C. Alan Runyan, the Provincial Prosecutor for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), resigned effective 18 July 2025, in the midst of the high-profile trial of the Rt. Rev. Stewart Ruch III, bishop of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest. 

In a letter addressed to the Most Rev. Stephen D. Wood, Mr. Runyan expressed “great regret and deep spiritual sadness,” citing “irredeemable taint” introduced into the trial process by a member of the ecclesiastical court who, according to Runyan, improperly questioned witnesses and drew on materials not entered into evidence.

In his letter to Archbishop Wood, Runyan detailed that the court member’s actions introduced “unwarranted suspicion of provincial investigative bias” and violated the court’s own previous order to keep focus strictly on the charges against Bishop Ruch, rather than the prior investigative process. He stated that attempts were made to cast doubt on the investigation itself, even though no evidence of impropriety had been presented in the trial record.

The prosecutor stressed that “a trial process that bears within it the seed of impropriety, no matter the outcome, must change,” and called for the full, redacted trial transcript to be made available both to any successor prosecutor and to the broader church for transparency. Runyan concluded by expressing his sorrow at the development and a hope for God’s glorification in the ultimate outcome.

The misconduct was reported orally by Runyan to Archbishop Wood on 18 July 2025, and communicated in a formal letter of resignation dated the 19th. The archbishop responded on the evening of the 20th expressing his regret over Runyan’s resignation, but in a surprise move, is permitting the proceedings to continue under a new prosecutor, rather than declaring a mistrial in the face of purported misconduct by a member of the court. 

The Ruch trial commenced on 14 July 2025, in response to his alleged mishandling of sexual abuse allegations within his diocese. The case follows the conviction of former lay minister Mark Rivera for child sexual abuse within an Illinois church under the diocese’s oversight, triggering scrutiny over Ruch’s response to abuse disclosures.

The trial was set in motion primarily due to a formal “presentment” submitted by three bishops of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The names of the bishops had not been made public in the run up to the trial, but one 2023 document submitted by the Diocese of the Upper Midwest names the Rt. Rev. Ken Ross of the diocese of the Rocky Mountains as one of the presenting bishops. The published indictment subsequently named the three presenting bishops: The Rt. Rev. Todd Hunter, the Rt. Rev. Chuck Gillin, and Bishop Ross.

The three bishops’ presentment formally accused Bishop Ruch of failing his episcopal duties, especially in relation to the diocese’s response to allegations of abuse. While the bishops’ presentment was the primary procedural initiator, a second presentment—submitted by a grassroots group of clergy and laity—was also reviewed. Both were considered by the Board of Inquiry, but the bishops’ presentment was the catalyst that first set the official wheels in motion.

Once filed, the presentment prompted the establishment of a Board of Inquiry, a church body designated to assess whether there was probable cause to send the case to trial. This board reviewed evidence and determined if the case merited formal adjudication.

After review, the Board of Inquiry found “reasonable grounds” to proceed, meaning the presentment by the three bishops was both the legal and canonical basis that officially initiated the ecclesiastical trial of Bishop Ruch.

The presentment became the subject of early procedural battles. Bishop Ruch challenged its validity, arguing that the bishops had not sworn to his guilt personally but wanted the process to move forward. This led to canonical and tribunal reviews, as the Provincial Tribunal had to decide if such a presentment still held legal force.

Despite procedural objections, church authorities concluded that there was sufficient ground to try Bishop Ruch based on this presentment, leading directly to last week’s trial.

The charges against Bishop Ruch are:

Habitual neglect of episcopal duties

Conduct causing scandal or offense, including abuse of ecclesiastical power

Violation of ordination vows

Willful contravention of denominational canons and constitutions

According to church documents and media reports, Ruch did not initiate an investigation or properly inform his diocese for two years after initial allegations surfaced. By that period, over ten additional cases of alleged misconduct under his leadership were reported. The trial, conducted virtually for privacy and expediency, is only the second of its kind in ACNA’s history.

Access to the trial has been tightly restricted, with only parties and the seven-member court allowed to participate. This confidentiality, while described by the court as a means to maintain integrity and protect those involved, has drawn criticism from survivor advocates and church members who have called for greater transparency.

Authors of a grassroots lay presentment—one of two sets of formal charges—have accused the denomination of sidelining survivor voices, as many individuals associated with their cases reportedly were not called to testify, fueling ongoing debate about the church’s handling of sexual abuse claims.

The trial’s outcome remains pending, and may be delayed by the resignation of the prosecutor. ACNA officials expect the court’s verdict within 60 days of the trial’s conclusion; Bishop Ruch would have 30 days to appeal any guilty verdict. Final sentencing decisions, should guilt be found, would be made by the denomination’s archbishop and active bishops.