Over the past several years, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) undertook significant work revising our Title IV disciplinary canons. This work was driven by a desire to strengthen the Church’s ability to pursue truth faithfully and to care for those entrusted to us with sensitivity and transparency. With the release of Version 3.1, we continue this work of refinement that characterized this process from the beginning: listening carefully, clarifying language, and strengthening confidence in how the Church seeks justice.
When we introduced Version 3.0 in early February, much of the attention rightly focused on improvements to the investigative process. Bishops and clergy have long expressed concern that investigations were sometimes unclear in scope, insufficiently transparent, or difficult to trust. Reporting parties likewise have expressed a need for assurance that their concerns would be received with seriousness and pastoral care. These recent revisions address both.
Under these latest revisions to our disciplinary canons, investigations are more structured and more open. Both the accused and reporting parties are to be informed about the scope of the inquiry. If a matter proceeds to a tribunal, the tribunal will receive the complete investigative file, including material that may be exculpatory, so that discernment isn’t shaped by partial summaries. Presentments must articulate clearly what has and has not met a prima facie threshold. In short, Version 3.0 moved us away from partial inquiry processes and toward a clearer, more accountable, fully inquiry-based model of truth-seeking.
At the same time, the Church must always speak carefully. The Governance Task Force (GTF) included the phrase “trauma informed training” in Version 3.0 in an effort to describe the kind of attentiveness needed when interviewing those who may have experienced abuse. While our intent was pastoral and practical, some readers understood that phrase as importing broader secular frameworks that the GTF never intended to endorse.
That concern was heard.
In Version 3.1, we removed the phrase entirely. In its place, we specified more concretely what we meant to communicate. The canons now call for the Regional Investigation Committee to include individuals, such as experienced human resources practitioners, who possess interviewing skills that do not re-traumatize those who have suffered abuse. Additionally, a new paragraph outlines the sensitivities necessary for conducting interviews appropriately. This adjustment doesn’t dilute our commitment to careful pastoral practice. Rather, it clarifies it.
The Church doesn’t need fashionable terminology to know that interviews can either illuminate truth or unintentionally cause harm. Scripture itself teaches us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, to speak truthfully, and to shepherd tenderly. In disciplinary matters, especially those involving allegations of sexual misconduct, interview techniques matter. The way questions are asked, the way testimony is received, and the way participation is structured can significantly affect both reporting parties and the accused. Our aim was never to privilege one side of a complaint over another. Rather, it was to ensure that truth can be sought in a way that doesn’t compound harm for anyone involved.
Version 3.1 continues to reflect the dual commitment that guided this process from the beginning: meaningful protection for reporting parties and robust safeguards for the accused. Transparency in investigation protects the accused from rumor and partial disclosure. Clear opportunities to be heard protect reporting parties from being sidelined. Full disclosure of investigative materials to a tribunal strengthens confidence that judgments are made in the light. This is not a move toward an adversarial system; in fact, it’s the opposite. The revisions continue to favor an inquiry model rather than attorney-driven combat. The goal isn’t victory but truth. A Church that seeks truth patiently, thoroughly, and transparently bears a more credible witness than one appearing defensive or opaque.
The development from Version 2.0 to 3.0, and now to 3.1, reflects a province that is willing to learn. Bishops asked that investigations be clearer and fairer. Practitioners urged greater sensitivity in how interviews are conducted. Readers raised concerns about language that could be misunderstood. Each of those voices shaped what now stands before us. The extension of the comment period through March 20 is part of that same spirit. We aren’t rushing this work. These canons are detailed and interconnected. They deserve careful reading and prayerful engagement. The GTF will continue meeting with key stakeholders as we move toward a final version, which will advance to Provincial Council without amendment from the floor (due, in part, to the integrated nature of these lengthy revisions).
Discipline in the church is never a comfortable subject, but a mature church doesn’t avoid it. It undertakes it with sobriety, humility, and trust in the Lord, the One who searches hearts. Our prayer throughout this process is simple: that we might seek the truth in ways that do no further harm, and that our procedures would reflect both justice and charity. Version 3.1 is another step in that direction.
I encourage every bishop, priest, deacon, and lay leader to read the revised draft carefully, to compare it with prior versions if helpful, and to offer thoughtful comment (you can find these drafts at the link below). The strength of this work depends on the prayerful participation of the whole church. Above all, we ask your continued prayers for wisdom, clarity, and unity as we undertake this important labor together.
The Rev. Canon Andrew Rowell serves as Chair of the ACNA Governance Task Force, where he has helped lead significant efforts to strengthen and clarify the Province’s canonical structures, including ongoing revisions to Title IV.
