Many of those in ACNA leadership have a fondness for seeing others as adversaries when criticism arises. The defensiveness prevents sober reflection, amendment, and reconciliation.
I appreciate the comparison of the church disciplinary to that of a professional licensing board. If one has not acted in accordance with the standards required by the profession, consequences are most appropriate.
I want to praise the coherence of the majority and the dissent on all the important points this piece outlines about the nature of ecclesial discipline. It means they are speaking the same foundational language and are reasonably disagreeing on a fine (though important) legal point.
And I want to get out my megaphone and shout another point that the majority and the dissent agree on here -- first in the words of the dissent:
> Not only are Hearing Panels not made up of lawyers, there is as far as we can see no training available for Hearing Panels. Title IV training as conducted by dioceses and provinces mostly seems to focus on the early stages of the process, including intake and referral. Hearing Panels have detailed and complex procedural responsibilities, and it is unrealistic to expect them to succeed without focused and timely training. We urge The Episcopal Church to remedy this lack as a matter of urgency.
And in the words of the majority:
> Though our dissenting colleagues reach a different result, they agree that the hearing panel made serious errors in conducting the hearing. We specifically agree with footnote four of the dissent, which calls for training of hearing panels, and we join them in urging The Episcopal Church to take prompt steps to meet that need.
Thank you for your comment, Arlie. The challenge of training the members of an ecclesial court is magnified by two ambiguities in the canonical systems we inhabit:
Do we train them as judges or jurors or both? Some or all?
Who trains them? This is particularly challenging in ACNA where the official line is that the courts are independent entities that administer themselves. This is not true, canonically speaking, but it complicates the issue of the province or a diocese taking responsibility for the training function.
The second question has to be reached first and I agree that the official ACNA line admits no easy answer. (Not just who, but all other elements before content/interpretation -- how, when, by what authority?)
TEC's view of TEC polity, for whatever else one might say about it, can answer the second question and move within that authority to handle the first. General Convention which giveth and taketh away can most certainly act to regulate training (and pretty much anything else). It could, if it wished, draw up a comprehensive curriculum and even impose it on the dioceses. The only thing that has blocked this from happening is not a limit on authority but a practical recognition that diocesan particulars on the ground are always going to resist exact uniformity. That said, we could benefit from *much* more than currently exists. I totally agree with the assertion that most diocesan trainings focus on intake (and, I add, not always well -- to say nothing about recent bishop-level administrative fiascos).
TEC realized Title IV was confusing as heck and in 2015, GC directed the creation of an informational website (https://www.titleiv.org/). This website gets constantly pilloried because it's probably not any easier to understand than the canons, and I would totally do it differently, but as a first-of-its-kind thing it is interesting. It shows GC understands itself to be able to publicly interpret Title IV for educational purposes (and while the web content hasn't been binding for the courts, the courts aren't binding on GC or other courts).
Many of those in ACNA leadership have a fondness for seeing others as adversaries when criticism arises. The defensiveness prevents sober reflection, amendment, and reconciliation.
I appreciate the comparison of the church disciplinary to that of a professional licensing board. If one has not acted in accordance with the standards required by the profession, consequences are most appropriate.
I want to praise the coherence of the majority and the dissent on all the important points this piece outlines about the nature of ecclesial discipline. It means they are speaking the same foundational language and are reasonably disagreeing on a fine (though important) legal point.
And I want to get out my megaphone and shout another point that the majority and the dissent agree on here -- first in the words of the dissent:
> Not only are Hearing Panels not made up of lawyers, there is as far as we can see no training available for Hearing Panels. Title IV training as conducted by dioceses and provinces mostly seems to focus on the early stages of the process, including intake and referral. Hearing Panels have detailed and complex procedural responsibilities, and it is unrealistic to expect them to succeed without focused and timely training. We urge The Episcopal Church to remedy this lack as a matter of urgency.
And in the words of the majority:
> Though our dissenting colleagues reach a different result, they agree that the hearing panel made serious errors in conducting the hearing. We specifically agree with footnote four of the dissent, which calls for training of hearing panels, and we join them in urging The Episcopal Church to take prompt steps to meet that need.
Thank you for your comment, Arlie. The challenge of training the members of an ecclesial court is magnified by two ambiguities in the canonical systems we inhabit:
Do we train them as judges or jurors or both? Some or all?
Who trains them? This is particularly challenging in ACNA where the official line is that the courts are independent entities that administer themselves. This is not true, canonically speaking, but it complicates the issue of the province or a diocese taking responsibility for the training function.
The second question has to be reached first and I agree that the official ACNA line admits no easy answer. (Not just who, but all other elements before content/interpretation -- how, when, by what authority?)
TEC's view of TEC polity, for whatever else one might say about it, can answer the second question and move within that authority to handle the first. General Convention which giveth and taketh away can most certainly act to regulate training (and pretty much anything else). It could, if it wished, draw up a comprehensive curriculum and even impose it on the dioceses. The only thing that has blocked this from happening is not a limit on authority but a practical recognition that diocesan particulars on the ground are always going to resist exact uniformity. That said, we could benefit from *much* more than currently exists. I totally agree with the assertion that most diocesan trainings focus on intake (and, I add, not always well -- to say nothing about recent bishop-level administrative fiascos).
TEC realized Title IV was confusing as heck and in 2015, GC directed the creation of an informational website (https://www.titleiv.org/). This website gets constantly pilloried because it's probably not any easier to understand than the canons, and I would totally do it differently, but as a first-of-its-kind thing it is interesting. It shows GC understands itself to be able to publicly interpret Title IV for educational purposes (and while the web content hasn't been binding for the courts, the courts aren't binding on GC or other courts).
Interestingly, the website section that walks through what hearing panels should do (https://www.titleiv.org/title-iv-structure-and-procedures) saith that panel members "act as judges," and elsewhere (https://www.titleiv.org/general-education-and-best-practices/trainers) the site has a lot to say *about* training norms. In my opinion we need to run right up that open lane and produce the actual, more cohesive teaching material, especially since we can. Here endeth the meandering.