Our Vows and the Protection of the Flock:  An Open Letter to the ACNA College  of Bishops

Vows are not small matters in the Anglican tradition. The exhortation tells clergy of our duties:

I now exhort you, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to be a messenger, watchman, and steward of the Lord. Remember how great is this treasure committed to your charge. They are the sheep of Christ for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you will serve is his bride, his body. If the Church, or any of her members, is hurt or hindered by your negligence, you must know both the gravity of your fault, and the grievous judgment that will result (BCP 488–489 emphasis added).

As clergy in the ACNA, attending to the matter of Archbishop Wood’s accusation is part of our pastoral duties and the care of our local congregations.  

There  is much that would be presumptuous to comment on at this early stage.   We do not write this letter with any presumption about what this investigation will reveal or what its final outcome will be. We will limit our focus to a single salient issue: Given the seriousness of the charges against our Archbishop (sexual harassment and abuse of power), we believe that a voluntary leave of absence is insufficient.  Canonically, a voluntary leave of absence allows the Archbishop to return to office when he sees fit.  Instead, we suggest that the Archbishop be inhibited until the conclusion of the trial that will determine his guilt or innocence.  If such a request is not granted we believe that we as clergy deserve to hear from the College of Bishops why they believe that such a step is not warranted. We understand the weight of this request and do not make it flippantly.

In the Anglican tradition,  an inhibition is not a statement about the guilt or innocence of the accused.  According to our canons, “An Inhibition is a temporary suspension of a Bishop (including the Archbishop), a Presbyter, or a Deacon from the exercise of ministry (Canon 9, section 1). ” It is by its very nature “temporary.”

There are two requirements for an inhibition. First,  there must be “ reasonable grounds” to believe that the accused has engaged in conduct upon which they may be presented.  The Archbishop has already been presented.  Since the litigation of that presentation is a matter for our court systems, it does not appear to be the job of those in authority to determine Archbishop Wood’s guilt or innocence before an inhibition.  That would require those in authority  to engage in an investigation not required by canon. 

Therefore, in a case where there has already been a presentment, an inhibition may be deemed “reasonable” based upon the sworn testimony of the presentment itself.  Stated differently, our canons suggest that if the charges are of sufficient seriousness and of initial viability then the accused may be inhibited until the truthfulness of said charges can be discerned. We believe this case meets that standard.

 The second requirement is that “it is in the best interests of the church to do so, pending an accusation, canonical investigation, presentment, trial, or voluntary submission to discipline (Canon 9,section 1).” We believe that given these charges, this case also meets that standard.  

Again our goal is not to presume guilt, but to give space to investigate and discern guilt or innocence with all possible protections in place.

We know that inhibition is not a matter for the entire College of Bishops.  Instead, “In the case of the presentment of a Bishop of this Church (including the Archbishop), three of the five senior active diocesan members of the College of Bishops by date of consecration (exclusive of any bishop involved in the presentment or trial) may, by their affirmative vote, temporarily inhibit the Bishop from the exercise of ministry. Such inhibition shall be in writing, signed by those consenting to it.”

Nonetheless, we believe that in this circumstance it would be prudent for the college as a whole to meet in council with those tasked to make this decision and inform them of your opinion on the matter to aid in their discernment.  We then would respectfully request to hear from house on this matter because we believe that you are tasked with the care of the flock of God which includes the clergy and laity under your care.  You have been given the weighty charism and task of leadership and protection. You can be assured of our prayers.

Clergy interested in supporting this call can add their names here.

We plan to submit this letter along with its signatures to the College of Bishops on the Feast of Christ the King, the last Sunday of Ordinary Time. 

Feast of St. Martin of Tours, 2025

Authors

Esau McCaulley+

Amanda Rosengren+

Tish Harrison Warren+

Jonathan Warren Pagán+

Signees