Under Anglican polity you cannot choose your own bishop. Of course we choose ours when Synod elects our archbishop, but when he is in place he is the diocesan of this diocese, Sydney, and all Anglicans in the diocese come under his jurisdiction and pastoral care. That is the pattern all over the Anglican Communion.
That is, until recently. There appears now to be moves to introduce changes to this Anglican polity that may shake our traditional pattern for episcopal oversight to its very core.
Events have occurred that have led some overseas Anglicans to call for the oversight and jurisdiction of another bishop rather than the one who is their diocesan. These are mainly conservative, biblical Anglicans, both evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, who regard their bishop, or their church as a whole, as liberal and unorthodox. In particular they are motivated by their opposition to liberal, non-biblical acceptance of same-sex unions.
The actions of the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada has led Anglicans from that diocese, and others, to call on their House of Bishops to arrange for them to be under the oversight and pastoral care of other bishops rather than Bishop Michael Ingham, the Bishop of New Westminster.
In the United States many Episcopalians (US Anglicans) have sought the oversight of bishops from elsewhere. They reject the decision of the ECUSA Convention that led to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, who lives in a homosexual relationship with his partner of 14 years, as Bishop of New Hampshire.
The House of Bishops of both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) have proposed arrangements for these troubled Anglicans, or ‘dissenting minorities’ as the Canadians call them. There are strong similarities in their models. Unwilling to cede their oversight permanently both groups of bishops suggest temporary arrangements until there is reconciliation and ‘unity’.
The Canadian bishops set up a Task Force to prepare a report. This was chaired by the Bishop of Edmonton, the Rt Rev Victoria Matthews.
The Canadian group recommend an arrangement they call ‘temporary adequate/alternate episcopal oversight (AEO)’ as the best way to foster healing and reconciliation. They say the implementation of AEO is necessary because the “division of theological understanding and interpretation of authority of Scripture is judged to be so widespread across the church.” While arguing that the arrangement must be interim in nature, the Taskforce also recognises that it must provide ‘security and safety’ to those who request it.
Prior to the release of the report four parishes and eight clergy from New Westminster diocese had accepted the ‘emergency’ offer of episcopal oversight made by the Primates of Central Africa, the Congo, Rwanda, Kenya and South East Asia. Those Primates have asked an American Bishop to serve on their behalf with ‘full episcopal authority’. One of the clergy said, “We are going to become international accredited priests who will function in a missionary role here in Canada.”
Another clergyman called the Taskforce report “all smoke and mirrors.” The Acting Primate of Canada, Archbishop Crawley replied they “want a bishop with full jurisdiction.’ Well, that can’t happen. It’s not part of our structure to do that.”
In ECUSA the entire House of Bishops issued a report “Caring for all the churches”, a response they say comes to “an expressed need of the Church”. They offer a plan of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). In this US proposal it all depends on the action of the diocesan bishop. After consultation between a diocesan bishop and the rector and vestry of a parish, if they cannot achieve reconciliation then the bishop “may [but only ‘may’] appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight.” The purpose is to achieve reconciliation with their bishop and is to “be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.”

Some US parishes already reject this plan. The American Anglican Council, a coalition of orthodox ECUSA members says the DEPO plan “is designed to be viable only where it is unnecessary, that is, in the few dioceses where bishops agree to AEO. It gives no relief to orthodox beleaguered Episcopalians.  It gives no recourse to those whose very constitutional rights of freedom to associate are threatened.  It gives no hope for those who feel abandoned by their church.”
We must await the results of these proposed models for oversight of traditional orthodox Anglicans. We may even find a groundswell of all manner of coalitions of dissenting Anglicans calling for new patterns of oversight.
For example, what may happen in the UK and in Australia if women diocesan bishops are elected? Traditionalists in some dioceses may call for an Aussie version of the Canadian or US models of oversight. There is already a UK model of ‘flying bishops’, an arrangement put in place by the Church of England General Synod to care for Anglicans firmly opposed to the ordination of women.
Whatever the outcomes Anglicans are moving into uncharted, troubled waters.