ELECTION OF BISHOPS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23006, 8 October 1936, Page 11

ELECTION OF BISHOPS

NEW SYSTEM SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION BY SYNOD Consideration was given by the session of the Anglican Synod last night to a proposal submitted by General Synod for an amendment to the constitution and an amendment to Canon I, Title A, passed by General Synod in 1934. The proposed alteration was; in effect, a drastic change in the system of electing bishops in New Zealand. The matter was referred to the last meeting of the Diocesan Synod, which set up a commission to consider the proposal. The commission's finding, which was placed before Synod last night, took the form of the following resolution:— " That the Diocesan Synod is opposed to the proposed amendment to clause 23 of the Constitution, as it takes away the synod's right to nominate a bishop. "That synod is not in agreement with the terms of the proposed amendment to Title A, Canon I, in its present form, though it would welcome some provision for advice to the electing synod with regard to the names submitted to it. This advice could be given by a Procedure Committee elected by the Diocesan Synod or by an external Provincial Committee appointed by the Bench of Bishops or by both such committees." PROPOSAL OUTLINED Explaining the position, the Rev. W. A. Curzon-Siggers said that in General Synod in 1934 it appeared to be thought wise for some new methods to be devised by which the election of bishops should be put on a better footing than in the past. The matter was passed in the form of a proposed amendment to the canon, and was referred to each Diocesan Synod. At the last meeting of the synod of the Dunedin Diocese a commission was set up and its report was now before the meeting. Outlining the proposed canon, the speaker said that it aimed to set up a committee of the Diocesan Synod and a Provincial Committee to select a bishop in the future and submit the name or names to the bishops for final choice.

The provisions briefly were as follows:

An Electoral College would be appointed by each Diocesan Synod each year, which would consist of six to 10 clergy and an equal number of laity. Failing election by the synod the Standing Committee would elect. The synod would also elect a supplementary body of three clergy and three laity to act in rotation in place ot any of the original body unable to act. A provincial advisory council would also be appointed by General Synod at each three-yearly meeting, and would consist of the archbishop, two other diocesan bishops, two priests of the province, and two communicant laymen. When the election was- to take place the council would meet in the city of the appropriate college, and the Diocesan College would select one to three names in order of preference. The college would met the council and give it the names and any other information it desired. The college would confer with the council, and then meet privately, power being given for them to confer further if necessary.

The council would then approve the selection or order of preference, or recomend alterations, or refuse any name. The college could then select fresh names, or proceed with the nomination of those refused. If the council could not agree, the college could proceed with the nomination of those selected, but any fresh names would have to be submitted to the council. If the college could not finally decide on names the vicar-general or commissary would be informed, and he would summon the Diocesan Synod to give fresh instructions to the college, which would then act with the council as before.

If instructed by the synod, the college could delegate its powers of choice either absolutely, or as it thought fit, to any persons. Delegation and names of those appointed would be submitted to the council, and it would have the same powers over the choice as other nominations. If the delegates were approved the college could select without further reference to the council. As soon as the selection of names was completed the vicar-general or commissary would advise the name or names to the primate or senior bishop, and he would inform all the diocesan bishops then in New Zealand. These, by a majority, would confirm or refuse the nominations. The primate would then advise 'the persons selected in order of preference until the offer was accepted. If there were no acceptance by the bishops or nominees, the Diocesan College and the council would proceed de novo. When an offer was accepted the nominee's assent to the constitution would be obtained and sent to all bishops. All proceedings would be confidential, and only the name of the accepted person would be made known.

Diocesan synods could, until canon 23 was duly amended, adopt that procedure, but the nomination would then have to be sanctioned by General Synod or the Diocesan Standing Committees in addition to the bishops as prescribed.

"A COMPLICATED AMENDMENT" "The whole proposal would have the effect of taking the actual cleci tion away from the Dioceson Synods," ) continued Archdeacon Curzon-Siggers, " and the commission's report is practically a counter proposal to that made !by General Synod. The question is: : How far are we to object to the present ' method, or how far should we accept I General Synod's proposal? " I The amendment to the canon pro- : posed a very complicated and probably costly system, while the present system was very haphazard and difficult, and often led to awkward situations in the electing synod. i Discussion on the report was taken in committee, when on the motion of Dean Cruickshank the second portion of the resolution was amended to read: j —" This advice could be given by an i advisory board, consisting of bishops I of the province, not fewer than three ! in number, who would have advisory but not voting power." | The resolution in this form was ! carried.