Survivors Suffer As Bishops Battle: A Statement on the ACNA Crisis of Governance

ACNAtoo formed almost two years ago in response to allegations of sexual abuse mishandling in the ACNA Diocese of the Upper Midwest (UMD). In early 2022, the ACNA Province launched two separate third-party investigations into the UMD case, concluding in fall 2022 and spring 2023, respectively. Since then, they have remained silent about any next steps being taken in response to the investigation findings.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023, the office of the Archbishop published a statement with linked documents that reveal what has taken place since the investigations’ completion.

Timeline of major post-investigation events to date:

• December 2022: The Provincial Investigative Team (1), in response to investigation findings, votes to bring a Presentment of charges against UMD Bp. Stewart Ruch.

• December 22-23: Three bishops (2) submit to the Province a 9-page Presentment (3) (formal canonical charge) against Bp. Ruch, alleging “Habitual Neglect of Duties” and “Conduct Giving Just Cause for Scandal or Offense.” In response, the Archbishop begins forming a Board of Inquiry to investigate the charges, as mandated in the ACNA’s bylaws.

• January 31, 2023: Bp. Ruch’s chancellor privately submits a “Request for Declarations” to the ACNA Tribunal (the Supreme Court of the Province)(4) alleging that the Provincial investigative process – and thus the Presentment based on the investigation findings – are canonically invalid.

• February 4: The Tribunal issues a Stay Order to Abp. Beach, halting the creation of the Board of Inquiry while it determines its own jurisdiction with relation to Bp. Ruch’s Request.

• March 24: Abp. Beach’s lawyer submits a 38-page “Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify,”(5) requesting the Stay Order be dismissed and that 4 members (6) of the Tribunal recuse themselves or be disqualified.

• May 12: The Tribunal (7) hears oral arguments from Abp. Beach’s lawyer and Bp. Ruch’s lawyer concerning the Motion.

• June 6: The Tribunal issues its ruling and denies Abp. Beach’s motion in its entirety.

• June 7: The Archbishop publishes a statement accusing the Tribunal of “usurpation of canonical authority and the obstruction of the Title IV disciplinary process.” In this statement he links to both the March 24 “Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify” and the Tribunal’s June 6 response denying the Motion.

• June 8: Religion News Service reports that a second, separate Presentment against Bp. Ruch is currently being circulated to gather signatures by laity and clergy in the UMD.
  

The Archbishop’s March 24 “Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify” includes the following allegations disputing the legitimacy of both the Stay Order and the Tribunal itself:

• The Tribunal stepped outside its canonical authority in issuing the Stay Order.

• Four out of seven members of the Tribunal have prior pastoral, economic, or legal relationships with Bp. Ruch, the UMD, and/or the Greenhouse Movement that would cast doubt on the fairness and objectivity of any ruling the Tribunal might issue.

• The Tribunal did not abide by its own procedures and impaired due process.

The Tribunal’s 26-page response to the Archbishop denies his Motion in its entirety, indicating that:

• The Presentment was not properly filed.

• There is an ongoing question about the validity of the Presentment process that the Tribunal must rule on as a canonical matter.

• The Tribunal cannot disqualify its members due to alleged conflicts of interest, because recusing oneself or not is up to the individual to decide, according to their conscience before God.

These are not exhaustive lists of the parties’ differences. In addition to the original documents linked above, we recommend reading this Twitter thread series and this blog post for a helpful introduction to the ACNA Constitution and Canons and a more thorough analysis of the unfolding situation.

In light of the now-public conflict between the Archbishop’s office, ACNA Tribunal, and Bp. Ruch, we want to address several key points.

The inadequacy of ACNA governance structures

From the beginning, our organization has highlighted the importance of church polity and governing documents. We outlined how the UMD’s Constitution and Canons did not conform to Anglican canon law norms and warned that conflicts of interest were deeply embedded in the leadership of the Bishop’s Council, Greenhouse Movement, and other UMD governing structures. 

We now see those same patterns in what has been shared by the Archbishop’s office. Whatever the outcome of the canonical conflict between Bp. Ruch and Abp. Beach, inadequate church polity and potential conflicts of interest are eroding the ACNA’s confidence in its own Canons. Meanwhile, the same UMD leaders we named as problematic have largely resumed their former posts, including Bp. Ruch who came off his leave of absence in October 2022.

As an advocacy group that understands the necessity and efficacy of making public complaints after attempting to go through inadequate proper channels, we recognize that the Archbishop has adopted a similar strategy. It is significant that the Archbishop of the ACNA himself, believing the ACNA Tribunal to be failing severely in its mandate and having no other recourse inside the system, has done exactly what ACNAtoo survivors felt compelled to do: resort to addressing the failures of the ACNA process publicly.

The continued failure of the Province regarding the investigations

When the ACNA launched the Husch Blackwell investigation, the Provincial Response Team promised a full public report of the investigation findings. This report was published September 7, 2022, but was pulled offline 4 days later in response to a public outcry concerning unredacted personal details of alleged sexual abuse. A month later, the Province had failed to rerelease a properly redacted report or provide any updates on the report’s status. 

ACNAtoo redacted the Husch Blackwell report ourselves, according to survivor requirements for privacy, and released it on our website. To date, the Province has remained silent on the state of the report, in ongoing violation of its public promise. It is significant that Abp. Beach and his lawyers are able to write a 38-page Motion to the ACNA Tribunal, but continue to refuse to update survivors and ACNA parishioners (who footed the bill for the investigation), on the status of the investigation report that disappeared 7 months ago.

During the last year and a half the Province has also failed to address numerous serious complaints about the treatment of survivors by the Provincial Response Team (PRT) during the investigative process, as well as allegations levied by the 3 PRT members who also declared the process deeply flawed and resigned from the PRT in solidarity with survivors.

The impact on ACNA survivors

The people who suffer the most in this Battle of the Bishops are the survivors. The survivors continue to wait for justice and accountability. 

This is a turning point for the denomination: can there be meaningful accountability for leaders accused of mishandling abuse, waging covert warfare against survivors, and committing gross negligence of their pastoral duties? Or will personal influence, infighting, partisanship, and cronyism gain the spotlight? Canonical processes and procedures have a purpose: to safeguard the people and protect the life of the church from that which could hinder it. So far the ACNA’s processes have not been up to the task.

We encourage all clergy and laity of good faith in the ACNA to ask their bishops for prompt and ethical responses to this ongoing failure. Meanwhile, remember that whatever happens in the Province, you can continue to work on the ground to create safer church communities. Educate yourself by listening to the stories of those who have been abused, support survivors in your parishes, and continue to advocate for trauma-informed policies in your local churches. 

1. The members of the Provincial Investigative Team are The Rev. Travis Boline (Officer of the ACNA Provincial Council), Elizabeth Conkle (ACNA Executive Committee member), The Rev. Chris Culpepper (ACNA Executive Committee member), Alan Runyan, Esq. (Anglican Diocese of South Carolina), Theresa Sidebotham, Esq. (Telios Law), and The Rev. Lisa Schwandt (ACNA Executive Committee member).

2. The three presenting bishops are Bp. Todd Hunter (Churches for the Sake of Others), Bp. Kenneth Ross (Rocky Mountain Diocese), and Bp. Charles Gillin (REC–North East Mid America).

3. The procedures for bringing Presentments against clergy are laid out in Title 4 of the ACNA Canons and Constitutions (pp. 29-37).

4. The seven members of the Tribunal are Bp. Julian Dobbs (Diocese of the Living Word), Bp. Clark Lowenfield (Western Gulf Coast Diocese), Mr. Raymond Dague Esq.(Diocese of the Living Word), The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey (Anglican Diocese of the South), The Rev. Michael Dearman (Western Gulf Coast Diocese), The Rev. Charles Earlonson (REC–Diocese of Mid-America), and Ms. Victoria Netten-Huyer Esq. (Anglican Network in Canada).

5.  The signatories of the Motion are Abp. Foley Beach, Bp. Ray Sutton (ACNA Provincial Dean), Bp. John Guernsey (ACNA Dean of Provincial Affairs), ACNA Chancellor Scott Ward, and ACNA Vice Chancellor Jeff Garrety.

6.  The four members cited in the Archbishop’s Motion as having conflicts of interest are Bp. Lowenfield, Bp. Dobbs, Mr. Raymond Dague, and The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey (pp. 25-27).

7. The ACNA Tribunal is elected every three years per the ACNA Constitution. Until this case, as noted in Abp. Beach’s published statement, the Tribunal has never been used since the ACNA was formed in 2009.