ACNA admits bishops ignored years of abuse by fellow bishop
A church court convicted Bishop Derek Jones of four canonical offenses and removed him from office; the denomination admits bishops knew of the misconduct but did not act.
The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has made an extraordinary admission of institutional failure by acknowledging that bishops of its College of Bishops were aware of years of abusive behavior on the part of one of their colleagues but did not take any meaningful action.
The admission came on September 24, after the deposition of Bishop Derek Jones on September 23, who had previously led the ACNA’s Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy.
An ecclesiastical court found Jones guilty of four canonical offenses, including abuse of ecclesiastical authority, disobedience of church law, and promotion of schism, and removed him from ordained ministry by unanimous decision.
The most serious part of the case may not be Jones’s misconduct. Rather, it is what the bishops of the ACNA have now admitted about themselves.
On September 24, the bishops stated that their own members had known about Jones’s behavior but that they had not responded adequately to the complaints.
It’s a surprising admission for ACNA, coming as it does amidst a wave of scandal and adverse publicity.
That raises an obvious question—if the bishops knew what was going on, why did it take so long for anyone to stop it?
Years of abuse
As stated in the church’s statement of September 24, Jones had a record over the years of cruelty, abuse of power, and mistreating chaplains who were unable to challenge his authority.
The bishops described his behavior as wicked, cruel, and amounting to an abuse of power. They also recognized the serious harm the chaplains and their families had suffered.
The main issue was not one of sexual abuse; it was instead concerned with the misuse of ecclesiastical authority, intimidation, retaliation, interference in the careers of clergy, and the manipulation of the church’s disciplinary procedures.
The August 19 ruling states that Jones used his position to exercise significant control over the chaplains serving under him.
The court also considered evidence that chaplains faced disciplinary threats, had their transfers interfered with, and were pressured to make financial contributions.
A chaplain compared his experience to that of living in a cult, and another said that Jones affected his future employment after he had left the jurisdiction.
The court also came across evidence that an official disciplinary document had been backdated.
The accusations were not simply unproven; the ecclesiastical court considered sworn evidence and unanimously convicted Jones of all four charges.
The bishops knew
The most disturbing part of the September 24 statement is that the College of Bishops admitted some of its members knew about Jones’s behavior.
The bishops felt ashamed that those aware of the misconduct had not dealt with the complaints seriously and urgently.
Take that into consideration for a moment.
The denomination’s senior leadership have, in effect, admitted that those with the authority to act knew about the abusive behavior but did not act adequately.
This brings forward questions that go well beyond Jones himself.
Who were the bishops who knew? When did they find out about the complaints? What specific information did they get? Was there any effort made to carry out an investigation? Were the people who made the complaints discouraged from raising their concerns? And did existing institutional relationships or personal loyalties affect the way they responded?
The public statement gives no information as to which bishops knew of the misconduct or includes a detailed account of their actions and failures.
It also doesn’t say whether any of the bishops will be held to account for their failures.
That’s a significant omission.
When disciplinary procedures become weapons
A particularly worrying aspect of the Jones case is the claimed misuse of the church’s own disciplinary procedures.
Church disciplinary procedures are meant to safeguard the congregation, the clergy, and the integrity of the institution; they should not become tools to intimidate those who challenge authority.
The court held that Jones wrongly applied ecclesiastical procedures to chaplains, including those outside his canonical authority.
In one instance, a chaplain seeking to transfer his credentials faced difficulties because of unpaid financial obligations. In another case, the court took disciplinary action against a chaplain who refused to participate in the jurisdiction’s financial arrangements.
The court also looked at evidence of retaliation and interference in employment.
The implications are disturbing.
If a bishop can use disciplinary measures to threaten a person’s career, then the supposed protections within church governance can become a means of coercion.
The problem doesn’t remain limited to one individual if other bishops become aware of this kind of behavior but still fail to take adequate action.
It then turns into an institutional failure.
ACNA acknowledges its culture must change
The College of Bishops has admitted that the Jones case raises issues about its own institutional culture.
In its September 24 statement, the College said it wanted to understand how the abuse happened and promised to change its culture.
The bishops also launched a procedure allowing affected chaplains to ask for their canonical and pastoral status to be restored.
That is reasonable, especially when chaplains have received unfair disciplinary treatment or suffered damage to their careers.
The promise of cultural change does not mean there is any sense of accountability.
Will the ACNA arrange for an independent inquiry into the bishops who knew about Jones’s behavior? Will it release the inquiry’s results? Will it point out any flaws in its reporting and disciplinary systems? And will those bishops who failed to protect the chaplains have to face any repercussions?
If there are no answers, the denomination will treat Jones’s deposition as the end of the issue rather than the starting point for a broader investigation into institutional responsibility.
The problem extends beyond Jones
The Jones case is also taking place at a time when controversy continues over the ACNA’s treatment of disciplinary proceedings involving senior clergy.
The denomination has come under heavy criticism for how it has handled allegations involving Bishop Stewart Ruch and Archbishop Stephen Wood, and so on.
The cases have different facts and allegations and must not be combined with the findings concerning Jones.
Yet, taken together, they raise important questions about whether the ACNA’s disciplinary systems offer enough independence, transparency, and accountability when senior clergy are accused of misconduct.
The denomination has amended its disciplinary canons and has carried out further governance reforms. However, policies and procedures are only as effective as the people who are responsible for enforcing them.
The Jones case shows the consequences when those people take no action.
What about the victims?
Another matter merits consideration: the chaplains and their families.
The court’s findings showed that certain chaplains experienced harassment, faced professional interference, and were subjected to disciplinary measures that affected both their ministries and their livelihoods.
The College of Bishops has acknowledged the harm and promised to work toward restoration.
So what is meant by restoration?
Will unjust disciplinary records be erased? Will chaplains who have been affected be given help in correcting their professional records or in restoring their reputations? Will the denomination investigate whether anyone suffered financial losses as a result of Jones’s behavior?
Will the victims have a meaningful say in deciding what remedies are appropriate?
While apologies matter, they don’t always fix damaged careers, restore lost income, or reverse years of emotional suffering.
The ACNA should clearly state the specific assistance it plans to provide.
Accountability cannot stop with Jones
Derek Jones’s dismissal is a major disciplinary measure; the ACNA court found him guilty, and the College of Bishops then carried out the church’s harshest ecclesiastical penalty.
The denomination’s own admission makes clear that this was not merely one bishop behaving badly while the rest were unaware.
Other bishops knew about his behavior and did not respond adequately.
That changes the equation.
The matter is not merely about what Jones did; it is also about the fact that a denomination which lays claim to respecting biblical authority, pastoral responsibility, and accountability permitted abusive behavior to go on even though the senior leadership was aware of the concerns.
ACNA should be commended for publicly admitting it failed. However, such an admission without any real accountability is likely to amount to no more than institutional damage control.
The bishops state that their culture needs to change. That’s great in theory, but we’ve heard this sort of thing all too often.
Pinpoint the failures, explain what each person knew and when they knew it, set up truly independent checks and balances, offer adequate redress to those who have been harmed, and show that bishops who ignore reasonable complaints will themselves be held to account.
Until then, the Jones case will remain an alarming example of what Anglican Watch has repeatedly noticed in the Anglican Communion: those with the least institutional power usually end up suffering when bishops do not hold other bishops to account.
No amount of the bishop’s worrying can bring about that change.
END
Comments