As I read over the Ruch verdict – ACNA’s 71-page, sweeping acquittal of Bishop Stewart Ruch issued last week – I found it hard to decide what was more galling about this court. Was it that they:
- Blamed “the Institution,” rather than Ruch, for his alleged errors and lack of appropriate oversight, leading to sexual abuse of a child and more?
- Were not content to merely acquit Ruch, but heaped praise on him for his leadership?
- Dismissed compelling evidence against Ruch simply because it was “secondhand?”
The court concluded that Ruch bears no responsibility for allegedly mishandling reports of abusive ministers and repeatedly promoting at least six individuals with histories of abuse.
Ruch bears no responsibility, and he has no accountability.
Why? Because – as iterated by the court, primarily comprised of fellow clergy – it’s really the institution that’s at fault in these matters, not the person who runs it.
This argument is ridiculous. For one, it’s a very convenient and self-serving one for clergy. It protects them. With this defense, they can do almost anything, short of being abusers themselves, while hiding behind a claim that the “institution” is to blame. And of course, no institution is ever perfect. Isn’t this one of the oldest excuses in the book? I won’t debate here the merits of individual vs. systemic responsibility, but surely this court could at least have taken a more nuanced approach.
Incredibly, the Ruch verdict didn’t just exonerate him. The court patted Ruch on the back, praising his “humility,” “willingness to listen,” and “shepherd’s heart.” Absurdly, they praised Ruch as one who “bears responsibility for unintended harm.” Yet the reason we had this trial in the first place is because Ruch would not confess to any charges brought against him (negligence, causing scandal, etc.) resulting in this “unintended harm.”
The court also seemed to mischaracterize and misunderstand the importance of secondhand evidence. They seemed not to consider it seriously merely because it was secondhand, which is not logical. The key to understanding the validity of secondhand evidence is evaluation: is the evidence reliable, is it credible, what is the source’s reputation? The court didn’t seem to weigh these factors, instead dismissing the evidence out of hand simply because it was indirect.
Now overlay onto this trial two resignations that preceded the verdict: that of prosecutor Alan Runyan, who resigned due to what he alleged was judicial misconduct, and that of the assistant prosecutor, Rachel Thebeau, who alleged that the archbishop and province facilitated this misconduct. As Arlie Coles notes in an article on livingchurch.org: “The province cycled through four prosecutors in the life of the case, while the court’s composition remained fixed.”
Then add to the mix three very flawed investigations, which allegedly excluded many victims and were not released to the public.
A just outcome amid the morass of problems in this trial would seem unlikely; indeed, former prosecutor Runyan, in his resignation letter, called the trial “irreparably tainted” and said the investigative process had been compromised.
Yet I admit I still dared to hope for accountability and justice in the Ruch verdict.
In my disappointment, I was grateful to discover a newly-formed group of ACNA clergy and laity, Anglicans for Truth, Renewal, and Accountability (ATRA). They are circulating a petition to be submitted to the ACNA College of Bishops. The petition requests that the College of Bishops commission an independent, third-party assessment of the province, with regard to Ruch’s investigation and trial, due to “serious concerns raised both publicly and privately” throughout the process. The petition can be signed by ACNA clergy, lay members, and former ACNA members. Please consider signing here and sharing the petition with others if you fall into one of these categories.
Whatever such an independent assessment might find, the Ruch verdict is taking us in the wrong direction. It also makes me question the value of church courts in the ACNA, as the trial for inhibited ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood looms on the horizon. Do we really need formal ecclesiastical trials that come with a lot of bureaucratic red tape and go this badly? More simplified judicial bodies could be leveraged to handle misconduct allegations. Maybe the ACNA should take a cue from the secular world and function more like a corporation with respect to discipline and enforcement.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In