Bishop Stewart Ruch Vindicated in Multi-Year Trial. Supporters and Detractors Weigh in with Opposing Views.

By David W. Virtue, DD

www.virtueonline.org

December 21, 2025

Bishop Stewart Ruch III and his supporters feel vindicated by a unanimous trial court decision finding the bishop not guilty on all safeguarding charges. Detractors, however, express concern that the verdict constitutes a deliberately reasoned and coverup, leaving ACNAtoo women—the most aggrieved group—unsatisfied by the outcome.

The 71-page final order absolved Bishop Ruch of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest of allegations that he mishandled reports of sexual abuse by lay catechist Mark Rivera and neglected his episcopal duties. The verdict caps a tumultuous multi-year process marked by public scrutiny, multiple investigations, and procedural controversies, including the resignations of several provincial prosecutors.

Opinion remains deeply divided across the denomination.

Supporters: A Vindication

Anglican theologian Gerald McDermott described the outcome as "stunning" and highlighted the verdict's finding that the years of opposition were occasioned by "theological" differences--most likely, McDermott thought, between egalitarians and Ruch's traditional views of sexual difference. He said the trial court examined reams of testimony and accusations, including those of ACNAtoo, and found none of the accusations against Ruch had merit.  Ruch has been examined, scrutinized, and dissected, emerging as "a humble and obedient servant of God."

McDermott called the trial "a devastating indictment of the ACNA for relying more on hearsay than facts and letting social media drive judgments." He noted the verdict's criticism of several bishops who issued and permitted two presentments "without the bishops having first-hand knowledge of real facts."

He warns that this might signal that the ACNA has not learned its lessons. "The present Title IV policy leaves in place committees to evaluate complaints against leaders rather than using biblical criteria repeated twice by Paul—1 Timothy 5:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:1—namely, not to entertain accusations against elders without two or three witnesses."  Without adopting biblical criteria, he says, the ACNA will subject its priests and leaders to a tsunami of accusations and trials, and these leaders will be afraid to speak or act in ways that offend people in the pews.

These ACNAtoo critics say bishops get a free pass.  One can hardly say that of Bishop Ruch, however.  He and his family were put through hell during these years when he and his diocese were help up for censure, condemnation and ridicule.  Province leadership broke a fundamental legal rule by not showing him the evidence and rulings produced by major investigations.  One wonders if apologies will be forthcoming.

Ekklesia Bishop Bill Atwood likewise supported the decision, stating the process was fair and there was no arguable case against the bishop.

The Verdict's Key Findings

The final outcome can be summarized as follows:

All charges dismissed

No canonical offense proven; burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) not met on any count

The Court emphasized that structural or systemic shortcomings do not equal personal misconduct

The case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of narrative-driven discipline, bypassing due process, and conflating institutional growing pains with episcopal failure

Critics: A Flawed Process

The Rev. David Roseberry, a significant voice in Anglican circles and an early ACNA signatory, expressed anger at the proceedings. "Why were people not ready for prime-time handling something this serious?" he asked. "Not because they were evil, but because the moment required steadiness, clarity, and discipline that our system and our people could not supply."

In his essay "Dear ACNA: We Must Do Better. Can We?" Roseberry described feelings of sadness, anger, embarrassment, and resolve.

He accused the court of doing more than simply issuing a verdict. "I expected a careful ruling. I did not expect the Court to address the matter so decisively. And I certainly did not expect it to turn, with such force and clarity, and address the province and the leadership that ran this process."

Roseberry emphasized that real victims needed justice, care, and truth. "To offer anything less would be pastoral malpractice. The process was mishandled. Plainly. The ball was fumbled. And fumbling mattered."

Citing biblical precedent from Acts 6, Roseberry noted: "The apostles did not scold the complainers. They did not spiritualize the problem. They fixed the system. They appointed capable people. They brought order so that ministry and mercy could actually reach the people who needed it. Bad administration hurts people."

He highlighted what he viewed as the Court's foundational diagnosis: "Too many investigations. No coordination. Confusion."

The Court found that episcopal signatories "lacked firsthand knowledge of the factual basis for the charges, did not fully appreciate the canonical gravity or consequences of endorsing a Presentment, and relied almost entirely on summaries or representations provided to them rather than on any independent examination of underlying evidence."

The Court concluded that "the narrative foundation of both Presentments rested on misinterpretation, impression, assumption, and procedural error—not on facts that could satisfy the canonical burden of proof."

Roseberry questioned how the situation deteriorated so badly. "Three separate investigative reports. Public resignations. Years of delay. None of that inspires confidence. Time matters in cases like this. Delay does not bring clarity. It brings fatigue, suspicion, and mistrust. Whatever else one concludes, the drawn-out nature of this process was inexcusable."

He also raised concerns about ACNA's leadership selection process. "A conclave process designed to remove politics can also remove discernment. When bishops disappear into a room and emerge with a nominee, there is little opportunity for honest conversation about gifts, limits, experience, or track record."

Roseberry concluded: "The Final Order makes two things unmistakably clear. Bishop Ruch was not found guilty of canonical violations. The process that brought him to that moment was deeply flawed. This is not a moment for celebration."

One orthodox Canadian Anglican publication ran the headline "The Decline and Fall of the ACNA"—premature perhaps, but the denomination faces two further trials that could prove decisive.

ACNAtoo: "Devastatingly Clear"

The group most incensed by the trial's outcome are ACNAtoo survivors—women abused by Rivera, who is currently incarcerated for his crimes. They believe the verdict overlooks Bishop Ruch's failure to exercise due diligence.

"[We] feel denied and crushed by the verdict that found the bishop not guilty of multiple charges," their statement read. "It is devastatingly clear that if an abuse victim wants to report abuse in the ACNA, they must now bear the additional burden of ensuring they are not perceived as being 'captured' by narratives the ACNA deems illegitimate."

They argue the verdict is "rife with easily refutable claims."

"This verdict comes 6.5 years after Rivera's nine-year-old victim initially disclosed her sexual abuse. This girl, now 16, has waited more than a third of her life for closure from a church system and leaders that repeatedly failed her. She could not even participate in the Husch Blackwell investigation because the ACNA refused to commission an investigation that did not jeopardize her criminal case against Rivera."

They assert that ACNA has relegated survivors' stories to the category of propaganda, demonstrating how the province views those it claims to protect.

"The drawn-out process only benefits the ACNA as an institution, not Bishop Ruch or the survivors," they stated. "An acquittal based on incomplete evidence, lies, and secrecy does not benefit Bishop Ruch. It merely confirms what many people already know: the process was irreparably flawed from the start."

The verdict sends a clear message that bishops receive special treatment, survivors charge, and that the denomination remains unwilling to address abuse effectively at the institutional level.

"The ACNA's disciplinary bodies are riddled with conflicts of interest," survivors stated. "Insular relationships between clergy and bishops have repeatedly served to protect clergy instead of abuse survivors. Laity and clergy are kept uninformed yet told to trust a process that is never clearly laid out or followed. The concerns they raised have been repeatedly ignored."

"This verdict confirms survivors' fears that the ACNA will give bishops a free pass. It tells countless survivors across all 28 dioceses that the ACNA is not a safe place for them."

"This verdict is captured by the narrative Bishop Ruch and his supporters have woven since 2021, one which has worked tirelessly to undermine the voices of the powerless and divide survivors."

They concluded that survivors fear the College of Bishops has doomed the ACNA to a speedy demise by structuring itself as "a black box of self-protecting authoritarianism." You can read their full statement here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/bishop-ruch-s-survivors-blast-acna-s-not-guilty-decision

Reform theologian and historian Dean Chuck Collins recounts the abuse of his oldest daughter who was emotionally groomed and manipulated starting at age 17, and then sexually abused when she was “of age.”

“If you have been sexually abused, do not bother reporting it to your Anglican priest or bishop. It won’t work and it won’t help. It bothers me to my core that a nine-year old girl was all but forgotten in the process of reporting her abuse to her bishop, what seems to be an epidemic of bishops and clergy who target subordinates and assistants in spiritually abusive ways, and why more than 20% of our provincial leaders have been embroiled in situations of abuse or serious mismanagement in the fifteen years the ACNA has been a province.”

Despite this personal family abuse, Collins later wrote; “I believe this, and other challenges we face, will eventually make the ACNA a place of safety and hope for victims of abuse. I want us to so care for those hurting that this becomes our first impulse, not institutional protection. Talk of these matters sinking the ACNA are just alarmist internet speak, as the Anglican Church in North America is still the only Anglican Church with a hope and heart to preserve our rich Anglican heritage, our Reformation heritage that upholds the Bible as primary, and the central message of Scripture: justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. I still wholeheartedly believe in "church" as God's idea and his appointed place to meet his people, where the Word of God (Jesus) is preached and consumed every Sunday.”

END