Why Going to Church Is Important, Part 1

Some people claim to be Christians but don't attend church. But if you really love God, you will love His people and long to be with them.

"Well, I haven't found a church I like yet, and I work and Sunday is my only day off!" The Bible indeed commands us to go to church, and-even more-to be a functioning part of it.

Hebrews 10:24–25 says, "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Keep reading

Despite the butterflies, he shares his faith

Geoff Simmons still feels butterflies in his stomach when he approaches people to speak about Christ, even though he's been sharing his faith consistently for about three years and is a seminary student.

Greater than any anxiety in proclaiming the Gospel, however, is his fear of remaining silent. Keep reading

6 reasons churches don’t use projection in worship — and how to overcome them.

Use of projected images and lyrics during worship is growing. However, some churches invest in projection technology, only to realize it isn’t practical to use in their worship space or with their planning resources. Consider these points before diving in. Keep reading.

It's all in the projection

Most of us preside over church meetings/services (choose your language as appropriate). And an increasing number of us do that in churches which don't use hymn books or printed sheets but by means of projection. There are good reasons for this being a good idea. People tend to sing into books/sheets. Most churches notice, when switching from paper to projection, that the singing improves and, I think, it is far easier for singing this way to be the encouraging corporate thing it ought to be.

But we'd be naïve to pretend that there were not issues with it. Chief among these is that we project words very poorly. We tend to do so in a way that allows people at the back to see them (very commendable), but that means that verses/sentences and thoughts are often divided. It's very hard to sing meaningfully when this happens. Here's a very basic example.... Keep reading

Related articles:
Improving Your Projected Song Lyrics – Part 1
Improving Your Projected Song Lyrics – Part 2
How to Create Effective Slides for Projecting Worship Songs

Couple in Brazil sees prayerwalking open doors

During their daily walks, Rob and Phyllis Hefner have been mugged, physically assaulted and narrowly escaped an attempted kidnapping. During a robbery, a woman held a knitting needle to Phyllis' throat.

The Hefners, who walk 20 or more miles five or six days each week, serve as International Mission Board missionaries in Fortaleza, Brazil, a city of 3 million people.

The couple, who are in their 50s, begin walking after breakfast and end about 2 p.m. Monday through Thursday.

They walk until 7 p.m. on Friday.

When they don't have other commitments, they walk all day Saturday as well.

As they walk, they pray for Fortaleza.

For the Hefners, it is literally the first step toward reaching people for Christ.

They are among a multitude of Baptists worldwide who engage in prayerwalking. Keep reading

Iran Threatens Church with Bombing

Another church in Tehran was ordered to cease holding services in Farsi, the Iranian national language, otherwise it could be "bombed".

According to Barnabas Aid, ministers from an Iranian interior department dealing with interfaith matters served notice to the Armenian Anglican Church, unofficially threatening that if the order is ignored, the church will be bombed “as happens in Iraq every day”. Keep reading

Anglican Bishop of Singapore Consecrates New Church Building

Preaches 'Wise Living'

Christians living in challenging times today make a difference through their social responsibility.

To do this, a fear of God that leads to practicing His Word is needed, preached the Anglican Bishop at a recent church building consecration service.

The three-hour consecration service for the new St. James' Church (SJC) building was held on February 18, 2012. It is the first rebuilding of SJC.

A 28-year-old parish gathering over 800 worshippers, it is one of the 27 parishes of the Diocese of Singapore. The church has been holding worship services for the past 35 years. It comprises an English and Chinese congregation.

SJC's first building was completed in 1977 and torn down in 2009. As the building was paid for, a consecration service, and not just a dedication service, could be held. Keep reading

Related article: Sermon of Bishop of Singapore, John Chew, at the St. James' Church Building Consecration Service

Jensen begs off as deputy consecrates woman bishop

Consecration of the state's first woman Anglican bishop will proceed at St Saviour's Cathedral, Goulburn, today with the good wishes but pointed non-attendance of the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, who once lectured to her in doctrine at Moore College.

Genieve Blackwell, 50, married with two children, who turned to Anglicanism while an arts student at Sydney University, will become the third woman Anglican bishop in Australia and the 31st in the world.

She will continue as rector of St Paul's, Turvey Park. But she will now be an assistant bishop for Wagga Wagga and the surrounding region. She will have authority over 15 parishes, taking in Tumut, Tumbarumba, Holbrook, Temora, Boorowa and Young. Keep reading

Cross the Street, Reach the Nations

A missionary with years of experience in the Muslim world was visiting back home in the United States when he struck up a friendly conversation with an immigrant shop owner.

“I said, ‘Thanks for coming to America,’” the missionary recalls. The shop owner was moved almost to tears. “He put his arms around me and said, ‘You’re the first person who has ever welcomed me to this country.’”

During the same U.S. stay, the missionary spoke at a church in a Southern town. Before he arrived there, a member of the church surveyed the community’s 20 or so Muslim families. Some of them had lived in the area as long as 10 years. The church member asked them if anyone in town had ever visited to tell them about Christ. No, they answered. Had anyone ever mentioned the name of Jesus to them? No. What was their chief emotion about living in America?

“We’re so lonely,” they responded. “No one ever talks to us. No one wants to hear our story. No one wants to have a meal with us.”

The immigrants arriving in America these days include people who are very hard to reach with the Gospel in their home countries. Here, they can be reached by crossing the street.

But you have to cross the street. Keep reading

Poll: Misissippi most religious state, Vermont & New Hampshire least

Mississippi, Utah and Alabama are the most religious states and Vermont and New Hampshire the least religious, according to a Gallup survey that asked respondents about their religion and their church attendance.

The survey, released March 27, is based on interviews with 350,000 adults in 2011 as part of Gallup's daily tracking poll. The poll asked respondents if religion is an important part of their daily life, and also asked them if they attend religious services every week or almost every week.

Southern states were the most religious, while the Northeast and Northwest states the least religious. (See the full list at the bottom of this story.) Keep reading

More thoughts about “Why PEARUSA?”

Many of my recent conversations with Anglican clergy and laity continue to center around the question, “Why is PEARUSA a wise choice rather than going directly into the ACNA?” This is a good and genuine question, especially in light of our intention to become a subjurisdiction of ACNA. (We are enthusiastic that God is building united, biblical, mission‐driven Anglicanism in North America. We are thankful for Archbishop Bob Duncan and his team – and we keep them in our regular prayers. We have many friends and ministry partners in ACNA. So why wouldn’t we just join directly?)

The answer centers in the opportunity, desire, and the desirability of contributing a clear, united voice to the conversation ACNA is leading. What does PEARUSA have to say? Keep reading

PEARUSA Update: Petition and Charter for Missionary District Sent to Kigali

From the PEARUSA website:

Please join in prayer March 28-29 as the House of Bishops in Rwanda receives and considers our petition to establish PEARUSA as a Missionary District of Rwanda in North America, with the intention of becoming a subjurisdiction of the Anglican Church of North America.

Here is the actual petition, filed early this week:

Petition to the House of Bishops

of the Anglican Province of Rwanda

Greetings in the Name of the Jesus Christ, our Risen Lord and Savior: Praise the Lord!

We are grateful to God for his grace in the leadership of the Province de L’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda in its indigenous missionary effort in North America. We are committed to participating in this effort and have a renewed sense of call to that end. With this petition we seek to clarify the identity of this effort.

Pursuant to Title 1 Can. 6, Sec 2{b}., we do hereby petition the House of Bishops of the Province of Rwanda for permission to erect and organize a Missionary Jurisdiction, known as Missionary District of the Province de L’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda in North America through the implementation of a charter for ministry to be developed and agreed upon together to complement the Provincial Constitution and Code of Canon Law.

We humbly request that you grant this petition so that the work we are charged to do for the sake of the Gospel may continue to be advanced and the good order of the church insured.

Respectfully yours in Christ,

The Steering Team and Working Group

As noted, a Charter for Ministry was included with the petition. It covered in some detail:
1. Fundamental theological declarations
2. Fundamental mission
3. Ecclesiastical organization and governance
4. Churches, i.e., how to affiliate, how to join as a mission church, etc.
5. Clergy
6. Constituting an inaugural synod.

While it will become increasingly important for churches that consider affiliation with PEARUSA to know the details of the Charter for Ministry, we also want to respect the process. We expect our Rwandan bishops and leaders to adjust aspects of the charter. As that process advances, at the right time we will publish the charter for everyone to read. (Even then, however, we expect it to be a “work in progress” until the Inaugural General Synod, when it will finally be discussed, prayed through, and ratified.)

Frank Lyons appointed Assistant Anglican Bishop of Pittsburgh

The Diocese of Pittsburgh announced today that the Bishop of Bolivia, the Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons has been appointed assistant bishop in the Anglican Church in North America diocese. Keep reading

Related article: Anglican Diocese gets new assistant bishop

Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Anglican Church in North America: Part 6

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Read Part 4 and Part 5.

By Robin G. Jordan

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.

I published the original article in 2010. Two years later nothing has been done to remedy the problems in the ACNA canons identified in this article.

Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Anglican Church in North America: Part 5

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Read Part 4.

By Robin G. Jordan

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.

Inside Church Planting: Who Are the Church Planters? (Part 1)

There are churches in the United States that are hundreds of years old. Many of them have rich traditions and have seen hundreds if not thousands of people come to know Jesus Christ through their ministries. Yet there is a special crop of people – the church planters – who feel called not to preach from pulpits in front of well-established congregations, but to create churches of their own.

I serve as the campus pastor at a small church plant in Barberton, Ohio. My early Christian life was spent in an established, traditional church, leaving me unprepared for the heartaches and joys of being part of a brand new church.

People need Jesus – that's for sure – but how does a person build a congregation from the ground up? Who are these people who are brave enough – and perhaps naïve enough – to go into a town and create a church from scratch? Keep reading

Global Church: A Shift in the Christian Landscape

Each year the International Bulletin of Missionary Research publishes a table of global Christian missions statistics. Seedbed Publishing created the following infographic to represent these statistics. Keep reading

Pastor: Church Leaders Should Be 'Fearful of Our Own Depravity'

An Ohio pastor involved in spreading awareness about child abuse in the U.S. said that the church should be "fearful of our own depravity."

Don Solin, youth pastor for the Next Generation ministry at Fairhaven Church in Dayton, told The Christian Post after a conference call on Tuesday that part of Christianity's response to the problem of child abuse needs to be pastors and clergy recognizing their own potential for depravity.

"All of us who do ministry ought to be fearful of our own depravity," said Solin, who felt that church leaders often run the risk of "[looking] down at other people that are struggling with sin."

"And so if a person in ministry, if a person leading in church thinks they have it all together they better look out…I think as leaders we have to say, 'okay, first of all I am willing to be honest about my own depravity. Outside of Jesus Christ, where would I be?'" Keep reading

Blue Sunday Child Abuse Prevention Initiative

Pro-life 'October Baby' rejected by major studios, blitzes box office

“The Hunger Games” wasn’t the only film to hit box office paydirt this past weekend. Although it only opened in 390 theaters, the anti-abortion drama “October Baby,” starring John Schneider,earned the second-highest-per-screen average, bringing in almost $2 million in ticket sales.

“I was shattered when I first learned about the story. I was moved and mesmerized. I wasn’t an activist, I was just someone who was shattered by the truth,” director Jon Erwin told FOX411’s Pop Tarts. “Here is our little film, small budget, in the top ten (at the box office). We are thrilled, blown away.”

“October Baby” follows the emotional journey of a young woman who learns that she was almost aborted, but at the last minute was instead given up for adoption. The film almost didn’t see the light of day. Keep reading

Atheist shocked when church helps with bills

The man who threatened to sue a Texas county for placing a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn has had a shift in perspective, dropped the lawsuit and now plans to move to the county with his wife and cat.

Patrick Greene, an atheist, said he was shocked when a church began raising money to help battle a detaching retina. Greene previously had fought to have a nativity scene removed from a courthouse lawn. Photo is courtesy of the Athens Daily Review.
Patrick Greene, an atheist cab driver from San Antonio, had said he found the placement of the nativity unconstitutional and intended to use the legal system to force a judge to order its removal -- that is, until he began losing his vision because of a detaching retina.

With surgery on the horizon, no health insurance and a job that he could no longer maintain with his deteriorating eyesight, Greene realized he needed to focus his energies and finances on life's necessities, leading him to withdraw his lawsuit.

When Jessica Crye, a member of Sand Springs Baptist Church in Athens, Texas, found out, she called her pastor, Erick Graham, to see if he had heard the news -- not only about the dropped suit but about Greene's health. Crye asked Graham if their church could help him. Graham's answer was simple.

"Sure we can help him," Graham told her.

Graham said he didn't need to take time to pray about the matter or to mull it over because Christ had already provided an answer.

"We don't need to pray about it," Graham said. "We've already been given the command to do it."

Crye began to organize an effort to send support to the Greenes, and Graham explained to the church that they had an opportunity to show Greene the love of Christ. Keep reading

Australian Bishops agree on sexuality protocol

The annual meeting of Australian bishops has agreed to a set of protocols on human sexuality, which conforms to the landmark 1998 Lambeth resolutions.

Australian bishops, including all Sydney bishops, met in Melbourne this month, several weeks after it was revealed that the Bishop of Gippsland had appointed a male priest living with a partner of the same sex to a ministry position in that diocese. Keep reading

Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Anglican Church in North America: Part 4

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

By Robin G. Jordan

Appeals. Canon IV.5.5-6 are adapted from Sections 6 and 7 of Canon 31 of the Rwandan canons [See end-note]:

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.

End-Note: The 2008 Code of Canon Law of the Anglican Church of Rwanda is largely, if not entirely, the work of Anglican Mission Canon Kevin Francis Donlon who also served on the Common Cause Governance Task Force and was involved in the drafting of the present canons of the Anglican Church in North America. Anglican Mission Chairman Charles "Chuck" Murphy also served on the same task force.