors
Whenever a bishop shall have reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting his personal or official character, he may demand in writing of the Primate or his delegate, otherwise the College of Bishops, that investigation of such rumors, reports and allegations be made.
Section 4 – Board of Inquiry
The Primate or his delegate, upon receipt of such demand shall select a Board of Inquiry of five priests and five lay communicants, none of whom shall belong to the diocese of the accused, of whom eight shall form a quorum.
Section 5 –Process of Inquiry
The Board of Inquiry shall investigate such rumors or reports as the case may be. In conducting the investigation, the Board shall hear the accusations and such proof as the accusers may produce, and shall determine whether, upon matters of law and fact, as presented to them, there is ground to put the accused to trial.
Section 6 - Confidentiality
The testimony shall be recorded and transcribed and shall be preserved in the archives of the College of Bishops. The proceedings of the Board shall be private.
Section 7 – Findings of the Board of Inquiry
If in the judgment of the majority of the whole Board of Inquiry there is sufficient ground to present the accused bishop for trial, it shall make a public declaration to that effect.
Section 3, Canonical Investigation, of Canon 30, Of Offenses against Bishops, Priests, and Deacons requires “each Diocese and/or the Province” to “appoint a canonical investigator to ascertain the worth of the accusations and make a recommendation to the ecclesiastical authorities as to whether further juridical process should be pursued.” This suggests that a canonical investigator may be appointed to investigate charges against a bishop but does not specify by whom the appointment would be made. The use of the phrase “accused bishop” in Section 7 of Canon 32, on the other hand, does suggest that the provisions of Sections 3 through 7 of this canons are delineating how charges against bishops may be investigated as well as “rumors, reports, and allegations” affecting the character of a bishop. Sections 3 through 6, however, do appear to be referring to accused as a person or persons including but not limited to bishops. The Rwandan canons are murky on who actually investigates charges made against a bishop—a canonical investigator, a board of inquiry, or the board of inquiry acting as a canonical investigator.
I also found similar provisions for the investigation of rumors and reports in the canons of two Anglican bodies outside of the Anglican Communion. Canon 30, Of a Board of Inquiry, of the canons of the Anglican Province of America as adopted in 1998 and amended in 2002 and 2004 contains a similar provision as does Canon 30, Of Diocesan Boards of Inquiry, of the canons of the Reformed Episcopal Church as adopted in October 2008. This is not found in the canons of the REC as revised through May 1984. Canon 29, Section 7 of the APA revised canons requires the Presiding Bishop to impanel a board of inquiry composed of himself and two priests to determine the adequacy of the presentment of a bishop. Canon 29, Section 7, of the REC revised canons requires the empanelment of a special board of inquiry to investigate the charges made against a bishop and to determine the adequacy of the presentment. This special board of inquiry consists of the presiding bishop, or a bishop appointed by him, acting as its president, two other bishops, two presbyters, and two laypersons appointed by the general committee. Only the president of the special board of inquiry must not be from the diocese of the accused.
The Rwandan canons were adopted by the Rwandan Provincial Synod in November 2007, endorsed by the Rwandan College of Bishops on January 2008, and promulgated in March 2008. The similarities between the Episcopal, Rwandan, REC, and APA canons are not coincidental. They are all derived from Canon 56, Sections 4-9, of the canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA as revised through 1967. A number of omissions from the original provisions of these sections of Canon 56 in the Rwandan adaptation of the provisions of the same sections account for the murkiness of that adaptation. The provisions of Canon IV.4.2-5 are based on the Rwandan adaptation. They contain further omissions that open them to interpretation as not only applying to bishops but to other clergy and laity. This is one of a number of drawbacks of the ACNA “minimalist” canons.
The omissions from the Rwandan adaptation of the original provisions of Canon 56, Sections 4-9 contain a number of important procedural safeguards. The Presiding Bishop must convene a panel of 3 to 7 bishops who weigh the merits of the charges or demand. The Presiding Bishop and the panel of bishops select the Board of Inquiry and not the Primate or his delegate alone as in the Rwandan adaptation.
Sec. 5. The Presiding Bishop, upon receipt of such written charges or such written demand, shall summon not less than three nor more than seven Bishops, and unless a majority of them shall determine that such charges, if proved, would constitute no canonical offense, they shall select a Board of Inquiry of five Presbyters and five Laymen, none of whom shall belong to the Diocese of the accused, of whom eight shall form a quorum….
If the Board finds insufficient ground for a presentment, the accused Bishop is furnished with a true copy of the charges and the Board’s finding:
Sec. 6. If in the judgment of the majority of the whole Board of Inquiry, there is sufficient grounds to put said Bishop upon trial, they shall cause the Church Advocate to prepare a presentment, which shall be signed by such Board as shall agree thereto, and which shall be transmitted with the certificate of the determination of the Board to the Presiding Bishop.
If a majority of the whole Board shall determine that there is not sufficient ground to present the accused Bishop for trial, it shall forward the charges and a certificate of the finding thereon to the Presiding Bishop. He shall send the same to the Secretary of the House of Bishops, by him to be deposited in the archives of the House; and a true copy of these papers shall be given to accused Bishop. [my emphasis] No further proceedings shall be had by way of presentment of such charges, except that any communicant of this Church in good standing may make and present to the Presiding Bishop his affidavit alleging the discovery of new evidence as to the facts charged and setting forth what such evidence is; and upon receipt thereof the Presiding Bishop shall decide whether the affidavit does or does not state grounds which in his opinion are sufficient for the reopening of the case. If the Presiding Bishop shall be of the opinion that the affidavit states grounds sufficient to justify reopening the case, he shall reconvene the Board, which shall determine, first, whether as a matter of fact the evidence set forth in such affidavit is really new evidence and not merely cumulative; and if the Board shall find that the evidence so tendered is new, it shall proceed to receive and consider such evidence, and any further evidence that it may deem proper to receive; and in the light of all the evidence the Board shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds for presentment. If the Board, by a majority of its members, shall decide that there is any such sufficient ground, it shall certify its decision as in this Canon heretofore provided.
The accused Bishop may request the selection of a new Board of Inquiry if the Board is unable to agree upon a finding of sufficient or insufficient ground for a presentment:
Sec. 7. In case a majority of the whole Board shall fail to find either that there is, or that there is not, sufficient ground to present the accused Bishop for trial, it shall certify the fact of its inability to agree upon any such finding to the Presiding Bishop, who, at the request of the accused Bishop, may select a new Board in the manner provided in Section 5, who shall consider the case de novo. [my emphasis]
A true copy of the presentment is served on the accused Bishop:
Sec. 8. In case any presentment shall be made to the presiding Bishop as hereinbefore provided, he shall at once transmit the same to the President of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop, and shall cause a true copy of the presentment to be served upon the accused Bishop, in the manner provided in Canon 54.
Who will perform the duties of the Presiding Bishop under the canon in case he is the accuser or the accused or otherwise disabled is prescribed:
Sec. 9. In case the Presiding Bishop shall be either an accuser or the accused, or shall otherwise be disabled, his duties under this Canon shall be performed by the Bishop who, according to the rules of the House of Bishops, becomes its Presiding Office in case of the disability of the Presiding Bishop of the Church.
From these omissions it is clear that the original provisions of Canon 56, Sections 4-9 of the PECUSA canons were intended to deal with the problem of bishops’ spreading malicious rumors or false reports about their fellow bishops. However, the adaptation of these provisions in the ACNA canons can be interpreted as enabling a bishop to initiate an inquiry against any clergy of the ACNA purely on the basis of suspicion. The threat of such an inquiry may be used to suppress any differences in opinion from those of the bishop in the judicatory or sub-provisional jurisdiction that the bishop oversees. It may also be used a fishing expedition for anything that might be used to bring a presentment against any clergy who are at variance with the bishop on any matter. It has a high potential for misuse.
In its investigation of rumors and reports, the canons require that the proceedings of the board of inquiry must be private. There is no mechanism such as a “sunshine” provision in the canons by which those who are the subjects of its investigation can cause these proceedings to be made public and can demand a copy of the record of such proceedings.
In order to make a finding of probable cause to put the accused bishop on trial, two-thirds of the board of the inquiry must agree to the finding. Only a majority of the whole board of inquiry is required under the Rwandan disciplinary canons and the PECUSA disciplinary canons from which their provisions were adapted. Only a majority of the members of a Church of England commission is required for a finding of a complaint being founded. Requiring two-thirds of the board of inquiry to concur with a finding of probable cause reduces the likelihood that a bishop accused of apostasy from the Christian faith, heresy or false doctrine, abuse of ecclesiastical power, or other offenses will be brought to trial.
In the adoption of the Rwandan method of appointment of members of the Board of Inquiry in Canon IV.4.2-5 we see a strong intimation of the arrogation of metropolitical authority to the Archbishop to which I refer in the introduction to this article.
The Board of Inquiry that can be appointed under provisions of Canon 56 does bear some similarity to the commission that can be appointed under the provisions of the Church Discipline Act of 1840, suggesting that this Board of Inquiry may have evolved from this type of commission appointed to investigate a charge or report of misconduct involving a clergyman of a diocese. The latter resembles an English coroner’s juror sworn to examine evidence, hear testimony, and render a verdict in an coroner’s inquest on a body supposed killed by violence, accident, or foul play, or an English grand jury inquiring into indictments, or written accusations, laid before the grand jury before they go to trial.
Courts for the Trial of Deacons and Presbyters. The influence of the Rwandan canons can be seen in the provisions of the canons establishing diocesan courts for the trial of clergy other than bishops. Canon IV.5.1 states:
1. In each Diocese there shall be an ecclesiastical Trial Court for the trial of any Presbyter or Deacon subject to the jurisdiction of that Diocese.
2. It shall be the duty of each Diocese to provide by canon for the establishment of such court and the mode of conducting trials in the same.
3. In case of conviction by the Trial Court, the Bishop shall not proceed to sentence the accused before the expiration of thirty days after he shall have been served with notice of the decision of the court, nor in case an appeal is taken shall sentence be pronounced pending the hearing and determination thereof.
Compare the foregoing with Section 1, Courts for a Trial of a Presbyter or Deacon, and Section 3, Sentence and Appeal, of Canon 31, Of Courts, Membership, and Procedure, of the Rwandan canons:
Section 1 - Courts for the Trial of a Presbyter or Deacon
1. In each diocese or missionary district, there shall be an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of any priest or deacon thereof.
2. It shall be the duty of each diocese/missionary jurisdiction to provide by canon for the establishment of such court and the mode of conducting trials in the same.
Section 3 - Sentence and Appeal
In case of conviction by the Trial Court, the Bishop shall not proceed to sentence the accused before the expiration of thirty days after he shall have been served with notice of the decision of the court, nor in case an appeal is taken shall sentence be pronounced pending the hearing and determination thereof.
At the same time, the influence of the canons of the Protestant Church USA as revised through 1976 appear to have influenced the Rwandan canons. Compare the foregoing with Section 1 and 2 of Canon 55, Of Courts, Their Membership and Procedure.
Sec. 1. In each Diocese and Missionary District there shall be an Ecclesiastical Court for the trial of any Presbyter or Deacon thereof, and it shall be the duty of each Diocese and Missionary District to provide by Canon for the establishment of such Court and the mode of conducting trials in the same.
Sec. 2. In case of conviction by the Trial Court, the Bishop shall not proceed to sentence the accused before the expiration of thirty days, after he shall have been served with notice of the decision of the Court in the manner specified in Canon 54, Sec.3, nor in case an appeal is taken shall sentence be pronounced pending the hearing and determination thereof.
Note that the division of the ACNA adaptation of these two sections follows that of the Rwandan adaptation.
Under English ecclesiastical law, under the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, 1840, if the accused or his agent appears before the bishop in response to the citation to appear and admits the truth of the articles served upon the accused, the bishop must pronounce sentence without delay. If, however, the accused refuses or neglects to appear and answer the articles or makes any answer other than an unqualified admission of their truth the bishop with the assistance of three assessors may hear the cause, determine it, and pronounce sentence. The assessors are nominated by the bishop; one must have legal and another ecclesiastical qualification.
As an alternative course, which, if the charge is not admitted, is, in practice, almost always adopted, the bishop of any diocese in which the clerk holds preferment, or if he holds no preferment, the bishop of the diocese within which the offence is alleged to have been committed, may either in the first instance, or after the commissioners have reported that there is prima facie ground for instituting proceedings, and before the articles are filed but not afterwards, send the case by letters of request to the provincial court to be there heard and determined.
In the Church of England every archbishop and bishop has a court for the trial of ecclesiastical causes within his diocese, called the consistory court, which is held by the chancellor as his official principal, or judge, in his cathedral church or elsewhere in the diocese. The name of the consistory court is derived from the time when the bishop presided in it and had some of his clergy as assessors and assistants. In the diocese of Canterbury, the official principal is called the commissary, and the court is the commissary court.
The chancellor acts in the court as an ordinary or independent judge, according to ecclesiastical law, uncontrolled by the bishop, and with no special instructions from him. His powers are conferred by the letters patent of his appointment, in which the jurisdiction delegated by the bishop to him is specifically set out. In some letters patent the right is reserved to the bishop to sit in court to hear certain cases. There is no appeal from the chancellor to the bishop.
The processes of the consistory courts generally run in the name of the bishop of the diocese, but are issued under the chancellor’s seal. When the processes do not run in the bishop’s name, they run in the chancellor’s name as the official principal of the bishop, and are also issued under the chancellor’s seal.
The chancellor, as a judge, being independent of the bishop, may hear and determine in the consistory court a cause in which the bishop is himself interested.
Cases under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, may be tried in consistory court before the chancellor or before a deputy-chancellor appointed by the bishop. The deputy-chancellor must be a barrister of not less than seven years’ standing or the holder of a judicial appointment. If any question of fact (other than the fact of the conviction of the defendant by a temporal court is to be determined, and either party so requires, five assessors chosen in the prescribed manner must be members of the court for deciding the question. The decision on the question must either be the unanimous decision of the assessors or that of the chancellor and at least of majority of them. The chancellor alone decides questions of law and of costs. If no decision is arrived at, a retrial with different assessors, is to take place at the desire of either party as soon as possible.
Assessors are elected every three years, three by the members of the cathedral church of the diocese from their own number, four by the beneficed clergy of each archdeaconry from their number, and five from the justices of the county by the court of quarter sessions of each county wholly in the diocese and of such of the counties partly in the diocese as prescribed by rules under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892. The consent of an assessor to serve must be obtained before he is elected. If an assessor ceases to be one of the body from whom he is elected, or resigns or dies or becomes incapable of acting, the chancellor may declare a vacancy, and thereupon the vacancy may be filled by another election.
When the presence of assessors is required, three clergymen and two laymen are chosen by ballot, that is by lot-drawing, out of the elected assessors and those chosen are bound to attend when required. If any one fails to attend without reasonable excuse, he is disqualified from acting or being again elected as an assessor. The chancellor must declare a vacancy, which must be filled by a new election.
If any assessor is objected to by either party on grounds approved by the chancellor, he is discharged from serving. If for any reason the requisite number of assessors is not obtained before the trial, the chancellor, if there is time, must cause a clergyman or layman, as the case may require, to be chosen from the list of assessors by another ballot. If there is not time, the chancellor must appoint some clergyman or layman, as the case may require, who is willing to serve and is not objected by either party on grounds deemed sufficient by the chancellor, to make up the full number of five assessors.
The prosecutor must lodge a complaint with the registrar of the diocese. The complaint is lodged in duplicate and a fee is paid. The registrar may require evidence that a prosecutor who prosecutes as a parishioner or a person approved by the bishop is such. Charges that are not in the complaint are not entertained at the trial. The proceedings begin when the complaint is served on the defendant. If the prosecutor is not the bishop, the registrar must submit the complaint to the bishop. Unless the bishop signifies a decision that the complaint is too vague or frivolous, the registrar serves the complaint and the defendant must lodge his answer within 10 clear days of service. Answers may be lodged out of time with leave. In general time can be extended by the chancellor. If the complaint is not personally served the defendant may enter an appearance out of time but before trial by lodging notice, but he may be at risk of costs. An interval of clear days is reckoned exclusively of both the first and the last day. Charges are confessed if an answer is not lodged, though if the complaint has not been served and the defendant has not appeared the charges must be proved. If the defendant appears at the trial but has not previously appeared and shows reasonable cause for non-appearance, the trial must be adjourned unless the defendant consents to immediate trial. A defendant may admit or not deny charges in his answer and may consent to the bishop’s pronouncing sentence. Admitted charges need not be proved. If the bishop pronounces sentence, no further trial is needed. If all the charges are not so disposed of, a day for the trial is fixed. Application may be made for a postponement. An answer may be amended by leave before or at the trial, and a complaint may be amended by leave at the trial. Procedural applications are made by lodging application with the registrar. A prosecutor may be allowed to withdraw a prosecution.
If the defendant cannot be found, the prosecutor may lodge an application with the registrar to allow the prosecution to be proceeded with. The registrar must submit the application to the chancellor, who, if satisfied that the prosecution should be proceeded with, must so order and make such order for substituted service as he thinks fit. The registrar must notify the prosecutor of the chancellor’s decision.
Subject to the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, the chancellor fixes the place for holding the consistory court, having regard to the convenience of witnesses and those interested in the case. In this regard he may change the place of trial. Due notification must be given by the registrar to the prosecutor and the defendant.
Where at a trial no decision is arrived at and either party desires a retrial, that party nust lodge an application with the registrar not more than 21 clear days after the trial, The registrar must submit the application to the chancellor, who must fix a time and place for the retrial and cause 10 clear days’ notice to be given to the prosecutor and the defendant. Unless the prosecutor and defendant both give written notice to the registrar that they consent to retrial by the chancellor without assessors, the registrar must choose assessors excluding those who sat on the former trial.
The chancellor may allow either party to produce evidence on a retrial not produced at the former trial. Provisions of Clergy Discipline Rules, 1892, applicable to a trial also apply to a retrial.
The prosecutor may at any stage be ordered to give security for costs unless the offence alleged is one of which the clergyman has been convicted by a temporal court. Where a prosecutor has been ordered to give such security, subject to an order of the registrar or chancellor, no trial can be held and no further proceedings taken in the prosecution until such security has been given.
Costs of and incident to any proceeding are in the discretion of the chancellor and, in the absence of any direction by him follow the event of the trial, or, in the case of proceedings as to disobedience to sentence, that is, the event of those proceedings. The Clergy Discipline Rules, 1892, make provision for the recovery of costs through the county court or High Court as the case may be.
For the purpose of inquiring into and reporting to the bishop upon charges made against an incumbent under the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1947, where the bishop does not himself investigate the them, the charges are referred by the bishop to a special court. The special court consists of five persons, the president being the chancellor of the diocese or a barrister of not less than ten years standing nominated by the chancellor to the bishop. Of the other four members, two must be members of the clergy chosen by rota from a panel of not less than six elected by the clerical members of the diocesan conference and the remaining two must be lay persons similarly chosen from a panel of not less than six elected by the lay members of the diocesan conference. It is not necessary that the persons so elected should be members of the chamber of the diocesan conference that elects them. No member or reserve member of the ministerial committee of the diocese is eligible to serve on the panel of members of the clergy. Persons elected to serve on either panel hold office for five years and are eligible for re-election.
Subject to special rules the proceedings must be conducted in accordance so far as may be with the practice of the High Court of Justice, and the court has the same power of administering oaths and of requiring the production of documents as the High Court. Proceedings must be public except that the court of its own motion or at the request of either party may direct any part of the evidence shall be heard in private. The whole of the proceeding may be held in private if both parties so request and the court so directs. The decision of the court is delivered by the president and is that of a majority of its members. It states what charges, if any, have been admitted by or proved against the incumbent, and the opinion of the court as to the gravity or otherwise of those charges.
Charges made against deans and provosts of cathedral churches, archdeacons, canons and prebendaries, stipendiary and otherwise, and clerks in holy orders holding any other office of freehold tenure, not being parochial benefices, excluding holders of office in royal peculiar, members of the dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford and lay canons, that the bishop does not deal with personally are also referred to the special court. If a member of the cathedral chapter to which the case in question was referred for consideration by the bishop on receiving the complaint is a member of the panel of clerks in holy orders the choice by rota of the clerical members of the special court is made as if that member was not included in the panel. The procedure of the court in relation to hearing the charges against such dignitaries are the same as in the case of incumbents.
The Court for the Trial of Bishops. Under the provisions of Canon IV.5.2 the Provincial Council elects the members and alternate members of the Court for Trials of Bishops. The bishops on the Council elect the three bishops on the Trial Court and their three alternates; the presbyters on the Council, the two presbyters on the Court and their two alternates; and the lay representatives on the Council elect the two laypersons on the Court and their two alternates. The ratio of clergy on the Court for Trials of Bishops to laity is 5 to 2. The senior bishop by the date of consecration is the president of the Court. The Archbishop appoints the Court’s legal advisor and the prosecutor.
The composition of this court and method by which the members are elected is an adaptation of Canon IV.5.2 of the canons of the Episcopal Church as revised through 2006:
Sec. 2. The Court for the Trial of a Bishop shall consist of five Bishops of this Church, two Priests, and two confirmed adult lay communicants of this Church in good standing. Five Bishops shall be elected by the House of Bishops at each regular meeting of General Convention, to serve until the adjournment of the next regular meeting of General Convention. Two Priests and two confirmed adult lay communicants of this Church in good standing shall be elected by the House of Deputies at each regular meeting of General Convention, to serve until the adjournment of the next regular meeting of General Convention.
The ACNA canons differ from the TEC canons in that they do not create a separate court for the trial of a bishop for an offense of doctrine but try bishops for doctrinal offenses before the same court as they would be tried for non-doctrinal offenses.
Canon IV.5.6 of the TEC canons as revised through 2006 require each court for a trial of a bishop to elect a presiding judge who holds office until the expiration of the term for which the court was chosen. Canon IV.5.2.3, of the ACNA canons, which designates the senior bishop by date of consecration as the president of court, however, is based upon the provision for filling a vacancy in the office of presiding judge when the TEC court for the trial of a bishop is not in session—Canon IV.5.7:
Sec. 7. When a Court is not in session, if there is a vacancy in the office of the Presiding Judge, the Bishop who is senior by consecration shall perform the duties of the office of Presiding Judge.
With the clergy dominating the Court, a bishop acting as its president, and the Archbishop appointing its legal advisor and the prosecutor, the Trial Court for Bishops does appear to favor the accused. At the same time the Archbishop can influence the verdict through his choice of legal advisor and prosecutor. The canons do not specify the term of office of the legal advisor and the prosecutor or any of the other conditions of their appointment and are open to the interpretation that a different legal adviser and prosecutor may be appointed for each trial. The accused is not guaranteed the right to challenge the members of the court, the legal advisor or the prosecutor. The canons do not specify the reasons for which a member of the court must recuse himself. It is possible for the members of the court to not be impartial in their judgment of the guilt of the accused. The canons make no provision for the suspension or removal of members of the Court or their alternates. They make no provision for the removal and replacement of the legal advisor or the prosecutor.
The Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction. Canon IV.5.3 (1) create a Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction that can try clergy canonically attached to other Anglican provinces or dioceses and overseen by bishops of the ACNA in such cases where these provinces and dioceses have waived their jurisdiction in favor of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction. This court may also try clergy who are amenable to presentment under the provisions of the canons and whose own diocese does not have a trial court. The bishop under whose authority the accused serves may refer cases to the court. The members of this court—three presbyters, three laypersons, and one bishop—are appointed by the Archbishop. The ratio of clergy on the court to clergy is 4 to 3. The members of the court elect its president. The archbishop appoints the legal adviser to the court and the prosecutor.
The composition of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction appears to be based upon the composition of the Courts of Review of the trial of a Presbyter or Deacon prescribed by Section 3 of Canon 55 of the PECUSA as revised through 1976:
Sec. 3. In each of the Provinces there shall be a Court of Review of the trial of a Presbyter or deacon, which shall be composed of a Bishop therein, three Presbyters canonically resident in one or other of the Dioceses or of the Missionary Districts within the Province, and three lay communicants of the Church having domicile in the Province….
The method by which the members of the court are appointed appears to be an adaptation of Section 5 of Canon 31 of the Rwandan canons.
Section 5 - Nomination of Judges
1. The judges of this Court of Review shall be nominated by the Primate or his delegate and confirmed by the Provincial Synod and shall serve until the next Synod and until their successors shall have been appointed and confirmed.
2. The bishop mentioned in Section 4 shall be the Presiding Officer of the Court of Review.
This appears to be an adaptation of Section 4 of Canon 55 of the PECUSA. In the latter the judges of the Court of Review are elected every three years by the Provincial Synod after the regular meeting of the General Convention. The bishop elected by the synod is the presiding officer of the court. In the Rwandan adaptation the members of the court are nominated by the Primate or his delegate and confirmed by the Provincial Synod. They serve until the next Synod and until their successors are appointed and confirmed. The bishop on the court is the presiding officer of the court. In the ACNA adaptation of the Rwandan adaptation the Archbishop appoints the members of the court. There is no confirmation process involving the Provincial Council or the Provincial Assembly or even the Executive Committee or the College of Bishops. The members of the court elect their presiding officer.
Section 4 referred to in Section 5 of Canon 31 of the Rwandan canons is adapted from Section 3 of Canon 55 of the PECUSA canons as revised through 1976, as can be seen by a comparison of the two sections. In the Rwandan adaptation the number of presbyters and lay persons on the court is reduced.
Section 4 - Court of Review
There shall be a Court of Review of the trial of a priest or deacon, which shall be composed of a bishop, two priests, and two lay communicants of the Church vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from decisions of trial courts in dioceses and missionary districts on the trial of a priest or deacon.
The provision for the members of the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction to elect the president of the court appears to have been adapted from Canon IV.5.6 of the Episcopal Church’s canons as revised through 2006:
Sec. 6. Each Court shall from time to time elect from its own membership a Presiding Judge, who shall hold office until the expiration of the term for which chosen. If in any proceeding before a Court the Presiding Judge is disqualified or is for any cause unable to act, that Court shall elect from its members a Presiding Judge pro tempore.
With the Archbishop appointing the members of the court, the clergy dominating the Court, and the Archbishop appointing its legal advisor and the prosecutor, the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction does appear to favor the accused. At the same time the Archbishop can influence the verdict through his choice of members of the court, as well as the legal advisor and prosecutor. The canons do not state that the Court of Extraordinary Jurisdiction is a standing court. The canons do not specify how long the members of the court serve or whether they serve at the Archbishop’s pleasure. The canons are open to the interpretation that the Archbishop appoints new members of the court for each case. The accused is not guaranteed the right to challenge the members of the court, the legal advisor or the prosecutor. The canons do not specify the reasons for which a member of the court must recuse himself or what happens in the event a member of the court does recuse himself. It is possible for the members of the court to not be impartial in their judgment of the guilt of the accused. The canons make no provision for the removal and replacement of members of the court or the filling of casual vacancies on the court. They make no provision for the removal and replacement of the legal advisor or the prosecutor. As we have seen elsewhere in the canons, critical details are omitted.
The Provincial Tribunal. Canon IV.5.4 establishes a Provincial Tribunal as required by the constitution, and prescribe its jurisdiction. The Provincial Tribunal consists of seven members who are appointed by the Provincial Council. The canons do not specify the manner of their appointment. This means that the Council might establish a nominations committee to recommend suitable members of the Provincial Tribunal for the appointment of the Council, it might establish a panel of nominees to which the judicatories and sub-provincial jurisdictions of the ACNA could make nominations and from which the Council would fill vacancies on the court, it could put names in a hat and draw out the names of seven people and appoint them to the court, or it could delegate the nomination of suitable candidates to its presiding officer, the Archbishop, and appoint whomever he nominates. There are a number of ways that the Council might appoint the Provincial Tribunal. Due to the importance of the Provincial Tribunal as a court of review in disciplinary proceedings and a court of original jurisdiction in matters relating to the interpretation of the constitution and canons, the settlement of disputes between judicatories, and the issuance of non-binding advisory opinions upon issues the “College of Bishops, the Provincial Council, or the Provincial Assembly” submit to it, it is surprising that the method of appointment was not prescribed by canon.
Canon IV.5.4 requires that at least two members of the Provincial Tribunal must be bishops and that the senior bishop by date of consecration shall serve as the president of the court. The second of these two requirements that designates the senior bishop by date of consecration as the president of court, however, is based upon Canon IV.5.7 of the Episcopal Church’s canons—a provision for filling a vacancy in the office of presiding judge when the TEC court for the trial of a bishop is not in session.
Canon IV.5.4 also requires that at least two members must “be lawyers, knowledgeable in canon and ecclesiastical law.” This requirement is an adaptation of a clause in Section 3 of Canon 55 of the PECUSA canons, which establishes the constitution of the courts of review for the trial of a presbyter or deacon. This clause, referring to the three lay members of the review court, states:
…two at least of said Lay communicants to be men learned in the law.
Canon IV.5.4, however, does not require the lawyers on the Provincial Tribunal to be lay persons. Since they must be “knowledgeable in canon and ecclesiastical law,” it is highly unlikely that they would be lay persons.
Beyond complying with these three requirements the Provincial Council has considerable discretion in determining the composition and organization of the Provincial Tribunal. The canons do not specify how long the members of the court serve or whether they serve at the Council’s pleasure. The accused is not guaranteed the right to challenge the members of the court, the legal advisor or the prosecutor. The canons do not specify the reasons for which a member of the court must recuse himself or what happens in the event a member of the court does recuse himself. It is possible for the members of the court to not be impartial in their hearing of an appeal in a disciplinary case or another matter before the court. The canons make no provision for the removal and replacement of members of the court or the filling of casual vacancies on the court.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.5.4 the Provincial Tribunal could be comprised exclusively of bishops or bishops and other clergy, provided the two canonical requirements of at least two bishop and at least two canon lawyers are met. The canons guarantee no lay representation on the Provincial Tribunal. The two canon lawyers can be bishops or other clergy. A Provincial Tribunal composed of bishops or bishops and other clergy is likely to favor the episcopate and the clergy in its judgments related to the interpretation of the constitution and canons or its non-binding advisory opinions on issues submitted to it. It is doubtful that the cause of the laity would receive a fair and unbiased hearing.
Since Canon IV.5.4 does not specify the term of office of the members of the Provincial Tribunal, it is possible for the Provincial Court to pack the Provincial Tribunal with judges who will rule in favor of its interpretation of the constitution and canons and issue non-binding advisory opinions that take its position on issues submitted to the Tribunal.
In my study of constitutions and canons of Anglican bodies I have run across appellate bodies like the Supreme Court of Appeals of the Anglican Church of Canada, the composition of which varies with the type of case that it is hearing. However, I have encountered nothing like the Provincial Tribunal of the ACNA in which the appointing authority is given the kind of discretion in who it may appoint to the appellate body, how it may appoint them, and how long it may appoint them, as Canon IV.5.4 gives to the Provincial Council. The Provincial Tribunal, as it is constituted under the provisions of Canon IV.5.4 exhibits an extremely high potential for irregular use and misuse.
Appeals. Canon IV.5.5-6 are adapted from Sections 6 and 7 of Canon 31 of the Rwandan canons:
Section 6 - On Appeal
1. An appeal may be made within thirty days of the decision of the Trial Court. This appeal shall be made in writing to the bishop who is the Presiding Officer of the Court of Review, stating the nature o of the case and the reason(s) for the appeal.
2. The Court of Review shall, within thirty days, request the entire transcript of the trial from the Trial Court and upon receipt of the transcript shall notify immediately all parties of the time and
place for the hearing of the appeal which shall be within three months but not fewer than two months from the date of notification.
3. At least three of the five judges must be present to hear the appeal who shall render their decision on the appeal within thirty days of the hearing. The expenses of the appeal shall be paid by the appellant.
Section 7 - Process of the Court of Review
1. The Court of Review, at its discretion, may hear the appeal solely upon the evidence presented to the Trial Court or admit additional pertinent evidence. The Court may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, the decision of the Trial Court, or, if in its opinion, justice shall require, may grant a new trial.
2. Should the appellant fail to appear for the hearing, the Court of Review shall, at its discretion, dismiss the appeal, or proceed to hear and determine the appeal. The concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Court present shall be necessary to pronounce a judgment.
The requirement that the appellant pay the cost of the appeal unless the appellant is successful or the Provincial Tribunal otherwise orders may be intended to discourage frivolous suits. However, it also discourages legitimate suits.
Under English ecclesiastical law, under the provisions of The Church Discipline Act of 1840 an appeal from the judgment pronounced by bishop in the first instant lies to the archbishop. This appeal is heard before the judge of the provincial court. It is not actually heard by the archbishop. If the judgment is pronounced by the archbishop in the first instant, an appeal from the archbishop’s decision lies to the provincial court. An appeal from the judgment of the provincial court, whether pronounced on an appeal from the judgment of the bishop or archbishop, or, in the first instance, on a case sent to the court by letters of request, lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, an appeal either to the provincial court, whose decision in that case is final, or, in the alternative, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. May be made by either party on a question of law within 28 days, and by the defendant, with the leave of the court to which the appeal is made, obtained on a petition lodged within 15 days, on a question of fact. Leave of appeal in respect to the facts cannot be granted in the absence of a prima facie case. Leave to appeal may be given where the decision of the consistory court was against the weight of evidence; where the petitioner obtains evidence since the hearing which might have affected the decision, provided an explanation is offered for its non-production; or where the evidence was dealt with by the consistory court in such a manner as to render the trial unsatisfactory. The time for appeal cannot be enlarged, unless a satisfactory reason is given for the delay. On an appeal as to facts the appellate court may summon any witness heard at trial, and any new witness not heard at trial, to give evidence with respect to the case.
The provincial court of the Archbishop of Canterbury is called the Arches Court of Canterbury or the Court of Arches. The judge of the court is described in his letters patents as “the Official Principle of the Arches Court of Canterbury,” but is usually styled and is addressed as “the dean of the Arches.” The provincial court of the Archbishop of York is called the Chancery Court of York, and the judge is called the official principle or auditor.
The judge of the provincial courts of Canterbury and York is now appointed by the two archbishops, subject to the approval of the Queen under her sign manual. He must be a barrister-at-law who has been in actual practice for ten year, or a person who has been a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature. If the archbishops do not appoint the judge within six months after the occurrence of a vacancy in the office, the Queen may by letter patents appoint to be judge some person with the foregoing qualifications.
Under the provisions of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measures,1947 to 1953, there is no right of appeal against a decision of the bishop to deal with the charges himself, or against any exercise of his power in consequence of such a decision.
An incumbent may, within 25 days after the bishop has given notice of the manner in which he intends to exercise his powers, appeal against any decision of a special court or any exercise of the bishop’s powers to the ecclesiastical court of the province and until that appeal has been withdrawn or determined the bishop cannot exercise his powers of censure, inhibition, or avoiding the benefice. The provincial court’s decision is final.
The appeal is to the provincial court constituted to hear appeals on charges against incumbents. This court is constituted in accordance with canons passed respectively by the convocations of the province of Canterbury and York. The court so constituted consists of the archbishop or another bishop of the province from time to time appointed by him to act in his stead; three clerks in holy orders appointed by the prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation in such manner as that House shall from time to time direct; the vicar-general of the province or, if he is unable to serve, a deputy being a barrister of not less than ten years standing approved by the archbishop; and two laymen appointed by the chairman of the House of Laity in the National Assembly of the Church of England in such manner as that House shall from time to time direct. An appeal to this court is final. Any decision of this court is that of a majority of its members.
Sentencing of Deacons and Presbyters. Canon IV.8.1 recognize a bishop alone as having authority to pronounce sentence on a deacon or presbyter convicted under the provisions of the canons. If there is no bishop with jurisdiction over the deacon or presbyter, the Archbishop must pronounce sentence or appoint a bishop to do so. Canon IV.8.1 is an adaptation of Section 1, Role of the Bishop in Sentencing, of Canon 36, Of Sentencing, of the Rwandan canons:
The Bishop alone has the authority to pronounce sentence on a priest or deacon convicted as indicated in these canons.
It is noteworthy that the Rwandan canons respect the right of the bishop to pronounce sentence on a deacon or presbyter. The provision requiring the Archbishop to pronounce sentence or to appoint a bishop to do so in cases where there is no bishop jurisdiction over the deacon or presbyter is an example of how the ACNA canons seek to arrogate metropolitical authority to the Archbishop.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.12.4(a) of the Episcopal Church’s canons as revised through 2006, if the bishop of a diocese is disqualified from pronouncing sentence upon a deacon or presbyter, or there is no bishop of that jurisdiction, the standing committee of the diocese requests another bishop to pronounce sentence. Under the provisions of Section 3 of Canon 64 of the PECUSA canons in cases where the bishop of the jurisdiction is disqualified from pronouncing sentence or there is no bishop of that jurisdiction, the sentence is pronounced by another bishop at the request of its standing committee or council of advice. These canonical provisions embody a collegial approach to the pronouncement of sentence over a deacon or presbyter.
English ecclesiastical law recognizes the right of a bishop of a diocese to pronounce sentence over a deacon or presbyter convicted of an offense or offenses in the diocese. Where proceedings have been commenced under the Church Discipline Act, 1840, the bishop of any diocese within which the clerk holds preferment, may, with the written consents of the clerk and of the accusing party (if any), pronounce, without further proceedings, such sentence as may seem fit. This sentence cannot exceed the sentence that might be pronounced in due course of law. The sentence may be enforced by like means as if pronounced after a hearing under the Church Discipline Act, 1840. As previously noted, the bishop must pronounce sentence without delay if the accused or his agent appears before him in response to a citation to appear and admits to the truth of the articles served upon the accused. The bishop also pronounces sentence if he with the assistance of three assessors hears the cause and determines it.
Under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, the chancellor must notify the bishop that a defendant is found guilty, and must notify him of the sentence that should be passed. a sentence of deprivation is pronounced by the bishop and other sentences by the chancellor unless the bishop signifies to the chancellor his desire himself to pronounce sentence. Where the bishop is present, sentence may be pronounced without delay. Otherwise the case is adjourned for notification to be made to the bishop. Where the sentence is not pronounced at once, three clear days’ notice of time and place fixed for the pronouncement of the sentence must be given to the prosecutor and the defendant. Sentences must be recorded in the diocesan registry. The power of the bishop under the Church Discipline Act, 1940, to pass summary sentence (see above), is applied by the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892.
Nothing in the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, affects any prerogative of the Queen as respect pardon or otherwise.
A clergyman who holds no preferment may, instead of being sentenced to deprivation, be sentenced to be incapable of holding preferment.
A clergyman who willfully disobeys a sentence or any requirement or direction in sentence may be cited before the consistory court and if after prescribed proceedings for showing cause to the contrary the chancellor is satisfied that the clergyman has been willfully disobedient and ought to be punished, he may pronounce judgment against him and sentence him to such ecclesiastical punishment as the gravity of the case requires, including a sentence of deprivation.
Where a clergyman is alleged to have willfully disobeyed a sentence any person may lodge a complaint with the registrar giving particulars of the disobedience. The registrar must submit the complaint to the chancellor who, if satisfied that it should be heard must cause a copy to be served on the clergyman and fix a day for hearing in the consistory court. The day fixed must not be more than 30 and not less than 21 clear days after the complaint has been lodged. The registrar must give at least 7 days’ clear notice of the day fixed and must summon the clergyman to appear. Evidence is given by affidavit but the chancellor may adjourn the case for the production of witnesses. Affidavits must be filed within the time fixed by the registrar and notified to the parties. No other affidavits may be filed without the registrar’s leave. Affidavits are filed with the registrar in duplicate and served by him on the opposite party. The registrar must order the attendance of a deponent required by either party for cross-examination in the matter of his affidavit, but the chancellor may allow evidence to be taken by deposition before an examiner.
Under the provisions of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measures, 1947 to 1951, the bishop has, in his discretion, the power to pronounce censure upon the incumbent, inhibit him from discharging all or any duties of any benefice held by him for a period not to exceed three years, and immediately, or while the incumbent is inhibited, to declare the benefice vacant if the bishop, after personal investigation determines, or the special court reports, that any charge against the incumbent has been established. The bishop may only declare a benefice vacant with the concurrence of at least five members of the ministerial committee.
Where the bishop has personally investigated a case he must give public notice in such manner as he thinks fit of his decision and of the manner in which he intends to exercise his powers. Within 14 days after the bishop receives the report of the special court, he must also give public notice in such manner as he sees fit of the manner in which he intends to exercise his powers, and give the incumbent and the promoter written notice of his intention and must not exercise the powers within 28 days of the notice. If a appeal is entered, the bishop cannot exercise his powers until the appeal is heard or withdrawn.
Sentencing of Bishops. Canon IV.8.2 recognize the College of Bishops, speaking through the Archbishop or his designate, as having sole responsibility and authority to pronounce sentence on a bishop. Canon IV.8.2 is adapted from Section 2, Pronouncement of Sentence, of Canon 36 of the Rwandan canons:
The House/College of Bishops, speaking through the Primate or his designate, has the sole responsibility and authority to pronounce sentence on a bishop.
Remission or Modification of Sentences of Deacons and Presbyters. Under the provisions of Canon IV.8.4 the bishop of the judicatory in which a deacon or presbyter was convicted may, “with the advice and consent of the Archbishop,” in consultation with the Executive Committee, shorten or terminate the sentence of suspension of the deacon or presbyter. Canon IV.8.4.1 is an adaptation of Section 4, Length of Sentence, of Canon 36 of the Rwandan canons:
A sentence of suspension of a priest or deacon may be terminated or shortened by the Bishop of the diocese in which he was convicted with the advice and consent of the House/College or Council of Bishops.
Note that the Rwandan canons require a bishop to consult with his fellow bishops and seek their advice and consent before reducing the length of a sentence of suspension of a deacon or presbyter or lifting that sentence. This is a collegial approach to decision-making in the remission or moderation of a sentence.
The requirement of the advice and consent of the Archbishop, in consultation with the Executive Committee, of Canon IV.8.4 goes beyond assigning a particular duty or responsibility to the Archbishop. It implies that the Archbishop has, in matters of discipline, authority over the bishops of the ACNA even though the constitution does not recognize the Primate and Archbishop of the ACNA as the metropolitan of the province nor does it give metropolitical authority to him. It is another example of how the canons seek to arrogate to the Archbishop powers that the constitution does not give him.
The bishop of a judicatory admits candidates to holy orders in the judicatory. Except where the marital status may be an impediment to the admission of a candidate to holy orders, the Archbishop is not involved in this process. In order to minister in a judicatory of the ACNA a deacon or presbyter must be licensed by the bishop of the judicatory. A deacon or presbyter cannot transfer to another judicatory without a letter of transfer from the bishop of the judicatory from which he is transferring. The Archbishop has no role in these processes. The bishop of the judicatory who inflicted a sentence of suspension on a deacon or presbyter, should be free to remit or modify that sentence in consultation with the standing committee or the equivalent of the judicatory. As in the previous cases, the Archbishop had no role in the process: his leave was not required to inflict the sentence of suspension. The requirement that a bishop of a judicatory must first obtain the approval of the Archbishop and the Executive Committee before remitting or modifying a sentence of suspension is an infringement upon the autonomy of the judicatory. This requirement appears to be motivated by the fear of litigation.
The only interest that the Archbishop and the Executive Committee have in the case is that the ACNA may be sued along with the judicatory and its bishop as a result of the misconduct of the suspended deacon or presbyter. Whoever drew up this requirement appears not to trust the judgment of the bishop of the judicatory in remitting or modifying the sentence of the deacon or presbyter. Only if the Archbishop himself inflicted the sentence does it make sense for him to have any say in the remission or modification of the sentence. An alternative process that respects the autonomy of the judicatories and sub-jurisdictional provinces of the ACNA is for these bodies to jointly develop guidelines for sentencing, including the remission and modification of sentences, that they commonly agree to use in disciplinary cases.
Under the provisions of Canon IV.13.2 of the canons of the Episcopal Church, as revised through 2006, the bishop of a diocese may, for sufficient reasons and with the advise and consent of two-thirds of all the members of the diocesan standing committee, remit and terminate a sentence of suspension pronounced in his jurisdiction upon a deacon or presbyter. Under the provisions of Canon IV.13.3 (and Canon 66, Sec.2 of the PECUSA canons, as revised through 1976) the bishop of a diocese may, for sufficient reasons, remit and terminate a sentence of deposition pronounced in his jurisdiction upon a deacon or presbyter provided that he exercise this power only upon the following conditions:
(1) He acts with the advice and consent of two-thirds of all the members of the diocesan standing committee.
(2) He submits his proposal for remission of the sentence, with his reasons for wishing to remit the sentence, to the judgment of five bishops whose dioceses or missionary districts are nearest his own, and receives in writing from four of these bishops, their approval of the remission and their consent to it.
(3) Before remitting the sentence, he must require the person to be restored to the ministry to subscribe to the declaration required in Article VIII of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.
This is also a collegial approach to decision-making in the remission or moderation of a sentence.
The ACNA disciplinary canons make no provision for the remission and termination of a sentence of deposition.
In English ecclesiastical law the court that inflicts a sentence of suspension is the court that remits or modifies the sentence of suspension. The permission of the archbishop of the province is not required for a court to inflict a sentence or to remit or modify it.
Remission or Modification of Sentences of Bishops. Under the provisions of Canon IV.8.4.2 the College of Bishops may, with the consent of the Archbishop, shorten or terminate the sentence of suspension of a bishop. Canon IV.8.4.2 is adapted from Section 5, Termination of Sentences, of Canon 36 of the Rwandan canons:
A sentence of suspension against a bishop may be terminated or shortened by the House/College of Bishop with the Consent of the Primate.
Note that under Article 7, Section 1 of the Rwandan Constitution the Rwandan Primate, “once elected and installed” has “privileges, powers, authority and duties as defined by the Constitutions and Canons made by the Provincial Synod. According to the provisions of Article 7, Section 4(b), pastoral responsibilities of the Rwandan Primate include “to preside when he is so required by Canons at the hearing of appeals in accordance with the provisions of this Church concerning the trial of a Bishop, the Clergy, and/or Laity and also on other occasions when the House of Bishops sits as a court.” Section 2, Primatial Norms, of Canon 2, Of the Primate states:
There shall be an Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of the Church of Rwanda (Anglican Communion), who shall exercise all the rights and perform all the duties of a Metropolitan and shall be the principal minister of the Church.
The constitution and canons of the ACNA have no equivalent provisions. Article IX.3 of the ACNA constitution clearly states: “The Archbishop convenes the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops, represents the Province in the Councils of the Church and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”
The Archbishop of the ACNA has, under the provisions of the ACNA constitution, much more limited authority than the Rwandan Primate has under the Rwandan constitution. As in the case of the shortening or termination of a sentence of suspension of a deacon or a presbyter, the requirement of Canon IV.8.4.1 that the Archbishop give his consent to the College of Bishop’s remission of the sentence of suspension of a bishop is one more example of how the canons seek to arrogate to the Archbishop powers that the constitution does not give him. As we have seen, the canons recognize the College of Bishops as having sole responsibility and authority to pronounce sentence on a bishop. The role of the Archbishop or his delegate in pronouncing this sentence is to serve as the voice of the College of Bishop, that is, as its spokesman. The College of Bishops, not the Archbishop or his delegate, inflicts the sentence. Whoever drafted this requirement also appears to not trust the judgment of the College of Bishops in shortening or terminating the sentence of suspension of a bishop.
Under the provisions of the ACNA canons the College of Bishops confirms the election of a bishop elect or elects a new bishop from a slate of two or three nominees proposed by a judicatory. By protocol with the Anglican Mission, the College of Bishops “welcomes” a missionary bishop newly appointed by the Rwandan House of Bishops. The Archbishop plays no role in these processes except as the convener and presiding officer of the College of Bishop. Under Canon IV.13.1 of the Episcopal Church’s canons, as revised through 2006, the House of Bishops may “remit and terminate any judicial sentence” imposed upon a bishop, or modify the sentence “so far as to designate a precise period of time, or other specific contingency, on the occurrence of which the sentence shall utterly cease, and be of no further force or effect” subject to the following provisos:
Provided, that no such Remission or modification shall be made except at a meeting of the House of Bishops, during the session of some General Convention, or at a special meeting of the House of Bishops, which shall be convened by the Presiding Bishop on the application of any five Bishops, after three months' notice in writing of the time, place, and object of the meeting being given to each Bishop; Provided, also, that the Remission or modification be assented to by not less than a majority of the Bishops; And Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or alter the provisions of Canon IV.12.
Canon 65, Section 1, of the PECUSA canons, as revised through 1976, contained similar provision for the House of Bishops to remit or modify the sentences of bishops.
Should the ACNA College of Bishops have less authority in this matter than the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops?
As in the case of a sentence of deposition imposed upon a deacon or presbyter, the ACNA canons make no provision for the remission of a sentence of deposition imposed upon a bishop.
As we have also seen, in English ecclesiastical law the court that inflicts a sentence of suspension is the court that remits or modifies the sentence of suspension. The court does not require the permission of the archbishop of the province to inflict a sentence or remit or modify it.
The requirement for the advice and consent of the Archbishop in the consultation with the Executive Committee for the remission or moderation of the sentence of suspension of a deacon or a presbyter suggests that whoever proposed this requirement may not believe that the bishops of the ACNA can be relied upon to protect the organization from the possible adverse consequences of shortening or terminating the sentence of suspension of the wrong person such as litigation. The apparent thinking is that the top leadership of the ACNA, represented by the Archbishop and the Executive Committee, should have an opportunity to review the case and to block the remission or moderation of the sentence of a deacon or presbyter that might embarrass the ACNA or have worse consequences.
Requiring the College of Bishops to seek the consent of the Archbishop before shortening or terminating the sentence of suspension of a fellow bishop which the College of Bishops itself inflicted, however, cannot be justified on this basis by any stretch of the imagination. This requirement suggests that its proposer wanted to give the Archbishop more control over the other bishops of the ACNA and sought to do so by not only limiting their discretion in reducing the length of the suspension or lifting the suspension of their own clergy but also curtailing their liberty to do the same for a fellow bishop. Whoever proposed these requirements certainly does not appear to take a collegial view of the episcopate.
It may be helpful in understanding these provisions to examine the consequences of giving such control to the Archbishop. First, it takes away an important power of the bishops and the College of Bishops in the administration of discipline in the ACNA and gives it to the Archbishop. Second, it sets a precedent for the Archbishop’s usurpation of other powers of the bishops. Third, it erodes and weakens the individual and collective authority of the bishops. Fourth, it makes the deacon, presbyter, or bishop ultimately beholden to the Archbishop for the shortening or termination of his sentence of suspension. Fifth, it enables the Archbishop who for reasons of his own to refuse to permit the shortening or termination of a sentence of suspension even though a reduction of the length of the sentence or lifting of the sentence is warranted in the case. The canons do not require the Archbishop to offer any explanation for his decision. For example, the Archbishop may choose not to consent to the remission or moderation of a sentence of suspension out of personal resentment and ill will toward the person under suspension. Archbishops are human beings like everyone else. The history of Christian Church and the Church of England is filled with archbishops who acted from less than noble motives. Sixth, it politicizes the process. The bishop or the College of Bishops may be drawn into a power struggle with the Archbishop and the deacon, presbyter, or bishop under suspension may become a victim of this power struggle.
It is possible under the existing provisions of the canons for the Archbishop with the connivance of two or more other bishops to bring charges against a bishop. The Archbishop appoints the Board of Inquiry that determines if there are sufficient grounds for a formal presentment. The canons do not require the Archbishop to inform the accused of the names of the members of the Board of Inquiry. They do not give the accused an opportunity to challenge the members of the Board of Inquiry. They do not provide an alternative procedure for the appointment of a Board of Inquiry if the Archbishop himself is directly or indirectly a party in the proceedings or has a special interest in their outcome.
It is also possible for the Archbishop for the Archbishop to fill the Court for the Trial of Bishops with partisans, not only the court itself but also the court’s legal adviser and the prosecutor, and to influence the verdict in the trial of a bishop. The canons do not prescribe the process by which candidates are nominated to serve on the court and do not rule out the Archbishop’s involvement in the nominating process. The Archbishop appoints the court’s legal adviser and the prosecutor. The canons do not specify how long the court’s legal adviser and the prosecutor are to serve and leave open the possibility of the Archbishop appointing them for a particular trial. The canons provide no alternate procedure for the appointment of the court’s legal advisor and the prosecutor if the Archbishop himself is a party in the proceedings, has a special interest in their outcome, or even is himself the accused.
Indeed the canons make no provision for the presentment, trial, and sentencing of the Archbishop except as a bishop. They do not identify who will perform the duties and responsibilities of the Archbishop in the event of his inhibition and presentment.
Inhibition of Deacons and Presbyters. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9.1 a bishop may temporarily inhibit a deacon or presbyter if he believes, “upon reasonable grounds,” that the deacon or presbyter has engaged in conduct upon which a deacon or presbyter may be presented under the canons. The bishop may, “with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee or its equivalent,” extend the inhibition until “such charge is dropped or action taken by a Trial Court.” Canon IV.9.1 does not specify for how long a bishop may temporarily inhibit a deacon or presbyter or under what circumstances the temporary inhibition expires.
The Archbishop or his delegate may modify or revoke the temporary inhibition of a deacon or presbyter upon application of the deacon or presbyter and the showing of good cause. The canons require that the decision must be rendered within 30 days but do not specify whether the 30 days is from the date of the application or the Archbishop’s receipt of the application, another example of the canons’ murkiness and lack of sufficient detail.
In evaluating the requirements and procedure that the ACNA has adopted in its canons for the inhibition of deacons and presbyters, a comparison with the canonical requirements and procedures of the Episcopal Church for the inhibition of deacons or presbyters may prove useful. The requirements and procedures for the inhibition of deacons and presbyters in the Episcopal Church are prescribed in Canons IV.1.2-4, IV.7.2-3, and IV.10 of the canons of the Episcopal Church, as revised through 2006. Canon IV.1.2-4 delineates how a deacon or presbyter may be temporarily inhibited, under what circumstances, what redress the inhibited deacon or presbyter may seek, and how the temporary inhibition may be dissolved or modified:
Sec. 2 (a) If a Priest or Deacon is charged with an Offense or Offenses or serious acts are complained of to the Bishop that would constitute the grounds for a Charge of an Offense, and, in the opinion of the Bishop, the Charge or complaint of serious acts is supported by sufficient facts, the Bishop may issue a Temporary Inhibition.
(b) Any Temporary Inhibition shall: (i) be in writing, (ii) set forth the reasons for its issuance, (iii) be specific in its terms, (iv) define the Offense or Offenses charged or serious acts complained of, (v) describe in reasonable detail the act or acts inhibited, (vi) be promptly served upon the Priest or Deacon to be inhibited, and (vii) become effective upon being served upon the Priest or Deacon to be inhibited.
(c) A Temporary Inhibition may be issued without prior written or oral notice to the Priest or Deacon.
(d) Any Priest or Deacon against whom a Temporary Inhibition has been issued, modified, or extended may request a hearing concerning the Temporary Inhibition before the Diocesan Review Committee, which shall hear the same at the earliest possible time, but not later than fourteen days after the date of receipt of the request. The Diocesan Review Committee by a two-thirds vote may dissolve or modify the Temporary Inhibition. The Bishop and the Church Attorney shall be given notice of such hearing and shall be permitted to attend and be heard or to designate a representative to attend and be heard.
(e) At any time, a Bishop may dissolve or modify the terms of a Temporary Inhibition.
(f) A Temporary Inhibition shall continue in force and effect until the earlier of (i) the issuance of an Inhibition as otherwise permitted by this Title, (ii) the withdrawal of the Charge or the allegations, (iii) the refusal of the Diocesan Review Committee to make a Presentment on the Charges alleged, (iv) dissolution of the Temporary Inhibition, (v) imposition of Sentence following a voluntary submission to discipline under Canon IV.2., or (vi) a period of ninety days measured from the date of service of the Temporary Inhibition; Provided, however, the ninety-day period may be extended by the Bishop for additional ninety-day periods upon good cause.
(g) In the event that the Temporary Inhibition is dissolved, reduced, or otherwise expires, the Ecclesiastical Authority shall so notify all persons to whom notice of the Temporary Inhibition was given.
Sec. 3. If a Presentment has been made by the Diocesan Review Committee against a Priest or Deacon, or if a Priest or Deacon has been convicted in a criminal Court of Record in a cause involving immorality, or if a judgment has been entered against a Priest or Deacon in a civil Court of Record in a cause involving immorality, the Bishop in whose jurisdiction the Priest or Deacon is canonically resident or of the jurisdiction wherein the conviction or judgment has been entered may issue an Inhibition to the Priest or Deacon until after the Judgment of the Ecclesiastical Trial Court becomes final.
Sec. 4. No Bishop shall issue an Inhibition or Temporary Inhibition except as expressly permitted by this Title.
Whatever relief that the inhibited deacon or presbyter may obtain from a temporary inhibition must be obtained at the diocesan level. He may request a hearing before the Diocesan Review Committee or he may approach the bishop. It lies within the bishop’s discretion to dissolve or modify the terms of the temporary inhibition or to extend the period of the temporary inhibition for good cause. The provisions of Canon IV.1.2-4 recognize the right of a bishop of a diocese as the chief superintendent in matters ecclesiastical within a diocese and as the “ordinary” of the diocese with “ordinary jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical” to not only to inhibit a clerk in holy orders canonically resident in his jurisdiction when circumstances demand such inhibition but also to dissolve the inhibition or modify its terms. This is a right that is recognized by all of the canons of Anglican bodies that I have studied. While English ecclesiastical law recognizes the right of a clerk in holy orders to appeal against the bishop’s power to censure, inhibit, or avoid a benefice to the ecclesiastical court of the province, as we shall see, it also recognizes the bishop’s right to inhibit. On the other hand, Canon IV.9.1 of the ACNA canons curtails this right—first by requiring the advice and consent of the standing committee or the equivalent of the diocese for an extension of a temporary inhibition and second by giving the Archbishop or his delegate the power to dissolve the temporary inhibition or modify its terms.
Canon IV.7.2-3 of the canons of the Episcopal Church permit a bishop of a diocese, “upon probable cause,” to inhibit from officiating in the diocese a deacon or presbyter who temporarily comes into his diocese if the deacon or presbyter is “under the imputation of having elsewhere committed” an offense or the deacon or presbyter, while temporarily in the diocese, commits an offense. If the deacon or presbyter officiates in the diocese after his temporary inhibition, the bishop of the diocese is required to give notice to all the clergy and congregations in the diocese that the deacon or presbyter’s officiating is inhibited. The bishop is also required to notify the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in which the deacon or presbyter is canonically present. The inhibition continues in force until the bishop dissolves the inhibition, “the standing committee assuming jurisdiction thereof votes not to issue a presentment, or if the deacon or presbyter is presented, the presentment is dismissed, whichever comes soonest. Canon IV.7.2-3 applies these provisions to “clergy ordained in foreign lands by bishops in communion with this church,” requiring in such case the notice of the inhibition should be given to the bishop from whose jurisdiction the deacon or presbyter appears to have come, to all the bishops having jurisdiction in the Episcopal Church, and “to the Recorder.”
The provisions of Canon IV.7.2-3 are based upon the provisions of Canon 59, Sec. 2-3 of the PECUSA canons, as revised through 1976. They recognize the right of a bishop of a diocese to inhibit from officiating in his diocese clergy from outside his diocese temporarily in his diocese if there are reasonable grounds to inhibit them. They establish the procedure that the bishop must follow in exercising this right. They also identify what must happen in order for the inhibition to cease to be in force. They give the deacon or presbyter and the bishop the protection of due process. They make provision for the notification of the ecclesiastical authority that has jurisdiction over the deacon or presbyter.
Canon IV.10 of the Episcopal Church’s canons prescribe the procedure by which a deacon or presbyter may be inhibited and deposed for abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church:
Sec. 1. If it is reported to the Standing Committee of the Diocese in which a Priest or Deacon is canonically resident that the Priest or Deacon, without using the provisions of Canon IV.8 or III.7.8-10 and III.9.8-11, has abandoned the Communion of this Church, then the Standing Committee shall ascertain and consider the facts, and if it shall determine by a vote of three-fourths of All the Members that the Priest or Deacon has abandoned the Communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in communion with this Church, or in any other way, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese to transmit in writing to the Bishop of such Diocese, or if there be no such Bishop, to the Bishop of an adjacent Diocese, its determination, together with a statement setting out in reasonable detail the acts or declarations relied upon in making its determination. If the Bishop affirms the determination, the Bishop shall then inhibit the Priest or Deacon from officiating in the Diocese for six months and shall send to the Priest or Deacon a copy of the determination and statement, together with a notice that the Priest or Deacon has the rights specified in Section 2 and at the end of the six-months period the Bishop will consider deposing the Priest or Deacon in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.
Sec. 2. Prior to the expiration of the six-month period of Inhibition, the Bishop may permit the Priest or Deacon to utilize the provisions of Canon IV.8 or Canon III.7.8-10 and III.9.8-11, as applicable. If within such six-month period the Priest or Deacon shall transmit to the Bishop a statement in writing signed by the Priest or Deacon which the Bishop is reasonably satisfied constitutes a good faith retraction of such declarations or acts relied upon in the determination or a good faith denial that the Priest or Deacon committed the acts or made the declarations relied upon in the determination, the Bishop shall withdraw the notice and the Inhibition shall expire. If, however, within the six-month period, the Bishop does not pronounce acceptance of the renunciation of the Priest or Deacon in accordance with Canon IV.8 or Canon III.7.8-10 and III.9.8-11, as applicable, or the Priest or Deacon does not make retraction or denial as provided above, then it shall be the duty of the Bishop either (i) to depose the Priest or Deacon as provided in Canon IV.12, or (ii) if the Bishop is satisfied that no previous irregularity or misconduct is involved, with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee to pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Priests that the Priest or Deacon is released from the obligations of Priest or Deacon and (for causes which do not affect the person's moral character) is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority conferred in Ordination.
The provisions Canon IV.10 is based upon those of Canon 62 of the PECUSA canons as revised through 1976. The ACNA canons have no equivalent provisions to those of Canon IV.7.2-3 and Canon IV.10.
In light of the allegations of the irregular use or misuse of the Episcopal Church’s canons related to inhibition and deposition of deacons and presbyters, it is not unreasonable to expect the Anglican Church in North America to have very clear and detailed canonical provisions relating to these matters. However, the ACNA with its so-called “minimalist” approach to canon law does not include these important safeguards in its canons. While clarity and detail in the provisions of a canon cannot prevent the irregular use or misuse of its provisions, they can help those seeking to redress the irregular use or misuse in investigating how they were irregularly used or misused and bringing this irregular use or misuse to public attention, as well as the attention of the appropriate authorities for corrective action. They also prevent whoever irregularly used or misused the provisions of a canon from avoiding being held accountable for such irregular use or misuse of the provisions of a canon on the grounds that the ACNA canons did not specify what he should have done in a particular set of circumstances and by their silence appeared to leave it to an individual’s discretion.
The ACNA does not appear to have learned from the Richter trial at which the charges of heresy were dismissed against the accused because the Episcopal Church had not adopted a specific doctrinal position. On the latter basis it was argued that the Episcopal Church had no doctrine and therefore the accused could not charged with holding opinions contrary to a doctrine that the Episcopal Church did not have. It can be similarly argued that a bishop cannot be charged with irregularly using or misusing his power to inhibit or depose if the provisions of the canons do not prescribe the requirements that the bishop must meet or the procedure that he must follow in exercising this power. With its “minimalist” canons the ACNA has opened the way for even greater abuse of power and arbitrariness in discipline than in the Episcopal Church.
While the requirement in Canon IV.9.1 of the ACNA canons that the bishop must, in order to extend a temporary inhibition, seek the advice and consent of the standing committee or the equivalent of the diocese may be justified on the grounds that it discourages a bishop from abusing the exercise of his power to inhibit, the requirement that a deacon or presbyter desiring relief from a temporary inhibition must seek that relief from outside of the diocese—from the Archbishop or his delegate is unjustifiable. Under the provisions of the ACNA constitution the Archbishop is not the metropolitan of the province and therefore he does not have supervision of the bishops of the province in their exercise of their powers. Whoever proposed this provision was seeking to arrogate to the Archbishop metropolitical authority that the constitution does not recognize as inherent in the office of Archbishop or vest in that office.
What is missing from Canon IV.9.1 is the provision for a diocesan level hearing at which an independent panel of clergy and laity would examine the evidence and hear the testimony of the bishop or his representative, the deacon or presbyter and others and determine whether the bishop had probable cause to temporarily inhibit the deacon or presbyter and whether there are any mitigating circumstances that warrant dissolution or modification of the terms of the temporary inhibition. In the event the hearing panel found that there was no probable cause for the temporary inhibition and/or there were mitigating circumstances, the hearing panel would be empowered to dissolve the temporary inhibition or modify its terms. In the event the hearing panel found that there was probable cause for the temporary inhibition, the hearing panel would be empowered to sustain the temporary inhibition. In the event that the deacon or presbyter is dissatisfied with the ruling of the hearing panel, the deacon or presbyter would have the option of making an appeal against its ruling to the Provincial Tribunal. The canons should also authorize the Provincial Tribunal to establish a panel of its members to hear such appeals. In event the appellant is dissatisfied with the ruling of this panel, the appellant would have the option of appealing to the entire Provincial Tribunal. Before the expiration of a temporary inhibition the bishop would be required to request the assent of the diocesan level hearing panel if he wished to extend the temporary inhibition and the hearing panel would be required to hold a hearing, review the facts of the case, examine any new evidence and hear any new testimony before giving its assent to such an extension. The deacon or presbyter under inhibition and the bishop or his representative would be able to present new evidence and testimony. If the deacon or presbyter under inhibition is dissatisfied with the outcome of the hearing, he would have the option of appealing the hearing panel’s decision to Provincial Tribunal. The bishop or his representative would have the option of applying to the Provincial Tribunal for a reversal of a decision of the hearing panel if the panel refused to give its assent to an extension of a temporary inhibition. The bishop would be free to dissolve a temporary inhibition or modify its terms. Such provisions would not weaken the power of a bishop to inhibit a deacon or presbyter but would establish a procedure that a bishop would follow in exercising that power, a procedure similar to that which judges follow in issuing certain types of court orders. The procedure not only protects those affected by such court orders but also the judge.
The provisions of Canon IV.9.1 do not require the archbishop to hold a hearing, examine the evidence, or hear testimony. They provide no opportunity for the deacon or presbyter and his legal counsel to dispute the facts supporting the charge or complaint of serious acts made against the deacon or presbyter, to introduce evidence, or to call witnesses on the behalf of the deacon or presbyter. They provide no opportunity for the legal counsel of the deacon or presbyter under inhibition to challenge evidence or cross-examine witnesses. They do not even require the Archbishop to make a thorough review of the case. As they are worded, they only require the deacon or presbyter under inhibition to make application to the Archbishop or his designate and to show “good cause” to the satisfaction of the Archbishop or his designate in order for the Archbishop or his designate to “modify or revoke the temporary inhibition.” They permit the Archbishop who is not the metropolitan of the province or its highest judicial authority, to meddle in the disciplinary proceedings of a diocese and to overrule the decisions of its bishop.
Under English ecclesiastical law, under the provisions of the Church Discipline Act of 1840 and the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 a bishop may, while a charge is under investigation, inhibit the accused if he thinks that the accused officiating is likely to cause great scandal or that the ministrations of the accused will be useless. Under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 this power of inhibition also applies where the clergyman is accused before a temporal court of a criminal offence or of any act constituting an ecclesiastical offence.
Under the provisions of the Incumbents (Discipline) Measures, 1947 to 1953, a bishop, after personal investigation or upon the receipt of the report of the special court and subject to the other provisions of the Act, may, on the establishment of any charge against an incumbent, inhibit the incumbent for a period of up to three years. This power must be exercised within six months after the receipt of the report of the special court, or if an appeal is filed after receipt of notice of its withdrawal or determination. There is no similar limitation on the exercise of the power of inhibition after a bishop’s personal investigation. The inhibition may be rescinded by the bishop at any time.
Inhibition of Bishops. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9.2 in the case of the presentment of a bishop, including the Archbishop, three of the five senior members of the College of Bishops by date of consecration may “by affirmative vote” temporarily inhibit the bishop. Those inhibiting the bishop may not include “any bishop involved in the presentment or trial.” This presumably would exclude any of the three bishops who may have made charges against the bishop, any of the three bishops who may be serving on the Court for a Trial of Bishop, and any bishop who may be appointed as legal adviser to the court or as prosecutor if he was a senior bishop. The language of the canons is murky as to exactly when a bishop may be inhibited. The canons describe the filing of written charges against a bishop by the requisite number of bishops or other persons with the Archbishop, the Archbishop’s delegate, or the College of Bishop as the “presentment” of the bishop. The requisite number of senior bishops presumably may inhibit the bishop at this point. However, the canons also refer to the Board of Inquiry making a public declaration of its finding of the existence of probable cause for “presentment” for trial of the bishop for violation of Canon IV.2.
The canons make no provision for the modification or revocation of a bishop’s inhibition even if the Board of Inquiry finds the existence of no probable cause to try the bishop or the Trial Court exonerates the bishop from all charges. This is another example of where the canons fail to state what happens next. Presumably the three senior bishops who inhibited the bishop would lift the inhibition upon a Board of Inquiry’s finding of no probable cause or the Trial Court’s acquittal of the bishop. However, the canons do not require them to do so. They also do not recognize that the three senior bishops have discretion to modify or revoke the inhibition of the bishop upon the application of the bishop and the showing of good cause. It cannot be assumed upon the basis of the silence of the canons on this matter that that the three senior bishops do have this discretion. As we can see, the lack of such provisions raise the issue of how silence on a matter in the constitution and canons should be interpreted. Should it be interpreted to permit an action or to forbid it, give a power or to withhold it? Greater clarity and more detail in the constitution and canons would reduce the possibility of conflicting interpretations of these documents and the likelihood of their misinterpretation. This was drawn to the attention of the Governance Task Force before the proposed constitution and canons were ratified but it did nothing to correct the problem.
As in the case of the inhibition of deacons and presbyters, a comparison with the canonical requirements and procedures of the Episcopal Church for the inhibition of a bishop, may also prove useful in evaluating the requirements and procedure that the ACNA has adopted in its canons for the inhibition of a bishop. These requirements and procedures are found in Canon IV.1.5-7 and Canon IV.9.1-2 of the canons of the Episcopal Church, as revised through 2006. Canon IV.1.5-7 delineates how a bishop may be temporarily inhibited, under what circumstances, what redress the inhibited bishop may seek, and how the temporary inhibition may be dissolved or modified.
Sec. 5 (a) If a Bishop is charged with an Offense or Offenses or serious acts are complained of to the Presiding Bishop that would constitute the grounds for a Charge of an Offense and, in the opinion of the Presiding Bishop, the Charge or complaint of serious acts is supported by sufficient facts, the Presiding Bishop may issue a Temporary Inhibition. The consent of a majority of All the Members of the Standing Committee is required for Bishops with jurisdiction.
(b) Any Temporary Inhibition shall: (i) be in writing, (ii) set forth the reason for its issuance, (iii) be specific in its terms, (iv) define the Offense or Offenses charged or serious acts complained of, (v) describe in reasonable detail the act or acts inhibited, (vi) be promptly served upon the Bishop to be inhibited, and (vii) become effective upon being served upon the Bishop to be inhibited.
(c) A Temporary Inhibition may be issued without prior written or oral notice to the Bishop.
(d) Any Bishop against whom a Temporary Inhibition has been issued, modified, or extended may request a hearing concerning the Temporary Inhibition before the Review Committee, which shall hear the same at the earliest possible time, but not later than thirty days after the date of receipt of the request. The Review Committee by a two-thirds vote may dissolve or modify the Temporary Inhibition. The Church Attorney and Presiding Bishop shall be given notice of such hearing and each shall be permitted to attend and be heard or to designate a representative to attend and be heard.
(e) At any time, the Presiding Bishop may dissolve or modify the terms of a Temporary Inhibition. If the Bishop is a Bishop with jurisdiction, the consent of a majority of All the Members of the Standing Committee shall be required for such a dissolution or modification.
(f) A Temporary Inhibition shall continue in force and effect until the earlier of (i) the issuance of an Inhibition as otherwise permitted by this Title, (ii) the withdrawal of the Charge or the allegations, (iii) the refusal of the Review Committee to make a Presentment on the Charges alleged, (iv) a dissolution of the Temporary Inhibition, (v) imposition of Sentence following a voluntary submission to discipline under Canon IV.2.9, or (vi) a period of one year measured from the date of service of the Temporary Inhibition.
Sec. 6. If a Presentment has been made by the Review Committee against a Bishop, or if a Bishop has been convicted in a criminal Court of Record in a cause involving immorality, or if a judgment has been entered against a Bishop in a civil Court of Record in a case involving Immorality, the Presiding Bishop may issue an Inhibition to the Bishop until after the Judgment of The Court for the Trial of a Bishop becomes final. The consent of a majority of All the Members of the Standing Committee is required for Bishops with jurisdiction.
Sec. 7. The Temporary Inhibition shall be an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and limited to preventing immediate and irreparable harm to individuals or to the good order of the Church.
As we can see the requirements and procedures prescribed in these sections of Canon IV.5 are quite clear—a clarity that is lacking in of the ACNA canons. Under these provisions the inhibited bishop may request a hearing before the Review Committee and the Review Committee may by a two-thirds vote dissolve the temporary inhibition. Under the provisions of the ACNA canons an inhibited bishop has no redress.
Canon IV.9.1-2 of the canons of the Episcopal Church prescribes the following procedure for the inhibition and deposition of a bishop who abandons the communion of the Episcopal Church as defined in Canon IV.9 (1): The Review Committee, by a majority vote, of all its members must certifies the fact of the bishop’s abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church to the Presiding Bishop and sends the certificate to the Presiding Bishop with a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment. The Presiding Bishop must record the certificate and statement. The Presiding Bishop may, with the consent of three senior bishops having jurisdiction in the Episcopal Church, then inhibit the bishop until such time as the House of Bishops have investigated the matter and acted upon it. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer of the House of Bishops, must give the bishop notice of the certification and the inhibition. Unless the inhibited bishop, within two months, makes declaration by verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop that the facts alleged in the certificate are false “or utilizes the provisions of Canon IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable,” the bishop is liable to deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the bishop’s statement is “a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or a good faith denial that the bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certification,” the Presiding Bishop may, with the advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting to the inhibition, terminate the inhibition. Otherwise the Presiding Bishop must present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, “by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote, “gives its consent, the Presiding Bishop may depose the bishop. The Presiding Bishop is require to pronounce and record the bishop’s deposition in the presence of two or more Bishops.
As we can see, the requirement of the affirmative vote of three of the five senior bishops to temporarily inhibit a bishop under the provisions of the ACNA canons comes from the consent of three senior bishops requirement of Canon IV.9.1-2. The provisions of the ACNA canons do not specify what must happen before such a vote or what occurs after it. They vaguely make reference to “in the case of the presentment of a bishop…”
Under English ecclesiastical law where a complaint is referred to a commission of the Upper House of Convocation of a province for inquiry and report, the archbishop has power to temporarily suspend the bishop against whom the complaint has been made. The bishop must not as long as the suspension remains in force exercise any functions pertaining to his office until the Upper House of Convocation declares the complaint to be unfounded or decides not to take further action or censure the bishop; or the archbishop decides not to declare the bishopric vacant where has been requested to do so by the Upper House of Convocation; or Her Majesty the Queen has confirmed or decided not to confirm the archbishop’s declaration where the archbishop declares the bishopric vacant. As long as the suspension remains in force in the case of a diocesan bishop, the jurisdiction of the bishop is exercised by the archbishop as the guardian of the spiritualities of a vacant bishopric.
A suspension issued under this power cannot remain in force for a period exceeding a year. Any suspension may be revoked by the archbishop at any time.
If a complaint that an archbishop has been guilty of unbecoming conduct or neglect of duty is referred to a commission appointed by the Upper House of either Convocation, the two senior diocesan bishops of the archbishop’s province have power to temporarily suspend the archbishop. If so suspended the archbishop is disabled from discharging or exercising any of the functions or powers for the same period as a bishop similarly suspended. However, the suspension is at all times revocable by the two senior bishops.
During the temporary suspension of the archbishop his jurisdiction is exercised by the dean and chapter of the metropolitan church as though the archbishopric were vacant.
Conclusion.This examination of the disciplinary canons of the Anglican Church in North America is by no means exhaustive. Space did not permit me to address all the provisions of the canons under Title IV, Ecclesiastical Discipline. I do recommend a comparison of those provisions with their equivalent in the Rwandan canons, the Episcopal Church’s canons as revised through 2006, and the PECUSA canons as revised through 1976.
In compiling the disciplinary canons, the Governance Task Force drew heavily on the Rwandan canons, which reflect the influence of the PECUSA canons. They also took ideas and material directly from the PECUA canons as well as the Episcopal Church’s canons. Two things that stand out about their adaptation of the provisions of these three sets of canons. First, they took a cafeteria approach in compiling the canons, largely heaping the tray with provisions from the Rwandan canons, and then adding a spoonful or two of provisions from the TEC and PECUSA canons and even a sprinkle of a provision from the Nigerian canons. They then pieced these provisions together like a patchwork quilt made from odds and ends of fabric. In some instances they used the same wording; in others they altered the wording slightly.
A factor that contributes to the weaknesses and problems of the canons is the minimalism that Archbishop Duncan and other ACNA leaders espouse. This is in part an over-reaction to the elevation of the Episcopal Church’s canons to the status of that church’s final authority in all matters by liberal Episcopal leaders. As I have suggested elsewhere, it may be motivated by a desire for greater freedom of action. It may also be a rationalization of the defects and shortcomings of the canons. The minimalism of the canons is far from their greatest asset as Archbishop Duncan claims. It is one of their most serious deficits. The canons in too many places lack clarity and sufficient detail. Too much has been omitted that should have been included.
The disciplinary canons are not well crafted. Indeed they look thrown together as if the compilers were in a hurry to produce a set of canons for the Provincial Council to approve and the Provincial Assembly to ratify. A number of provisions do not appear to have been given careful thought. A number of provisions appear to have been added because someone wanted these provisions in the canons. They seem out of place, for example, the provisions for the Archbishop to appoint legal advisers and prosecutors and modify or revoke temporary inhibitions.
Second, the Governance Task Force tended to omit the procedural safeguards and other measures intended to protect the rights of the accused, to ensure a fair and impartial hearing, and reduce the possibility of an arbitrary judgment. This is surprising in the light of the way that former Episcopalians were treated in the Episcopal Church. It evidences a conspicuous absence of Anglican concern for due process, just treatment, the rule of law, decency, and old-fashioned fair play, which is a part of its English heritage. This is partially explained by a tendency toward authoritarianism and authoritarian practices in certain quarters of the Anglican Church in North America. The African provinces with their more authoritarian bishops and archbishops are seen in these quarters as a model of an Anglican church worthy of imitation in North America.
The Governance Task Force borrowed practices of the African Church that they liked. If the original PECUSA canonical provision required that the presiding bishop and three to seven other bishops appoint a board of inquiry to investigate rumors and reports affecting a character of a bishop, they adopted the Rwanda version of this provision in which the primate or his designate appoints the board of inquiry, a provision not much different from the Episcopal Church’s version of the provision, which requires the presiding bishop to cause an investigation to be conducted but does not specify how the investigation should be made. They stripped away any checks and balances and safeguards. At the same time they went beyond imitating the African Church. If an African primate nominates the members of an ecclesiastical court and the provincial synod confirms them, they went one step further and gave the archbishop authority to appoint members of an ecclesiastical court without any kind of confirmation process.
While the African churches in their canons vest more authority in their bishops and archbishops than has been the case in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the authority of their bishops and archbishops is also balanced by the authority of synods of clergy and lay representatives at the diocesan and provincial levels. I have examined the canons of the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of Rwanda, and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). The canons of these churches are generally clearer and more detailed than the canons of the Anglican Church in North America and they include a number of procedural safeguards that are noticeably missing from the latter’s canons.
The canons of the Anglican Church of Kenya and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) as the Anglican churches of former British colonies show the influence of English common law and jurisprudence, including a respect for due process and the rule of law, as well as that of traditional African society. At every level of traditional African society community leaders from the paramount chieftain to the village headman have a council whom they consult. The paramount chieftain’s council is composed of lesser chieftains and other dignitaries. The village headman’s council is made up of village elders. Traditional African society also has its unwritten laws and traditions that are binding upon the paramount chieftains and lesser chieftains as they are binding upon the rest of society.
The disciplinary canons set up institutions that display very little regard for the rights of the accused at best. They establish few time frames. They do not put any limits on how long an investigation may be conducted into an allegation or report of an offence or offences against a deacon, presbyter, or bishop. They do not guarantee the accused a speedy trial. They return the Anglican Church in North America to the days when the accused was locked in the cellar of the bishop’s palace to await interrogation and trial at the bishop’s leisure.
Rather than delineating the specific procedures that the bishop, the canonical investigator, the board of inquiry, or the ecclesiastical court must follow at a particular stage in the disciplinary process, the canons leave the development of these procedures to their discretion but without specifically indicating that they may exercise their discretion in developing such procedures. The canons deny those facing disciplinary proceedings with the procedural safeguards provided by procedures that are adequate, suitable, equitable, unambiguous, and well defined. Instead they create a system for the administration of ecclesiastical discipline that appears to be highly susceptible to unfair practices and arbitrariness.
The disciplinary canons also show an equal disregard for the rights of the victim. They contain no special provisions for handling allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation. They do nothing to create a safe environment for children in the Anglican Church in North America. The omission of any special provisions for such allegations suggests an attitude of denial on the part of the Governance Task Force relating to the possibility of child sexual abuse and exploitation occurring in the ACNA. Such an attitude is not only naïve but also dangerous and irresponsible, putting children at high risk from sexual predators in the ACNA. The canons also contain no special provisions for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
The disciplinary canons establish no province-wide uniform standards for disciplinary proceedings for deacons and presbyters. Clergy transferring from one judicatory or sub-provincial jurisdiction to another can expect to encounter differences in the disciplinary proceedings between these sub-divisions of the ACNA. In some of these sub-divisions they may not enjoy the rights and procedural safeguards that they enjoy in others. The same observation is applicable to laity moving from one ACNA sub-division to another. In hearing appeals from the ecclesiastical courts of the sub-divisions of the ACNA the Provincial Tribunal will be faced with not only a bewildering assortment of rules and procedures but also as many interpretations of the constitution and canons as sub-divisions of the ACNA, making its task more complicated, and increasing the likelihood of an unsatisfactory judgment.
As noted in the introduction to this article, the disciplinary canons seek to arrogate to the Archbishop powers that extend beyond the duties and responsibilities that may be assigned to him by canon. They try to give him metropolitical jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters in the province, which is not his under the provisions of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America. As a general rule where a primate or archbishop of an Anglican province is a metropolitan who has throughout the province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as a superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters in a province, it is so stipulated in the instruments of governance (i.e. constitution, and canons) of the province. If it was desired that the archbishop and primate of the ACNA should be the metropolitan of the province, the Governance Task Force should have included provisions in the constitution and canons stating that he is the metropolitan of the province and has the rights and duties of a metropolitan. The Provincial Council and the Provincial Assembly should have then been given an opportunity to decide whether they wanted the archbishop and primate of the ACNA to be the metropolitan of the province and exercise metropolitical authority. The Governance Task Force, however, did not incorporate such provisions into the constitution and canons. They added an amendment to Article IX of the constitution stating, “The Archbishop … carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon” when representatives of CANA drew to their attention that they were in the canons arrogating powers to the Archbishop that the constitution did not give him.
However the Governance Task Force has construed this amendment, it does not stipulate that that the primate and archbishop of the ACNA is a metropolitan and has the rights and duties of a metropolitan. Any assignment of “duties and responsibilities” to the archbishop that implies that the archbishop has metropolitical jurisdiction throughout the ACNA and superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters of the province is a misapplication of this provision and a violation of the constitution.
This problem can be corrected by the simple expedient of amending the constitution and canons to give the primate and archbishop the title, duties, and rights of a metropolitan of the province but the Governance Task Force, which includes the senior bishops of the ACNA, is loath to do that. One of the reasons is that the Anglican Mission is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and that Anglican Mission Chairman, Bishop Chuck Murphy, is the primatial vicar of the primate, archbishop, and metropolitan of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. He acts as the primate of Rwanda’s deputy or agent in North America. He is the “presiding ecclesiastical authority” of the Anglican Mission in the absence of the primate of Rwanda, and. In concert, with the council of missionary bishops, governs all spiritual, pastoral, and ecclesiastical matters of the Anglican Mission. Giving Archbishop Duncan the title, rights, and duties of a metropolitan of the ACNA would put Murphy in the position of having two “bosses.” One is in a distant African province and the other would be much closer to home. I leave my readers to work out the implications for themselves.
The Anglican Church in North America does not need a metropolitan to have an effective judicial system that treats everyone fairly and protects the rights of both the accused and the victim. What it does need is a clear and detailed set of disciplinary canons that embody the North American Anglican Church’s heritage of due process, just treatment, the rule of law, decency, and old-fashioned fair play. It needs to preserve these values and to pass them onto to posterity.
The disciplinary canons of the Anglican Church in North America need a major overhaul. They should been overhauled nine months ago before they were adopted and ratified. It still is not too late to set things right.
6 comments:
Robin,
While I admire the extensive effort I don't understand. I thought you had decided not to join an ACNA congregation?
FWIW
jimB
Jim,
I am scratching my head with puzzlement. Where do I say or even infer that I have joined an ACNA congregation?
I have favored the establishment of a new Anglican province in North America since the 1990s. The apathetic and even hostile response of many Episcopalians to the Decade of Evangelism convinced me that a second Anglican province was needed in the United States, a province that was more evangelical and evangelistic than TEC. As you may know, I was involved in planting an Episcopal church in the mid-1980s. I had a rector who saw the need for new churches in the diocese and in the deanery and responded to that need. But he turned out to be an exception among the clergy of the diocese and the deanery. The deanery encompassed one of the fastest growing areas in the diocese. While other denominations were responding to the need for new churches in the area, the clergy of the deanery sat on their duffs. Most of them had no interest in reaching the unchurched in the area, much less the leadership ability and know-how to go about it. This included the vicar who replaced the rector as the pastor of the new church plant that I had helped to launch.
It was around this time that I read an article by a Canadian church planter, an Anglican priest, who advocated planting new churches in the shadow of older churches that had plateaued or were declining. New churches were able to reach segments of the unchurched population that the older churches were unable if not uninterested or unwilling to reach. The presence of one or more new churches in their immediate vicinity could also spur an older church to reevaluate its ministry and make the kind of changes needed to become more evangelistic, concerned not only with reaching people in its traditional constituencies but also in other segments of the general population. If this worked for individual churches, then it could also work for an entire denomination.
You seem to be surprised that I take an interest in the ACNA even though I am not a part of the ACNA nor do I see any future for myself in that para-church organization. My reaction is "Why not?" I am an Anglican as well as a conservative evangelical. I take an interest in seeing that what is from my perspective is the right kind of Anglicanism takes root and flourishes in North America. It troubles me when folks leave TEC and then create a para-church organization that in many ways is no better than TEC and in many ways is worse. TEC has given Anglicanism a "bad name" in my book; I hate to see the ACNA do the same thing.
I also feel an obligation to warn the folks in the ACNA of the dangers lurking in the institutions they are creating for themselves. We are our brother's keeper. The Bible makes that quite clear. We cannot let him jump off a cliff just because he feels like doing it. We have a responsibility to protect him from himself even if he does not appreciate it.
"You seem to be surprised that I take an interest in the ACNA even though I am not a part of the ACNA nor do I see any future for myself in that para-church organization."
Say rather quizzical? I am certainly not one to carry a brief for ACNA. After all, they think I I am a heretic. Were a friend of mine to ask my opinion of joining it, I should recommend alternatives, even if that friend were very conservative. (I think LCMS is a better choice, among others.)
But, I do not spend a lot of time thinking about ACNA. I am over here trying to be the best lay person and builder of TEC I can be. Not sure that is a successful projet, but it is where I try to be.
"My reaction is "Why not?" I am an Anglican as well as a conservative evangelical. I take an interest in seeing that what is from my perspective is the right kind of Anglicanism takes root and flourishes in North America."
Fair enough, but you have convinced me it won't be via ACNA.
"I also feel an obligation to warn the folks in the ACNA of the dangers lurking in the institutions they are creating for themselves. We are our brother's keeper."
OK, I suppose that one can credit altruism, if it is not obsessive anger. As my brother's keeper, let me say, "That way lies danger."
FWIW
jimB
Jim, just keep reading my articles. I think that they may help you understand why I as an conservative evangelical and a Protestant Anglican do not see any future for myself in the ACNA. The ACNA would have to make a number of major changes before I would even give it consideration. I do not see that happening any more than I see the Roman Catholic Church reforming itself to the point that I would find that church acceptable.
As for being a "heretic," traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, and Roman Catholics think that I am a "heretic" too. The truth is, if you dropped some of your liberal views on human sexuality, you would probably fit better into the ACNA than I ever would.
"Obessive anger," Jim. Now you sound like the folks in the ACNA. I admit that I am disappointed in the direction that the ACNA has taken. But angry about it. I do not think so. A large part of the ACNA membership are former Episcopalians, which explains alot, at least in my mind.
I was reading an article on the Internet, in which the author made reference to Esther 4:13-14.
"And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: 'Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"
Who is to say that drawing attention to the weaknesses, shortcomings, and problems of the ACNA is not the work God has given me. He certainly has prepared me for it as he has the work of pastoral ministry.
Is it an obsession--"a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling"? Or is it a God-given passion--"a strong devotion to some activity, object, or concept"? I believe that it is the latter.
All Christians called to warn each other of dangers--just like the watchman on the wall in the Book of Ezekiel. God called Ezekiel to be Israel's watchman but the underlying principle applies to us all.
Take a suggestion from someone whom God has led to be a part of churches that he never would at one time expected himself to be a part of--focus on building up God's church, his people, and not the denomination. In the Bible there are no denominations, only the local expression of the Body of Christ which with other local expressions of the same Body is joined together in Christ its head. Building up God's people means helping them to become more devoted followers of Christ and to grow in their relationship with him. This is the lesson that I have learned in the last few years since I left the Episcopal Church.
God has gifted you as a musician. Use this gift to build up the Body of Christ. As for who is really part of that Body, God is the only one who really knows who are the wheat and who are the tares. And remember in the parable the farmer tells his workers to leave the weeds alone lest they fail to distinguish the young wheat from the weeds and pull up the young wheat with the weeds.
Treat everyone with the same love that you would show to a fellow member of the Body of Christ because God may through you bring someone who is not a part of Christ's Body even though he may be a church-goer into Christ's Body. God does that sort of thing. You would be amazed.
Well, I try. Some days are harder than others. ;-) OK, I shall take your word that what I am reading is not anger. I was simply concerned for you.
As to CANA they go where they will. Their path is not mine, yet if I were asked, yes I would play for them. My rule is where two or three are gathered together, I will play.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment