Regarding the Next Archbishop of The Anglican Church in North America
This letter was sent to a number of ACNA deacons, priests, and bishops on May 22, 2024. We publish it here with permission from the authors.
As the College of Bishops prepares to convene next month to elect the ACNA’s next archbishop, we – former members of churches within the Diocese of Christ Our Hope – have been dismayed to hear that Bishop Steve Breedlove may be a candidate. We don't say this out of malice or ill-will, but because of what we have experienced under his leadership. A candidate such as Bp. Breedlove who, during his tenure as bishop, has shown incredibly poor judgment and poor leadership, and who has caused division, great hurt and confusion for those under his care, is not up to the challenges of being the next archbishop. We write this now as we are concerned that the problems we have seen and experienced are largely unknown or have been misrepresented, and we desire to bring relevant truth to light as the College of Bishops considers this significant election. While we understand that the options for who may become the next archbishop and follow in the footsteps of Archbishop Foley Beach and Archbishop Emeritus Bob Duncan are unfortunately limited, and there might be worse eligible candidates, we are concerned with the possibility of Bp. Breedlove as the new archbishop.
The ACNA is in desperate need of a leader who is capable of addressing the challenges the Province will continue to encounter, including responding well to instances of abuse and allegations of wrongdoing within its churches and leadership. While we have been heartened to see steps from some corners of the Province related to issues of abuse, the ACNA as a whole and the Diocese of Christ Our Hope in particular is still far from the transparency and best practices to respond to issues surrounding abuse in a way that reflects the light and love of Christ.
While Bp. Breedlove has shown qualities over the years that have earned him the respect and loyalty of many, he has also shown tremendous failures and lapses in judgment, as exemplified in the case of the ongoing investigation into alleged pastoral failures and abuse of a prominent priest in his diocese, the Rev. Dan Claire (“Dan”). 1
Below are a few examples of concerns observed and experienced by us with respect to Bp. Breedlove’s judgment and leadership. We have attempted to provide enough specificity for understanding while simultaneously protecting the ongoing investigation into Dan and his victims. Further, this letter is not meant to be a recounting of mistakes Bp. Breedlove has made during his tenure as bishop. All of us, particularly those in leadership, will make some errors and missteps along the way, and grace has been and should be given for such errors. However, those in leadership and spiritual authority are called to a higher level of accountability and character, and should be above reproach.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPERVISION TO A PRIEST UNDER HIS CARE
Despite warnings and opportunities from multiple people and concerning multiple incidents that spanned more than a decade, Bp. Breedlove repeatedly failed to adequately acknowledge, understand or address the concerns regarding Dan; furthermore, Bp. Breedlove failed to provide Dan with proper correction and oversight, which resulted in these incidents ballooning into the unresolved investigations and issues we have seen endured to date.
In the Fall of 2019, Bp. Breedlove received an official complaint of abuse of spiritual authority regarding Dan. In 2020, he received two additional and unrelated reports involving multiple other parishioners who were affected by Dan’s alleged abusive behavior towards them. While Bp. Breedlove correctly initiated an investigation as canonically required, the failures of the investigation and its aftermath have been noted multiple times, and still continue today. 2
Among other concerns, Bp. Breedlove had knowledge of allegations of multiple flagrant violations of pastoral confidentiality committed by Dan. In one glaring example, he had clear evidence (via an investigative report3) that Dan–in a conversation with a parishioner who had explicitly requested confidentiality–secretly had another individual listening and recording this pastoral conversation without the parishioner’s knowledge or consent.4 Dan subsequently shared the recording with third parties, again without the parishioner’s knowledge or consent. Instead of alerting authorities to this criminal act, or at least informing the parishioner of it, Bp. Breedlove refused the parishioner access to any of their parts of the investigative report which would have disclosed what had occurred, thus covering up this violation of both confidentiality and law.
Despite his knowledge of Dan’s gross breach of pastoral confidentiality, Bp. Breedlove failed to discipline Dan 5 or otherwise protect those under his care.
REPEATEDLY DISMISSING AND MARGINALIZING WOMEN
The Diocese of Christ Our Hope does not allow women to be ordained to the priesthood. While there is room for reasonable disagreement among the ACNA dioceses on the ordination of women, rather than otherwise respecting and elevating women where appropriate and bringing clarity and unity among the diocese on issues where there can be agreement, many women have been marginalized even within those roles allowed theologically. While we do not attempt to infer motivation or intent to his words or actions, we have seen and experienced instances where Bp. Breedlove has disrespected, marginalized, and discounted the voices of women. This is especially evident in the case of Dan Claire.
Upon receipt of a complaint of misconduct regarding Dan Claire in 2020, Bp. Breedlove revealed he had already been involved in and consulted by Dan regarding the situation involving a female parishioner (“Complainant 1”). Even though at that time he would have already been aware of allegations of abuse of spiritual authority regarding Dan since at least Fall 2019 (see section 1), as well as previous concerns about Dan’s behavior raised years earlier, he failed to examine Dan’s accounts of the situation more closely. Quite the contrary: at this point in time, Bp. Breedlove was convinced he had “no reason to doubt the full veracity of Dan’s descriptions and comments”.6
The Complaint from Nov 2020 included a detailed description of the conflict between Complainant 1 and Dan and what transpired between them after the initial conflict. Dan’s representation of events, such as Complainant 1 sending “multiple emails” on a certain day, had been disproven with the actual email correspondence from that day. The account describes how Dan misrepresented interactions and details of the conflict to make Complainant 1 appear emotionally and mentally unstable, as well as sexually “dangerous”.
In response to this Complaint, Bp. Breedlove wrote a lengthy email to multiple clergy which revealed his own misogynistic views of women, exemplifying his disregard for them as people, as well as his lack of care for them in the face of significant accusations and mistreatment by Dan. In this email he admitted that he himself had supported Dan’s mistreatment of Complainants 1 and 2 and seemingly jumped to Dan’s defense.7 Bishop Breedlove described one woman (“Complainant 2”) as being “sexually dangerous” and accepting allegations of mental illness based on descriptions by Dan, without ever having spoken to the woman for her perspective or otherwise conducting any due diligence into the veracity of Dan’s accusations. Bishop Breedlove showed his own bias and misogyny when without basis he described Complainant 2 as being dressed in a way he was “very uncomfortable with” and further stating that he was also very uncomfortable with “her physical posture.” He then wrote, “I’m sorry to have to say that in a “Me Too” world, but it is true.” He made stereotypes and spurious accusations against two (unspecified) women in his own past as having mental illness simply because they apparently emailed him too much, and in response he shunned them and unilaterally labeled them with something as serious as mental health problems.
Bp. Breedlove adopted Dan’s judgment of his parishioners’ mental health statuses and aided his narrative with baseless diagnoses8, never having once talked to either Complainant or heard their side of the story.9 In both cases, Steve uncritically accepted Dan’s accounts and concurred with and even encouraged Dan that the women involved should be shunned, ostracized, and cut off from their church and, in at least one case, employment.
DISHONESTY
In a public statement from January 2023 by the Diocesan Council named “Response of the Diocesan Council and Bishops to the Report and Recommendations from Grand River Solutions”, Bp. Breedlove claimed:
“I am grateful that the GRS team, after reading and studying thousands of emails and meeting with many people personally, concluded that there was no evidence of malice or bias on my part toward any of the parties involved.”
Upon verifying these statements with Martin Stanberry, Senior Solutions Specialist and investigator from Grand River Solutions, Martin responded in an email from Feb 10, 2023:
“[T]he term “bias” is not found in the executive report and is only used once – on page 10 – of the Review. Use of that term was deliberate in that context. Specifically, advocates of Reverend Claire had raised concerns that Bishop Steve had prejudged the claims and acted with bias against him. As stated in the report, we found that Bishop Steve’s “actions and communications lack evidence of any pre-judgement or bias against Reverend Claire.” (Review, p. 10).”
On the contrary, the GRS report hints at Bp. Breedlove’s bias in favor of Dan:
“In late December 2020, before the investigation started, Steve Breedlove wrote Dan C to assure him that the charges did not require an interruption to his ministry and leadership, and while there were serious claims of a failure of effective pastoral ministry, it would “not need to ever grow into ‘general failure of pastoral ministry with public disciplinary restrictions or removal from ministry.’ … no one wants you out of ministry or believes you need to leave pastoral ministry.” 10
As a side note, this last statement was false as not everyone shared this view.
Further, while he himself was under active investigation by GRS regarding how he had handled the allegations against Dan, Bp. Breedlove continued to proceed with further mishandling of that process, authoring a document on May 27, 2022 entitled “Pastoral Process for The Rev. Dan Claire” 11, jeopardizing his own newly announced re-investigation into the complaints against Dan.12 This document seemingly concluded the flawed first investigation in spite of all public communication that conclusions could not be drawn.13 This document was written on the same day that the Diocesan Coordinating Team published a FAQ, in which they specifically answered the question of “Is Rev. Claire under discipline in the Diocese?” with “No.”.14
In the abovementioned public statement from January 2022, Bp. Breedlove also promised to reach out to anyone pained by the failed investigation and his own shortcomings:
“Therefore, facing and owning personal shortcomings and failures and making amends starts with meeting personally with those people caught in the ongoing confusion and pain. I am committed to reaching out to each person I am aware of and doing whatever I can to make arrangements (acceptable to each one) for meeting personally.”
He repeatedly stated that he intended to apologize to those whom he has wronged, and years later this has not happened, despite multiple people reaching out to him to let him know of willingness to have such a conversation.
CONCLUSION
As the Province looks to the election of a new archbishop and celebrates 15 years of its existence, we urge you to consider all possible best candidates for this significant role with the necessary wisdom, godliness, humility, theological discernment, gravitas, and leadership skills to earn this important role. Let us not become yet another denomination with patterns of hidden abuses, cover ups, and poor leadership in the challenging age in which we find ourselves. It is not enough that someone is well-intentioned, or that they did not act maliciously in their gross mishandling of crises and allegations against a prominent priest under their care. Bp. Steve Breedlove is not the right person to be the ACNA’s next archbishop, and we beseech you to choose a better leader for us all.
1) https://www.acnatoo.org/christ-our-hope/open-letter; https://religionnews.com/2022/04/07/anglicans-say-leaders-botched-response-to-allegations-against-dc-priest/
2) See fn. 1 as well as a related opinion of the Provincial Tribunal.
3) “The Final Report of the Canonical Investigators Regarding the Reverend Daniel Claire and Allegations of Spiritual Abuse”, August 31, 2021
4) The parishioner in question lived in a “two party consent” jurisdiction, making this violation not only a breach of pastoral confidences but a violation of applicable statutory law. Dan lives in a “one-party consent jurisdiction” where undisclosed third parties not actively participating in a conversation are likewise prohibited from recording that conversation.
5) A May 27, 2022 Diocese of Christ Our Hope communication entitled “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Complaints of Pastoral Misconduct in the Diocese of Christ Our Hope” explicitly stated, “2. Is Rev. Claire under discipline in the Diocese? No.”
6) Dec. 23, 2020 email from Steve Breedlove to multiple clergy, para. 9, “I have no first-hand experience of her, only what I was told by Dan C as the situation unfolded at Rez.” (The email in its entirety is not being shared here due to confidentiality issues and the ongoing underlying investigation.)
7) Id. para. 16: “I for one had no reason to doubt the full veracity of the descriptions and comments Dan was giving me RE: Complainant 1 and Complainant 2. (And to be fair, those descriptions might prove to have substance and merit. That will be up to the investigation to determine.)”
8) Id. para. 12: “My advice was based totally on his descriptions of Complainant 1, and the basic trust I have had in him as a reliable partner and leader.”
9) In the same email, he attributes Complainant 1 with “borderline syndrome” and describes Complainant 2 as a “sexual danger to clergy”, describing Complainant 2’s body as making him feel “uncomfortable”.
10) Excerpt from “Review of Dan Claire Investigation and Associated Acting by the Diocese of Christ our Hope, With Recommendations and Executive Report”, October 26, 2022 (GRS Executive Report)
11) Exhibit 4 as part of the November 6, 2023 Tribunal Decision and Order Dismissing Petition
12) A letter from Bp. Steve Breedlove, Bp. Quigg Lawrence, Bp. Alan Hawkins, and Vice-Chair J. Patton, on behalf of the Diocesan Council from Feb 12, 2022, and email announcement from Steve Breedlove from April 20, 2022.
13) Same letter from Feb 12, 2022 states that the first investigation had been deemed “insufficient and incomplete, not allowing for adequate input and response”, that it “did not allow for adequate analysis”, that the “flaws in the final report made it impossible to come to reliable conclusions” and was therefore “set aside”.
14) “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Complaints of Pastoral Misconduct in the Diocese of Christ Our Hope”, simultaneously sent to participants of the first investigation and published on the DCOH website on May 27, 2022.
