The Most Rev. Steve Wood, Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America, has been canonically indicted for alleged misconduct and will face an ecclesiastical trial, according to a provincial announcement.
A Board of Inquiry composed of five priests and five adult members declared on December 12 that it found probable cause to put Archbishop Wood to trial, two months after a formal complaint was filed against him by a group of ACNA clergy and laity. The board indicted Wood on three charges: violation of ordination vows, conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense, and sexual immorality.
The board’s speedy indictment represents a change from the procedural uncertainty and delay that had marked the disciplinary process so far. Under ACNA canons, the duty of selecting members for a Board of Inquiry belongs to the archbishop, and is to be done “upon receipt” of a formal complaint against a bishop. Since the complaint concerned the archbishop, the denomination had delegated this duty to the Most Rev. Ray Sutton (Diocese of Mid-America), then the Dean of the Province and second in the line of succession.
Initially, the ACNA’s Provincial Office refused to accept the October 20 complaint, which contained sworn affidavits, but was missing language desired by the office to confirm they were sworn “under penalties of perjury.” A two-week delay ensued as the complainants argued that no such requirement existed in the canons.
The complainants later resubmitted the complaint and expanded its allegations: an additional woman accused Wood of sexual harassment, and the Rev. Andrew Gross, former denominational communications director, accused Wood and Sutton of having previously conspired to appoint a “bishop-friendly” Board of Inquiry in the event of charges ever coming against Wood.
Sutton, whom a group of chaplains had accused that week of quashing their complaints concerning Bishop Derek Jones, announced that he would step aside from the Wood matter. The Board of Inquiry he had already appointed, he said, would be approved by a three-bishop panel appointed by the Rt. Rev. Julian Dobbs (Diocese of the Living Word). Sutton resigned as Dean on November 17, leaving Dobbs in the archiepiscopal role for the pendency of the Wood matter.
The speed of the board’s work, which by canon involves investigating by “hear[ing] the accusations and such proof as the accusers may produce,” suggests that the formal complaint and its affidavits could have been sufficient to establish probable cause. The standing committee of Wood’s Diocese of the Carolinas had suggested that the board use an outside firm to conduct a fuller investigation, but the board appeared to reach its conclusion on its own.
With the board’s indictment, Archbishop Wood will face a prosecutor of Bishop Dobbs’ choice and will be tried before the denomination’s Court for the Trial of a Bishop. The court consists of two adult members, two priests, and three bishops. Its senior-most bishop, who serves as its president, is the Rt. Rev. David Bryan, who has served as suffragan in the Diocese of the Carolinas since 2016.
While the next procedural steps toward trial are clear, its timeline is not. Speaking at a provincial Q&A session on December 12, Bill Nelson, the denomination’s chancellor, emphasized that the court could only hear one case at a time, and would not be able to turn to the Wood matter until the conclusion of the trial of the Rt. Rev. Stewart Ruch (Diocese of the Upper Midwest). A verdict in that matter is due December 16.
“I can’t tell you any further right now what the court’s timetable will be, but … the Wood matter will be the next matter to be considered. And we will just post updates on timing as they become available,” Nelson said. In the Ruch matter, 13 months elapsed between the Board of Inquiry’s indictment and the court’s first scheduling order, and 15 more will have passed by the time of the verdict.
Also unclear is the role played by some ACNA bishops in the early stages of the allegations against Archbishop Wood. After several bishops made public statements portraying the complainants as having gone to The Washington Post with their claims before attempting to use the disciplinary mechanisms of the church, the complainants included in their resubmitted complaint a detailed chronology of their yearlong fruitless effort to secure three bishop sponsors for the complaint—the easier of the ACNA’s two canonical filing methods.
The complainants alleged that they had approached four bishops, who all ultimately declined to sponsor the complaint, before organizing the more difficult ten-person path to filing. The Rt. Rev. Chip Edgar (South Carolina) and the Rt. Rev. Chris Warner (Mid-Atlantic) identified themselves as among the four. Edgar called upon the College of Bishops to issue “a unified, public apology” for the “disparaging statements” made about the complainants. The other two bishops are unknown.
The church’s College of Bishops met in Plano, Texas, on December 3-4 and issued a report that noted a “significant deficit of trust” of the bishops. While the report mentioned a discussion of “those bishops who had prior awareness” of the Wood complaint, it did not name the bishops or speak to their public statements.
“We acknowledged areas where we have not fully met the high calling entrusted to us. We recognized moments of weakness in our relationships with one another, instances where our courage has flagged, and occasions when we lacked attentiveness or care for the flock committed to us. In humility, we sought forgiveness from the Lord and from one another,” the bishops wrote.
“We also recognize that, at times, these weaknesses have fallen short of the expectations the Province rightly has for its leaders. In a spirit of honest repentance, we express sorrow for the hurt that these shortcomings have caused, and we ask the clergy and people of the Anglican Church in North America to forgive us where we have not lived up to the sacred trust placed in us.”
The bishops’ statement has met with a mixed response from other denominational figures. Kevin Kallsen, a 15-year host of the news and commentary show Anglican Unscripted, said the statement was vague. “I was expecting in the report there to be a sound, Christian, recognizable apology,” he said. “I didn’t see it.”
Members of ACNAtoo, the grassroots organization formed in response to the Ruch matter, echoed Kallsen. Advocate Heather Griffin told The Living Church that the report “comes across as an attempt for sympathy.”
“They have failed to take responsibility for specific actions and make specific apologies, such as admitting that they spread misinformation about the Wood presentment authors,” Griffin said. “This letter feigns vulnerability while maintaining control,” added advocate Conor Hanson.
The Rev. David Roseberry, who served for 31 years as rector of Christ Church, Plano, as it transitioned from the largest Episcopal parish in the country to the provincial pro-cathedral of the ACNA, wrote a response letter to the bishops asking that they examine the church’s polity.
“What shared life will the College of Bishops cultivate so that trust is not merely requested, but formed?” he asked. “Are clergy to be involved? Will the Provincial Council [the ACNA’s legislature] be empowered?”
Others have recently expressed Roseberry’s theme. “When the ACNA was first forming out of many lifeboats and networks, we knew we needed strong episcopal leadership. Bishops were entrusted with broad executive authority to help knit together a new province,” wrote the Rt. Rev. Phil Ashey, an original architect of the denomination’s canons, on November 26. “But every family grows.”
“What happens when a family that needed strong, decisive parental leadership in its infancy reaches adolescence? Do bishops need to spend more time listening? Should clergy and laity be more intentionally involved in shaping our governance, our culture, and our common life?”
During the December 12 Q&A session, Bishop Dobbs reemphasized the repentance of the college and said he spoke in the meeting about the importance of following up on complaints. “Where the bishops have failed the church, I express my sincere apology to the church for that,” he said.
Arlie Coles is a lay Anglican from the Diocese of Dallas who writes about modern Episcopal history and polity. She is also a machine-learning researcher serving on General Convention’s Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property.
