These are unsurprisingly excellent (I’m fascinated by how different ACNA polity is from TEC’s). I recognize that the audience for this might be small, but if you’d ever do a TEC/ACC polity compare-and-contrast I know that I would find it inordinately helpful.
Well done! Great research. I appreciate your diligence. You might take a look at my primer for the ACNA called "The Rector, the Vestry, and the Bishop." I have a few chapters dedicated to the Five Roles of the Rector, the Vestry, and the Bishop.
Would the same rules apply when new dioceses are formed or existing ones are merged together? And thank you. I knew some of this but not the whole picture about how bishops are elected.
In TEC, there are a few ways to get a new diocese. Article V of the Constitution says:
"A new Diocese may be formed, with the consent of the General Convention and under such conditions as the General Convention shall prescribe by General Canon or Canons, (1) by the division of an existing Diocese; (2) by the junction of two or more Dioceses or of parts of two or more Dioceses; or (3) by the erection into a Diocese of an unorganized area evangelized as provided in Article VI."
In the case of division, the existing diocesan decides which new diocese to go with, and the other new diocese(s) can then elect their own bishop. In the case of merging multiple entire dioceses into one, or parts of dioceses reorganizing themselves into one, all the relevant bishops are entitled to a choice of where to go, by order of seniority (by consecration date). For example, if half of Diocese A and half of Diocese B come together to make Diocese C, and Dioceses A and B otherwise remain, the senior between Bishop A and Bishop B will decide first whether to go be the bishop of Diocese C or stay on in Diocese A or B respectively; whoever is left bishopless after the choice elects their own new bishop. In the case of entirely new, missionary dioceses where no one has ever been before, there can't really be anyone in the nonexistent diocese to do the electing, so the House of Bishops may elect or appoint a first missionary bishop (Article VI), but as soon as there is a diocesan convention on the ground, they have the right to elect their own bishop too.
In ACNA, dioceses are not (necessarily) geographic, so the concepts are a little different and more fluid -- the need to become your own diocese rather than transfer into another diocese, which need not be next door, is somewhat of a different question. The Appendix in ACNA's C&C says, describing forming new dioceses:
"All groupings are to be united by a bishop (Article IV) except those “In Formation,” which may be led by a Vicar General at the discretion of the Archbishop (Canon I.5.6). The College of Bishops has authority in the election of bishops as set out in Article X.5. Canon I.5.5 states that the application shall contain the name of the recommended nominee or nominees for Bishop. In the case of a newly formed originating body, Canon III.8.4.3 states that that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates. In the case of a single nominee the College may grant consent for his consecration, or in the case of multiple nominees the College may choose one and grant consent for his consecration (Article X)."
So at the time of creation of a new diocese from scratch (which is distinct from the TEC Missionary Diocese case which implies geographical non-presence of TEC already in the area -- a new ACNA diocese could be formed on top of several others in the same area), the recommended path is to let the College of Bishops choose the bishop of the new diocese. There are no details or requirements that the nominee or nominees be elected in this from-scratch case or in the case of one diocese spinning off from another.
Thank you. Really good and detailed info. Two TEC dioceses in Wisconsin might now be in the process of merging together. The ACNA process seems to provide a lot of flexibility for forming new dioceses.
These are unsurprisingly excellent (I’m fascinated by how different ACNA polity is from TEC’s). I recognize that the audience for this might be small, but if you’d ever do a TEC/ACC polity compare-and-contrast I know that I would find it inordinately helpful.
Thanks Ben! You're actually not the first person to ask -- we'll see!
Well done! Great research. I appreciate your diligence. You might take a look at my primer for the ACNA called "The Rector, the Vestry, and the Bishop." I have a few chapters dedicated to the Five Roles of the Rector, the Vestry, and the Bishop.
Would the same rules apply when new dioceses are formed or existing ones are merged together? And thank you. I knew some of this but not the whole picture about how bishops are elected.
Good question!
In TEC, there are a few ways to get a new diocese. Article V of the Constitution says:
"A new Diocese may be formed, with the consent of the General Convention and under such conditions as the General Convention shall prescribe by General Canon or Canons, (1) by the division of an existing Diocese; (2) by the junction of two or more Dioceses or of parts of two or more Dioceses; or (3) by the erection into a Diocese of an unorganized area evangelized as provided in Article VI."
In the case of division, the existing diocesan decides which new diocese to go with, and the other new diocese(s) can then elect their own bishop. In the case of merging multiple entire dioceses into one, or parts of dioceses reorganizing themselves into one, all the relevant bishops are entitled to a choice of where to go, by order of seniority (by consecration date). For example, if half of Diocese A and half of Diocese B come together to make Diocese C, and Dioceses A and B otherwise remain, the senior between Bishop A and Bishop B will decide first whether to go be the bishop of Diocese C or stay on in Diocese A or B respectively; whoever is left bishopless after the choice elects their own new bishop. In the case of entirely new, missionary dioceses where no one has ever been before, there can't really be anyone in the nonexistent diocese to do the electing, so the House of Bishops may elect or appoint a first missionary bishop (Article VI), but as soon as there is a diocesan convention on the ground, they have the right to elect their own bishop too.
In ACNA, dioceses are not (necessarily) geographic, so the concepts are a little different and more fluid -- the need to become your own diocese rather than transfer into another diocese, which need not be next door, is somewhat of a different question. The Appendix in ACNA's C&C says, describing forming new dioceses:
"All groupings are to be united by a bishop (Article IV) except those “In Formation,” which may be led by a Vicar General at the discretion of the Archbishop (Canon I.5.6). The College of Bishops has authority in the election of bishops as set out in Article X.5. Canon I.5.5 states that the application shall contain the name of the recommended nominee or nominees for Bishop. In the case of a newly formed originating body, Canon III.8.4.3 states that that body shall normally nominate two or three candidates. In the case of a single nominee the College may grant consent for his consecration, or in the case of multiple nominees the College may choose one and grant consent for his consecration (Article X)."
So at the time of creation of a new diocese from scratch (which is distinct from the TEC Missionary Diocese case which implies geographical non-presence of TEC already in the area -- a new ACNA diocese could be formed on top of several others in the same area), the recommended path is to let the College of Bishops choose the bishop of the new diocese. There are no details or requirements that the nominee or nominees be elected in this from-scratch case or in the case of one diocese spinning off from another.
Thank you. Really good and detailed info. Two TEC dioceses in Wisconsin might now be in the process of merging together. The ACNA process seems to provide a lot of flexibility for forming new dioceses.