THE OVERHAUL OF TITLE IV DISCIPLINARY CANONS

The Title IV disciplinary canons will finally come before Provincial Council for a vote, and we urge Council and Assembly delegates to vote in favor of these needed changes. These revisions represent three years of internal work and a fruitful year of robust public comment from every corner of the province. Through it all, the GTF has labored to create a more fair, just, transparent, and equitable system of discipline than the sparse and confusing canons currently in place.

As many of you have likely heard me share in a variety of public forums, the inadequacies of our current Title IV canons are clear to see. Four examples among many include: 

1. a commitment to minimalism that has left fundamental aspects of the disciplinary process (such as the basic aspects of an investigation) woefully undescribed; 
2. an over-reliance on litigation patterns that are more appropriate to U.S. civil and criminal litigation than to canon law, leading to delay and excess expense; 
3. poorly designed on- and off-ramps for reports of misconduct, such as the “cart-before-the-horse” problem of requiring the drafting of a presentment (a formal charging document) before any official investigation has taken place; and, 
4. a reliance on “one and done” disciplinary bodies (such as Boards of Inquiry) that, due to their ad-hoc nature, fail to gain expertise over time. A graphic describing the sparse and confusing nature of our current Title IV can be seen here.

Our proposed revision to Title IV, together with numerous supporting documents, can be found here, and a graphical representation here. These revisions seek to provide clarity at every point in the disciplinary process. The presence of Reports Administrators will now make reporting alleged misconduct clear and uncomplicated. A clear set of “off ramps” encourage mediation and reconciliation where appropriate. Matters that cannot be so resolved will be thoroughly investigated by a standing investigation body. This body will be staffed with individuals possessing the skills to efficiently and fairly evaluate a report. If that investigation body determines that a valid case exists, it will issue a formal presentment. Disciplinary Tribunals will work in three-judge panels to hear such presentments and are granted the authority to create efficient, fair, and transparent hearings. While “proctors” for the accused and the prosecution will engage in an adversarial debate over the presentment – with evidence and witnesses and cross examination – the tribunal will actively engage in an “inquiry,” setting the parameters of what they need to know to determine whether discipline is merited.

Some may be aware that further amendments to the revised Title IV have been proposed since the release of the final version for Provincial Council consideration. Some of these suggestions include:

1. affording a bishop the right to provide pastoral care during a disciplinary matter in his diocese, rather than being immediately barred from so doing because of inherent conflicts-of-interest and
2. providing a canonical assistant to an accused member of the clergy. 

The GTF has declined to accept either of these “friendly amendments” at this time, considering a final version must be put up for vote at Council. However, future changes will be both considered and made, and the GTF will put these requests at the top of our work as we make further iterative changes going forward. (Note, however, that the first requested amendment is already provided for in revised Title IV – under its terms a bishop may recuse himself from his disciplinary duties. If he does so, he can provide pastoral care without a clear conflict of interest. In addition, the second requested amendment can be done as a matter of practice until possible formal changes to the text can be made in the next cycle of changes.) Our revised Title IV is not perfect – but we should not let the pursuit of the perfect be the enemy of the good today.

THE ROLE OF THE PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION AND CANONS COMMITTEE

A canonical amendment approved by Provincial Council 2024, for ratification at this year’s Assembly, recently raised some eyebrows and perhaps needs some clarification. This approved but not-yet-ratified canon, a visualization of which can be found here, renames the GTF the Provincial Constitution and Canons Committee (the “PCCC”). It formalizes and makes transparent the way the GTF worked over the course of the ACNA’s seventeen-year existence to amend our canons in a conciliar and orderly way. The GTF has always adhered to the principle that what touches all should be decided by all, and, each year, considers suggested changes from a wide variety of stakeholders in the province. After some initial drafting, proposed language is taken to the College of Bishops, not for their possible veto, as some seem to suspect, but so that our bishops, charged with the faith and order of the province, can share their crucial perspectives. The amendments then go before the Executive Committee (representing the Provincial Council in between in-person Council meetings) for their perspective. The amendments then go to the entire province for comment and revision, and then, finally, directly to Provincial Council delegates for comment and revision. Thus, by the time a proposed canonical revision arrives at the floor of Council, it has been subject to numerous rounds of comment and review, and the entire process has been as transparent as reasonably possible. While some floor debate has gone on in recent Provincial Councils over specific language, the goal of this lengthy process is to allow exact wording to be worked on in a conciliar, transparent process in the months leading up to an in-person Council meeting. Appointments to and removals from the PCCC, which previously were only the prerogative of the Archbishop, will now be shared by the Archbishop and the Executive Committee which, again, represents the Provincial Council.

Recent bloggers have suggested that this process somehow “robs” Provincial Council of its legislative power. I would respectfully and strongly disagree. In all events, the only body that can approve a canonical change is Council and the only body that can ratify it is Assembly. Under the system we have used for years and now make more transparent through canon, members of the Provincial Council have multiple opportunities to voice concerns and suggest language in the annual year-long amendment process. And while “wordsmithing from the floor” is generally discouraged, it is only because the ACNA does not wish to devolve to the endless legislative wrangling that often characterize the General Conventions of the Episcopal Church. From its inception, the ACNA intended for Council and Assembly to focus on mission and ministry rather than being mired in endless business meetings. (It should also be noted that our canons do allow for ten delegates to come together to present an agenda item, which could be a canonical change, meaning that the GTF is not the only way canonical changes can happen. And again, in extraordinary situations, wordsmithing has occurred from the floor, but it is our hope that we will not become what we left, with pet legislation presented by every diocesan delegation.) The GTF has strived and will continue to strive to act in a transparent manner, with a willingness to listen to voices from the entire Province. We believe that the final version of Title IV is evidence of just that, as hundreds of comments were considered, transparently evaluated, and, more often than not, have produced a better set of canons for vote next week. We ask Assembly to vote in favor of the ratification of this canonical change on June 25.

AMENDMENTS ON PROVINCIAL LEADERSHIP

A new canonical amendment deals with the canonical crises in which we currently find ourselves with regard to provincial leadership. When Archbishop Steve Wood took a voluntary leave of absence (prior to his later inhibition), then Dean of the Province, Bp. Ray Sutton assumed his duties. Our canons, however, did not provide for the naming of a new “second chair” for provincial leadership. Subsequently, when Bp. Sutton stepped down as Dean on November 15, 2025, he appointed, on that same day, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word, Julian Dobbs, as his replacement. The ACNA College of Bishops unanimously affirmed that decision that same day. On January 16, 2026, the Executive Committee passed a resolution recognizing Bp. Dobbs as Interim Ecclesiastical Authority. While we are thankful for Bp. Dobbs’ able leadership over these last months, we must also acknowledge that our canons need urgent amendment to ratify these actions taken to shore up provincial leadership. Moreover, it is incumbent on us to provide for potential transfers of power in the future.

The issue at hand, however, is that these canons did not receive the usual “wheel of provincial review” because of their emergency nature. Thus, in order to provide for a more normal period of transparent review, we have a built-in “sunset provision” that provides that these canons will become null and void in one year’s time unless made permanent by Provincial Council 2027. This will give us all a chance to evaluate this language over a longer period as the usual year long, province-wide review process makes possible. We urge Council and Assembly to vote in favor of this change.

THE RELEASE OF THE RUCH TRIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS

An agenda item sponsored by the Diocese of South Carolina requests the Provincial Council to ask the Trial Court in the matter of Bp. Stewart Ruch to release a transcript of the trial which concluded on December 16, 2025. It is beyond the scope of my role to speak to how Council delegates should vote in this matter. While under the revised Title IV hearings of presentments will generally be public, it is possible that testimony was given to the Ruch Court under the presumption that the trial proceedings would remain confidential, which further complicates such a requested release.

THE THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF THE RUCH TRIAL INVESTIGATION

Finally, an agenda item, again sponsored by the Diocese of South Carolina, requests the release of the third-party review regarding how the Beach and Wood administrations and the Ruch Court handled the complex matters surrounding the lengthy investigation and trial of Bp. Ruch. Again, it is beyond the scope of my role to suggest how delegates should vote in this matter. I will note, however, that the Executive Committee has signaled that it intends to strive for transparency in this matter.

Please pray for those gathering in Tulsa for Provincial Council 2026 and virtually for Assembly on June 25, that God’s will would be done and that we would work together for the sake of the ACNA. On behalf of the GTF, thank you for your earnest participation in our attempts to create canon law in a conciliar fashion. On behalf of the American Anglican Council, thank you to those who support this ministry with your prayers and resources. The thousands of hours spent managing these canonical changes could not happen without both. May all that we do bring glory to our gracious and mighty God.

The Rev. Canon Andrew Rowell is the Director of the AAC’s Anglican Governance Ministries and the Chair of the ACNA Governance Taskforce. To find out more about Anglican Governance Ministries, you can visit www.americananglican.org/anglican-governance-ministries.