The Church is Not Broken Words for a Difficult Week

By Bryan Hollon

Oct 24, 2025

What does a faithful church look like?

For those of us in the Anglican tradition, it means children and adult converts are being baptized and confirmed, faithful lay Christians are centered increasingly on Jesus Christ through Word and Sacrament – grounded in the biblically saturated liturgies of the Book of Common Prayer. It entails an appreciation for the apostolic faith guarded and transmitted over centuries and received through the English Reformation. It means leaders we can trust – bishops, priests, and deacons who serve under the authority of Scripture and take holiness seriously, bound by the doctrine set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the canons of the Church. We expect to see all of this, but most importantly, we expect to meet Jesus in the breaking of bread, in the reading of Scripture, and in the prayers and fellowship of the faithful.

What, then, should we think when the church has to discipline its own leaders?

For many in the Anglican Church in North America, these aren’t theoretical questions. A recent series of Washington Post articles (here and here) have brought attention to multiple disciplinary proceedings underway in our province. For many of us who love the ACNA – especially young seminarians at Trinity and across our province – this news can create deep confusion and real anxiety. Indeed, the headlines might lead some Anglicans to feel a sense of betrayal.

The safe harbor some sought in Anglicanism now seems exposed to what Augustine called “the great torrent of human custom” - that flood of original sin that always threatens to sweep us into the currents of disorder, discord, and scandal, which have engulfed so many people and institutions.

But listen: the discipline taking place in our Province is not a sign of a broken church. Nor is it institutional self-protection or damage control. It is the fruit of a Christian community abiding in the Word of God. When we take Scripture seriously, believe that ordination vows genuinely bind us, and we refuse to treat moral integrity as optional – discipline becomes a necessary and ongoing process for christian communities seeking to be faithful to Jesus Christ. The very fact that we’re willing to scrutinize and correct our own leaders is evidence that we’re taking God’s Word seriously. It’s not necessarily evidence that the church is broken. It’s often evidence the church is functioning as it should.

Thanks for reading A Mere Christian On the Anglican Way! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and engage my work.

From the beginning, followers of Jesus have, of course, been deeply flawed. Judas betrayed his savior (Matthew 26:14-16). James and John argued about who would sit at his right hand in glory (Mark 10:35-45). Paul and Barnabas disagreed so sharply over John Mark that they split their missionary team (Acts 15:36-41). The New Testament epistles exist because churches were wrestling with serious problems – divisions (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 5:1), and lawsuits between believers (1 Corinthians 6:1-8).

If we had only a newspaper account of the Corinthian church, we might have written it off entirely. Yet Paul loved that church enough to correct it, to call it back to holiness, and to remind its members who they were in Christ.

The church has always struggled with sin because it is led and populated by sinful people still “being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18) – a transformation that continues throughout our lives as the Spirit works in us (Romans 12:2). This is why the church bears responsibility for those within it: “Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Corinthians 5:12). When the body functions rightly, it maintains both unity and holiness through mutual care and accountability.

Scripture itself commands discipline. Jesus establishes the process in Matthew 18:15-17 – beginning privately, moving toward restoration, involving the community when necessary. Paul echoes this throughout his letters. To the Corinthians he writes that sin, left unchecked, contaminates the whole body: “a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (1 Corinthians 5:6 ). He makes clear the church bears responsibility: “Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Corinthians 5:12 ).

Paul also outlines qualifications leaders must maintain (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), emphasizing that those in leadership are held to the same standard as any member. Indeed, they bear a greater responsibility for their example and influence – a truth he underscores when he writes that “not many of you should become teachers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).

Leaders must answer not only for their own holiness but for the souls entrusted to their care (Hebrews 13:17). The goal is always restorative: “if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1). Yet discipline also protects the community. When sin is tolerated among leaders, it signals that holiness doesn’t matter, vows can be broken and that the faith itself is negotiable.

The Church’s ancient ordination rites embody this same conviction. When a priest is ordained, the community is invited to speak – to name any impediment that would prevent ordination. The Bishop addresses the people: “Therefore if any of you know of any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now and make it known.”

When vows are taken, they are made “in the presence of Almighty God and of the Church,” binding not just before God but before witnesses. The language is unambiguous: “canonical obedience,” vows that “bind,” promises that cannot be casually broken. And when hands are laid on the ordained, the Church grants them authority to “bind and loose” and to forgive sins and to retain them. This ancient language echoes Paul’s conviction that the church must take responsibility for its own. It is not innovation; it is the recovery of what the Church has always known: that holiness matters, vows have weight, and leaders cannot be held to a different standard than the rest of the baptized. Indeed, they are held to a higher standard.

You may not know this, but the ACNA and GAFCON were created, to a significant extent, because The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion failed to adminster discipline consistently or in a balanced way. For years, heterodox bishops denied core Christian truths such as the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the resurrection. And they remained in office. In 1974, eleven women deacons were ordained as priests in direct violation of church canons. The church’s disciplinary mechanisms simply didn’t function. When Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest in a same-sex relationship, was consecrated as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, it became clear the Episcopal Church had lost the will to maintain doctrinal boundaries as it failed to administer any discipline at all. Likewise, the Anglican Communion issued the Windsor Report expressing concern, but it carried no teeth. The church’s discipline had become selective – applied to faithful clergy upholding orthodox teaching, while those departing from the faith faced little consequence. This went on for many years.

This imbalance created the conditions for the ACNA’s formation. Faithful Anglicans needed a province where the faith would be guarded, where bishops would be accountable for affirmign and gaurding the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints,” and where discipline would be administered justly. Now we see what that looks like: discipline actually taking place. The cases under review are concerning, yes.

But the fact that discipline is being administered in orderly, canonical fashion is a sign of health. Although it is painful and personal for many… it is necessary and gives cause for hope in our young province.

The ACNA is fragile – not a centuries-old institution with massive endowments, but a new work still building the processes and structures that will sustain generations. Yet even in fragility, we’re assured: “the gates of hell will not prevail against” the church of Christ (Matthew 16:18 ). In our ACNA churches, the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. We are, by God’s grace, a province under the authority of God’s Word. Even as our leaders disagree about the disciplinary “processes” – as they have in the Bp. Ruch trial – no one is attempting to cover anything up. This is all playing out with total transparency among Christian clergy and laity striving to remain faithful.

Despite what some critics are suggesting on social media, our province is not guided by celebrity pastors with unlimited power. In the ACNA, even our archbishop will be held accountable if the canonical process determines wrongdoing occurred. Now, we must absolutely not rush to judgment. The allegations may very well be false or exaggerated – false accusations have destroyed good leaders, so our process must proceed justly… accounting for the needs of accusers and the accused. But we can trust that a just process is being established. This process deserves our prayers and patience. If the canonical process establishes that the allegations are substantiated, Abp. Wood will be removed and replaced by another who is equally accountable to God’s Word. The office is not permanent. No leader stands above accountability. This is as it should be.

As my friend and colleague, Jack Gabig, suggested to me just this week – the office of bishop is itself meant to safeguard the faith once delivered, the church from abuse, and the church’s mission. Yet, the entire three-fold order of bishops, priests, and deacons is temporary, derivative, and provisional.

Jesus Christ is our great High Priest, who has offered himself once for all (Hebrews 10:11-14), and in him the perfect ordering of priestly authority has already been established. Our bishops, priests, and deacons do not replace that reality; they participate in it, echo it, and point to it. We hold these offices as trustees of a governance that belongs ultimately to Christ and will be fully revealed when he subjects all rule and authority to himself and the kingdom is delivered to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Until that day, we do not wait passively. We tend carefully to what has been entrusted to us – tested ecclesial order, proven over centuries, built with checks and balances that recognize the reality of sin and the necessity of accountability. This is not a perfect system, because we are not yet perfect. But it is a faithful one, and it reflects the mind of Christ for his Church in this present age.

6 Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible - Clear Creek Resources

So what should we do in this moment? Attend to the Scriptures. The Bible speaks liberally about leadership, discipline, grace, judgment, the holiness God requires and the mercy he extends. As always, we should steep ourselves in God’s Word; let it shape our thinking and reactions. We should pray for all our leaders, laity, and the whole of christ’s church. We must pray for our accused bishops and those who have accused them and for the bishops and clergy overseeing these processes. Pray for congregations and seminarians watching. Pray for justice and mercy. Pray that truth will come to light and God be glorified in all things. Pray specifically for faithfulness – that we all, leaders and laity alike, would be faithful to our callings, our vows, and the gospel we have received. This is hard and uncomfortable, but faithfulness in difficult times is what the church has always demanded of her members.

One more thing: you will see critics on social media use these Washington Post stories and the ongoing disciplinary cases as occasion to attack the ACNA. They are and will continue to be… merciless. This is discouraging, especially for our young seminarians and those newly arrived in our province. But remember Jesus’s words to those ready to condemn: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). We are all – every single one of us – accountable to Christ alone for our words and deeds. The judge we answer to is not the court of online opinion, but the Lord Jesus Christ, before whom “we will all stand” to give account (Romans 14:10). The critics who wield the ACNA’s struggles as a weapon have their own struggles and sins. They will have their own day before the Judge. Our task is not to defend ourselves against their attacks, but to remain faithful to our vows and to the gospel. Let them judge. We answer to Christ.

Discipline is not a sign the church is dying. It’s a sign the church is serious about holiness, that we believe our vows matter, and that Scripture’s standards apply to everyone. The ACNA was born because we needed a province where faith would be guarded and leaders held accountable. We are seeing what that looks like in practice. It’s messy and painful but necessary. And in the midst of it all, we trust not in human leaders but in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is building his church and against whom “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matthew 16:18 ).

The Rev. Dr. Bryan Hollon is president of Trinity Anglican Seminary, Ambridge, PA

END