One of the first things you notice about the proposed Title IV revision is its length.

It has grown—a lot.

What was once a relatively brief set of canons—about eleven pages—has expanded into something closer to fifty. For Anglicans, that alone can raise an eyebrow. We value restraint. We prefer simplicity. And we all know what length means: complexity.

We should rightly worry about the Church drifting into legalism or losing a pastoral center.

So it’s fair to ask the question plainly: Why did Title IV need to get so much longer?

Canon Andrew Rowell, who is leading the Governance Task Force overseeing this work, addressed that question directly in a letter to the Province on December 2. (Sent by email from the AAC.) He began not with legal theory, but with an honest acknowledgment of where we are:

“In recent months, many across the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) have felt the strain of a difficult season. Questions around our disciplinary processes have surfaced with new urgency, and it has become clear that our structures must serve the Church with greater clarity, care, and integrity.”

This quote identifies the strain and worry that many of us experience without dramatizing them. It recognizes that what we are dealing with is not abstract policy, but the lived life of the Church.

Rowell goes on to make an important observation—one that can be easy to miss amid controversy:

“Yet even amid these challenges there are genuine signs of maturity taking root in our province. One of the most encouraging of these is the ongoing work to revise Title IV, the canons that guide how we respond when concerns about clergy behavior arise.”

That word—maturity—is doing real work here. The revision of Title IV should not be a panicked response. It is important and we all feel the need for something to change. But this process should not feel like an attempt to paper over failure. It is the Church learning, slowly and sometimes painfully, what clarity actually requires.

One of the strongest signs of this maturity has been the level of engagement across the Province. As Rowell notes:

“This work has been shaped not only by legal analysis and canonical study, but by the thoughtful feedback of clergy and laypeople throughout the ACNA… That level of engagement alone is a sign of growing health. It demonstrates a shared desire to strengthen the Church’s accountability structures in a way that reflects both truth and grace.”

This has been true of my quick announcement on The Anglican a few days after Christmas. I have shared the time and date of our meeting and so far, over 125 people have registered! I had to purchase additional seats on my Zoom account. That’s a good sign

Importantly, Canon Rowell reports that the feedback received did not challenge the heart of the revision. Instead, it affirmed its direction:

“The feedback received was overwhelmingly positive. Importantly, no one questioned the heart of the proposed revision, which rests on three major shifts.”

The Length of the Revised Canons

The first of those shifts gets right to the question of length:

“The first is a move from minimal canons to a more complete and carefully structured process. While this means Title IV will grow in length, it also ensures that everyone involved… can understand what is expected at each stage. Clear steps reduce confusion, limit unnecessary delays, and protect the integrity of the process.”

This is the key point. Brevity did not equate to clarity.

In our meeting, Andrew reviewed several cases we have encountered over the past years. He said that when core aspects of a disciplinary process were left unspecified, decisions were made on the fly.

Expectations varied.
Delays crept in.
Anxiety rose.
And eventually, the vacuum was filled by lawyers and legal processes.

The second shift addresses a problem many have sensed but not always named:

“The second shift is away from “one-and-done” investigative bodies and unclear sequencing. Under the proposed revision, disciplinary concerns will follow a more orderly path: the receipt and evaluation of a report; investigation, if needed, by a standing committee dedicated to that work; and then, when warranted, inquiry by a tribunal that can assess the facts and determine an appropriate outcome.”

In other words, instead of ad hoc panels assembled under pressure, the revised canons establish a more orderly path—standing bodies, clear stages, and continuity over time. That is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is how wisdom accumulates. It is how fairness becomes more than a slogan.

And then there is a third shift, which may be the most misunderstood—and the most hopeful:

“The third shift is toward an inquiry-based model of truth-seeking rather than an adversarial system… the focus of the process is no longer on legal strategy but on finding the truth in a way that prioritizes transparency, fairness, and the well-being of all involved.”

This deserves careful attention. The goal here is not to win cases, but to tell the truth. Attorneys still have a role, but they no longer drive the process. The Church does.

Read it all in The Anglican