“Vulnerable Women Should not have to Navigate the Canons…”Make the process credible to victims.

The following letter was obtained by VOL, and we pass it along without comment to our readers.

November 6, 2025 

Rev. Fathers in God of the College of Bishops, Provincial Executive Committee, Chancellor Nelson, Dr. Butler, and Ms. Deborah Tepley,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

We are writing to you to confirm that we have reviewed, signed, and returned our signatories page as per your request and in accordance with the guidance of Chancellor Nelson, who is also Chancellor to the Diocese of the Carolinas, who has been advising the College of Bishops on these matters and communicating to the signatories through Dr. Butler.

We object to the necessity of the accusers to swear to the truth of accusations, accusations of which they are neither witnesses nor trained investigators, and maintain that a good faith reading of the Canons clearly indicates that such accusers must only be required to declare the credibility of such charges as are made in the Presentment with reasonable certainty of time, place and circumstance. Any accused bishop who argues otherwise is clearly acting in bad faith, seeking to delay or obstruct the discovery of truth. However, we nevertheless revised our signatory page according to the recommendations given to us by the Archbishop’s staff and Chancellor, in the hopes that the College will finally act on the serious allegations of misconduct against Archbishop Wood. We further write:

* To correct a public misunderstanding.

* To raise concerns about conflicts of interest.

* To raise concerns about the lack of any inhibition of and Godly Admonition to the Archbishop

* To share the process thus far, as we have experienced it.

*And to submit new evidence and charges against the Archbishop.

We ask for your patience and attention to what follows. A Public Misunderstanding Talking points distributed by the Provincial communications office read as follows: “The complainants shared this document with an investigative reporter at The Washington Post, Ian Shapira, prior to its being circulated to the ACNA or any bishops.”

This is untrue. On June 26th, 2024, only four days after Archbishop Wood was unanimously elected, Claire Buxton shared her complaints against the archbishop with a clergyman in South Carolina, who advised her of her options to (1) sue for sexual harassment in court, (2) file a formal presentment against Archbishop Wood, (3) try to move forward with pastoral care and mental-healthcare support.

Ms. Buxton expressed that she would like to consider these options. On July 19th, 2024, in a meeting with Rev. David Cumbie, Ms. Buxton shared her experience with Archbishop Wood. Rev. Cumbie called Bishop Edgar and explained Ms. Buxton’s allegations of sexual harassment, grooming, and non-consensual sexual touching.

On July 24th, 2024, Ms. Buxton received a letter from Rev. Cumbie, which is a summary of information he received from the offices of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. In this letter, all parties promise to support Ms. Buxton in the eventuality she decides to move forward with a formal complaint.

On Sept 19th, 2024, in a meeting with Bishop Edgar, Rev. Robert Sturdy conveys that Ms. Buxton would like to file a formal presentment and asks what it would take for Bishop Edgar to support such an action. Bishop Edgar states that it is not canonically possible for him to support such an action. He instead proposed that all parties, including Ms. Buxton. seek personal reconciliation with the archbishop.

On Nov 4th, 2024, in a meeting with Rev. Todd Simonis, Rev. Drew Miller, and Rev. Robert Sturdy, Bishop Edgar still refused to sign a formal presentment but proposed instead that he pressure the archbishop to initiate an investigation into himself, according to Title IV., Canon iv., sect. 2. (which allows for a provincial investigation into rumors about a bishop to be initiated).1 Bishop Edgar believed that in investigating these “rumors,” the investigators would discover that the rumors were true, and the process could move to trial.

It was pointed out to him that rather than helping us report an 1“Section 2 - Concerning Response to Rumors Whenever a Bishop shall have reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting his personal or official character, he may, with the consent of two other members of the College of Bishops, demand in writing of the Archbishop, the Archbishop’s delegate, or the College of Bishops, that investigation of such rumors, reports and allegations be made.” 3 allegation of sexual misconduct according to the canons, he would effectively be framing us as rumormongers. He conceded the point, but believed this was the only canonically feasible way that these accusations could proceed.

Having come to believe that Bishop Edgar would not assist with a formal presentment, the witnesses and victims began crafting legal affidavits (swearing to their testimonies with the exact language that would be unreasonably requested from the signatories by the province many months later). From these, a presentment was drafted according to Title IV., Canon iv., sec. i. Upon its completion, some members of the group desired to give Bishop Edgar another chance to sign the presentment.

The presentment with the formal charges and sworn affidavits was given to Bishop Edgar on Mar 26th, 2025. Bishop Edgar agreed to sign the presentment and to recruit signatures from other members of the College of Bishops.

On Tuesday, April 15, Bishop Edgar texted Rev. Drew Miller that the two Bishops first approached declined even to read the document, proposing personal reconciliation or the submission of our information to Dr. Butler, the Archbishop’s employee, for initial investigation. A third bishop did read the presentment and affidavits, but again proposed that this be handled privately, for a reconciliation to be facilitated (even for Ms. Claire Buxton, who is an alleged victim of sexual misconduct).

On May 27th--29th over several texts and at least one phone call, Rev. Miller understood from Bishop Edgar that neither he nor the ‘third’ bishop (above) would be willing to sign a presentment at this time. Instead, they proposed that our information be given to the archbishop’s employee, Dr. Butler, for initial investigation.

They offered to sign a “cover letter” to send with our documents to Dr. Butler, demanding it be taken seriously. Two bishops suggested to Rev. Miller that requiring all accusations be initially investigated by Dr. Butler is new provincial policy, and the only way forward that bishops will accept. Rev. Miller asks to see the policy in writing, but it cannot be produced.

Because we were unwilling to entrust our accusations to a direct employee of the accused Archbishop, on June 4th the witnesses and victims decided to recruit the 10 signatures required to submit the formal presentment to the College.

On July 25th, 2025, Alan Runyan and Rachel Thebeau resigned from the prosecution of the trial of Bishop Stuart Ruch, alleging that Deborah Tepley, the Executive Director of the ACNA, breached proper protocols of handling evidence which ostensibly benefited the accused to the detriment of the victims’ complaints.

This action, combined with our year-long failed effort to report these allegations through proper channels and specifically through bishops, convinced us that there would be no fair hearing of our accusations 2In a prior phone call, Dr. Butler specifically told Rev. Miller that such a policy had not yet been published. 4 without maximum transparency, a transparency which we did not and do not currently believe the province would willingly provide.

It was at this point that our group decided to fully cooperate with a pre-existing investigation of the ACNA by the Washington Post.

On Monday, Oct. 20th, our presentment was sent to the College of Bishops. The same day, our victims and witnesses learned through our lead signatory that that presentment would not be validated. In an email sent on Tues, Oct 21, Dr. Butler stated: o “I affirm receipt; however, to clearly indicate to what the signatories are attesting, please add the following statement above the signatures: “Under penalties of perjury, I faithfully swear that the facts set forth above are true and correct."

This is common practice and previous presentments have been re-executed for the same reason.” In subsequent e-mails, Dr. Butler was challenged on how “common” this practice is. Referring to documents publicly available on the ACNA’s own website, attention was drawn to the fact that after the matter had been adjudicated by the Provincial Tribunal, the only language that was required was the following: “When I ‘docu-signed’ the Presentment, my intention was to swear to the charges of the Presentment, I hereby confirm my swearing to the Presentment.”

This led to a very subtle change in Provincial communications: from claiming that requiring this language was “common practice” to claiming that such requirements were “common under this administration.”

Since clergy and laity of the Province have not seen the first presentment, we think that it is important for them to know that it was initially submitted with the exact language of our existing canons: “Therefore, in accordance with the canons of this church, we submit these charges in writing, signed and sworn to by all the accusers, and present them to the College of Bishops.“

On Oct. 23rd, the Washington Post published the article concerning these allegations. And yet, the Province has consistently communicated that we failed to bring these canonically to bishops, or to report them canonically, prior to cooperating with the Washington Post’s investigation. Moreover, the Archbishop himself has gone further.

On Oct 24th, 2025, he wrote that the presentment was “subsequently submitted” after the Washington Post’s Oct 23rd report. And in his letter of “retirement” on November 3, the Archbishop stated that these accusations were made “first to The Washington Post and, subsequently, through the Church’s established channels for reporting misconduct.” 5 These statements are persistently incorrect.

They do not reflect our year-long failed attempts to report this according to our own canons, through our own bishops. And they make our disparagement by other parties more likely. We suspect that false understandings of our attempts, created through incorrect statements like those of the Province and of the Archbishop, are behind Bishop Worley’s (Diocese of Cascadia) characterization of our efforts to advocate for the victims of abuse as “unjust” and “unrighteous.”

Perhaps he would stand by these statements even with a corrected timeline, but we pray that his initial comments were made without the complete picture. We humbly request that the ACNA Provincial Communications Office correct these misunderstandings. We note that these misrepresentations were a public part of the communications strategy of the province, e-mailed to every diocese. Any good faith correction must therefore follow the same format, using the same channels. Conflicts of Interest Our signatories, witnesses, and victims raise three current and pressing concerns regarding conflicts of interest. These are so obvious that, frankly, we are surprised that we need to raise them. If these conflicts of interest are not resolved, we are afraid that this process will not only lose further credibility in our eyes, but also in the eyes of the province at large, and will unnecessarily subject Chancellor Nelson, Dr. Butler, and Ms. Tepley to attacks on their character.

Chancellor William Nelson: Chancellor Nelson is the Provincial Chancellor, the Chancellor to Archbishop Wood’s own Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas, and also by reputation a long time personal friend of the Archbishop. Our presentment has still not been received as valid under the advisement of this deeply conflicted person.

Dr. Tiffany Butler: Our only correspondence with the province has come through a direct reporter to Archbishop Steve Wood and a member of his staff. Executive Director Deborah Tepley: Ms. Tepley is another direct reporter and employee of the Archbishop. Further, she has been accused by Rachel Thebeau and Alan Runyan of breaching trial protocol at the direction of Chancellor Nelson (#3 above). According to Mr. Runyan, Ms. Tepley’s actions “irreparably tainted” the trial process in favor of the accused, Bishop Stuart Ruch.

We do not wish to impugn the character of any of the above. But we ask, with great humility, that, given our timeline, the members of the College of Bishops ask themselves whether or not these existing conflicts of interest could possibly convey a sense of credibility to our witnesses and victims. 6 If the College of Bishops wishes to make this a credible process, the Archbishop and his entire staff must be absolutely separated from this process. The Lack of Inhibition or Godly Admonition Further, the Archbishop himself must be inhibited pending investigation. The church inhibits, not to assign guilt, but to protect the honor of the body of Christ while protecting her most vulnerable members from harm. Inhibition protects the accused from the temptation to misuse their authority in a pressurized moment, protects the church from the appearance of manipulation, and protects alleged victims, advocates, and potential further victims from leadership that may be determined to be systematically dangerous and abusive.

It further encourages all parties to seek proper resolution quickly. Notably, the six affidavits attached to the initial presentment were in fact signed and notarized, legally admissible as evidence in a court of law. No other Presentment, to our knowledge, has gone so far as to submit notarized affidavits outlining serious and repeated offenses. The fact that these affidavits have proven insufficient grounds for the inhibition of the Archbishop is nothing short of stunning.

The Archbishop himself inhibited Bishop Derek Jones (September 21, 2025) for far less, and he was right to do so- both by canon and by the law of Christ. Inhibiting the Archbishop is the single most important way for the College of Bishops to protect alleged and potential victims. In doing so, inhibition communicates that the College of Bishop is taking these accusations seriously.

Not inhibiting the Archbishop, for whatever reason, leaves potential victims at risk, and communicates that the College of Bishops does not see these allegations of abuse- presented in the form of legal affidavits- as serious and credible. A voluntary leave of absence approaches the purposes of an inhibition and Godly Admonition, but falls short in two ways. First, the Archbishop retains the authority to pick up his ministry at any point. He remains in charge.

This offers very little sense of safety to alleged victims, and gives the appearance of a College unwilling to act. Further, the lack of any Godly Admonition or formal, written direction to avoid tampering with witnesses/victims again leaves them at risk of further intimidation and manipulation. These are standard protocol in other, similar situations of abuse (see Bishop Jones). Why are they not present in this case?

The Process Thus Far

There are a variety of ways we could address this process, but what we would like to do is center the victims. We choose just one, Claire Buxton. In Claire Buxton’s sworn affidavit, we count that she reported concerns over the Archbishop’s behavior to over 20 parishioners and staff members at St. Andrew’s. If you consider the possibility that the other affidavits submitted are true, then 7 you will understand why people would believe Claire, but be too scared or confused to do anything. The only way Claire could escape her situation was by resigning, which she did. As can be seen in the timeline above, she told several of her local clergy. These local clergy reported to their bishop.

Eventually, it was conveyed she wished to formally report her complaints in the form of a presentment. In the timeline above, you can see how arduous this was. Since no bishop was willing to assist Claire in this way, she had to recruit ten total strangers. Only then, after sharing some of the most personal details of her whole life, was she able to formally submit a complaint. But what happened next? The ten strangers who signed the presentment were immediately burdened with the extra-canonical language “under penalty of perjury,” language experienced as deliberately intimidating.

Then the ACNA officially communicated a false narrative about our efforts, stating repeatedly that we had not approached any bishops but went directly to the media. Bishops who knew we had approached them first then declined to correct the record, even when asked to do so in writing. We note in Ms. Tepley’s Oct. 28, 2025, “Message from the Executive Director,” she writes, “The province and all of our dioceses have clear channels for receiving complaints of misconduct against any bishop, priest, deacon, lay leader, or volunteer serving in the Church.”

We hope reasonable people could understand, given our timeline above, that we, the witnesses, victims, signatories would dispute this. Ms. Buxton reported to her clergy, to her diocesan bishop through advocates, to her diocesan Safeguarding person, never wavering from her request that a formal complaint be made in accordance with the canons.

Ms. Tepley also writes, “The ACNA Chancellor and staff remain in service of the province and are not working directly with Archbishop Wood on these matters. My staff and I seek to uphold the highest degree of integrity in this regard.”

Would any reasonable person, given our own experiences of the past year, given these current conflicts of interest, and the controversy surrounding Ms. Tepley’s handling of sensitive information, find fault with us if we said that this is simply not credible? Is this what a woman seeking to report sexual misconduct against a powerful man should expect in our church? We trust you would say, “absolutely not.”

But this is the experience Claire has had. And all this, not even to mention the proceedings against Bishop Ruch, or the stories now coming to light of the failed attempts to hold Bishop Jones accountable. We (the entire province) have been told to “trust the process.”

But this is the process that we are being asked to trust. Rev. Fathers, this is a bridge too far for us and no victim should be made to walk it.

New Evidences and Charges

To this presentment have been added new evidence and charges. We note the new accusations made by “Jane Doe 1,” who is willing to testify under oath to a complaint of sexual misconduct 8 against Archbishop Wood. We also submit to you evidence of the Archbishop’s ongoing attempts at manipulation and deception of our bishops, given by a former member of his Provincial staff. Like you, we believe a credible process for reporting sexual misconduct to be absolutely essential for the health of our province and the spiritual and physical safety of the most vulnerable members of our church.

With that in mind, we ask you to prayerfully consider the above and respond as the Lord leads you, just as we have done. It is with immense grief we submit these charges and ask that you take steps to make this process credible to victims, not just those who submitted evidence in this presentment, but to all who are currently being subjected to abusive behavior in Christ’s church.

The complaint of a vulnerable woman should not hinge upon whether or not a bishop can navigate the canons, or if they are given divine permission to read an affidavit, or if she signed her letter correctly.

She should not have had to recruit ten strangers to be taken seriously. And having her complaint submitted, it should not be in the hands of her abuser’s friends, or subordinate employees.

There is plenty of time to make this right, and we believe with God’s help you will. We remain committed to maximum transparency- not as a step against you, but for you, since transparency serves us all. We pray that Christ’s light shine now into darkness, in our own hearts, in the Province, in the world. It will not be overcome.

END