What education requirements are imposed on ordination candidates in the Anglican church?

I do not think this question can be answered, and I flagged it as too broad, but the flag was rejected. As I explained in some comments:

I think this is too broad as each diocese could have different rules (and many definitely do). The diocese where I live unofficially hates another diocese in the country. If you don't train at the official seminary you might be forced to do at least a year there, but other diocese don't have similar restrictions.

There is The Ordinal but I don't think it contains anything about education. (And each diocese/province could even have it's own version of The Ordinal too.) You're right that each local Anglican church has to submit to a central authority, but that authority is the diocese, and they don't agree about the issue of education. Western countries probably all require tertiary education, while countries like PNG don't. This question could be answered with each answer giving how it is in their own situation, but any overall answer would be broad.

Remember there is no "Anglican church". There are Anglican dioceses and provinces, and an association (=club) of them called the Anglican Communion. But it is now fractured and many Anglican dioceses are not part of it.

I just spent quite a bit of time and could not find in either the Australian prayer book, Australian constitution and canons or my local diocese's constitution and canons any rule about educational requirements. I know they exist because another website describes them, but I can't see where they're required. But I also know other provinces and dioceses will have different standards.

  • If you have vote-to-close privileges, please consider voting.
  • If you think this can be answered in a not-too-broad way, can you explain how in an answer to this meta question?
  • 2
    For the record, I did not decline your flag, nor did another moderator. I did see it but recused myself from dealing with it and it was eventually automatically declined by the <Community> user after having been through the review queue and gotten 3 "Leave Open" votes.
    – Caleb
    Jul 9, 2014 at 14:14
  • @Caleb no worries, I hope I didn't sound like I was accusing you of anything!
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jul 9, 2014 at 14:20

1 Answer 1


My personal (vested interest) opinion is that the question is reasonably scoped. It might not be answerable, but in that case a valid answer would be to explain why it cannot be answered. If the requirements are truly inconsistent, explaining that would answer the question.

It is a difficult thing to scope questions for which you don't know the answer. The main issue with scoping is that we want people do do some basic research (like understanding that there are different theological traditions) so we aren't covering that ground in every answer an the site. On the other hand if somebody with quite a bit of general knowledge about how things go together asks a question that is outside their specific expertise and asks it as specifically as they can without knowing the answer, that is usually scoped enough.

It the case of my question, why not answer with a sample of the data you found and note the variation between dioceses and suggest how deep a rabbit hole you think it is and make that your answer?

  • I guess I'm concerned that it sets a bad precedent. Anglicanism is more like a movement than a denomination. We wouldn't allow a question asking for the educational requirements of baptist churches. I think that for churches like Anglicanism and Presbyterianism questions should only be allowed which relate to the historic or defining documents, which for Anglicanism would be the Articles the Prayer book and the Lambeth conferences. What do you think?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jul 9, 2014 at 14:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .