The ACNA released an FAQ on Abp. Steve Wood's leave: "While our canons do not establish limits on how long investigative and disciplinary proceedings last, we expect that the relevant church bodies ... will make every effort to resolve these matters as quickly as possible". 🧵
"The Dean [Ray Sutton] is a senior bishop whose character is known and well respected. ... Bishop Julian Dobbs is one of the most senior active diocesan Bishops in the College with a strong reputation for advancing misison."
Abp. Wood will "continue to be paid and receive benefits" while on leave, but he is "solely responsible for seeking and retaining independent counsel" in the disciplinary matter.
"In the event a Board of Inquiry recommends a trial, the canons are clear that the Court for the Trial of a Bishop has sole discretion to determine what is and what is not made public to best protect the integrity of its proceedings."
Bp. Julian Dobbs of ACNA's Anglican Diocese of the Living Word spoke at a Q&A at an episcopal visit, calling the Wood matter "a very difficult situation for everyone involved. It’s unfortunate and regrettable that it’s played itself out in the media." 🧵 for the full transcript:
"I think it’s demonstrably unnecessary and inappropriate that those making the allegations against the archbishop first went to the Washington Post before they went to the archbishop."
"I don’t see anything in scripture that would suggest that’s the way we should go about things; in fact, quite the opposite. It’s very unfortunate," he said.
Bp Derek Jones submitted an affidavit alongside this reply that contains many separate ecclesiastical claims. Here's my attempt to thread through them. 🧵
Jones claims that the Jurisdiction was never part of ACNA, & that he wasn't subject to ACNA's archbishop, but to Nigeria's.
He claims the Jurisdiction's link to ACNA was an "informal affiliation," but that it was leaning on rights of ACNA dioceses to disaffiliate when it did so.
He claims that the Jurisdiction existed to serve "many distinct Anglican churches" by endorsing chaplains, and that those in ACNA who entered the Jurisdiction for chaplaincy were "transfer[ring] ... from ACNA to our organization".
The Standing Committee of ACNA's Diocese of South Carolina has announced: 1) Bp. Edgar has suspended episcopal visits by suffragan Bp. David Bryan, Court president in the trial of Bp. Stewart Ruch. 2) They request an independent investigation into ACNA's handling of the trial.
"Given that two of our own diocesan leaders, Bishop David Bryan and Mr. Alan Runyan, have played major roles in this trial and have issued public and seemingly conflicting statements, this turmoil is being experienced particularly acutely within our Diocese."
In case you missed it: yesterday, Bp. Chip Edgar of the ACNA's Diocese of South Carolina issued a statement saying he himself objected to yesterday's College of Bishops statement of confidence in the Court, claiming it was not unanimous. 🧵
He declined to impugn Alan Runyan, the former prosecutor who resigned over a Court member who allegedly improperly sought and used evidence at trial that a Court order had itself excluded; and Bp. David Bryan, the president of the Court. Both are in his diocese.
Bp. Edgar himself sits on the Provincial Tribunal, the superior court that would hear any appeal from the Court for the Trial of a Bishop, & recused himself from the CoB meeting. The rest of the PT & Court were similarly excluded, a footnote later added to the CoB statement said.
Tomorrow, July 29, the ACNA will "roll out" a new draft of reformed Title IV disciplinary canons, to be revised over a year and approved at next year's Provincial Council.
Those following the current trial of a bishop may find descriptions of the current process interesting: 🧵
"Short and flexible" has a cost:
Motion process cumbersome; attorney-driven rather than court-driven:
Many have asked if the prosecutor was able to, or did, raise an objection during the allegedly improper questioning conducted by a member of the ACNA's Court for the Trial of a Bishop. A new document from the Court today claims that the prosecutor had the opportunity but did not.
Also of note: the Court claims that Runyan, the former prosecutor, "departed the trial without an explanation or request to withdraw" and that the Court learned of Runyan's complaint for the first time by reading Runyan's letter to the Archbishop, along with everyone else.