The Archbishop of the Province of West Africa of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Dr. Justice Akrofi has nullified the results of the Special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Liberia held November 17, 2007 convened at the Epiphany Chapel – Cuttington University Suakoko campus, Bong County at which time the Very Rev. Jonathan B.B. Hart was elected Bishop’s Co-Adjutor.
In a letter addressed to the Acting Chancellor of the Diocese, Cllr. Elizabeth Nelson, copy of which was circulated to the parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Liberia, Dr. Akrofi said his offices have nullified the result of the election because none of the contestants received 2/3 or 60% of the votes cast as the Canon laws of the church provided.
Article 2:2:2 of the Canons states among other things that to be declared winner to the office of a diocesan bishop, the candidate must receive 2/3 of the total votes cast in a given election.
As supporting document to his claims, Archbishop Akrofi cited the nullification of two separate election results in the Province both by the late Archbishop George D. Browne, of Liberia when he headed the Province; and Archbishop Robert Okaine of Koforidua, Ghana, when he also lead the Province as archbishop.
[blockquote]Also commenting on the issue in a rather frustrated mood, an official of Diocesan Council (name withheld) contended that Liberia will pull out of the Province if it (Province) insists on nullifying the results of the election.
In another development, a laity who also begged for anonymity wondered to whether the Convention or the Canon, which comes first. He however said: “It is about time that Liberia rethinks its relationship with the Province,” noting, “We do not benefit anything from the Province, rather, it is the Province that benefits from us.”
He said it would even be better if the Episcopal Church of Liberia goes back to ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the United States of America) noting: “Although we pulled out of ECUSA, that group is still supporting our diocese.” [/blockquote]
Wouldn’t that be interesting? TEC’s official position is that a diocese cannot withdraw from a province without permission. If GC accepted Liberia back, without the consent of West Africa, what would that say about 815’s case against SJ, Pittsbugh, and Ft. Worth? It would be a legal precedent and a public relations faux pas. Given what happened in South Carolina, where the letter of the canons was applied so strictly (just as West Africa is trying to do with Liberia), it would be very difficult for TEC to support Liberia’s case. I suspect Beers and Schori will give Liberia the cold shoulder, for just that reason. But then they risk looking unsympathetic to a friendly African diocese.
Ultimately, Liberia’s history (and that of other overseas dioceses that have joined other provinces – for this I’m thinking of the Province of Central America) proves that there is precedent for a TEC diocese to withdraw to another province. Normally GC would have to approve. But we’ll see what the courts say.
#1 My lawerly mind has been mulling over the points you raise since I read this news.
Prayers for Liberia, nation, church, and especially its people.
Peace,
Update: It appears that Liberia, like South Carolina, [url=http://allafrica.com/stories/200712051037.html]will opt for the instant replay[/url] of its election. A new ballot has been set for December 28. This time, they will presumably know to have an election by acclamation if there is only one candidate remaining, rather than simply announcing a result after the only other candidate withdraws.
One potential problem is that the current Bishop of Liberia retires on December 17, and the Archbishop is asserting the right to name his own man as Vicar General to preside over the election, rather than following the canons and recognizing the President of the diocesan Standing Committee. We shall see whether a free election is actually allowed to occur.
Re #1: Actually, TEC’s position is that a diocese cannot withdraw from [b]it’s[/b] province without permission (which has never been withheld, as far as I know, for a non-US diocese seeking to leave to form or join another province–see, e.g., Liberia, Mexico, Brazil, much of Latin America, the Philippines, and Japan). I doubt TEC has any position as to the possibility of a diocese withdrawing from the Province of West Africa, which is governed by its own constitution and canons (at least on the occasions that anybody is obeying them).
Before 1979, the province included sixteen dioceses in Nigeria, which withdrew with the consent of the remaining five West African dioceses and the Anglican Consultative Council. The tendency in Africa since the end of the colonial era has been for regional Anglican provinces to break up into national churches. Again, I don’t know of any case in which any of the Instruments of Communion or any of the other Communion member churches refused to recognize a national decision to choose one province over another.
We shall probably see, as a rather similar situation seems to be playing out between the Province of Central Africa and the dioceses in Zimbabwe (although that situation is essentially political and complicated by the Bishop of Harare’s efforts to destabilize the Anglican Church in Botswana). If you don’t regularly read the [url=http://allafrica.com/religion/]religion news[/url] on AllAfrica.com, you should… it is sometimes better than a soap opera.
As for the question of legal precedent, I seriously doubt that any Liberian court would have enforced a foreign ecclesiastical decision against a local national church body. Whether it did or not, that would have exactly zero precedential value in the North American courts.
Isn’t anybody else bothered by the notion that Anglicans should “see what the courts say” about how to interpret their own constitution and canons?
Dale, I appreciate your comments. It should bother you, it should bother us all. I am simply being a pragmatist (and frankly a pessimist). If SJ or FW or any diocese tries to leave without permission, 815 will sue. Everything they have done so far, everything Schori has said so far, leads to that conclusion. Everything the dissenting dioceses have done, and everything their bishops have said, leads to the conclusion that they’ll fight any suit. This will end up in court one way or the other. When I say “let’s see what the courts say” it is a simple, and by the way very sorrowful, acknowledgment of what I believe (but earnestly hope is not) inevitable. I think the lawsuits are a travesty. And I am not entirely convinced that leaving for CANA or Southern Cone or anywhere else is the right answer. But if that’s what they want to do I think the dissenting dioceses should apply to GC to be temporarily transferred to Southern Cone, and that GC should charitably vote to allow it. You and I both know that’s far fetched on both ends. Human nature, and the statements of the parties involved, lead me to believe it will end up in court. And I for one have no idea what those courts will say. That’s the point of my last phrase.
“Precedent” was a poor word to use on my part. I simply mean when it ends up in court (as, again, I believe it will), Network lawyers would be able to argue “TEC supports a diocese withdrawing from another province but not its own. How convenient! West Africa may have different a different constitution and different canons, but TEC’s words don’t match their actions”. It ain’t ironclad by legal standards, but it could show bad faith on the part of 815.
You also have an excellent point that it is only non-US dioceses that have withdrawn. A US diocese has never pulled out. But I think the precedent of the overseas dioceses could be applied here, with charity. But Schori et al talk as if this would be a grosse violation of Nicene tradition and Anglican order. I simply don’t see why that is necessarily the case.
But this is all academic, for as in South Carolina, calmer heads will prevail in Liberia, and the process will be rerun. I should have mentioned in my 1st comment that this is what I thought would happen all along. I merely find it an interesting possibility.
The Canons allow for a “missionary diocese” to transfer to another Province. The Canons however do not specify whether or not a (member or non-missionary) “diocese” may transfer. This is of course the issue in the case of several dioceses, namely, since the Canons only define how a diocese might choose to accede to the Canons, who can arbitrate if and how a diocese might re-align or otherwise choose to no longer accede to the Canons. TEC is taking the case that since no mechanism is included in the Canons, then there is no option to choose to leave TEC. The Dioceses in question are asserting that what is freely entered can be freely departed–unless such arrangement includes a “until death do us part” clause, which the Canons do not include.