What a bishop can do

A diocesan bishop oversees the congregation, and the province leaves his selection and tenure to the diocese — which is itself the structural choice worth recording, since several member dioceses are affinity-based rather than territorial and arrived with their own arrangements. Where the province does legislate is over its own primate, and there the term limit is firm: the Archbishop is elected by the College of Bishops from among bishops with jurisdiction to serve a five-year term, and may be elected to "a second term of office but not a third." An Assembly is always held to mark the end of an Archbishop's five-year term. If the office falls vacant before a term completes, the Dean of the Province becomes Interim and the College elects a successor to a fresh five-year term. The enum records the term-limited pattern the province sets for itself. The qualification is real and should be read with it: for the diocesan bishop who actually oversees a given congregation, tenure is a diocesan matter, and no provincial mandatory retirement age was located in the constitution and canons.

• governing document Constitution of the ACNA, on the election of the Archbishop for a five-year term, and a second term but not a third
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, on the Assembly marking the end of an Archbishop's term and on interim succession by the Dean of the Province

A synod bishop, elected by the synod assembly for a fixed term rather than serving until retirement — which places this body with the Global Methodist Church rather than with the United Methodist, Episcopal or Roman Catholic arrangements, and makes the Lutheran pair a study in how far "has bishops" fails to settle anything. The bishop's role is visible in the departure procedure quoted below: a congregation cannot even hold its first vote until thirty days after written notice reaches the bishop, the bishop determines the times and manner of consultation, and the bishop or the bishop's designees have voice — though not vote — at the congregational meetings themselves. That is real oversight exercised through consultation and presence rather than through appointment or property. The specific constitutional provisions on the election and term of synod bishops were not read for this profile, and the term length should be verified before it is relied on.

• governing document Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA, 9.62.a — notice to the bishop, consultation, voice without vote

Bishops, elected for terms and subject to re-election — the deliberate counterpart to the life tenure of the body its founders left. A bishop may serve up to two six-year terms, after which he returns to local ministry or other general church service. The selection process is unusually distributed for an episcopal body. In the twelve months before a General Conference each annual conference delegation nominates up to one clergy from within its own conference and up to one from outside it, excluding serving bishops; a Global Episcopacy Committee compiles and publishes the list of nominees at least ninety days ahead, together with a list of bishops eligible and willing to stand again. Area episcopacy committees then interview candidates and produce ranked shortlists matched to each area's needs, and the General Conference elects. Episcopal areas are themselves redrawn before each General Conference, guided by six to eight annual conferences per area, and need not be geographically contiguous.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶604, Election of Bishops
• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶¶601-603 and 605-606, nature of superintendency, the Global Episcopacy Committee and the Assembly of Bishops
• the body's own statement Global Methodist Church, FAQ — two six-year terms, then return to local ministry (accessed 2026-07-31) — self-description

A bishop, and — uniquely among the bodies profiled here — one whom no member of the body he governs had any part in choosing. Bishops are appointed by the Holy See, not elected by clergy, congregations, or any American assembly, and they answer upward rather than to those they oversee. The specific canons on appointment and on the submission of resignation at retirement age were not read for this profile. The powers established elsewhere in this profile show what the office carries: the bishop alone erects, suppresses and alters parishes; he appoints pastors; and the parish has no organ with a voice in either. The word "bishop" covers three quite different arrangements across this site — life tenure by election in the United Methodist Church, fixed renewable terms by election in the Global Methodist Church, and appointment from outside the local body here — and the differences are material rather than ceremonial.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §§1-2 — the parish under the bishop's authority; erection and suppression reserved to him alone (accessed 2026-07-31)

A diocesan bishop, elected once and serving without term or re-election until mandatory retirement — bishops must retire within ninety days of their seventy-second birthday. The enum's "life" should be read as "no term and no re-election" rather than literally until death; the same qualification applies to the United Methodist entry, which is the closest comparator. What distinguishes this body is the consent requirement. A bishop is elected by the diocese that will receive them, but the election does not take effect on the diocese's say-so: under Canon III.11.4(a) a majority of diocesan bishops *and* a majority of diocesan standing committees must consent, separately, within 120 days of notice. So every diocese holds a vote over every other diocese's bishop, and a standing committee elected by a diocesan convention hundreds of miles away can block a choice. Oversight here is neither purely local, as the election suggests, nor centrally appointed, as in the Roman Catholic case — it is peer-confirmed.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, Canon III.11.4(a), consents of diocesan bishops and standing committees within 120 days
• the body's own statement The Episcopal Church, glossary entries on consents for ordination and on standing committees (accessed 2026-07-31) — self-description

Bishops, and their tenure is fixed in the Constitution itself: "bishops elected by the jurisdictions of The United Methodist Church shall have life tenure." A bishop is elected by a jurisdictional conference rather than by the general church or by the annual conference they will serve, and holds the office until retirement — there is no re-election, and no periodic decision by anyone about whether they continue. Accountability runs through review rather than through re-election. Each jurisdictional conference elects a standing committee on episcopacy, one clergy and one lay delegate from each annual conference, which reviews the bishops' work. The office is described as a special ministry rather than a separate order of ministry.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2024 ¶51 (Constitution), life tenure of bishops and the committee on episcopacy
• governing document Book of Discipline 2024 ¶¶401-403, the task of superintending; office not a separate order

The congregation calls and the bishop holds an absolute veto — which makes this a stronger episcopal check than the Episcopal Church's, and that is the reverse of what the property rules would lead a reader to expect. The provincial canon is one sentence: "No Rector may be called to or dismissed from a congregation without the consent of the Bishop. No other clergy may be called or dismissed from a congregation without consultation with the Bishop." A diocese may adopt canons not in conflict with that. Compare the two Anglican bodies directly, against the Episcopal canons as published. There, Canon III.9.3.a.2 requires only that nominees' names go to the Ecclesiastical Authority, that up to sixty days be allowed for it to communicate with the vestry, and that the vestry consider what it says — a hearing, not a veto. Here the bishop's consent is required outright, and required again to dismiss. So the province that took less power over buildings took considerably more over pulpits. Beyond that consent requirement the province devolves: "Norms for the calling, duties and support of Rectors and other Clergy, and the dissolution of a pastoral relation shall be provided by each Diocese."

• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title I Canon 6 Section 4.1 — no Rector called or dismissed without the consent of the Bishop
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title II Canon 7 — norms for calling, duties, support and dissolution provided by each Diocese

The bishop appoints and the congregation does not vote, so this is an appointment system. But ¶610.7 makes the consultation substantially thicker than the United Methodist counterpart, in three specific ways worth naming. First, choice: "Whenever possible, churches may be given 2-3 pastoral candidates to choose from for potential pastoral interviews." Second, refusal: "Churches and pastors have the right to decline a proposed appointment without malice" — with the Discipline noting candidly that this may extend the time a church is served by pulpit supply. Third, and most striking, a congregation may run its own search: "a church may choose to lead their own search process for pastoral leadership upon the approval of the presiding elder and conference superintendent," with final interviews requiring the approval of the board of ministry, the presiding elder and the conference superintendent, and a cabinet representative present. Appointments are also meant to be durable rather than annual: ¶610.8 directs bishops and cabinets to "work toward multi-year (rather than annual) local church appointments." Open itinerancy is retained and defined at ¶610.2 as appointment without regard to race, tribal or ethnic origin, gender, disability, marital status or age — a list that, unlike its United Methodist counterpart, does not include sexual orientation. The net effect is an appointment system with a congregational veto and an optional congregational search. That is closer to a call than the enum can express, and further from one than the Presbyterian arrangement, where the congregation elects and a court concurs.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶610.7, consultation in appointment-making
• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶610.1-.2 and .8, appointment by the bishop, open itinerancy, multi-year appointments

The bishop appoints the pastor. There is no search committee, no congregational vote, no presbytery concurrence, and no consultation requirement of the kind the United Methodist Discipline imposes. Of the bodies profiled here this is the least participatory placement system — the Methodist bishop must at least consult the pastor-parish relations committee, while a Catholic parish has no comparable organ with a voice in the appointment.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §1 — pastoral care entrusted to a parish priest under the bishop's authority (accessed 2026-07-31)
• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 520 — appointment made by the bishop even where a parish is entrusted to an institute (accessed 2026-07-31)

The vestry elects, and the bishop is entitled to be heard but not to consent. Canon III.9.3.a.2: "No Parish may elect a Rector until the names of the proposed nominees have been forwarded to the Ecclesiastical Authority and a time, not exceeding sixty days, given to the Ecclesiastical Authority to communicate with the Vestry, nor until any such communication has been considered by the Vestry at a meeting duly called and held for that purpose." So the requirement is procedural rather than substantive: names go up, the bishop has up to sixty days to say something, and the vestry must actually convene and consider whatever is said. Nothing obliges the vestry to agree. The one substantive check comes afterwards and is deliberately narrow. On written notice of the election, the Ecclesiastical Authority records it if satisfied "that the person so elected is a duly qualified Priest" who has accepted — and the canon then restricts what may enter that judgement: "Race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age... shall not be a factor in the determination." This makes the contrast with the Anglican Church in North America sharper than the two bodies' shared vocabulary suggests. There, no rector may be called or dismissed without the bishop's consent. Here the bishop gets a hearing and a qualification check. The body with the trust clause holds *less* power over the pulpit than the body without one.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024, 81st General Convention), Canon III.9.3.a.2-3

The bishop appoints. The Discipline empowers the bishop to make and fix all appointments in the episcopal area, and the appointment system is itinerant: open itineracy means appointments are made without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, colour, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or age. Consultation with the pastor and the committee on pastor-parish relations is required in every annual conference and is explicitly more than notification, but it is consultation and not consent — neither congregation nor pastor holds a veto. Appointments are made with the expectation that a pastorate's length answers the long-term needs of charge, community, and pastor, and bishops are directed to work toward longer tenures.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2020/2024 ¶425 ff., Appointment-Making (accessed 2026-07-31)

A congregation cannot dismiss its rector on its own: the bishop's consent is required to dismiss as well as to call. Assistant clergy and lay employees, by contrast, "serve under the direction of and at the pleasure of the Rector except as may be otherwise provided under local law" — so within the staff the rector's authority is unusually direct. Dissolution norms are set by each diocese.

• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title I Canon 6 Section 4.1-2
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title II Canon 7

A rector is protected against his vestry by the same clause that constrains his calling: dismissal requires the bishop's consent. That is a real protection, though a different one from the Episcopal Church's. There, Canon III.9.15.a locks the relationship from both ends — a rector may not resign without the vestry's consent, nor be removed against his will — so the parties are bound to each other. Here the bishop holds the key to the door in both directions instead. What the province does not do is guarantee placement; and the detailed terms are diocesan, so the strength of the protection varies with the diocese.

• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title I Canon 6 Section 4.1
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title II Canon 7

A congregation cannot dismiss its pastor, but it can start the process that ends an appointment: the chair of the pastor-parish relations committee may notify the presiding elder that the church wishes to consider a new appointment. The bishop then acts. Provisions for removal from ministry itself were not read for this profile.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) ¶610, as set out by the MidSouth Annual Conference (accessed 2026-07-31) — self-description

"Clergy shall not have a guaranteed right to an appointment. Effort will be made to deploy all effective clergy. Deacons and elders who are not under appointment shall be considered inactive." That is the counterpart choice to the trust clause, and the two are the body's most consequential departures from the polity it inherited. The United Methodist bargain pairs itineracy with continuation under appointment: an elder goes where sent and is kept in appointment. Here itineracy is retained and the guarantee is not, with unappointed clergy moving to inactive status rather than remaining in a placement queue. Both sides of this are real arguments and neither is a quibble. A guarantee is what makes an itinerant ministry a career rather than a series of at-will posts, and it protects a pastor from both a congregation's displeasure and a bishop's; its absence frees a bishop's hand and removes the obligation to place someone no congregation wants. Which risk a body would rather carry is a genuine disagreement about how ministry should be ordered, and this site does not settle it.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶610.6
• governing document Book of Discipline (UMC) 2024 ¶337.1, continuation under appointment (for the contrast)

Removal of a pastor is a canonical process reserved to the bishop and governed by specific procedures in the Code, which were not read for this profile and are therefore not described. What can be stated is negative and structural: no parish may dismiss its priest, and no parish body has standing to initiate his removal as of right.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §1 (accessed 2026-07-31)

Dissolution of the pastoral relation requires mutual consent affirmed by the bishop, or arbitration and decision under Title III Canon 9; disciplinary removal runs through Title IV. The vestry acting alone cannot end a rector's tenure.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, Title III Canon 9 and Title IV

The strongest tenure on this site, and it binds both parties. Canon III.9.15.a: "Except upon mandatory resignation by reason of age, a Rector may not resign as Rector of a parish without the consent of its Vestry, nor may any Rector canonically or lawfully elected and in charge of a Parish be removed there from by the Vestry against the Rector's will, except as hereinafter provided." Neither side can end the relationship alone. Where a disagreement is genuine, either may give written notice to the Ecclesiastical Authority setting out the nature, causes and specifics, and the bishop has sixty days to attempt mediation and reconciliation — and may appoint a committee of at least one presbyter and one lay person, none connected to the parish, to interview both sides and report. Compare the two other protections on the site. A United Methodist elder in good standing is guaranteed an appointment somewhere, but may be moved from any particular one. An Episcopal rector may not be moved at all without process — and correspondingly has no guarantee of another post if the relationship is dissolved. The Methodist provision protects the person's employment; this one protects the relationship.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024), Canon III.9.15.a-c

A congregation cannot dismiss its pastor. The appointment is the bishop's to make and to change, and the ordinary route by which an unworkable pastorate ends is reappointment at the bishop's initiative, following consultation in which the pastor-parish relations committee is heard. Removal from ministry itself — as distinct from removal from a post — runs through the annual conference, which holds the credentials.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2020/2024 ¶425 ff., Appointment-Making (accessed 2026-07-31)

The provision commonly called guaranteed appointment: "All elders in full connection who are in good standing in an annual conference shall be continued under appointment by the bishop unless they are granted a sabbatical leave, a medical leave, family leave, a leave of absence, retirement, or have failed to meet the requirements for continued eligibility." So it is a real guarantee with real exits, and the eligibility requirements it points to do substantial work. Its counterpart obligation is itineracy — the elder's commitment to go where sent — and the two are best read as one bargain rather than as a benefit standing alone. An attempt by the 2012 General Conference to end the guarantee was ruled unconstitutional by the denomination's own court, which is a useful measure of how structural it is.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2024 ¶337.1, General Provisions on appointments — continuation under appointment, referring to the eligibility requirements at ¶334.2–.3
• secondary Central Texas Conference, 'General Conference Vote on Guaranteed Appointments Ruled Unconstitutional' (accessed 2026-07-31)

Article XII is the province's answer to the Dennis Canon, and it has a final sentence that most summaries of it omit — including, until the constitution was read, this profile: "All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be subject to any trust interest in favor of the Province or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province. Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved." That last clause matters enough to change the answer. The rule is not that every ACNA congregation owns its building; it is that the *Province* asserts no interest, and that existing diocesan arrangements survive. A body assembled in 2009 from groups arriving out of several different structures — including dioceses that had held property at diocesan level — did not impose a single ownership model on them. So "mixed" is the honest value, and the variation runs by diocese rather than by state. The disclaimer is also carefully bounded in its own terms: it excludes claims "arising out of the canon law of this Province," and the province is not the diocese. Several dioceses have adopted their own provisions to close the same gap at their level, often headed "No Denominational or Diocesan Trust in Congregation Property," but those are diocesan enactments and were not surveyed.

• governing document Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America, Article XII, Ownership of Property (ratified 25 June 2026)
• governing document Anglican Diocese of the Upper Midwest, Constitution and Canons — 'No Denominational or Diocesan Trust in Congregation Property' (accessed 2026-07-31)

No provincial trust, by constitutional provision. The comparison across the site's departure-formed bodies holds, and each foreclosed the claim in the idiom of what it left: the Presbyterian Church in America denied "any right of reversion whatsoever" to any court and added a covenant never to attempt possession; the Global Methodist Church put freedom from a trust clause among its constitutional articles; this body declared congregational ownership "solely and exclusively" and named the canonical trust as the thing excluded — while, alone among the three, preserving whatever different arrangements its constituent dioceses brought with them.

• governing document Constitution of the ACNA, Article XII
• governing document Book of Church Order (PCA) 25-9 and 25-10, and Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) ¶206.2, for the comparison

Title resides in the congregation, and the constitution is emphatic that it never moves to the synod — which is the opposite of what a reader would predict from a mainline body with bishops, and the reason this pair breaks the site's emerging pattern. Provision 9.71.a is plain: "Title to property shall reside in the congregation. The congregation may dispose of its property as it determines, subject to any self-accepted indebtedness or other self-accepted restrictions." The qualifier "self-accepted" is doing deliberate work — the only restrictions that bind are ones the congregation took on itself. What follows is not a trust clause but a set of successor rules, and they repay close reading. Property of a congregation that simply ceases to exist passes to the synod (9.71.b). Property of a congregation no longer recognised as a result of discipline "shall continue to reside in the congregation" (9.71.c) — a body that can expel a congregation and still not touch its building. Property of a congregation that terminates properly and joins another Lutheran church body continues to reside in the congregation (9.71.d). The single conditional case is 9.71.e: a congregation that leaves to become independent or to join a non-Lutheran body keeps its property "only with the consent of the Synod Council." If consent is given, title remains with the majority. If consent is refused, title remains "with those members who desire to continue as a congregation of this church" — the loyal remnant. And then the sentence that distinguishes this from every trust clause on the site: "In neither case does title to the congregation's property transfer to the synod." So the church never takes the building. What it can do, in one defined circumstance, is decide which group of people counts as the congregation that owns it.

• governing document Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA, 9.71.a–e

None. Nothing in chapter 9 asserts a beneficial interest in congregational property for the synod or the churchwide organisation, and 9.71.e forecloses transfer to the synod even in the contested case. Set beside the United Methodist ¶2501, the PC(USA) G-4.0203 and the Episcopal Dennis Canon, this is a mainline body with bishops that declined the device all three of those adopted.

• governing document Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA, 9.71

Local churches own all their property and assets, and the denomination states that they do so in perpetuity. There is no trust clause, and the denomination's own materials say it is "almost certain" never to adopt one — on the stated ground that congregations inclined to join it do not want to belong to a body that holds their property. This is the pivotal fact about the body, and it is deliberate rather than incidental. A congregation here holds what a United Methodist congregation holds subject to ¶2501, and the two are otherwise organised along recognisably similar lines: bishops, annual conferences, appointed clergy. The site's whole thesis is visible in the pair — polity vocabulary is nearly identical, and the answer to who owns the building is opposite.

• governing document Global Methodist Church, FAQ — local churches own all their property and assets; no trust clause (accessed 2026-07-31) — self-description
• the body's own statement Global Methodist Church of South Carolina, FAQ, on property ownership in perpetuity (accessed 2026-07-31) — self-description

None, and the absence is legislated twice over. ¶1002 states it flatly: "There is no trust clause for property held by local churches, annual conferences, connectional commissions, or any other entities of the Global Methodist Church." More striking is ¶206.2, which sits in the constitution among the articles rather than in the regulatory body of the Discipline: "The right of a local church to be free from a forced closure or trust clause shall not be abrogated." A trust clause here would not merely require legislation; it would require constitutional amendment. This is a denomination that retained episcopacy and itineracy while declining the property device that in other episcopal bodies secures them. The standing objection to that choice is worth stating in its own terms, because it is a real argument rather than a quibble — a connection whose congregations may leave with everything is a connection held together by consent alone, and its bishops exercise oversight without the ultimate sanction their counterparts elsewhere hold. Whether that is a weakness or the point is exactly what the founders and their critics disagree about, and this site does not adjudicate it.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶1002, Stewardship of Assets
• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶206.2, Article V — right to be free from forced closure or trust clause

This is the field where canon law and American civil law give different answers, and the divergence is the single most misunderstood thing about Catholic property. In canon law the parish owns. A lawfully erected parish "has juridical personality by virtue of the law itself" — it is a legal person in its own right, capable of holding goods, and it does not hold them for the diocese. In this respect a Catholic parish differs sharply from a Hillsong campus, which is not a legal person at all. In American civil law the answer varies by state and by diocese. Many US dioceses are organised as a corporation sole, a form in which the bishop's office holds title and transfers it intact to his successor. Others have separately incorporated their parishes, so that each holds its own real estate as a distinct civil corporation. The enum records corporation sole as the widely used pattern, and the variation is real rather than marginal. Which arrangement applies has turned out to matter enormously. In diocesan bankruptcy proceedings the question of whether parish property forms part of the diocese's estate has been litigated directly, with courts examining whether parishes are genuinely separate entities under civil as well as canon law; in the Baltimore proceedings a court found the archdiocese and its parishes and schools to be separate corporate entities, so that parish property was not part of the debtor's estate. Plaintiffs' counsel have argued that transfers of title from bishop to parishes were undertaken to reduce the assets available to creditors. This profile records the structural question the litigation turns on; it does not narrate the underlying cases.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §3 — the parish has juridic personality by the law itself (accessed 2026-07-31)
• secondary Angelus News, on corporation sole and the civil/canon tension in diocesan bankruptcies (accessed 2026-07-31)
• court ruling Baltimore bankruptcy court ruling affirming the legal separateness of parishes from the archdiocese (accessed 2026-07-31)

None of the Protestant kind, and none is required. A trust clause is the device a denomination uses to reach property held by a separate congregation it does not otherwise control. Here the bishop's authority over the parish is constitutive rather than contractual: he erects the parish, appoints its pastor, and alone may suppress it, so no instrument is needed to secure an interest that the structure already supplies.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §§2–3 (accessed 2026-07-31)

Title sits with the parish; the beneficial interest is asserted above it. The governing provision is Title I.7.4, adopted by General Convention in 1979 and known universally as the Dennis Canon: "All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located." Note that the trust runs to two beneficiaries at once — the national church *and* the diocese — which is a structural difference from the United Methodist and PC(USA) formulations, and which mattered when whole dioceses attempted to depart. The canon then adds the qualification that decides how it feels in ordinary times: the trust "shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons." A parish in good standing notices nothing. The interest materialises precisely when the parish tries to leave.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, Title I.7.4

A canon rather than a deed provision, and the canons anticipate the objection that raises. Section 5 of the same canon provides that "the several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm the trust declared under the foregoing section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust." That sentence is the church legislating against the argument its opponents would later make in civil court — that a denomination cannot create a trust over property it does not own simply by enacting one. The canon invites confirmation and simultaneously declares it unnecessary. Whether a church can settle that question by saying so is exactly what divided the state courts. Two further provisions give the trust practical grip in ordinary times. Under I.7.3 no body holding property for a parish may "encumber or alienate the same or any part thereof without the written consent of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese" — a double consent, stricter than the PC(USA)'s single presbytery permission. And under II.7.4 any dedicated and consecrated church or chapel is expressly subject to the I.7.4 trust. The contrast with the United Methodist approach remains: that Discipline requires prescribed trust language in the instrument of conveyance itself, so the trust reaches the deed. Here it rests on the canon and on whatever a given state's courts will make of it.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024), Canon I.7.4 and I.7.5
• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024), Canon I.7.3 and Canon II.7.4
• governing document Book of Discipline (UMC) 2024 ¶2503, requiring the trust clause in the deed, for the contrast

Title is held by the local congregation's trustees, but held in trust for the whole denomination. The Discipline states that all properties of United Methodist local churches and other United Methodist agencies and institutions are held in trust for the benefit of the entire denomination, and that the trust is and always has been irrevocable except as the Discipline itself provides. A congregation may acquire, hold, maintain, improve, and sell property, but only for purposes consistent with the mission of the Church as the Discipline sets it out. Property can be released from the trust only to the extent the Discipline grants authority.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2020/2024 ¶2501 (accessed 2026-07-31)

The trust reaches the deed itself. ¶2503 requires that every written instrument of conveyance for premises held for worship or other member activities contain a prescribed trust clause, and the clause is worth reading in full because its drafting is unusually careful: "In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept, and maintained as a place of divine worship of the United Methodist ministry and members of The United Methodist Church; subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference and by the annual conference within whose bounds the said premises are situated. This provision is solely for the benefit of the grantee, and the grantor reserves no right or interest in said premises." Two features do the work. The property is made subject to the Discipline "as from time to time authorized" — so the terms of the trust follow whatever the General Conference later decides, rather than being fixed at the date of the deed. And the final sentence forecloses the obvious escape: the grantor keeps nothing, so no one outside the Church retains an interest to assert. Even so, because the trust is asserted by the denomination's own governing document, its force in a given case has turned on how a particular state's courts treat denominational trust provisions.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2024 ¶2503, Trust Clauses in Deeds
• governing document Book of Discipline 2020/2024 ¶2501 (accessed 2026-07-31)

The most specific standing requirement on this site, and it can be read as a considered answer to the risk on either side — that a bishop is unaccountable, or that he is exposed to a single accuser. A bishop may be charged "by three Bishops of this Church with jurisdiction, or by not fewer than ten Presbyters, Deacons, or adult baptized members of this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Presbyters." Locality is then required as well: one presbyter and at least six of the lay accusers must belong either to the diocese where the alleged offence occurred or to the diocese where the bishop is canonically resident. Charges must be in writing, "signed and sworn to by all the accusers," with the grounds set out "with reasonable certainty of time, place and circumstance." So a bishop cannot be charged by one person, and cannot be charged by a distant faction either. Ten laypeople of his own diocese can begin proceedings against him without any bishop's agreement. Charges go to the Archbishop, his delegate, or the College of Bishops, and are referred to a Board of Inquiry of five presbyters and five adult baptized members "none of whom shall belong to the Diocese of the accused," eight forming a quorum. The Board hears the accusers and their proof and determines "whether, upon matters of law and fact... there are reasonable grounds to put the accused to trial." Testimony is recorded and transcribed. The canons also let a bishop clear his own name: where he believes rumours are circulating about his personal or official character, he may — with the consent of two other members of the College of Bishops — demand in writing that an investigation be made. From 1 January 2027 the body hearing a bishop's case is renamed the Disciplinary Tribunal for a Bishop.

• governing document Canons of the ACNA (ratified 25 June 2026), Title IV Canon 4 Sections 1-5, Of Presentments of Bishops
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title IV footnote on the renaming of disciplinary bodies effective 1 January 2027

A synod bishop is disciplined as a minister of Word and Sacrament, under the same chapter and the same grounds as any other rostered minister: preaching or teaching in conflict with the faith this church confesses; conduct incompatible with the character of the ministerial office; wilfully disregarding the functions and standards established for the office; wilfully disregarding the church's constitutions, bylaws and continuing resolutions; or wilfully failing to comply with what a discipline hearing committee has ordered. The available sanctions are graduated: private censure and admonition by the bishop of the synod, suspension from office and functions for a set period or until there is satisfactory evidence of repentance and amendment, or removal from the roster. Standing is broad and does not run through the bishop. Charges must be specific, in writing, and subscribed by the accusers, and may be brought by two-thirds of a congregation council, one-third of the voting members of a congregation served, two-thirds of the governing body to which the minister is accountable, at least ten rostered ministers of the synod, or the synod bishop. One provision is bishop-specific and worth setting out, because it is the only route that reaches a bishop from above: charges may also be brought by "the presiding bishop of this church, but only with respect to an accused who is a synod bishop (or who was a synod bishop at any time during the 12 months preceding the filing of written charges)," and those are submitted to the secretary of this church rather than to a synod. The twelve-month tail closes the obvious escape of resigning first. Before charges, the constitution requires an attempt at resolution by consultation, for which a panel of three rostered ministers and two lay persons may be appointed.

• governing document Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA, 20.22.01-.03, grounds, sanctions and who may bring charges
• governing document Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA, 20.22.04-.05, consultation before charges

Complaints against a bishop go to the chair of the Global Episcopacy Committee, and the Discipline splits them in two. An administrative complaint alleges "the unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties through incompetence, ineffectiveness, or unwillingness or inability to perform such duties"; a judicial complaint alleges misconduct under the chargeable offences, and the Discipline is explicit that misconduct "shall not be handled through an administrative complaint." Standing is wide, and deliberately so. An administrative complaint may be filed by "laypersons, clergy, and presiding elders in the annual conference in which the bishop is serving, the conference superintendency committee, or another bishop." A judicial complaint may be filed by "any layperson or clergy person, a presiding elder, a conference superintendent, or a bishop." A layperson may therefore initiate proceedings against a bishop directly, without an intermediary body deciding whether the complaint is worth hearing. Two procedural details are worth recording because they remove ordinary obstacles. The complaint must contain specific examples with at least approximate dates and times. And "all expenses for the administrative process for complaints involving bishops shall be borne by the general church" — the cost of pursuing a bishop does not fall on the person pursuing him, or on his conference. The supervisory process is administered by the chair of the Global Episcopacy Committee or a designee. Time limits may be extended only once, by thirty days, and only with the consent of both complainant and respondent.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶903, Complaints — a complaint against a bishop goes to the chair of the Global Episcopacy Committee
• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶907, Administrative Complaints Concerning Bishops
• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶908, Judicial Complaints

Reserved to one person in the world. Among the cases the Code reserves, "the Roman Pontiff alone has the right to judge... in penal cases, Bishops." No diocesan body, no national conference, and no court short of the Holy See has jurisdiction over a bishop in a penal matter; contentious cases against bishops are reserved to the Roman Rota. Set beside the other five episcopal bodies on this site the contrast is complete. A United Methodist bishop faces a trial court drawn from clergy of his own jurisdiction. An Episcopal bishop faces a standing court on which he and his fellow bishops are a minority. An ACNA bishop can be charged by ten laypeople of his own diocese. An ELCA synod bishop can be charged by ten rostered ministers, or by two-thirds of a congregation council. A Catholic bishop can be judged by the pope, and by no one else. The counterpart provision is retirement rather than removal: a diocesan bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year "is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff," who decides what to do with it, and a bishop who has become unsuited to his office through illness or another grave reason is earnestly requested to do the same. Resignation offered and accepted, rather than a process brought by those he governs, is the ordinary way a bishop's tenure ends.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 1405 §1.3 and §3 — the Roman Pontiff alone judges Bishops in penal cases; the Roman Rota in contentious cases (accessed 2026-07-31)
• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 401 §§1-2, resignation at seventy-five and on grounds of unsuitedness (accessed 2026-07-31)

A standing court exists for the purpose. The Disciplinary Board for Bishops is "established as a court of the Church to have original jurisdiction over matters of discipline of Bishops," and it also hears a bishop's own appeal against restriction on ministry or placement on administrative leave — so it sits on both sides of the question, as the body that judges a bishop and as the body a bishop appeals to. Its composition is the interesting part, because it is elected by both houses separately: ten bishops elected by the House of Bishops, and six other clergy — including at least one deacon — and six lay persons elected by the House of Deputies. Lay members must be confirmed adult communicants in good standing, and terms are staggered so that half turn over at each General Convention. Bishops are therefore a minority of their own disciplinary court, and the clergy and lay members reach it through a chamber the bishops do not sit in. Separately from misconduct, the canons provide for abandonment of the Church — by open renunciation of its doctrine, discipline or worship; by formal admission into a religious body not in full communion; or by exercising episcopal acts for such a body. On information suggesting abandonment the Board notifies the Presiding Bishop and the bishop concerned, and the Presiding Bishop may, with the advice and consent of an Advisory Council, restrict that bishop's ministry while the matter is considered.

• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024), Canon IV.17.3, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops and its membership
• governing document Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2024), Title IV, certification of abandonment and interim restriction

A bishop's continuation in office "shall be subject to review" whenever the bishop "violates this trust or is unable to fulfill appropriate responsibilities," and the Discipline states the purpose of that review as just resolution rather than punishment. Any complaint concerning effectiveness, competence, or the chargeable offenses goes to the president of the College of Bishops of the jurisdictional or central conference — or to the secretary if the complaint concerns the president. A complaint is defined as a written statement claiming misconduct, unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties, or a listed offence. What happens next is unusually prescriptive about who handles it. Within ten days the president and secretary consult the chair of the conference committee on episcopacy, who appoints from that committee one lay and one clergy member — required to be from different episcopal areas, from neither the area the bishop was elected from nor the one assigned to, and not of the same gender as each other. The composition rules are doing conflict-of-interest work that most bodies leave to discretion. The chargeable offences at ¶2702.1 are twelve: immorality; crime; disobedience to the order and discipline of the Church; dissemination of doctrines contrary to its established standards; relationships or behaviour that undermine the ministry of another pastor; child abuse; sexual abuse; sexual misconduct, including the use or possession of pornography; harassment, including but not limited to racial and sexual harassment; racial or gender discrimination; fiscal malfeasance; and domestic violence. A statute of limitations applies, and offences alleged to have occurred before 1 January 1993 are time barred. A moratorium at ¶2701.6 suspends part of this, and its scope should be stated precisely rather than in general terms, because it is narrow and specific. It halts new and pending judicial proceedings concerning the Discipline's human sexuality provisions — charges that a respondent is a "self-avowed practicing homosexual," has conducted or celebrated a same-gender wedding or union, has ordained or consecrated such a person, has provided funds to a gay caucus, or has otherwise engaged in conduct the 2016 Discipline described as incompatible with Christian teaching. It expressly extends to any attempt to bring the same alleged conduct under another head, naming immorality, disobedience to the order and discipline, dissemination of contrary doctrine, and fiscal malfeasance. It took effect at the close of the postponed 2020 General Conference and remains until repealed or modified. Nothing else in the list is affected. The moratorium does not touch the offences at ¶2702.1(f) to (l). A trial is convened by the president of the College under ¶2712, from a pool of thirty-five or more clergy in full connection named by the College in approximately equal numbers from each episcopal area, with counsel for the Church a bishop or other clergy in full connection. Appeal lies to the Judicial Council.

• governing document Book of Discipline (UMC) 2024 ¶413.1-3, Complaints Against Bishops
• governing document Book of Discipline (UMC) 2024 ¶2702.1, chargeable offences, subject to the moratorium at ¶2701.6
• governing document Book of Discipline (UMC) 2024 ¶2712, Trial of a Bishop

New dioceses and networks are added to the Province by the Provincial Council under a canonical process. At congregational level the canons require only that "every congregation shall be established in accordance with the laws of the State or jurisdiction where situated" and that it carry insurance in amounts its diocese specifies — so the establishment of congregations is a diocesan and civil-law matter rather than a provincial one.

• governing document Constitution of the ACNA, Article II.2 — new dioceses or networks added by the Provincial Council
• governing document Canons of the ACNA, Title I Canon 6 Section 3, Concerning Organization

No body above the congregation may close it. ¶206.2 places the right of a local church to be free from forced closure in the constitution alongside its freedom from a trust clause, and ¶1002 leaves the disposition of assets on dissolution to the congregation's own corporate records. A church here ends when it decides to end. That is a direct inversion of the United Methodist position, where the annual conference declares a church closed and its trustees take the property, with an emergency route where the bishop and district superintendents agree that circumstances require it. The provisions for organising a new congregation, which the Discipline addresses separately, were not read for this profile.

• governing document Book of Doctrines and Discipline (GMC) 2024 ¶206.2 and ¶1002

The diocesan bishop, alone. "The diocesan Bishop alone can establish, suppress or alter parishes," and he is not to do so without consulting the council of priests. No other person or body — not the parish, not the conference of bishops, not a religious institute — may erect or close a parish.

• governing document Code of Canon Law (1983), c. 515 §2 (accessed 2026-07-31)

Closing is the annual conference's decision, not the congregation's: the conference declares a local church closed and its trustees take the property, with an ad interim route between conference sessions and an emergency route where the bishop, a majority of district superintendents, and the district board of church location and building agree that circumstances require immediate action. The paragraph governing the establishment of new congregations has not yet been checked for this profile, and no claim is made here about it.

• governing document Book of Discipline 2020/2024 ¶2549 (accessed 2026-07-31)